ADVERTISEMENTS:
After reading this article you will learn about the arguments for and against Anarchism.
Arguments in Favour of Anarchism:
No ism of political ideology is above criticism and anarchism is no exception- But there is no doubt that the hearts of anarchists bled profusely as the sight of the miserable condition of common people.
On this issue, Marxian and anarchism stand on the same ground. Today many people view anarchism from the standpoint of modern situation. This is wrong. The state and government of twentieth and twenty-first century have radically changed.
This change has made anarchism an irrelevant ideology. If is correct when Kropotkin says that “the state is an institution which works to shackle the development of local and individual initiatives to crush existing liberties, to prevent this new blossoming”.
The anarchists have exaggerated the destructive and anti-individual role of the state. Even today we see the anti-individual attitude of state. Hence the anarchists cannot be blamed.
Schwarzmantel says – “The anarchist critique is especially relevant with respect to socialist ideas and projects and it should be heeded by the Marxists. The ultimate aim of anarchism is socialism. Marxism also wants the same. The difference between the two lies in the methods of achieving socialism. Marxism recommends the seizure of state power first and when this is achieved everything will come to normalcy. Anarchism thinks of destroying capitalism first and then state. This, however, is a matter of priority. The objective is same.”
“The anarchist perspective functions as a corrective and it contains a warning against the misuse of political power. It criticizes state power and exposes the tendency of any state system to perpetuate itself. It emphasises the fact that the power holders will always try to maintain their power. Anarchists also have pointed out the possibly corrupting and deliberating effects of parliamentary as well as bureaucratic party politics” (Schwarzmantel, This view of the anarchists has been supported by many others who are nor anarchists.
Even today the various agencies of state are corrupt, particularly the bureaucracy. This corruption is crippling the functions and role of the state. If anybody asks what is the state the real answer is it is an organization which is controlled by some self-interest seeking politicians and bureaucrats who are corrupt from head to foot. If this the real picture of the state we can easily support the view of anarchists.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Both Marxism and anarchism have evolved. Today there are several interpretations of Marxism. Similarly, Bakunin is not the sole authority of anarchism. It has undergone radical changes. Herbert Read is of opinion that anarchism is no longer the anarchism of Bakunin and Kropotkin. “Since Kropotkin’s time anarchism has evolved to meet modern conditions.”
This is the opinion of Read. When we call Gandhi and J. R Narayan anarchists we do not use the term in Bakunin’s sense. Gandhi did not want to destroy state, but to limit its power to the minimum.
Hobsbawm is not surprised at the revival of anarchism. He says that there are two powerful factors behind the revival of anarchism the crisis of world communist movement after the death of Stalin and the rise of revolutionary discontent among students and intellectuals. Particularly the latter is found in many parts of the world. Even the students and intellectuals of Western Europe have revolted against the all- embracing power of the state.
The existence of anarchists provides a clear warning to the holders of state power. There must be limit to the state power. Modern anarchism wants to emphasize that. In the modern social structure there is no place of absolute sovereignty. In international politics, state has no scope to exercise absolute power.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In domestic field the authority must exercise power with the consent of the people. If there is aberration the authority will have to face protests from individuals and various organisations.
An interpretation of anarchism is—there must be harmony between the ruler and the ruled. For that purpose power shall be decentralized. Anarchists have simply said that. But since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely anarchists have suggested the destruction of state power to destroy corruption. We must admit that state is the source of all forms of corruption.
An important contribution of anarchism is that it initiated the stress upon the importance of mass movement as a powerful remedy to the anti-people or undemocratic activities of government.
Anarchism also talked about spontaneous movement. In the absence of agitation or movement, oppression on the general public will continue.
Drawing our attention to the importance of anarchist movement Maxey says that if there were no movement launched by the anarchists in the second half of the nineteenth century the autocratic functions of some states would cross all barriers.
We cannot deny this contribution of anarchism. It propagated a very valuable lesson. Without a militant movement the anti-people activities of governments could not be brought to an end.
Arguments against Anarchism:
The anarchists of all shades of thought have declared crusade against state and all types of authority and it is generally observed that this declaration smacks of utopianism. The scheme of society prepared by the anarchists has hardly any relevance to the real world.
It is unfortunate that in spite of their intense agitation and continuous propaganda the anarchists have not succeeded in doing away with the state. Rather, even during their lifetime, it had assumed enormous power.
Russia and Spain were the best possible states for success of anarchism. But in those states the governments were not only powerful, the powers and authority were highly centralised. Nowhere in Europe there was any chance of replacement of state by voluntary organization.
The anarchists did not at all favour the party system and for that reason they strongly argued for the abolition of all types of party. They believed that political parties are the usurpers of human freedom and do not acknowledge equality.
Naturally in a revolutionary struggle parties will have no role to play. Because of this impractical attitude to political party they were alienated from the common people and this was discernible particularly in the twentieth century.
People’s increasing inclination to democracy all over the world, their inordinate zeal to set up democratic institutions and determination to use political parties as a platform are regarded as the greatest onslaughts on anarchism.
Their criticism of the misuse of coercive power of the state, ineffectiveness of political institutions and representative system in a society where sources of production are controlled by a handful of persons is quite valid and any reasonable man will admit that the representative system is not working up to full satisfaction of the people.
