Juxtaposing Anarchy

From Chaos to Cause

Colin Jenkins

May 15, 2015

Contents
Pop Anarchy and Nihilism: Rebels without a Cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Liberal Enablers and the Right’s Appropriation of Libertarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Anarcho-Punk, Underground Hip Hop, and Conscious Chaos: Rebels with a Cause . . . . . 7
Authentic Anarchism and Its Philosophical Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Why Does this Matter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2
 Anarchy is synonymous with chaos and disorder. It is a term that stands in direct contrast to the
archetype of society we have become accustomed to: hierarchical, highly-structured, and authorita-
tive. Because of this, it carries negative connotations. Merriam-Webster, the consensus source of mean-
ing within the dominant paradigm, defines anarchyas: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in
which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws; or, a state
of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority. The implications made in these definitions
are clear - any absence of authority, structure, or control most surely amounts to confusion,wild behav-
ior, and disorder. In other words, human beings are incapable of controlling themselves, maintaining
order, and living peacefully amongst one another. So we are to believe.
Far removed from the general presentation of anarchy is anarchism, a political philosophy rich in
intellectual and theoretical tradition. Again turning to Merriam-Webster, we are told that anarchism is:
a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and
advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.
Even from within the dominant paradigm, we see a wide range of divergence between anarchism,
which is presented strictly as an idea, and anarchy, which is presented as the real and absolute conse-
quence (though hypothetical) of transforming this idea to praxis. Juxtaposing these terms, injecting
historical perspective to their meaning, and realizing the differences between their usage within the
modern lexicon and their philosophical substance should be a worthy endeavor, especially for anyone
who feels that future attempts at shaping a more just society will be fueled by ideas, both from the
past and present.
While comparing and contrasting the various ways in which anarchy is deployed, we recognize
three arenas: 1) Popular culture, which embraces and markets the association of chaos, wild behavior,
and disorder; 2) Corporate politics, which uses the term as a pejorative, mostly to describe dominant
right-wing platforms like the Tea Party and USAmerican libertarian movement; and 3) In activist and
theoretical circles, where anarchism is understood as an authentic and legitimate political philosophy
with roots firmly placed in the Enlightenment.

Pop Anarchy and Nihilism: Rebels without a Cause

The anti-authoritarian tendencies of anarchism are understandably attractive in a world that is
overwhelmingly authoritative, intensely conformist, and socially restrictive. The conservative nature
of American culture, which is notorious for repressing attitudes and beliefs that form outside of the
dominant ”white, Judeo-Christian” standard, begs for the existence of a thriving subculture that is
based on rebellion, if only as an avenue of personal liberation and expression. The 1955 James Dean
movie, Rebel without a Cause, offered a first glimpse into this nihilistic backlash against the deadening
and soulless culture of conformity as it showcased the contradictory and often confusing nature of
adolescence in white, middle-class suburbia.
On the heels of Dean was a baby-boomer revolution fueled by radical inquiry, hippie culture, bo-
hemian lifestyles, and a ”British Invasion.” For the better part of a decade, the counterculture move-
ment in the US that came to be known quite simply as ”the ’60s” boasted a wide array of meaningful
causes, addressing everything from poverty to institutional racism and segregation to war. However,
this brief period of revolutionary cause dissipated into a new and distinctly different counterculture
through the 1970s and 80s, taking on a rebellious yet counterrevolutionary identity. In contrast to
the existentialist nature of the 60s, which sought answers through philosophical exploration, the

