Anarchism is a combination of both general principles and fundamental concepts that provide for the abolition of the state and the exclusion from the life of society of any political, economic, spiritual or moral power, and practical methods for implementing these concepts.
Etymologically, ἀν and ἄρχή are Greek words, together they literally mean "without dominion". “Arche” is power, and power in the understanding not of an organization as such, but in the sense of domination, imposition, control from above. "Anarchy" means "without power, domination and violence over society" - something like this word should be translated into Russian.
Philosophical basis of anarchism
There is no single philosophy of anarchism as such. Anarchist theorists throughout the history of this movement have ultimately converged only on the idea of the need to remove power from people's lives. Anarchists may share the same goals and ideas about the path to them, but the philosophical background and argumentation may be completely different. It is enough to simply compare the views of at least a few of the main theorists of anarchism.
For example, Bakunin gravitated toward the neo-Hegelian tradition, although he also integrated elements of other philosophical views. Kropotkin, on the contrary, called himself a positivist, although he had little to do with positivism in the traditional sense of the word. He proceeded from a philosophical and ethical idea of life, rather a biological one: he paid much attention to the criticism of social Darwinism with its praise of the “struggle for existence”, opposing it with a tradition that goes back to Lamarck and involves adaptation to nature and harmony with it.
If we look at the positions of anarchists of the second half of the 20th century or those who took part in the 1968 movement, then we will meet supporters of a wide variety of philosophical views: adherents of the Frankfurt School, existentialism, situationism, supporters of the views of Michel Foucault, and so on ... But all the anarchists mentioned shared one and the same goal - the approval and dissemination of the anarchist model of society and the idea of a revolutionary path to transition to it. Kropotkin tried to make a heroic grand sweep: he set out to formulate "scientific anarchism," as he called it, although it is doubtful that such a edifice could actually be erected. So it would probably be wrong to talk about a unified philosophy of anarchism.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that, one way or another, all types of anarchism have a common philosophical basis. And it originated long before anarchism itself - in the European Middle Ages, when a famous philosophical dispute flared up among the scholastics between nominalists and realists, that is, between those who believed that general concepts exist in reality (by realists), and by those who believed that only the individual, the separate, really exists, and general concepts are only a general designation, the totality of the individual, the individual (nominalists).
If we transfer this dispute to the problem of human existence, then the main question of all philosophy will not be the question of the primacy of matter or consciousness. It will sound differently: the individual person, individuality, or some kind of community, into which a person has been included, perhaps from his very birth and whose laws he is obliged to obey, is primary.
Anarchism and liberalism
Two seemingly diametrically opposed ideologies, such as anarchism and liberalism, in the matter of the primacy of a person or society, proceed from the same premise: for them, the human personality is primary. But then the main differences begin, because next question How do these personalities relate to each other? After all, a person does not live by himself, he is still a social being. And since he lives in society, he must somehow build his relationships with other personalities.
What are the principles of these relations? This is where anarchism and liberalism diverge in the most radical way. A liberal will say that a person is selfish: people by nature are such that they will build relationships on the principle of hierarchy, domination, and inevitably the strong by nature will suppress the weaker in all human relations. Therefore, for liberalism, a certain hierarchy is natural by nature and will inevitably be established in human society. Thus, liberals, however critical they may be of the state, are essentially "archists" as well, i.e. supporters of domination. Even if it is not carried out in a state form, but if every person is a state for himself, then even an extreme liberal will eventually accept such a form of domination.
The anarchist, on the other hand, proceeds from a different principle. He believes that all people, precisely by virtue of their very existence, initially have equal rights to life - already because they came into this world, although they were not asked whether they wanted it or not. And if someone is stronger, and someone is weaker, someone is more talented in some areas, someone is inferior in some areas, then this is not the fault and merit of the people themselves who are characterized by these properties, and such are the circumstances, some prevailing life situation. It should not affect the right of these people to life, to equal opportunities to live in harmony with each other and with nature and to satisfy their needs on an equal footing.
Anarchism in this sense does not average man; it is not the notion that all people should live the same way because everyone has the same needs. Anarchism stands for the equality of diversity - this is its main principle. That is why anarchists believe, unlike liberals, that people can unite with each other and form societies not on the basis of domination over each other, but on the basis of interaction, rational agreement and harmonious arrangement of relations with each other and with the outside world. This is precisely the philosophical basis that will be common to all real anarchists, regardless of what philosophical schools they belong to and what philosophical views they hold.
