What Anarchy Is...

and more importantly, what it is not

---

from Wikipedia

Anarchism without adjectives is a pluralist tendency of anarchism that opposes sectarianism and advocates for cooperation between different anarchist schools of thought. First formulated by the Spanish anarchists Ricardo Mella and Fernando Tarrida del Mármol, as a way to bridge the ideological divide between the collectivists and communist factions, it was later adopted by the Italian communist Errico Malatesta and the American individualist Voltairine de Cleyre.

Anarchists without adjectives are suspicious of dogmatism and criticise prescriptions for a post-capitalist future, which they consider authoritarian. Instead they hold that a new society should be allowed to emerge spontaneously after a social revolution, which they believe could result in the experimental development of different economic forms in different locations. They thus tend to focus on taking action in the present, with contemporary forms outright rejecting utopianism.

---

Source: Gary D Barnett

It Is Time to Put to Bed the Lies and Misconceptions Associated With the Term “Anarchy”

June 22, 2023

By: Gary D. Barnett

“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”

~ Edward Abbey

What Anarchy Is:

I tire of constantly having to explain what anarchy is and what it is not. I tire of having to explain our language to those who seem never to have the time or inclination to study and learn it on their own, and without prejudice. Words mean things, and cannot be arbitrarily changed, or altered to suit a mood, an agenda, or be used improperly in order to create out of thin air, a State or political narrative, or to advance any particular agenda. To begin my comments, I will clarify that the word anarchy simply means no rule – no rulers, and therefore, no master or government; period. With that, we can begin to examine the complete bastardization, purposeful and misleading I might add, of this grand and liberating idea that is anarchy. From any moral perspective, no human has any ‘right’ whatsoever, to rule over or enslave another, so no ‘right’ exists that could allow one to delegate any ‘right’ to another to ‘legally’ rule or enslave, yet that is exactly what all government claims’ as its right’ to do.

First, it is imperative to stress that true anarchy is not a political system, a political party, a system of ‘rule’ for nation-states, and it cannot be achieved for extreme collectives, especially entire states and nations. It is simply independent rule of self without any force against another. This can be accomplished locally, or can be achieved by any freedom oriented group of individuals in a larger setting. This is why secession at every level from any master/slave relationship, such as all government and State authoritative structures, is critical if true freedom is desired. Anarchy is not for everyone, it is only appropriate for those who desire and understand personal responsibility, and are willing to practice self-rule and non-aggression. Anarchy can only exist in a free society, because everyone and every like-thinking group should be able to govern themselves, but also allow others to have any type of system or not, that they desire, so long as they never attempt to force their political system on others. That is an honest voluntary system.

In other words, all should be able to live their preferred life without interference from anyone or any entity, but leave all others to enjoy that same freedom. In an environment such as this, multiple political systems along with anarchy, could co-exist peacefully, so long as total freedom of the individual was the rule, and absolutely no force or aggression was present by any opposing organized political scheme. But in such an setting, no State or nation could survive as an overall political structure, since the State only exists due to extreme force, violence, and rule over others, which is the antithesis of freedom. Basically then, all states, nations, and ruling classes, would disappear if the value of anarchism were known and accepted by the masses.

If the country were split into anarchial units, such as could happen with mass and major secession, but the State survived in part, it is almost a certainty that conflict would result. This conflict would not be due to those who gained their freedom due to self-rule, but would always be pursued by the surviving State’s attempts to gain universal control. Therefore, since the State as a political structure is always aggressive, its elimination is necessary for liberty to reign supreme.

As Murray Rothbard explained in Libertarian Forum v. 1, p. 535:

… I define an anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.

What Anarchy Is Not:

If one is to go to most any modern dictionary, or look at dictionary synonyms, the list is common. The synonyms used to describe anarchy are: chaos, confusion, disorder, lawlessness, nihilism, rebellion, riot, turmoil, disorganization, insurrection, mutiny, revolution, tumult, mobocracy, mob rule, non-government, reign of terror, and unrest. Only one of these terms is correct; all the others are false, and have been intentionally manufactured to change the true meaning of anarchy. Non-government (no government) is the only correct synonym used, but all other descriptions are what most any would not only find if searching for the meaning of anarchy, but what they would also believe. Of course, few would search out the true meaning by going to the Greek root system of our language, and of course, that is by design as well. Why else do ‘public’ (government controlled ) schools (government indoctrination training centers) exist?