3
collective angst that developed in subsequent decades sought individual freedom through nihilism,
self-destruction, and chronic apathy. Not giving a shit about detrimental traditions transformed into
not giving a shit about anything. In turn, acts of defiance morphed from politically conscious and
strategic opposition to oppressive structures to spiteful and self-destructive nothingness.
The revolutionary uprising of the 1960s, which had been stomped out by government suppression
and maligned as an ”excess of democracy,” was effectively replaced by a reactionary insurrection
bankrupt of any constructive analysis or productive goal. This nothingness was embraced by a signifi-
cant counterculture that developed alongside the punk rock music scene, which flirted with anarchist
politics before descending into an egoistic and narrow identity based in privilege. What followed was
a brand of ”pop anarchy” devoid any meaning beyond contrived images. Acts of rebellion were cen-
tral, but a cause was neither constructed nor needed. The anarchist and revolutionary symbolism that
screamed for meaning was reduced to shallow marketing schemes as remnants of legitimate angst
were redirected into childish rants against parents, teachers, ”the man,” and ”the system” - terms that
often carried little meaning for those who used them. The exclusivity that developed made political
organizing virtually impossible, and had an alienating effect on many. ”Looking at the fact that most
people who rear their heads at anarchist ’movement’ events are roughly between 16-30 years old,
with background influences of ’punk’ or other ’alternative’ persuasions,” explains one former anar-
chist from the punk scene, ”it is easy to understand why such ’movements’ tend to alienate most
people than interest them.” A major problem that was exposed was demographics. ”Punk primarily
appealed to middle-class, staright white boys, who, thought they were ’too smart’ for the rock music
pushed by the corporations, still wanted to ’rock out.’ It is also a culture that was associated with alien-
ating oneself from the rest of society, often times in order to rebel against one’s privileged background
or parents.” Because of this, ”we have to admit that it was (and still is) exclusive.”
By contrasting US punk culture of this time with its British counterpart, one could see the de-
velopment of a counterculture that lacked revolutionary meaning or class context. As Neil Eriksen
explains:
”The distinctions between US and British punk rock are based solidly on differences in the audience.
In the US the counter-cultural character of punk is evident in the primary emphasis on style of dress
and posturing. ’Middle class’ youth can copy the style of the British punks and are afforded the eco-
nomic and ideological space to make it a whole lifestyle, similar to the way the hippies dropped out,
turned on and tuned in. It is primarily those who do not have to work for a living who can afford the
outrageous blue, green and orange punk hair styles and gold safety pins. The working class generally
cannot choose to go to work with orange hair. In England punk is much more complex, especially
given the history of other sub-cultures such as the Mods, Rockers and Skinheads. British punks find in
their sub-cultural expressions of music and attitudes, as well as styles, more of an organic indication
of their experiences as under- or unemployed youth. In the US, punk has few organic working class
roots, and it thus functions as a broad counter-cultural milieu that does not indict the system for lack
of jobs, but tends toward nihilism and mindlessness.”
The counterculture described above was a favorable, and almost inevitable, result of both appropri-
ation from above and cooptation at the hands of capitalist profit. Revolutionary politics, in its authen-
tic form, is not a profitable commodity. Instead, the radical roots of anarchist philosophy, which are
briefly described in the definition of ”anarchism” provided by Merriam-Webster, serve as a threat to
any society that possesses extreme divisions of power and wealth. The United States - with its hierar-
chical governmental structure, no-holds-barred corporate landscape, and extreme divisions between
the wealthy and everyone else (20% of the population owns 90% of the wealth) is no exception. For

4
this reason, anarchism has (historically) been appropriated by the dominant culture (which is shaped
by this 20%), diluted to anarchy, and served to the masses in the form of entertainment. This process
has led to ”gradual appearances in mainstream culture over the course of several years, at times far
removed from its political origin (described bySituationists as ” recuperation”). These appearances
typically connected it with anarchy and were intended as sensationalist marketing ploys, playing off
the mainstream association of anarchy with chaos.”
The most recent form of this appropriation has come in the popular television series, Sons of Anar-
chy, which depicts a California biker gang inundated with drama, drug abuse, senseless murders, gun-
running, and gang activity. Despite glimpses and a few mentions of the fictional founder’s manifesto,
which included some scattered words by genuine anarchists like Emma Goldman and Pierre Joseph
Proudhon, the show clearly chooses chaos and senseless, self-serving crime as its theme. The pinnacle
of this appropriation, and ignorance of the rich history of philosophical anarchism, concludes with
reviews that refer to one of the show’s main characters, a ruthless, murderous, and power-hungry
leader by the name of Clay Morrow, as a ” true anarchist.”