Freedom in anarchism
The most important for anarchism is the concept of human. What is freedom for anarchism? there is a great many. All of them can be divided into the concepts of "freedom from" and "freedom for". "Freedom from" is, for example, what we are accustomed to understand as civil liberties. This is freedom from prohibitions, from restrictions, from persecution, from repression, from the inability to express one's point of view, from the inability to do something. Of course, such freedom is recognized by anarchists, but it is, so to speak, “negative freedom”.
But, unlike liberalism and any democracy in general, anarchists do not stop there. They also have ideas about positive freedom - “freedom for”. This is freedom of self-realization - an opportunity for a person to realize his inner potential, which is inherent in him, without external restrictions. This is an opportunity to freely build your own own life in harmonious harmony with the same free personalities. That is, for an anarchist, freedom is not a thing that ends where the freedom of another begins.
Freedom in the view of anarchism is inseparable. The freedom of one person presupposes the freedom of another person and cannot be limited by it. It turns out that the freedom of each is a condition for the freedom of all. And the freedom of all, in turn, is a condition for the freedom of everyone. Self-realization, the ability to agree, ensuring the course of development of society - this is the basis for positive anarchist freedom. In this sense, any anarchist is a bit of a voluntarist. After all, he proceeds from the fact that the development of society can be determined by the agreed decisions of the people themselves, and not by “laws” external to them.
Anarchists generally believe that the iron laws of history do not exist. There should be nothing that absolutely will not depend on the human will. Anarchists believe that the development of society as a whole, if we are talking about the rules of its functioning, depends only and exclusively on the people themselves. That is, if people themselves agree on how society should develop, they will be able to do whatever they want. Naturally, some restrictions are possible, say, dictated by nature, and anarchism does not deny this. But in general, anarchists, one way or another, recognize collective voluntarism.
Freedom equality Brotherhood
All the principles of anarchism fit into the triad: freedom, equality, fraternity. However, although the French Revolution proclaimed this, the reality of the same modern France, even though it wrote this motto on its coat of arms, is fundamentally different from the content of the proclaimed principles.
Modern society believes that, first of all, there is “freedom from”, and its main content is freedom from restrictions on entrepreneurship. It argues that equality is, first of all, equality before the law, and nothing more, and brotherhood is something completely abstract, rather reminiscent of the commandments of Jesus Christ, or in general a formula devoid of practical meaning. After all modern society based on competition, and if a person is a competitor to a person, then he can hardly be called a brother.
Although the Great French Revolution it was not the anarchists who did it and it was not they who formulated the slogan, it is precisely the anarchist ideal that this triad most closely corresponds to, and not each of its parts separately, but precisely in the aggregate and interconnection of these concepts. In anarchism, freedom does not exist without equality. As the anarchist theorist Bakunin said, "freedom without equality is a privilege and injustice, and equality without freedom is a barracks." Freedom without equality is the freedom of the unequal, that is, the building of a hierarchy. Equality without freedom is the equality of slaves, but it is unrealistic, because if there are slaves, then there is a master who is by no means equal to them. Genuine brotherhood is incompatible with competition, which results from freedom, understood as freedom of enterprise, and equality before the law. In anarchism, freedom and equality do not contradict each other. These are some of the fundamental principles of anarchism.
Anarchism and politics
Anarchists usually reject politics, saying that it is based on the notion of the domineering structure of society. Some of them prefer to call themselves anti-politicians. The reason why one-man power, be it monarchical or dictatorial, is rejected is quite simple. As Mark Twain wisely put it: absolute monarchy would be the best form social structure if the monarch were the smartest, most kind person on earth and lived forever, but that is impossible.” Despotism is no good, because the despot has his own interests and in the name of these interests he will act. People under a despotic system are not free and therefore cannot be accepted by anarchism.
Democracy has another problem. At first glance, anarchism should not deny democracy, because democracy is the power of the people and the people themselves decide how society should develop. What is the problem? Herbert Marcuse once said: "The freedom to choose a master does not cancel the existence of masters and slaves." Democracy is also "cracy", it is also "arche". Democracy is also the power and domination of man over man, that is, a society of unequals.