The control and manipulation of language has reached an offensive pinnacle in this ‘modern’ day and age. Much, if not a major portion of our language, has been decimated, altered, bastardized, and false meanings entrenched in the minds of the indoctrinated and brainwashed common proletariat. This is a designed plot meant to create dishonest revision and confusion, in order to more easily manage the collective herd. With the vast communication networks today, and a government-controlled massive media propaganda machine, this deceit concerning the meaning of things, has become a weapon against individual intellect, and therefore, the result has been the intentional dumbing down of society as a whole. No good can come from this deception by the State.

To understand what anarchy is not, can lead to an awakening by large numbers, as to what anarchy really is, but the lies perpetrated by the State will be aggressively defended by the entire ruling class and their corrupt and immoral enforcers called police and military. The most dangerous problem with society today is due to dependence on the State for nearly every aspect of their lives. Dependence leads to obedience, and obedience to a false authority such as government, leads directly to enslavement. This cannot be argued, and any assessment of our current tyrannical situation, can be traced precisely back to dependence on government instead of self. This paradigm is the exact opposite of any idea of  liberty, and the epitome of the destruction of the individual and self-rule.

Overview:

Anyone who seeks relief from totalitarian rule by use of any political process or system, is completely lost in a sea of insanity and madness. The epitome of rule lies in obedience and voluntary compliance by those subjects of the State. Those subjects are any and all who believe in, allow, approve, condone, worship, or participate in, any State system or government that survives by a top-down ruling structure. Any rule of one monarch or any oligarchy over any other is absolutely immoral. No politician, no political party, no government, no president, no congress, no ‘democracy,’ no ‘republic,’ or any other insane power and control system, can exist if freedom is to be achieved. Only anarchy, self-rule; of, by, and for the individual, can co-exist with liberty.

Voting therefore, whether for republican, democrat, independent, Libertarian, or any other flawed system relying on government, is the death knell of freedom, for it is an admission that a master or ruling class, is necessary in order for societal harmony and freedom to prevail. In fact, rule (government) is the very reason that chaos, theft of property, corruption, coercion, violence, incarceration, torture, murder, war, and collective enslavement, can and will always exist in any environment other than anarchy.

Remember, when you elect, select, or allow another human or group of humans, (supposed ‘representatives’) who are just like all others, except in the case of politicians, who are the worst of mankind, psychopathic in fact, to lord over and control you, you have given up your individuality and your freedom. If you accept this lot in life, you do not even deserve the freedom that you naturally possessed when you were born!

“Order derived through submission and maintained by terror is not much of a safe guaranty; yet that is the only ‘order’ that governments have ever maintained.”

~ Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

Copyright © 2023 GaryDBarnett.com

---

---

Source: Panarchy.org

Anarchy without Hyphens

By Karl Hess

originally published in 1980

Note

Karl Hess (1923-1994) was an American writer and libertarian activist. He joined the Libertarian Party and was the editor of its newspaper from 1986 to 1990. This short text first appeared in the magazine “The Dandelion” in 1980. It stresses the position already highlighted by a theoretician of the anarchist movement, J. A. Maryson (see: Quelques idées fausses sur l'Anarchisme) that anarchy means freedom and voluntary self-organization and no one in the anarchist movement should be interested in prescribing which of the various “isms” (capitalism, communism, mutualism, etc.) every anarchist should follow.
This message is very relevant now that the interest for anarchy is growing and that some people, who profess to be anarchists, are battling in order to promote very vigorously (and in some cases trying to impose) their own brand of anarchism, either anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism. To all of them the message from Karl Hess is: neither anarchist-communist nor anarchist-capitalist, because “there is no hyphen after the anarchist.”