Liberal Enablers and the Right’s Appropriation of Libertarianism

In the midst of the US government shutdown in October of 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
took to the Senate floor to criticize the move. ”We have a situation where we have a good day with the
anarchists,” Reid said. ”Why? Because the government is closed.” Reid’s comment was meant as a jab to
the Republican Party, which was largely responsible for allowing the shutdown to take place, purely as
a political ploy. A few days later, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren referred to ”anarchist tirades”
and ”thinly veiled calls for anarchy in Washington” coming from Tea Party members in the House as
the impetus for the shutdown. Warren even went as far as equating anarchists with ”pessimists and
ideologues whose motto is, ’I’ve got mine, the rest of you are on your own,’ while ironically tying in
neoliberal deregulation that ”tolerates dangerous drugs, unsafe meat, dirty air, or toxic mortgages,” as
an ”anarchists’ dream.”
”Anarchy” has maintained its status as a pejorative in the modern American liberal lexicon, but not
by choice. Borrowing from the nihilism of pop anarchy, it embraces misconceptions, ignores historical
roots, and guts the term of genuine meaning. Considering that such rhetoric is coming from folks who
have advanced degrees in political science, careers as political pundits, and a working knowledge
of history, it can only be explained as calculated fear-mongering. The fact of the matter is that the
Republican Party is just as ”statist” as the Democratic Party, if only in different ways. And while the
approach of political sects like the Tea Party and USAmerican ”libertarian” movements present a less-
statist platform than their counterparts from within the establishment, their philosophical make-ups
(if you can even call them that) include a blatant disregard for the public at-large, an underlying racism
that is dangerously oppressive, a love affair with capitalism, a childish refusal to recognize needs
outside of privileged interests, a fanatical support for gun rights, and a narrow-minded obsession with
protecting private property and personal wealth - beliefs that are more in line with the self-absorbed,
reactionary nature of fascism than with the revolutionary, ”cooperative individualism” of anarchism.
Ultimately, the Tea Party, much like the USAmerican ”libertarian” movement, is focused on one goal:
protecting an embedded array of privilege and maintaining the status quo; and the means to their end
(at least, theoretically) is the coercive power structure of the market, as opposed to that of the state. If
and only when the market hierarchy is threatened by, say, a popular uprising, a workers strike, or a

5
movement for civil rights, this brand of ”libertarian” views the state - in the form of domestic police
and military forces - as a necessary component. In other words, these so-called ”anarchists” are really
nothing of the sort. Instead, they are more than willing to use state power to uphold historically-based
inequities related to wealth accumulation, racism, and class division.
If the cheap political jabs used by liberals were packed with historical context, they could be closer
to the truth. However, this would defeat the purpose. Parts of the right-wing have, in fact, appropri-
ated and twisted anarchist philosophy, mostly through a concerted effort to adopt an ahistorical ver-
sion of ”libertarianism.” In his ”anarcho-capitalist” manifesto, Betrayal of the American Right, Murray
Rothbardexplained this intent:
”One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory,
we, ’our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy. Other words, such as ’liberal,’ had been
originally identified with laissez-faire libertarians, but had been captured by left-wing statists, forcing
us in the 1940s to call ourselves rather feebly ’true’ or ’classical’ liberals. ’Libertarians,’ in contrast,
had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchist; that is for anti-private property anarchists,
either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over, and more properly from
the view of etymology; since we were proponents of individual liberty and therefore of the individual’s
right to his property.”
Of course, like all others who claim this contradictory title of anarcho-capitalist, Rothbard either
failed to recognize ”how property results in similar social relations and restrictions in liberty as the
state,” or simply believed that ”liberty” was synonymous with feudalistic ideals. As one anarchist (of
the authentic variety) writer laments, the thought process of this faux-anarchism is that a ”capitalist
or landlord restricting the freedom of their wage-workers and tenants” is ok, but any such restrictions
from ”the state” is not. ”It’s an oddity that in the United States, the main current of libertarian thought
has been twisted and inverted into a kind of monstrous stepchild,” explains Nathan Schneider. ”Rather
than seeking an end to all forms of oppression, our libertarians want to do away with only the gov-
ernment kind, leaving the rest of us vulnerable to the forces of corporate greed, racial discrimination,
and environmental destruction.”
Since the Democratic Party’s use of the term borrows from the simplistic, nihilistic version of ”pop
anarchy,” rather than the complex, philosophical version of anarchism, it becomes useful within the
modern political arena. The true right-wing appropriation of anarchism as noted by Rothbard, which
is fabricated in its own right, becomes buried under the fear-mongering and falsely implied associa-
tion by the likes of Reid and Warren. Historically, this same type of fear-mongering has allowed for
fascist scapegoating (Reichstag Fire), capitalist scapegoating (Haymarket Affair), and unlawful state
executions ( Sacco and Vanzetti), all designed to exploit widespread ignorance regarding anarchist
beliefs and prevent authentic libertarian movements from spreading through the populace. ”The fig-
ure of the anarchist has long dominated our national imagination,” explains Heather Gautney. ”It’s a
word that conjures up the lawless, the nihilistic and even the violent. It’s the image Senators Reid and
Warren invoked in their talking points against the Republicans.” It’s also an image devoid any real
meaning. By removing its substance and demonizing its association, the establishment wins.