Any representative democracy assumes that the people are competent only in choosing their leaders. Next, the leaders propose this or that program of action, which the people will approve in the elections by voting for this or that party, after which this group of competent persons receives the right to govern society on behalf of society itself.
Sovereignty is indivisible - this is the main provision of any theory of the state. A higher body can always overturn the decision of a lower one. The first position of such theories is representativeness, management on behalf of people. The second position is centralism, that is, decision-making is not from the bottom up, but from the top down, not by collecting and joining grassroots impulses, but by formulating national tasks. These two points are characteristic of any representative democracy, and anarchism denies them.
Followers of anarchism oppose this with anarchy, that is, universal self-government as a system. In fact, the concept of "anarchy" can be replaced by the concept of "self-government". No decision that affects the interests of this or that group of people can and should not be made against the will of these people and without these people taking part in the decision-making. This is the principle of self-government.
For different periods the existence of anarchism as a social trend, the institution of self-government was called differently. We are talking about general meetings of those people who are directly affected by this problem. It is now customary in most anarchist groups to refer to such gatherings as assemblies.
Anarchists often face this problem: their terminology is not always "translated" into the dominant terminology of modern society, and it is necessary to select concepts that are close in meaning. Therefore, some anarchists say that they are in favor of "direct democracy", although this is wrong, because democracy is already "cracy", power, domination.
The anarcho-syndicalist Rudolph Rocker once defined power as "the monopoly of decision-making," just as property is the monopoly of possession. If there is a monopoly on making decisions that concern other people, then this is already power, even if the decision is made by a majority of votes and sealed by a referendum. In this sense, anarchists are not supporters of direct democracy. They are supporters of self-government.
Anarchism and anarchy
Usually the words "anarchy" and "anarchism" in the mind of the layman are associated with violence, with the forcible coercion of people to live according to some pattern dictated by them. In fact, this opinion is far from the truth. Anarchism proceeds primarily from the freedom of the human person, and, consequently, no one can be forced to be its supporter. Of course, anarchists count on the fact that sooner or later the majority of people will share their ideals, that they will accept this model. But anarchism is a purely voluntary thing, without any coercion to accept it.
There is an understanding of anarchy as chaos. Periodically, any conflicts are called anarchy: lack of order, power, discussion of problems. In other words, anarchy is associated with chaos and violence. This is one of the misinterpretations that have little to do with anarchist theory. Such myths were largely created by opponents of anarchism to discredit this idea.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who himself was not an anarchist and considered this ideal unrealizable, nevertheless gave a completely fair definition: "Anarchy is not chaos, it is order without domination." This is the most accurate definition of the concept today. We are talking about a model that assumes a self-determined, self-governed existence of people in society without coercion and violence against them.
All supporters state organization societies - from radical communist statesmen "on the left" to Nazis "on the right" - "archaists", that is, "rulers", supporters of the existence of man's power over man. Anarchists, as followers of a stateless form of organization of society, form as wide a spectrum as there is a wide variety of statesmen. Adherents of very different currents call themselves anarchists, and they represent anarchism itself in different ways.
These may be supporters of market relations and their opponents; those who believe that an organization is needed and those who do not recognize any organizations; those who participate in elections of municipal authorities, and opponents of any elections in general; supporters of feminism and those who believe that this is a secondary problem that will automatically be solved by the transition to anarchism, and so on. It is clear that some of these positions are closer to the real principles of anarchism, which will be discussed later, while others - marketers, supporters of elections, and so on - will be "unified" with real anarchism only by the rejection of the state and similar terminology.
Self-rule in anarchism
A community is a collection of residents of a microdistrict, quarter, employees of some enterprise, and so on. That is, any group of people that somehow faces some kind of problem or wants to do something is called, from the point of view of anarchists, to make a decision at their general meeting. Different anarchists have different attitudes towards the decision-making process, but all, one way or another, ideally strive for the principle of consensus. This is necessary so that people can have the opportunity to calmly discuss all issues - without pressure, without haste, without pressure to come to a decision that will suit everyone to one degree or another ... But this is far from always possible.
