Anarchy, disorder and chaos
What is anarchy and anarchism
When some one refers to anarchy, to our mind comes a state of utter lawlessness and disorder where everyone is free to do whatever he likes at his whim and fancy and the strongest and fittest alone survive. In short, law of jungle prevails. But this is one meaning or aspect of the term. Anarchism as a political philosophy does not necessarily mean disorder or conditions of chaos. The anarchists consider a centralized state authority as an evil. They believe in 'stateless society'. The communists adhering to Marx also consider 'communism' as the ultimate goal when there will be a classless society and 'the state will wither away'. In their view, state power is a weapon of exploitation used by the the feudal or capitalist class. In between, state power is justified as a tool in the hands of working class to establish a socialist or communist society.
Anarchism is negation of state authority
The term 'anarchy' is derived from Greek. This means 'without rulers'. In many writings, the term 'libertarian' has been used about anarchism. Till 1950s, 'libertarianism' was used as synonym for 'anarchism' in U.S.A. At many other places, this is still used. 'Libertarianism means liberty. Thus anarchy is equated with liberty as opposed to despotism and tyranny. There is a wide range of anarchist thoughts from individualists to complete collectivists. Anarchism is considered as extreme left wing ideology. The common thread in different shades of anarchism is negation of state authority. The stress is on self regulation. In fact, we see some sort of such management in interior areas where people settle their affairs through community elders without interference of state mechanism and judiciary. But there is lot of tyranny even there. There is no liberty. On the other hand, the stronger members of such communities dominate. Their word is law. This is evidenced by bizarre decisions of Khap Panchayats in India and as well as in neighboring country. So called 'honor killings' are consequence of such 'anarchist management' where there is no formal state authority.
Some anarchist movements
Anarchist movements have come to surface at many places but could not succeed. During Russian civil war, the Bolsheviks were fighting against the Tsarist regime of kulaks. They successfully established proletarian dictatorship in Russia. But there was another development in Ukraine. Nestor Makhno led the anarchist Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine. This anarchist group was opposed to any sort of state authority- even Bolsheviks. They had made remarkable impact but ultimately, the project was aborted by Bolsheviks led by Lenin. Similarly, there was a strong anarchist movement in Spain The Confderacion Nacional del Trabajao (Spanish confederation of anarcho syndicalist labor unions) made a remarkable growth. The organization had one million members. The anarchists had many armed fights with the police and fascists. This movement was crushed by General Franco's army who entered Barcelona on January 26, 1939. Similar anarchist movement appeared and vanished in Albania and Somalia.
We have witnessed anarchist tendencies in India as well. The anarchists may not always describe themselves as such. Their common trait is antagonism to establishment and law. The 'total revolution' by Jai Prakash Narain and the recent movements by Anna Hazare team have some element of anarchy. Another trait is attempt to destabilize the state institution. The suggestions like right to recall, reject all option are in fact originated from anarchist way of thinking that distrusts all state organs.
Anarchism and totalitarianism are extreme ideologies
In this connection, views of German philosopher Kant are very significant. He does not recognize 'anarchy' as a true civil state because law cannot be enforced in absence of state authority. He expressed his views in his 'Anthropology from a Pragmatic point of view. According to him, there are three elements of government- law, freedom and force. A state cannot exercise any authority in absence of force. This is anarchy. The law and freedom in such state cannot be enforced. This remains mere empty recommendation. A republic must have force with freedom and law. If you remove freedom, there is despotism. Force without freedom and law is barbarianism.
As a matter of fact, the ideology of anarchism is really an issue of individualism verses social or state control. Anarchy is complete individualist. This is also antagonistic to any state power. The antithesis to anarchy is totalitarianism. How far individual liberty can be snatched by state is well depicted in George Orwell 's 1984. The Stalinist regime in Soviet Union, Maoist rule in China and the Indira Gandhi regime during internal emergency are indicative of the risk to individual liberty in totalitarian and dictatorial regimes. Totalitarianism is total denial of individual liberty and freedom of expression whereas anarchism is total denial of any state control.
Anarchism in family, social, cultural, literary aspects of life
The ideology of anarchism is reflected in all walks of life- cultural, social, family, religious matter. The strict family discipline is seen as a violation of individual liberty. The break up of joint family, emergence of live in relation are pointer towards individualist trend. Free market economy and resentment against system of permit and quota indicate individualist tendency in economic activities. The dwindling authority of religion in human life is also as consequence of anarchist thought. Anarchism is antagonistic to authoritarianism in all fields.
Anarchism is a Utopian thought
It goes to credit of anarchists that they do not mean to usher in lawlessness and disorder. All they want is that there should be order, discipline and control without intervention of any state force- military or police. This presupposes that the citizens are by and large disciplined and law abiding. In fact, as long as citizens obey law and maintain self discipline, there is no role of state force. But this is too idealist. Man by nature is greedy. If state force is removed, there is every chance of the big fish swallowing the small. Even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that a nation can be successfully managed without intervention of law enforcing machinery, there will be need for state force for meeting external threats. Even if internal affairs are conducted smoothly, state force is desirable as a stand by arrangement. This is just like fire fighting precautions even if there is no outbreak of fire.
Middle course is desirable
There is need to balance individualism and freedom on one hand and social responsibility and state control on the other. When you live in society, you need to surrender some individual liberty and freedom. State is required as a referee and manager of national affairs. It is said that the best government is that which governs the least. There should be maximum autonomy, least laws and freedom of expression, thought and communication. In fact, most republics have such basic citizen rights enshrined in their constitution. However these rights are subject to overall common interest of whole society and nation. Self regulation and self discipline is best. But there will always be criminal elements in society. So, state law enforcement machinery is unavoidable.
Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this article on other bookmarking websites.