|
Blame Anarchism? by Per Bylund
February 18, 2008 Youngsters
dressed in black wearing facial masks setting another McDonald’s
restaurant on fire. Some of them trying to make the full body of
protesters attack the police and innocent passers-by. Others are
throwing rocks at whatever is close enough to hit. Still others,
with spray cans “borrowed” from daddy’s garage, making sure
the riot leaves marks on walls and windows for a long time. On
the news, reporters stand against the violent flames consuming
another building talking about yet another “anarchist riot.”
Tens of “anarchists” were apprehended by the police, but most of
them escaped and left people in fear and their belongings in ruins.
One of the hooded teenagers is interviewed on TV and tells us about
his deep hatred for the police, society, order – and prosperity. This
is anarchy, if you ask most people. It is the devastation of human
creations and uprooting of human organization, it is the destruction
of order. People are brought to believe that anarchism is about
threatening, burning, destroying, assaulting, and killing. Unable
to categorize these young people so filled with hatred – so
“anti” everything that is and has been – reporters talk of
“anarchism” in lack of a better word for violent nihilist chaos.
They are no doubt ignorant of the anarchist philosophical/political
tradition, and go with what they believe they know: “anarchy is
chaos.” But
it isn’t as simple as reporters being ignorant. Let’s
have another look at the crowd of youngsters destroying anything in
their path. What is the message they leave? The walls bear the mark
of rioting in burning red, the circled A for anarchy. And in the
midst of the black mass of people terrorizing the neighborhood: a
black flag. They call themselves “anarchists” because they hate
and want to destroy; they are “anti.” If
you ask them about their philosophy, they might talk of “war on
the rich” and spit the name of Proudhon at you. But they won’t
be able to tell you anything he wrote, and even if they did read a
page or two, they couldn’t have understood it. After all,
Proudhon’s statement of “anarchy the mother not the daughter of
order,” the subheading of Tucker’s It
is obvious that reporters and average Joes blame anarchism in
ignorance; they know no better. But it is as obvious that the
rioting punks try to free-ride on a thoroughly misunderstood and
propagandized label. They don’t riot and destroy because they have
read and understood anarchism as described by the great anarchist
thinkers; they riot under the name of anarchism because they
understand it the way it is used by statists trying to make people
fear level organization and non-hierarchy. In using anarchism as a
reason for destruction, they are playing the statists’ game and
reinforcing the myth of freedom as a threat rather than a promise. Proudhon,
just as any other great anarchist thinker, was clear on anarchism
being order. But it is an order based on equality, freedom, and
mutual individual respect; in this sense it is, indeed, the opposite
of the current state of society. In anarchy, no individual can be
sacrificed for a greater good and no individual is persecuted for
his beliefs or choices. No individual’s right is greater than any
other individual’s; the very foundation of anarchy is every
individual’s equal right to life and liberty. Destruction
is therefore not a means for anarchism or anarchists. It cannot be,
since destruction and violence require the perpetrator to take the
power to destroy and thereby elevate himself above others. Anarchism
is non-power, anti-power.
The reason anarchists are against the state is because it is based
on the destruction of natural equality and the right to liberty –
it creates hierarchies and elevates some above others through
privilege. It keeps people enslaved in a force-based structure of
exploitation and terror. Destruction
is a statist measure; it
is fundamental to government. So
what are the black-clad youngsters so filled with hatred and so
prone to destroy? They call themselves anarchists, but they are the
embodiment of the statist principle: “do as I say – or else.”
The masked hordes rioting the streets calling for anarchy want
power; they want the power to do as they please, and they want
the power to separate action from responsibility. They want the
freedom to act – without consequence. They demand respect from
others in the sense of fear, obedience and subjection rather than
appreciation and admiration; they
want to be the state and control its powers. They
are indeed the opposite of any conceivable part of the anarchist
tradition, but use the label to place responsibility of their deeds
on others. They blame anarchism for their actions, while demanding
the powers of the state to mold society into their
view of utopia. The riots are not a call for freedom; it is a call
for another kind of government. Anarchism, on the other hand, is the absence of government. The anarchists of old would identify statism in any form and under any label – even if it carries the label of “anarchism.” We should too. Per Bylund is the founder of Anarchism.net and a PhD student in economics at the University of Missouri. Visit his personal website at www.perbylund.com and follow the ongoing discussion on his blog.
|