Not all issues can reach a unanimous decision. In case of disagreement, different options are possible. IN real life we can refer to the experience of cooperatives, communes, Israeli kibbutzim... Here, for example, is one of the possibilities: cardinal issues are decided by consensus, minor ones - by voting. Again, there are different options here. The minority may still agree to comply with the decision against which it opposed - unless, of course, its disagreement is of a very fundamental nature. If it still wears it, then it can freely leave the community and create its own. After all, one of the principles of anarchist communities is the freedom to join it and the freedom to leave it, that is, no one can force a person or a group of people to be in this community. If they disagree on something, they are free to leave.
If there are any serious disagreements, then the majority makes some kind of temporary decision for a certain period. A year later, the question is raised again, the position of people during this time may change, and people will be able to come to some kind of consensus.
There is another option: the majority and the minority carry out their decisions, but the minority speaks only for themselves, that is, there is complete autonomy for any group, including any group within the anarchist community.
Anarchism postulates self-government not only at the grassroots level. This principle is designed to operate "from the bottom to the top" and to cover in one way or another the entire society. This principle of self-government does not exist without a second principle, equally fundamental, which is called federalism.
The anarchist community as the basis of human society cannot be too numerous: the general decision-making of the assembly within the framework of large structures is difficult to imagine. Even the ancient Greeks said that the policy should be "foreseeable". Therefore, the principle of self-government is inextricably linked with the principle of federalism.
What is federalism modern understanding? The statesmen say that this is such a principle of state structure, in which the various parts of the state can choose their own organs of power, subject to general laws. For anarchists, federalism is something else. It is bottom-up decision making by matching impulses that come from below. According to this principle, the “top” cannot override the decision of the “bottom”. The "top" (more precisely, the "center") does not order, does not dispose - it only coordinates those decisions that come "from below", from the assemblies. In fact, there is no “up” or “down” anymore. There is only coordination "from below", matching of decisions.
If there is a specific issue that affects the interests of a given community and which this community can resolve on its own, without resorting to outside help from other communities, then such an issue is resolved absolutely autonomously and sovereignly by this community itself. No one here can tell her how to resolve this issue.
If the issue concerns others, goes beyond the purely local framework, then it requires coordination and joint efforts of several communities. These communities must agree on decisions among themselves and come to some kind of common opinion. How? This happens with the help of delegates who will be elected by the general meetings. The delegate has nothing to do with the deputy. He is elected on a one-time basis to carry out a specific assignment in order to convey to the conference of delegates from all interested communities the point of view of his group. The delegate himself does not decide anything and has no right to violate the decision of the meeting that sent him. Each local community can either accept the decision agreed upon at the conference or reject it. In this sense, the anarchist society will be different from the modern one, which strives for the fastest and most effective decision-making. Elaboration, common understanding and involvement of all is much more important than speed.
Anarchism and economics
Most anarchists are radical opponents of both the market economy on the one hand and central planning on the other. Anarchism presupposes a completely different principle of economics, production and satisfaction of needs. The same two postulates of self-government work: the autonomy of the “grassroots” community and federalism. If a community is capable of producing a product for its own consumption on its own, then it must do so without any interference.
At one time, the anarchist theorist Kropotkin formulated another principle. For the modern economy, production is primary, consumption is secondary, because people cannot consume more than what they produce. In an anarchist society, the question is put differently: consumption guides production. Needs are identified first real people. That is, “planning” is taking place, but it is again about planning “from below”, about establishing what is really needed not by an abstract market, but by quite specific, living people. And they decide it themselves, not specialists and bureaucrats. Here is such a summary list of what the residents of the community need, which is brought to the manufacturers as a kind of “long-term order”.
Every community has its own production facilities. They are also self-governing and autonomous. This "long-term order" is an "order" to them. The outcome of this "planning" is a summary sheet of how much product is to be produced, what can be met locally, what requires the involvement of or agreement with other communities, and what can be made available to them to meet their needs. In this federalist way, communities "dock" with others at the level at which it is needed. The question of money in such an anarchist society disappears, because exactly what is needed for consumption is produced. This is no longer trade and exchange, but distribution.