---

There is only one kind of anarchist. Not two. Just one. An anarchist, the only kind, as defined by the long tradition and literature of the position itself, is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me to be reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority.

An anarchist is a voluntarist.

Now, beyond that, anarchists also are people and, as such, contain the billion-faceted varieties of human reference. Some are anarchists who march, voluntarily, to the Cross of Christ. Some are anarchists who flock, voluntarily, to the communities of beloved, inspirational father figures. Some are anarchists who seek to establish the syndics of voluntary industrial production. Some are anarchists who voluntarily seek to establish the rural production of the kibbutzim. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, seek to disestablish everything including their own association with other people, the hermits. Some are anarchists who deal, voluntarily, only in gold, will never co-operate, and swirl their capes. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, worship the sun and its energy, build domes, eat only vegetables, and play the dulcimer. Some are anarchists who worship the power of algorithms, play strange games, and infiltrate strange temples. Some are anarchists who only see the stars. Some are anarchists who only see the mud.

They spring from a single seed, no matter the flowering of their ideas. The seed is liberty. And that is all it is. It is not a socialist seed. It is not a capitalist seed. It is not a mystical seed. It is not a determinist seed. It is simply a statement. We can be free. After that it’s all choice and chance.

Anarchism, liberty, does not tell you a thing about how free people will behave or what arrangements they will make. It simply says that people have the capacity to make arrangements.

Anarchism is not normative. It does not say how to be free. It says only that freedom, liberty, can exist.

Recently, in a libertarian journal, I read the statement that libertarianism is an ideological movement. It may well be. In a concept of freedom, it, they, you, or we, anyone has the liberty to engage in any ideology, in anything that does not coerce others, denying their liberty. But anarchism is not an ideological movement. It is an ideological statement. It says that all people have the capacity for liberty. It says that all anarchists want liberty. And then it is silent. After the pause of that silence, anarchists then mount the stages of their own communities and history and proclaim their, not anarchism’s ideologies - they say how they, how they as anarchists, will make arrangements, describe events, celebrate life and work.

Anarchism is the hammer-idea, smashing the chains. Liberty is what results and, in liberty, everything else is up to the people and their ideologies. It is not up to THE ideology. Anarchism says, in effect, there is no such upper case, dominating ideology.

It says that people who live in liberty make their own histories and their own deals with and within it.

A person who describes a world in which everyone must or should behave in a single way, marching to a single drummer, is simply not an anarchist. A person who says that they prefer this way, even wishing all would prefer that way, but who then says all must decide, may certainly be an anarchist. Probably is. Liberty is liberty. Anarchism is anarchism. Neither is Swiss cheese or anything else. They are not property. They are not copyrighted. They are old, available ideas, part of human culture. They may be hyphenated but they are not in fact hyphenated. They exist on their own. People add hyphens, and supplemental ideologies.

I am an anarchist. I need to know that, and you should know it. After that, I am a writer and a welder who lives in a certain place, by certain lights, and with certain people. And that you may know also. But there is no hyphen after the anarchist.

Liberty, finally, is not a box into which people are forced. Liberty is a space in which people may live. It does not tell you how they will live. It says, eternally, only that we can.

---

---

Source: The Conscious Resistance

Towards Panarchy: Anarchy Without Adjectives

by Derrick Broze

originally published May 1, 2015

The following essay comes from the upcoming book “The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality”, by John Vibes and Derrick Broze.

Since “Anarchy” is one of the most maligned and misunderstood words in the English language, we are going to use a very simple definition that gets straight to the point for the purposes of this conversation. Simply put, Anarchy is a social arrangement in which there are no “rulers.” A ruler is defined as a person who claims unwanted authority over another life. Sadly, there cannot be a master without a slave, and by the nature of the relationship, the slave is physically and morally obligated to obey the commands of the master. Many people believe this relationship is the stitch that holds the fabric of civilized society together, while in reality, nothing has caused more pain and suffering in this world than corrupt authority and the concept of rulers and slaves.