6
Anarcho-Punk, Underground Hip Hop, and Conscious Chaos: Rebels with
a Cause
While ”pop anarchy” took over much of the American punk scene in the ’70s and ’80s, it was only
part of the story. Punk culture still served what Henry Rollins once succinctly described as ”the perfect
expression of postmodern angst in a decadent society,” creating an outlet for rebellious urges seeping
from the dominant culture. It also served as a catalyst for pockets of revolutionary politics. When
done right, it was the perfect combination of expression and meaning. The hard, edgy, and chaotic
sounds spilling from the music represented a form of liberation that was desperately needed, while the
lyrics roared against the establishment and aimed at deadening conformity and the music industry’s
increasingly corporatized and cookie-cutter production value. The UK provided an example of this
perfection when it birthed anarcho-punk.
”From the numerous situationist slogans that graced the lyrics of early punk bands, to the prolifera-
tion of anarcho-punk bands such as Crass and Conflict in the early eighties, punk rock as a subculture
has had a unique history of having a strong relationship with explicitly anarchist and anti-capitalist
political content over the years,” explains an anonymous Colours of Resistance blogger . ”Many an-
archists today, including myself, are by-products of punk rock, where most become politicized from
being exposed to angry, passionate lyrics of anarcho-punk bands, ”do-it-yourself” zines, and countless
other sources of information that are circulated within the underground punk distribution networks.
Some are introduced to punk through the introduction to the anarchist social circles. Regardless of
which comes first, the correlation between the punk scene and the anarchist scene is hard to miss,
especially at most anarchist gatherings and conferences.”
Within the anarcho-punk movement, ”the possibilities for advances in popular culture in the dis-
solution of capitalist hegemony and in building working class hegemony” began to surface. ”The fact
that punk rock validated political themes in popular music once again,” Eriksen suggests, ”opened the
field” for the left libertarian movements. As an example, punk initiatives like ”Rock Against Racism
were able to sponsor Carnivals with the Anti-Nazi League drawing thousands of people and many
popular bands to rally against racism and fascism” and ”openly socialist bands like the Gang of Four
were taken seriously by mainstream rock critics and record companies, and thereby were able to reach
a broad audience with progressive entertainment.”
Punk ideologies that arose from this era touched on concepts like anti-establishment, equality, free-
dom, anti-authoritarianism, individualism, direct action, free thought, and non-conformity - many
ideas that are synonymous with historical-anarchist thought. This social consciousness naturally led
to activism, and specifically, acts of direct action, protests, boycotts, and squatting. These elements rep-
resented authentic anarchist philosophy and served as a counter to nihilistic and empty ”pop anarchy,”
while politicizing many.
Another form of ”rebellion with a cause” came from American hip-hop and rap. The rise of hip-hop
in the US paralleled that of the punk scene, and shared many of the same revolutionary tendencies.
While not explicitly anarchist, hip-hop took on an identity that mirrored authentic anarchist philos-
ophy. Its anti-authoritarian nature was far from nihilistic, but rather survivalist; born in response to
centuries of racial subjugation, economic strangulation, and violent oppression at the hands of do-
mestic police forces. Hip-hop’s birthplace, the Bronx (NYC), characterized its development. ”Heavily
influenced by the economically and socially oppressed ghettoes, along with the echoes of the last
generation’s movements for liberation and the street gangs that filled in the void they left,” Derek

7
Ide tells us, ”the South Bronx provided the perfect matrix in which marginalized youth could find a
way to articulate the story of their own lives and the world around them. In this historically unique
context, a culture would be created through an organic explosion of the pent-up, creative energies
of America’s forgotten youth. It was a culture that would reach every corner of the world in only a
couple decades..”
In the end, hip-hop and gangsta rap provided endless displays of socially-conscious and revolution-
ary tracks throughout the ’80s and ’90s, and combined with the punk scene to construct a form of
”conscious chaos” that provided valuable social and cultural analyses as well as revolutionary goals
that sought to establish a more just world. These counter-cultural movements represented an im-
portant about-turn from the contrived nihilism and ”pop anarchy” that had surfaced in response to
the ”excess of democracy” in the ’60s, and displayed elements that echoed authentic anarchism, as a
revolutionary libertarian philosophy.

