Ask an Anarchist

Compromise

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

R asks:

“What you advocate for is too extreme. Why can’t you compromise?” 


There are moderates in every age who hem and haw about the injustices of their time. But I think there are moral absolutes. It’s just not obvious to everyone until afterwards. 

Slavery was wrong. Unequivocally. Segregation and Jim Crow was wrong. Child labor was wrong. Monarchies were wrong (there are still monarchies but in name only, without the absolute power of the past). Women not having rights was wrong. Apartheid was wrong. The list goes on. There are absolutes. Some things are just wrong. 

But they weren’t seen as absolutes at the time. Moderates and centrists asked “But how will we do that?” “That will change everything” “Our system/economy is built on this, how could we do things another way?” “Can’t we compromise?” “Can’t we slow down?” “You’re asking for too much.” They were scared of change and of losing their positions of power and privilege. 

Every courageous leader, every successful movement, every person we look back on as a hero, worked toward a fundamental rejection of the status quo and the systems that existed at the time. They saw injustice and they opposed it. Unequivocally. And so they were all seen as extreme in their time and opposed (and often murdered). Now we see them as heroes and visionaries. And opposition to their causes are the ones that are viewed as extreme. 

As always, MLK said it well:

“I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

– Letter from a Birmingham jail (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html)

In our current time, I would say:

Keeping children in cages is wrong (happened under Obama, Trump, and still with Biden). People going bankrupt in order to live (healthcare) is wrong. The global caste system of borders is wrong. Police killing people is wrong. People having to live on the streets is wrong. Forcing anyone into cages (prison) is wrong. Poisoning air, water, and land is wrong. Burning fossil fuels is wrong. Destroying the planet’s ability to support future generations is wrong. People going hungry is wrong. People being forced to leave their homes is wrong (evictions and deportations). People profiting off the labor of others is wrong (capitalism). People not having access to healthcare is wrong. Discriminating against gay or trans people is wrong. And much much more. 

I think these are moral absolutes. Society doesn’t see them that way yet, but I think eventually it will, as we do with the injustices of the past. 

All of these things (both now and in the past) have been done or were done by a state (nation). That is part of why anarchist oppose the state. And all of it is enforced or protected by police (who are the violent arm of the state). That is why we oppose police. Together they create, uphold, and enforce these unjust systems. 

Some suggested readings: 

What would Anarchy look like?

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

The most common question (and in some ways at the heart of every other question) is:

What would Anarchy look like?

CrimethInc has created a very detailed example of what Anarchism could look like. Seems like a really solid foundation:

https://crimethinc.com/2020/11/02/exercise-what-would-an-anarchist-program-look-like

Does Anarchism work?

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

Jim asks

Has anarchism ever worked in human history?

For an example about when anarchism has been practiced, see the answer to a different question: Where has anarchy been practiced?

But for this post, lets talk about what it means for a system to “work”. And for this I’m going to quote an essay by Deric Shannon:

“When people raise these objections, what do they mean by a “system” that “works”? Can we really say that the state and capitalism—the institutions that largely organize our economic life—“work”? Before this “crisis” even started, 80% of the world’s population lived on less than ten dollars a day (this is evidence that for most of the world, capitalism is always a crisis).1 Is that a system that “works”? We produce enough food to feed everyone in the world. Yet, one in seven people around the world go hungry.2 Is that a system that “works”? This crisis in capitalism certainly isn’t new either—indeed, capitalism is prone to periodic crises where people are thrown into the kinds of social turmoil we’re seeing the world over regularly. This crisis isn’t a new development, it’s a part of how capitalism functions. Is that a system that “works”? Is a system where some people own four summer homes, twenty cars, home theatres, have maids, cooks, and coteries while entire countries largely live in poverty a system that is “working”? Are two world wars that killed more people in them than every war ever fought in human history up to that moment combined reflective of a system that “works”? Is the commodification—the thingification—of the entire non-human world, the destruction of landbases, the regular extinction of entire species, decreasing biodiversity, global warming—all of which are part and parcel of an economic system predicated on constant growth—is this a system that “works”? Is a world where oppression is a social norm that mixes together with economic exploitation one that “works”? Just how brainwashed has the human population become that so many of us believe we need these unequal, unethical, horrific institutional arrangements in order to get by? When mass media ownership is nearly entirely concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy corporations, when capitalism’s best friend—the state—sets the curriculum standards for our compulsory education (setting the stage for the boredom and banality of a life of work for most of us) is it any wonder we’ve swallowed these lies?”