For anarchism, the ecological aspect is also important. There is even a special trend called eco-anarchism. In general, the environmental agenda has taken an important place in anarchist theory since the 1970s. However, in a sense, this follows from the very foundations of the anarchist doctrine, because if anarchists promote harmony between people, then it is natural that they will promote harmony with the outside world.
Anarchism and culture
Many authors have tried to explore the hypothetical reorganization of the economy, which will reduce the working day to four or five hours due to the fact that people will be released who work in non-environmental industries or are engaged today in those activities that would not be needed under an anarchist system: trade, management, finance , war and police service. If work time decreases, then the free increases, that is, the conditions for self-realization and cultural activities. In this area, anarchism offers nothing rigidly defined. The sphere of culture is a sphere of complete autonomy. Only the tastes of the people themselves, their personal predilections, operate here. If people have completely different cultural preferences, then it is better for them to separate.
Any form of equal cohabitation and any form of sexuality may be allowed as long as it concerns only the relationship of two people. But BDSM practices, according to the logic of anarchism, should be treated negatively, because domination in one form or another, even playful, is unacceptable for anarchism.
Anarchism and ethics
There is a well-known formula, which was proclaimed by the Jesuits and repeated by the Bolsheviks: the end justifies the means. For anarchists, it is absolutely unacceptable. The anarchist believes that the end cannot contradict the means, and the means cannot contradict the end. This is the very foundation of the anarchist ethic. On the principles of harmony, anarchists propose to build relationships in their own community and with the outside world. It is no coincidence that Kropotkin wrote a book on ethics all his life.
Anarchists oppose ethics to law. Why do anarchists criticize the system of laws? The fact is that any law is reinforced by the inevitability of punishment for its violation on the right of revenge appropriated by the state. An anarchist can still understand the principle of "grassroots revenge", but the presence of a professional institution for the execution of punishments destabilizes and poisons society itself. From a psychological point of view, there unhealthy situation: human society turns out to be based on fear and relies on it.
Anarchism prefers the prevention of wrongdoing. If it is nevertheless committed, it is necessary to evaluate each specific case, and not be guided by a single law for all, regardless of what caused and explains this or that offense. It is possible that if a person has done something absolutely terrible and is considered dangerous to others, he will be expelled from the community. He will become an outcast - like a medieval excommunication. Most anarchists recognize the right to self-defense of themselves and the community, although pacifist anarchists, for example, do not agree with this.
The same people who live in these communities will have to defend themselves. This involves the replacement of the army and police by a volunteer people's militia.
In discussions about anarchist society, the problem of the psychological unpreparedness of today's world for such a model of a free and harmonious social order is often discussed. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman called modern society an agoraphobia society, that is, people have a fear of general meetings, an inability to resolve issues and act together, and an inability to reach consensus. People prefer to wait passively for others to solve their problems for them: the state, officials, owners... In an anarchist society, on the contrary, a person must be very active, ready for dialogue and independent action. It is not easy. But there is no other way. Otherwise, the world may expect the collapse of a social human as a sociobiological species and ecological catastrophy. The path to the free world is not predetermined. It requires a revolution in consciousness and a social revolution.
Anarchist social revolution- this is the elimination of obstacles on the way to such a solidary community and the restoration of society from the modern chaotic atomized set of disconnected individuals. Revolution in anarchism does not mean a change of governments and ruling persons, not a seizure of power, not a political act in narrow sense words, but a deep social upheaval that covers the period from the beginning of self-organization of people from below in the struggle for their specific rights and interests to the spread of new free structures of self-organization to the whole society. In the course of this process, the appropriation of all the functions of the state by a new, parallel emerging, free and self-organized community takes place. But the ultimate goal is unchanged - the emergence of an anarchist society.
The name of the current comes from the Greek term meaning anarchy, anarchy. The idea of a stateless structure of society, which arose in ancient times, was substantiated in 1793 by the English writer W. Godwin in the book "A Study on Political Justice". It was in this book that W. Godwin formulated the concept of "society without a state." There is individualist and collectivist anarchism.
The founder of individualist anarchism is considered to be M. Stirner, who outlined his theory in the book The Only One and His Property (1845). Instead of the state, he put forward the idea of a "union of egoists." Such an alliance should, according to Stirner, organize the exchange of goods between independent commodity producers, ensure mutual respect and preserve the uniqueness of each individual.