Authentic Anarchism and Its Philosophical Roots

The roots of Anarchism, as a school of thought, are firmly placed in the Age of Enlightenment
and, specifically, within two major themes stemming from that period: liberalism and socialism. In a
sea of definitions, one of the most concise and encompassing is offered by Lucien van der Walt and
Michael Schmidt in their 2009 book, ”Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and
Syndicalism.” In it, they describe anarchism as ”a revolutionary and libertarian socialist doctrine” that
”advocates individual freedom through a free society” and ”aims to create a democratic, egalitarian,
and stateless socialist order through an international and internationalist social revolution, abolishing
capitalism, landlordism, and the state.”1
Anarchism’s roots in the Enlightenment are undeniable. From Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ”Discourse
on Inequality” to Wilhelm von Humboldt’s ”The Limits of State Action,” the libertarian strain born
of this time served as the precursor to the anarchist thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Their
similarities are found in a philosophical examination of social inequities like personal wealth, private
property, political power, and all forms of authority established within human societies - elements
that are heavily scrutinized by anarchists. However, despite these roots, Schmidt and van der Walt
tell us that anarchism should be considered ”a relatively recent phenomenon” that emerged specifi-
cally ”from the 1860s onward within the context of the modern working-class and socialist movement,
within the womb of the First International.”2 For this reason, anarchism can most aptly be described
as ”socialism from below.” In fact, the demarcation between enlightenment philosophy and anarchist
thought is generally found in their distinct reactions to hierarchies created by systems of monar-
chy, feudalism, and theocracy (enlightenment) and hierarchies created by the exploitative nature of
capitalism and the modern liberal, democratic state (anarchism).
The development and separation of anarchism from the Enlightenment was made clear by promi-
nent anarchist thinkers at and around the turn of the 20 th century. In the years following the Paris
Commune, Russian revolutionary anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin, expressed his disgust with the idea of
a ”purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in re-
ality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest,” and ”the

1
Schmidt, Michael & van der Walt, Lucien. Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism.
AK Press, 2009, p. 33
2
Schmidt & van der Walt, p. 34

8
shabby and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J-J Rousseau and the other schools of bourgeois
liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the
rights of each - an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero.”3 A few
decades later, in a critique of liberalism, Peter Kropotkin denounced the aim of all so-called ”supe-
rior civilizations,” which was ”not to permit all members of the community to develop in a normal
way,” but rather ”to permit certain, better-endowed individuals fully to develop, even at the cost of the
happiness and the very existence of the mass of mankind.” This separation had much to do with the
newly developed social constraints stemming from capitalism. As Noam Chomsky explains, ”It is true
that classical libertarian thought is opposed to state intervention in social life, as a consequence of
deeper assumptions about the human need for liberty, diversity, and free association…” however, ”on
the same assumptions, capitalist relations of production, wage labor, competitiveness, and the ideol-
ogy of ’possessive individualism’ all must be regarded as fundamentally antihuman” as well. For this
reason, he suggests, ”libertarian socialism is properly regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of
the Enlightenment,” while it also embraces its own identity through the inclusion of a class analysis
and critique of the coercive structures stemming from the capitalist hierarchy.4
The socialist nature of anarchism represents a fundamental current in both its thought and pro-
cess, yet is often overlooked by many who claim to be anarchists, especially in the United States.
This misunderstanding is caused by both pro-market (and even pro-capitalist) ”libertarian” move-
ments that are ahistorical and seemingly blind to the authoritative structures of modern, industrial
capitalism, as well as by the abovementioned ”pop anarchy” phenomenon and ”liberal enabling” that
falsely limit anarchism to a vague and unsophisticated ”anti-government” stance. Superficial dualities
that have captured consensus thought, most notably that of ”collectivism vs. individualism,” are also
largely responsible for this misinterpretation. Because of this, the virtual disappearance of class anal-
ysis from modern libertarian thought in the United States not only represents a significant departure
from nearly two centuries of libertarianism, but also neglects to address a highly-authoritative and
hierarchical private structure that has long surpassed its governmental counterpart. Schmidt and van
der Walt explain the importance of rejecting ”pop anarchy” stereotypes and maintaining this class
analysis within anarchist thought:
”For anarchists, individual freedom is the highest good, and individuality is valuable in itself, but
such freedom can only be achieved within and through a new type of society. Contending that a
class system prevents the full development of individuality, anarchists advocate class struggle from
below to create a better world. In this ideal new order, individual freedom will be harmonised with
communal obligations through cooperation, democratic decision-making, and social and economic
equality. Anarchism rejects the state as a centralised structure of domination and an instrument of
class rule, not simply because it constrains the individual or because anarchists dislike regulations. On
the contrary, anarchists believe rights arise from the fulfilment of obligations to society and that there
is a place for a certain amount of legitimate coercive power, if derived from collective and democratic
decision making.
The practice of defining anarchism simply as hostility to the state has a further consequence: that
a range of quite different and often contradictory ideas and movements get conflated. By defining
anarchism more narrowly, however, we are able to bring its key ideas into a sharper focus, lay the