These social relationships are the manifestations of the internal struggles that exist within us. The relationships between rulers and slaves, kings and subjects and even presidents and citizens do not exist in reality. They are mental constructs, which allow some people to harm and take advantage of others in the open while maintaining moral superiority. This is far more dangerous than the relationship of a common criminal to his victims– When someone attacks from a position of authority, with moral justification, his crimes will go unpunished, and his power will be amplified as a result. This is why police brutality and government corruption have been a problem since before ancient Rome. The relationship of authority breeds and encourages corruption. That being said, to achieve anarchy, or the abolition of masters and slaves, the solution is far more complicated than simply having a revolution and taking on the current establishment in physical combat, though some argue that this will be a part of the process. This has been attempted many times before and each time power has shifted hands, but the cycle of violence and slavery has continued.

This cycle has been in constant repetition throughout the generations. While power has shifted hands over time, very little has actually changed about how our species views the world, how we view one another, or how we view ourselves as individuals. This is not by mistake. Mountains of propaganda have been released over the centuries to reinforce the old ways and to keep people from thinking outside of the box.

Thankfully, there were a number of brave philosophers who recognized this dynamic and worked to construct a philosophy of anti-authoritarianism, which came to be known as “anarchism”. Later we will explore the anarchist themed writings of Lao-Tzu, from back in the 6th century. There are those who believe Christ was the first Anarchist. William Godwin, a writer in France during the 1790’s, is said to have been the first philosophical anarchist with his book Political Justice. The first person to publicly proclaim himself an Anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, with the publication of his seminal work What is Property? in 1840.

Around that time in America, anarchism was taking roots in the abolition movement. Many abolitionists recognized that slavery and government were essentially the same thing and that slavery will exist in one form or another as long as government exists. One of the main pioneers in American anarchist thought was outspoken entrepreneur and abolitionist, Lysander Spooner. Unlike many other anarchist philosophers in Europe, Spooner’s breed of anarchism was strictly individualistic, with a strong emphasis on markets and property rights. Spooner was also very critical of collectivist ideas like democracy and constitutionalism, so his work was heavily focused on deconstructing these concepts and showing them as deceptive forms of oppression.

Spooner thought of a way to put his philosophy into action by creating his own businesses that would directly compete with government services. One of his most groundbreaking entrepreneurial achievements was forming the “American Letter Company”, a letter and package delivery business that competed with the US Postal Service and proved that we don’t need the government to deliver mail. Hundreds of years later this strategy was identified by Samuel Edward Konkin III as “Agorism,” a philosophy of non-compliance that uses underground markets as a means of making the state obsolete. We will be exploring the potential of Agorism throughout this book.

As with many other popular schools of thought, anarchism has evolved and even splintered off over the years in various directions, creating a number of sub-sects within the philosophy. In the 1870’s, Europe saw a great divide between anarcho-communists and anarcho-collectivists. Around the same time, American anarchists were debating the pros and cons of individualist and communist-anarchist thought. As a result, anarchist philosophers in Europe and America began calling for “anarchism without adjectives”, which was essentially an acceptance of all those who believe in self-governance and a lack of coercion regardless of their particular economic solution. More recently, libertarian activist and writer Karl Hess discussed the need for what he called “Anarchism Without Hyphens.” Hess was well-known for working in and out of political circles, with Anarchists on the left and the right. In 1980 he outlined his argument for Anarchy Without Hyphens.

“There is only one kind of anarchist. Not two. Just one. An anarchist, the only kind, as defined by the long tradition and literature of the position itself, is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me to be reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority.

An anarchist is a voluntarist.

Now, beyond that, anarchists also are people and, as such, contain the
billion-faceted varieties of human reference. Some are anarchists who
march, voluntarily, to the Cross of Christ. Some are anarchists who
flock, voluntarily, to the communities of beloved, inspirational father
figures. Some are anarchists who seek to establish the syndics of
voluntary industrial production. Some are anarchists who voluntarily
seek to establish the rural production of the kibbutzim. Some are
anarchists who, voluntarily, seek to disestablish everything including
their own association with other people, the hermits. Some are
anarchists who deal, voluntarily, only in gold, will never co-operate, and
swirl their capes. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, worship the sun
and its energy, build domes, eat only vegetables, and play the dulcimer.
Some are anarchists who worship the power of algorithms, play strange
games, and infiltrate strange temples. Some are anarchists who only see
the stars. Some are anarchists who only see the mud.