These ideas were developed by the French philosopher and economist P.-J. Proud Don (1809-1864). He considered the creation of the state by people not as a triumph of their reason (like liberals), but as a consequence of ignorance and superstitions rooted in the minds of people. According to Proudhon, the main trend of social development and the basis of justice is not freedom (as with liberals), but the equality of people. The implementation of equality is hindered by state power and laws. And since “the power of man over man is oppression”, then “ highest degree The perfection of society lies in the combination of order with anarchy, that is, in anarchy. With the spread of enlightenment, people, according to Proudhon, will increasingly see the discrepancy between the power of man over man to achieve equality and, in the end, will destroy the state that embodies this power in a revolutionary way. Unlike conservatives, supporters of a strong state and its institutions, anarchism professes anti-statism (anti-statehood), denying not only power and law, but also family, religion and traditions. In Proudhon's model of future anarchy, there is no central authority, and individuals and groups own absolute freedom enter into both economic and non-economic relations, and the contracting parties themselves must control the implementation of the agreements. As you can see, here anarchism adheres to the line of liberals, but brings it to the point of absurdity, because how is it possible to control an agreement without laws, courts, police.
At the end of the 60s. 19th century the ideas of individualist anarchism are supplanted by the teachings of collectivist anarchism.
The leading theorist of this trend was the Russian revolutionary M. A. Bakunin (1814-1876). He saw the main evil of society in the state. He considered it an apparatus of violence and advocated its revolutionary destruction. The ideal of a non-state structure, according to Bakunin, is a "free federation" of peasant and workers' associations. Such associations collectively own land and tools, organize production and distribute the products of labor according to the contribution of each.
The development of the ideas of collectivist anarchism was continued by P. A. Kropotkin (1842-1921). He formulated the "biosociological law of mutual assistance", which, in his opinion, determines the desire of people to cooperate, and not to fight in natural conditions. But the natural conditions of existence are impossible as long as private property and the state exist. The revolutionary destruction of these institutions will allow the law of mutual assistance to fully manifest itself, which will create conditions for the formation of federations of free communes based on communist principles of production and distribution.
Thus, if the philosophy of the initial stage of anarchism was based on individualism, then the "developed" anarchism is mainly based on collectivist ideology.
Collectivist anarchism has common philosophical and social roots with social democracy and communism. He is especially close to communism, with which he is related by the similarity of positions regarding non-commodity production and non-monetary distribution of products, communist life and the destruction of private property. Not without reason M. A. Bakunin joined the Marxist First International in 1868 and, although he fought against K. Marx and F. Engels on tactical issues, their theoretical positions largely coincided.
The difference between anarchism and communism is that anarchism demands the speedy "abolition" of the state, while the communists talk about its gradual "withering away". Anarchists are in favor of an economic revolution, since they are trying to “abolish” the entire political sphere of society: power, the state and politics itself. Communists consider their first task to be the revolutionary seizure of political power.
The second distinguishing feature of collectivist, communist anarchism from communism is the struggle of anarchists for "freedom of the individual." Even in communes, anarchists believe, it is necessary to ensure the autonomy of the individual, the preservation of his individuality.
Anarchist ideas spread in late XIX V. in France, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and the USA. But all the attempts of the anarchists to raise the masses for the revolutionary destruction of the state ended in failure. In Russia, the ideas of anarchism took particularly deep roots after October 1917, in the conditions of a strong weakening of state power. At this time, the cooperation of anarchists and communists in the fight against monarchists, constitutional democrats and social democrats, which formed the basis of white movement. With the strengthening of the power of the communists, the anarchists were destroyed; an insignificant part was "re-educated" as communists.