3
Guerin, Daniel. ”Anarchism: From Theory to Practice.” Monthly Review Press, 1970. Taken from the Preface by Noam
Chomsky.
4
Chomsky on Anarchism , selected and edited by Barry Pateman. AK Press: 2005, p. 122-123

9
basis for our examination of the main debates in the broad anarchist tradition in subsequent chapters,
and see what ideas are relevant to current struggles against neoliberalism.”5
When considering and rejecting both public and private forms of restriction, the most fundamental
element of authentic anarchism clearly becomes cooperation. This theme was thoroughly established
by Kropotkin in his 1902 classic, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, in which he pointed to ”the
practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the
positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress
of man, mutual support not mutual struggle - has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even
at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race.” This theme
was echoed by Rudolf Rocker in his 1938 treatise on Anarcho-Syndicalism. Said Rocker, ”Anarchism
is a definite intellectual current in the life of our time, whose adherents advocate the abolition of
economic monopolies and of all political and social coercive institutions within society” while calling
on ”a free association of all productive forces based upon cooperative labor” to replace ”the present
capitalistic economic order.”6

Why Does this Matter?

The importance of Anarchist theory lies in its critique of hierarchies and the uneven distribution
of power emanating from such. This makes this school of thought an important component as we
move forward in attempting to address the pervasive ills of society, whether coming from the state
or corporate structures that tower over us. The mere questioning of these ”authorities” is crucial in
itself. As Chomsky tells us:
”… any structure of hierarchy and authority carries a heavy burden of justification, whether it
involves personal relations or a large social order. If it cannot bear that burden - sometimes it can - then
it is illegitimate and should be dismantled. When honestly posed and squarely faced, that challenge
can rarely be sustained. Genuine libertarians have their work cut out for them.” <7
While many socialist-oriented strains incorporate this same analysis, some do not. Essentially, re-
garding the formation of class-consciousness, anarchist theory of all varieties (syndicalism, mutual-
ism, communism, etc.) act as ideal compliments to historically strong currents of Marxism, Leninism,
Maoism, and Trotskyism, and should be included within all such theoretical considerations. When
transforming theory to praxis, anarchism’s inclusion of worker collectivization in the form of labor
or trade unions prove valuable in this regard. In his treatise on Syndicalism, Rocker made a compelling
argument for the usefulness of this brand of anarchism as a component to working-class emancipa-
tion. For the Anarcho-Syndicalists,” says Rocker, ”the trade union is by no means a mere transitory
phenomenon bound up with the duration of capitalist society, it is the germ of the socialist economy
of the future, the elementary school of socialism in general.” He continues, ”Every new social struc-
ture makes organs for itself in the body of the old organism. Without this preliminary, any social
evolution is unthinkable. Even revolutions can only develop and mature the germs which already ex-
ist and have made their way into the consciousness of men (and presumably, women); they cannot
themselves create these germs or generate new worlds out of nothing.”8

5
Schmidt and van der Walt, p. 33
6
Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice, 6th edition. AK Press, 2004. P. 1
7
Chomsky on Anarchism , p. 192.
8
Rocker, P. 59.