(From What Do We Mean By “Works”? Anarchist Economics and the Occupy X Movement by Deric Shannon. Source)

Human Nature

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

Jim asks

Doesn’t Anarchism ignore human nature?

Part of human nature is competition. But a significant part of human nature is also about cooperation. You can see both at work every day. Early humans survived only by working together. 

An Anarchist FAQ explains it well here

Safety

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

Jim asks

What if someone a lot bigger, and more heavily armed than you wants to beat the crap out of you? Seriously, how does that go in your system?

In anarchy, people would band together with others in their community to stop a bully. Community self defense can be very effective.  

In statist systems, no one is bigger or more heavily armed than the state. They have a monopoly on legitimate violence and they use it to set up a protection racket: If you don’t do what their violent thugs (cops) say, they have the power to beat you up with minimal consequences. And if you don’t work to make profit for the their elite or don’t pay their protection fee (taxes), their thugs (cops) will force you out of your home, beat the crap out of you if you resist, and put you in a cage (prison). The state is responsible for more violence than any individual bully (or crime syndicate) could ever dream of. 

Who would build the roads?

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

Calvin asks:

Without the government, who will build the roads?

This is a classic question with an easy answer: People who want to build roads would build the roads.

Someone thinks a road is needed, talks to the community to see if others agree, and then those with skill and interest go out and do it. Or maybe there is a collective who contributes to the community by building and maintaining roads.

Here’s a great example of this in action: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anarchists-fixing-potholes-portland_n_58caaa7be4b0ec9d29d9575b

Definition of Anarchy

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.


Sarah asks

“Sorry if I missed this somewhere on your site, I’ve only skimmed through a couple of the questions, but what is your general definition of anarchy? And, what are you imagining that a world with anarchy would look like? I’m not sure if your definition of anarchy is the one I typically imagine when I hear the word (it sounds like probably not 🙂 Thanks! Interesting site!”

The greek origin of the word “Anarchy” means “without ruler.” Anarchists today generally think of it more generally as “without any hierarchies of power” so that also includes being against forms of oppression that give some groups more power like racism, sexism, classism, ablism, etc.
We at Ask an Anarchist believe in one broad branch of anarchism generally called “social anarchism” that has a few principles describing what it is for:

Social Anarchism – A vision of shared resources and community support built around the empowerment of the individual and the decentralization of power.

  • Individual Sovereignty – You are the exclusive controller of your body, energy, and life. You contribute your energy on your own terms.
  • Mutual Aid – Acting together for shared benefit through the voluntary exchange of resources and services.
  • Distributed Power – No one has more power than anyone else. People work together on equal footing.
  • Direct action – Creating change or highlighting issues in a community without relying on government or other indirect methods to accomplish goals.

Where has anarchy been practiced?

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

Ruth Asks:

“Where has anarchy been practiced in the world on a large scale? For how long? And to what end?”

 

The largest population and longest time Anarchism has been practiced was in the Catalonia region of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. For over 30 years before the civil war, the anarchist had done a very good job organizing and educating the workers and peasants. So when the military coup by Francisco Franco overthrew the government, the Anarchists were able to immediately take over many of the institutions and run them collectively. They collectivized farms and factories, redistributed land, and organized militias to fight the fascists. Many say that without the early anarchist militias, it would have just been a quick coup and not a two year civil war.

Unfortunately, the anti-fascist forces (anarchists, communists, and democratic capitalists) were ultimately defeated by Franco who had major support from Germany and Italy (who later went on to defeat many western democracies as well). The anti-fascist forces had almost zero support from the western democracies because they feared the radical Anarchist presence. The only outside forces who did help against the fascists was the USSR. However, the Communists turned on the Anarchists near the end of the war, which helped lead to their defeat.

There are many “scholarly tomes” about the Spanish Civil War. But if you’d like to read something more interesting, I’d recommend reading Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell. It’s a memoir of his time as an international volunteer in an Anarchist militia in the war. He paints an excellent picture of what revolutionary Barcelona was like and how the Anarchist militias functioned with minimal hierarchy.

There is also a very thorough BBC documentary about the Spanish Civil War. They interview anarchists, communists, and fascists who were there at the time. Most of the documentary is about the war in general, but there is one section (Part 5: Inside the Revolution) that is about the revolution and it is very interesting.
Know of other times anarchy has been practiced? Write about it in the comments!

