Anarchism – What’s in a Name?
With all the stigma attached to the world anarchism, why call yourself an anarchist?
Anarchists are bound to ask themselves that question at some point. Perhaps you run across another news report where anarchists are blamed for some random violence. Maybe some pundit compares anarchists to terrorists. Maybe it’s the constant use of the word anarchy as a synonym for violent chaos. Or maybe you’re just tired of explaining it to people. I understand.
But you do lose something when you lose the word anarchism.
For decades, brilliant minds have been writing about anarchism and what it means. When someone wants to understand anarchism, I can point to stacks of writing. If I refuse to call myself an anarchist, where do I point to? Are we going to rewrite all that theory under a new name? What a waste.
And what about the history of anarchism. The most difficult thing to convince people is that anarchism can actually work. Specific, successful anarchist examples exist. And being able to point people to those is one of the best tools we have. Yes, there have also been many failures. But those may be even more important. If we don’t study and learn from the mistakes of the past, we will repeat them.
Why let other people define the word for us? The root of the word anarchy simply means “without leaders.” Some people cannot imagine a world without leaders being anything but violent and chaotic. Some people benefit too much from hierarchy to embrace a theory that takes that power from them. Why should we allow those people to define the terms?
Would it really matter what we called our beliefs? Does anyone think that if we believed the same things but called them a different name that people will be less suspicious of our ideas? Liberals in the U.S. recently re-branded themselves. Now they are called “progressives.” And now conservatives vilify “progressive” just the same way they used to vilify liberal.
Most importantly, we need you. If you are an anarchist who hesitates to embrace the term, then it is probably because you don’t want to be associated with chaos, violence, instability, or terrorism. That makes you the ideal ambassador for anarchism. If only those people who want to be associated with violence call themselves anarchists, then the cycle perpetuates and people who could learn from anarchist thought won’t go there.
You might be surprised how incredibly easy negative stereotypes can be to overcome. When who you are doesn’t match up with the propaganda, people who meet you will start to question the propaganda. The more anarchists a person comes in contact with, the less that person will be able to hold on to the negative stereotypes.
Really well said. Thank you. I'm sending it on to some friends who've asked me why I identify as an anarchist when the word has such a poor reputation in many quarters…
1Thank you. I think we all get that a lot. (P.S. You're website is gorgeous. I came very close to applying for the Narconews school as well, but my schedule just didn't allow it. I'd be curious to know how it is.)
2I will preface this by saying I don't know much about "systems" of humans, but it would seem to me that people will naturally form a caste system, a heirarchy. I guess Animal Farm might be a good example of this. To me, it seems like anarchy is great in theory, but not realistic, as humans are selfish and greedy and will always try to be on top.
I realize this wasn't the point of your post, either
I just don't discuss anarchy too much in my daily life, and would like to know more about it.
3One could argue that humans are violent, prone to errors and bound to die sooner or later. However, I don’t think these facts lend themselves to the claim that we shouldn’t try to reduce violence, avoid and fix mistakes, or try to take care of ourselves in order to live long and healthy lives.
Anarchism isn’t a Utopian ideal, it is a tendency, a direction in which to move from the point you are at right now. Yes, anarchists do seek a an ultimate goal that human beings can and should associate without coercive hierarchy and domination. Still, to be an anarchist it is not necessary to have faith in a goal that may or may not be attainable in your lifetime, or ever. Rather, at any given time the anarchist is simply the one who is moving to reduce human domination right now. You don’t have to claim that you will eliminate human illness in order to be a doctor, you just have to try to reduce it as much as possible whenever and wherever you can.
4Agreed on all of this Voltairine. I would also add that, if you think humans are selfish, greedy, violent, and prone to errors – why on earth would you want one of those people to have power over you?
In my opinion, people are capable of all things. They are capable of senseless violence and of responding to violence with pacifism. They are capable of incredible acts of selfishness and incredible acts of selflessness. Most of us waffle between those two extremes. And our environment effects which direction we are more prone to go. An environment based on cooperation is going to have better results than an environment based on competition.
5I, being of a libertine nature, would choose to have no one having power over me, much less a selfish and greedy leader. I guess my thought was that people will naturally be in competition, and that one government structure will just be replaced by another, into infinity and beyond.
I also understand the concept of being a doctor, contributing to the cure for Cancer, realizing that you may not see the results in your lifetime. That makes sense to me.
6Hi, nice contribution
I do feel that ideas are more important than words. You're right that we should remember and learn from anarchists who have gone before, but we should also learn from various other socialists, and that doesn't mean we ought to call ourselves socialists.
I think a lot depends on context. In my country, being a socialist is ok so I can use that term. In Texas maybe not so much. If I was talking to a group of (British) trade unionists I would be a syndicalist, because that term contains most of the ideas of anarchism but is more palatable to them.
7It's true that we can and should learn from socialists or anyone else, regardless of whether or not we identify with their belief system. But I think if you believe in the idea of life with "no rulers" you don't need to run away from the term that means just that.
I understand that sometimes you have to pick your battles. I think people should be able to wear whatever they want, but I have often dressed to conform to the expectations of the people I'm dealing with. There is no sense making it impossible for someone to hear my message by distracting them with something that violates their social norms (unless, of course, my message is about non-conformity) So I take your point that self describing as an anarchist might be an obstacle to organizing.
However, I find that people too often try to make themselves palatable and only end up making themselves seem phony or manipulative. (Not to say that is what is going on in your example.) If you believe something, own it. Most people respect honesty and authenticity. And people who don't respect honesty and authenticity are probably not going to be receptive to my ideas anyway.
8i like your posts, as usual! and i liked Voltairine's comments as well.
i would say "BROADSNARK FOR PRESIDENT!!!" but that would be un-anarchistic of me, wouldn't it??? :O)
9LOL. Good One.
I must tell you that the one time I held elected office I was a complete tyrant. It was the fifth grade and they made me the captain of the safety patrol. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to all patrols who received undeserved demerits from me. I was drunk with power and I am ashamed.
True story.
10Ah, I’m happy I added you to my feed reader, otherwise I’d have missed this post! Thanks for this.
11I have just seen the film I, Robot, Will Smith is a STAR
12