10
 Putting this philosophy into action is still of utmost importance. Creating a brand that is palatable
and accessible to the working-class majority, without sacrificing its revolutionary tone and message,
is also crucial. In his 2013 book, ”Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street,” Mark
Bray stresses the importance of deploying a practical anarchism which avoids the esoteric idealism
that so many genuine and well-intentioned anarchists get bogged down in. This pragmatic approach
is perhaps most important when attempting to relay information via short interviews and sound bites.
Bray points to three specific lessons he learned while interacting with mainstream media during his
time at Zuccotti Park:
”First, I learned the value of presenting my revolutionary ideas in an accessible format. How I dress,
the words I choose, and how I articulate them affect how I am received, so if my primary goal is
to convince people of what I am saying, then it’s often useful to shed my ”inessential weirdness.”
Second, I realized the usefulness of letting tangible examples sketch the outline of my ideas without
encumbering them with explicit ideological baggage. Finally, I concluded that the importance that
Americans place on the electoral system dictates that any systematic critique should start with the
corporate nature of both parties. Like it or not, that’s where most people are at in terms of their
political framework, so if you skip past the candidates to alternative institutions, for example, without
convincing them of the bankrupt nature of the electoral system, you’ll lose them.”9
Essentially, anarchism is what democracy is supposed to be - self-governance. In this sense, anyone
even remotely involved in the Occupy movement had the privilege, likely for the first time in their
lives, to truly witness democracy (anarchism) in action. ”This is not the first time a movement based
on fundamentally anarchist principles - direct action, direct democracy, a rejection of existing political
institutions and attempt to create alternative ones - has cropped up in the US,” explains David Graeber.
”The civil rights movement (at least, its more radical branches), the anti-nuclear movement, the global
justice movement … all took similar directions.” And, in a country where a large majority of citizens
have given up on and/or no longer believe in their representatives, a little democracy may be exactly
what we need, even if it’s not what our white, wealthy, slave-owning ”founding fathers” wanted. ”Most
(of the founding fathers) defined ’democracy’ as collective self-governance by popular assemblies, and
as such, they were dead set against it, arguing it would be prejudicial against the interests of minorities
(the particular minority that was had in mind here being the rich),” Graeber tells us. ”They only came
to redefine their own republic - modeled not on Athens, but on Rome - as a ’democracy’ because
ordinary Americans seemed to like the word so much.”
In our inevitable and necessary escape from the faux democracy of America’s colonists and
founders, anarchist thought will undoubtedly play a role. It is, after all, the only school of thought that
can be described as authentic, class-based libertarianism. Its foundation is the reasonable expectation
that all structures of dominance, authority, and hierarchy must justify themselves; and, if they cannot,
they must be dismantled.
This covers ALL coercive institutions - not only governments, the state, police, and military, but
also cultural phenomena like patriarchy, racism, and white supremacy, and most importantly, eco-
nomic systems like capitalism. Unlike modern forms of ”libertarianism” in the US, which ignore racist
structures and the historical formations behind them, and falsely view the labor-capital relationship
inherent in capitalism as a ”choice,” authentic Anarchism correctly views such elements as coercive
and forced; and seeks to dismantle them in order to move forward with constructing a society based

9
Mark Bray, Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street. Zero Books, 2013.

11
on free association, where all human beings have a healthy degree of control over their lives, families,
and communities.
Contrary to consensus thought (propaganda), such as those rooted in ”rugged individualism” and
”American exceptionalism,” there is a collective and cooperative nature to true liberty. We simply
cannot gain control over our lives until we learn to respect the lives of all others. This is the essence of
community. And we cannot begin to do this until we deconstruct illegitimate hierarchies of wealth and
power, which have been constructed through illegal and immoral means over the course of centuries.
Recognizing these structures and realizing that they are NOT legitimate, and therefore do not deserve
to exist, is the first step in this process. Embracing contributions from this school of thought is crucial
in this regard.
Fundamentally, Anarchism is a working-class ideology. Occupy Wall Street was largely influenced
by it. Workers’ co-ops are largely influenced by it. Any action that attempts to establish free associ-
ation within society can learn much from it. Its foundational requirement of organic human cooper-
ation and peaceful co-existence has been tried and tested throughout history - from hunter-gatherer
societies across the world to Native American communities to the Paris Commune to revolutionary
Catalonia to Chiapas. It provides a philosophical foundation - not a rigid blueprint - that allows for
limitless potential in attempting to solve our problems, collectively, while trying to carve out a mean-
ingful human experience for everyone. It may not provide all answers, or even most, but its foundation
is worthy of building from, or at least considering. Its true value is found in its inclusion of historical
formations as well as its role as a catalyst for new ideas and action - something we desperately need,
moving forward.
Notes

12
 The Anarchist Library
Anti-Copyright

Colin Jenkins
Juxtaposing Anarchy
From Chaos to Cause
May 15, 2015

Retrieved on 5/25/15 from http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/juxtaposing-anarchy.html

theanarchistlibrary.org