They spring from a single seed, no matter the flowering of their ideas.
The seed is liberty. And that is all it is. It is not a socialist seed. It is not a
capitalist seed. It is not a mystical seed. It is not a determinist seed. It is
simply a statement. We can be free. After that it’s all choice and chance.
Anarchism, liberty, does not tell you a thing about how free people will
behave or what arrangements they will make. It simply says that people
have the capacity to make arrangements.

Anarchism is not normative. It does not say how to be free. It says only
that freedom, liberty, can exist.”

We understand that because of it’s anti-capitalist roots, many Anarchist thinkers on the left might say that Anarchism without Adjectives or Hyphens remains anti-capitalist and thus schools of thought like anarchocapitalism should be excluded. On the other hand, there are many market anarchists and anarcho-capitalists that point to the coercion that is inherent in democracy and socialism, showing that these ideas are essentially nothing more than government. In short, there is a great deal of debate about who is a “real anarchist” and who isn’t among anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists.

There is truth to both of these viewpoints. Although market activity is peaceful and voluntary, the social system that has traditionally been called “capitalism” is far from a free and voluntary market. Capitalism has used state power as its primary mechanism of operation, so it is not fair to associate this term with a free and open market. Likewise, most traditional democratic and socialist societies have been ruled by a very few rich people, despite the notion that these philosophies are exercised for and by the common people. Even the more egalitarian democratic societies sometimes fall victim to the tyranny of the majority and citizens are forced to live at the whim of their neighbors and change their lives because a vote was held somewhere. Capitalism, communism and socialism are all loaded terms that have so many different definitions to different people that they are nearly impossible to communicate about. There is no hope in “saving” or “reclaiming” any of these words. They have been tainted by state influence for generations, searing their assumed definitions into the minds of billions of people. In advocating for an entirely new and different way of life, using the names of old social systems and old ways of doing things seems counterproductive. Of course, there is value in bringing the old terms into the conversation for the sake of comparison, but social philosophies by the names of capitalism and socialism have been around for centuries, and have been government-based economic systems.

To Continue Reading order your copy today!

---

Further info:

The Center for a Stateless Society

About

The Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) is an anarchist think-tank and media center. Its mission is to explain and defend the idea of vibrant social cooperation without aggression, oppression, or centralized authority.

In particular, it seeks to enlarge public understanding and transform public perceptions of anarchism, while reshaping academic and movement debate, through the production and distribution of market anarchist media content, both scholarly and popular, the organization of events, and the development of networks and communities, and to serve, along with the Alliance of the Libertarian Left, Mutualism Co-op, Non-Serviam Media, and the Molinari Institute, as an institutional home for left market anarchists.

---

---

---

Ways to connect

Telegram: @JoelWalbert

Email: thetruthaddict@tutanota.com

The Truth Addict Telegram channel

Hard Truth Soldier chat on Telegram

Mastodon: @thetruthaddict@noagendasocial.com

Session: 05e7fa1d9e7dcae8512eed0702531272de14a7f1e392591432551a336feb48357c

Odysee: TruthAddict

Donations (#Value4Value)

Buy Me a Coffee (One time donations as low as $1)

Bitcoin:

bc1qe8enf89g667dy890j2lnt637xqlt9wvc9f07un (on chain)

https://strike.me/nrn108

nemesis@getalby.com (lightning)

joelw@fountain.fm (lightning)

+wildviolet72C (PayNym)

Monero:

43E8i7Pzv1APDJJPEuNnQAV914RqzbNae15UKKurntVhbeTznmXr1P3GYzK9mMDnVR8C1fd8VRbzEf1iYuL3La3q7pcNmeN