At the end of XIX - beginning of XX century. anarcho-syndicalism emerged. Its authors - the leaders of the French labor movement F. Pelloutier, E. Pouget, J. Sorel and others - replaced the associations of M. Bakunin and the communes of P. Kropotkin with syndicates (French - trade unions). It is the trade unions, according to theorists of anarcho-syndicalism, who should not only lead the struggle for the destruction of the “bourgeois state”, but also be the basis for the future structure of society, which will be economic, not political. Anarcho-syndicalism, like other varieties of anarchism, rejects parliamentary activity, the party system - in general, any political activity including an armed uprising. Anarcho-syndicalism orients workers towards the so-called "direct action" - the economic pressure of trade unions on the state and entrepreneurs. The forms of such action can be different: strikes, boycotts, demonstrations. They are aimed both at partially improving the economic situation of the workers, and, most importantly, at preparing a general economic strike, which will have to carry out a revolutionary upheaval in society, the ideal of which anarcho-syndicalism sees in a federation of syndicates, in which the trade unions will take over the functions of management. production and distribution of products on socialist principles.
In Russia, the so-called "workers' opposition" in the RCP(b) experienced an anarcho-syndicalist influence in 1920-1922. (A. G. Shlyapnikov, A. M. Kollontai, S. P. Medvedev and others), who denied the leading role of the RCP (b) in society and demanded the transfer of control national economy trade unions.
At present, the influence of anarchism in the labor movement is small. Scattered anarchist organizations and groups abandoned the idea of rousing the broad masses to the revolutionary struggle and switched to terror tactics against the "ruling class". Such terror, but the thoughts of anarchist theorists, should, in the end, destabilize society and cause mass revolutionary uprisings.
IN modern Russia the ideas of anarchism have a certain influence. In May 1989, the so-called Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists (CAS) was created, which, in theoretical terms, shares the ideas of M. A. Bakunin. She does not say anything about the number of her ranks, but, judging by the actions carried out, the influence of this organization, as well as anarchist ideas, on the modern Russian society slightly.
political anarchism public
Anarchy claims that society can and should be organized without the use of power. To do this, anarchism defines the following necessary principles.
The first principle is the absence of power. The absence of power implies that in the anarchist community 1 person, or a group of people, will not impose their opinion, desire and will on other people. This implies the absence of a hierarchy and representative democracy, just as let's say authoritarian rule. Anarchism excludes all kinds of calls to build a community of a totalitarian type, in which all spheres of human life are totally controlled and regulated almost to the point of complete uniformity. Anarchism of the individual is aimed, focused on the ultimate development of any individual separately and approaches the solution of the problems and needs of individuals personally, when this is possible in a particular situation.
Anarchists believe that the principle of real grassroots initiative should be introduced to the place of power, when people themselves, collectively, begin to solve social issues, and personally (in the absence of harm to others) their individual issues. Because of the solution of all problems that concern society in general, as well as the implementation of plans that affect broad sections of society, the initiative must be built from the bottom up, but not vice versa, as is the case in the modern world.
The next principle is an ideal society that denies any coercion. A society without coercion means a refusal to impose one's own ideas and will on others, even if they work in the interests not of individuals, but because of the whole society. Participation in socially important actions and plans should be motivated by individual interest, the manifestation of individual responsibility to society, and not under external pressure.
Another important principle is freedom of association. Freedom of association implies that in a society organized on anarchist principles, all kinds of associations have every chance to work with the goal of satisfying all social needs. Groups of people can create any social structures that have the same rights to influence the future of society on the principle of independent associations.
Another important principle is the principle of mutual assistance. Help is a synonym joint work. When people work together, their work is noticeably more successful than when anyone works alone. Collective interaction is a shortcut to achieving an important result with as little effort as possible. This principle is related to the next principle.
The next principle is variety. Diversity is the key to the most fulfilling life for each individual that makes up society. We can say that diversity is the most environmentally friendly form of organization, because suggests an individualized approach to production and consumption, and, likewise, anarchists believe that public organizations most perfectly satisfy the interests of people in those cases when they are likely to form them at their own discretion. When human life based on diversity, people interact more naturally and directly. In addition to all this, diversity makes it increasingly difficult for individuals to control. On the other hand, one cannot idealize the concept of diversity, because it is also likely in the capitalist one, which gives rise to the notorious “consumer society”, which, on the contrary, simplifies the exercise of power by the state and capitalism.
The following principles of brotherhood and equality. means the lack of a hierarchy, the same for all the ability to meet their own personal needs in art, creativity, products of labor, and also the same access to all social benefits, such as the latest achievements of science and technology.
Brotherhood assumes that all people are considered equal, that the interests and needs of some cannot be more important or more significant than the interests and needs of other people.