Sexual assault and calling the police

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by A.

Johnny asks:

In our present system what should an anarchist do if (possible worse case) she/he is raped or a loved one is raped. Is it right to call the police? I’m baffled with scenarios like this. 

 

When a violent crime is committed against you or someone you know, and you’re an anarchist, the question of calling the police is never a simple answer.

If your loved one was sexually assaulted and does not want you to call the police, you shouldn’t. Ultimately, they are the person affected and what they want to have happen should be honored by their family, friends, and community.

Should they call the police? Can they? Sexual and personal violence is an unfortunate and devastating truth in all communities. Often in anarchist spaces the police are not called. We generally do not believe that state sanctioned justice is true justice, nor is it the first option we should consider.

Most people who rape know the person they are assaulting and so they are often part of the same community. Different communities/individuals have tried various responses:

  • They have asked the perpetrator to leave the community (ostracized)
  • They have retaliated with self determined retributive violence (though it can be argued that while this may feel cathartic in the moment, it may not truly be justice)
  • They have asked the perpetrator to seek support in counseling, therapy, and other restorative measures,
  • They have established accountability systems so that both the assailant and the assaulted can heal safely.

These are different responses that do not involve the police, are plausible, and point toward a future where we can use our own power to solve problems in society/communities.

It is difficult to know how to act when the only legitimized “justice” is carried out by the state. Calling the police should be a last resort after you’ve considered your own power and your community’s power in the situation and have realistically exhausted them. Even if our power has not been exhausted, there are times when our current society prevents or makes it dangerous for us to exercise it.

Though the above outlines different responses to sexual violence, I think the question is relevant to all types of personal violence and this becomes even more difficult to answer when a life is taken or a child is harmed. We may seek justice/restoration/correction but we are also limited in how we can act/make decisions in our current society. Because we don’t live in an ideal anarchist world, we will occasionally have to compromise in order to maintain/create safe communities. This will sometimes mean calling the police. You’re not betraying your ideals/principles if that is the decision you have to make.

We have to consider our goals when seeking justice and how the choices we make contribute to our long term goals. Police are a part of the system that made it impossible for you and your community to seek true justice and create a solution through your own power, so we don’t have to be thankful for the police or happy that they are there. But in the meantime, we should think critically about alternatives to our current “justice” system and take full advantage of our own power as sentient and capable beings.

I recommend the following resources for anyone interested in learning more in depth how to confront intimate violence in their communities:

  1. The Revolution Starts at Home: Confronting Partner Abuse in Activist Communities
  2. The Revolution Starts at Home: Confronting Intimate Violence Within Activist Communities
  3. Generation 5s (G5) Toward Transformative Justice: A Liberatory Approach to Child Sexual Abuse and other forms of Intimate and Community Violence. A Call to Action for the Left and the Sexual and Domestic Violence Sectors
  4. The Community Accountability website for more resources about community accountability and toolkits.

Modern Medicine

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

Jordan asks:

“I’ve always thought that a money less, classless, stateless society would be peaceful and overall better for the human condition, even if it takes a thousand years to accomplish. However, I had a kidney transplant some years ago and so I have to take immuno-suppressant medications to live. How can I truly be an anarchist if I have to rely on prescription drugs?”

 

I don’t think there’s any conflict between a “moneyless, classless, stateless, society” and life saving medication. Healthcare is a human right and so there is nothing at odds between Anarchy and receiving health care.

I think there is often a misconception that an Anarchist society would have to be primitive. While a lot of industry is destructive and problematic, that doesn’t necessarily mean it would all have to be destroyed. It could be done in a new way or drastically scaled back to sustainable levels. As a society, we would need to prioritize where to put limited resources in a way that is sustainable. I’d imagine we would stop production of many things, but I think healthcare in particular would be an aspect that people would want to prioritize. So immuno-suppressants could still exist in an Anarchist society.

Just because capitalism invented something, doesn’t mean it can’t exist in the Anarchist society. They didn’t destroy all the buildings and inventions when people overthrew Monarchical rule. Capitalism has done enough harm, we might as well benefit from it’s (non-destructive) innovations and put them to better use.

And at this point, almost everyone relies on the capitalist system for something (food, shelter, healthcare, etc). But we don’t have to let that stop us from creating a new world.

I imagine Anarchist society would be supportive of all people and the community would provide everyone with the care they need to thrive. 🙂