But this is followed by big question mark – What about the workability of the scheme made by them? The scheme itself and the workability both are impractical. Who will settle the disputes when the state is destroyed? Even in the tribal societies about which Kropotkin speaks a lot there was an authority whose decision was in all cases final, that is, it was binding to all. So for every society authority is essential to utter the final word.
The anarchists are extremely critical of the large-scale industrial enterprises and the existing system of economic organization. But it is unfortunate that they failed to understand the trend of economic development. After Industrial Revolution there spontaneously developed the big industrial system.
Even the small industries merged together to build up a big industrial enterprise. This was chiefly due to the economic compulsion. Hence the arguments of anarchists against big enterprises are fully unrelated to the economic compulsion and real economic situation.
Viewed from this perspective we can say that the anarchists were to some extent emotional and lacked farsightedness. Anarchists’ portrayal of future society and nature of people is couched with romanticism.
In this connection we can quote the relevant portion of James Joll’s analysis:
“The basic assumptions of anarchism are all contrary to the development of large-scale industry and mass production and consumption. When it comes to the point, the Anarchists are all agreed that in the new society man will live on extreme simplicity and frugality and will be quite happy to do without the technical achievements of the industrial age. For this reason much anarchist thinking seemed to be based on a romance”.
Woodcock in his book has drawn our attention to the following point. He says, “Clearly, as a movement, anarchism has failed. In almost a century of effort it has not even approached the fulfillment of its great aim of destruction and builds Jerusalem in its ruins. During the past forty years the influence it once established has not dwindled…Nor is there any reasonable likelihood of a renaissance of anarchism.”
As a theory anarchism appeals to people of all classes. Particularly its appeal to the intellectuals is more articulate. Educated persons, intellectuals and freedom- loving people have bitter experiences of authoritarianism which is vested in the state. But as a practical movement its appeal to people, even where it is strong, is transitory. To destroy the state is easy, but to build up an alternative is extremely difficult or practically impossible.
Drawing illustrations from primitive system Kropotkin comes to the conclusion that if primitive people can conduct their political and social function without the authority of state, modern people can do it easily. But this comparison is quite untenable.
Modern problems are more complex and relationships between man and society and man and man have assumed new configurations. The innocuous character of primitive men cannot be compared with the complex living and character of modern men.
Distinguishing revolution from rebellion Woodcock points out that theoretically anarchists were revolutionaries. In practice, theirs was a movement of rebellion. Revolution aims at radical social, economic and political changes. Whereas, rebellion is an organised armed resistance to established government.
We may also call it a protest movement. Their needle of suspicion was aimed at the state. Woodcock’s assessment is to the point. Marx and Marxists thought of revolution. They wanted radical change of society and only such a change is capable of bringing about an emancipation of the common people. Rebellion has not that capacity.
Marxism, Fabian Socialism, and Anarchism all were contemporary ideologies. But of all these, Marxism had a clear edge over all other. Moreover, Marx and Engels analysed the development of society from materialistic and scientific points of view and this had a greater appeal to all people. Again, knowledge of Marx far surpassed that of Bakunin or Proudhon or Kropotkin.
Even Bakunin admitted the dynamic leadership of Marx and his vast knowledge. But the difference of temperament exacerbated the relationship between the two. Proudhon’s The Philosophy of Poverty was pilloried by Marx.
A substantial portion of the workers of European countries was so much influenced by the towering personality and vast knowledge of Marx that it was not possible for Bakunin, Proudhon and Kropotkin to counteract that influence.
Marx called Bakunin a petit-bourgeois because of his attitude, although by birth he was not, He delivered an all-out attack on Proudhon’s economic theories contained in his System des Contradictions. Ridiculing Proudhon’s book the Philosophy of Poverty he wrote Poverty of Philosophy. The overwhelming influence of Marxism, to sum up, thwarted the success and advancement of anarchism.
Marxism had only two spokespersons Marx himself and Engels. Later on Lenin, Stalin and large number of thinkers have explained and interpreted it in their own way.
On the contrary, anarchism cannot claim that it has been explained and propagated by a single man. Bakunin was one of the spokesmen of anarchism and he was at the forefront of many an agitation. But in different countries he propagated different ideas and dogmas. Critics say that in Russia he was the leader of elitist and terrorist movements.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In France, Belgium and Switzerland Bakunin was an orthodox follower of Proudhon. In Italy he was a radical reformist. Peasants lent their support to Bakunin’s movement in the hope that they would get land. Kropotkin mingled anarchism with communism and it became anarchist communism.
Unfortunately, this alchemy of Kropotkin could not provide any respite to exploited people of late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s. Tolstoy’s anarchism was based on Christianity. So anarchism had not one shade, one banner and one manifestation.
Lichtheim correctly observes:
“All this somehow started under the black flag of anarchism on the black and red banner of syndicalism”.
Woodcock says “anarchists have tended to welcome as natural rebels the de ‘classe’ elements whom Marx despised most of all because they fitted nowhere into his neat pattern of social stratification; as a result the anarchist movement has always had its links with that shadowy world where rebellion merges into criminality…These elements unite mainly in their opposition to the modern state and the modern capitalist or communist economy. They represent a rebellion, not necessarily in favour of past, but certainly in favour of an ideal of individual freedom which belongs outside the present in which they find themselves.”