Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

In the minds of the general public, anarchism stands for an endorsement of anarchy, which is thought by many to mean a state of chaotic lawlessness. It would therefore seem to be diametrically opposed to the affirmation of community. In fact, anarchism refers to two absolute, apparently contradictory but complementary virtues toward which a good life must strive: the integrity of the individual human conscience, resistant to the dictates of both institutional power and the mob; and the dedication of the individual to the general good. Some anarchists have stressed only the individualist half of that formula, but a full anarchism looks to a community of workers and citizens who freely give themselves to the common well-being. A perfect communal anarchist is no more possible than a perfect exemplar of the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, but like the Beatitudes, communal anarchism offers an ideal toward which society and its members in all their fallibility can aim. This entry examines several of the ideas and problems associated with anarchism as they have presented themselves in the last two centuries, when anarchism became identifiable as a political ideology.

Anarchism as an Ideology

When not used as a term connoting chaos and violence, anarchism is often narrowed to mean only the rejection of government. Insofar as the Greek word archos(“ruler”) suggests a monarch or a parliament and the prefix an means “no,” the definition of anarchism as repudiation only of government makes sense. But for anarchists from the nineteenth century onward, denunciation of government has been a mere subsection of their proposition that no institution and no collectivity can have an inherent right to power and command over any other—even if it be the will of the entire human race, save one, against that single one. The temporary power to restrain a particular wrongdoer is another matter, but that must not be confused with assigning the restrainer an inalienable authority to control. For instance, the domination that the white majority in the United States has exercised over its black minority, especially in the days of slavery, is as repulsive to the anarchist ethos as is rule by a czar. Nothing less than a civil war brought the white majority to end slavery, nearly ninety years after proclaiming an ideology of freedom. So in rejecting the majority as a guarantor of liberty, anarchists show good judgment.

Of all the institutions that anarchists have opposed, probably the most encompassing is not the state but property. Property (defined and supported by the state, to be sure) is deeply embedded in the popular mind—especially in majority-run republics—as possessing some sort of right of its own. The power of property to impose its will on the powerless—the power of landowners, for example, to set the terms on which they will allow tenants to work, or of corporations to determine where their employees will invest their future—is far greater than the petty authority of monarchs, parliaments, and armies. It is a further complication of the anarchist ideal that some anarchists have supported private property in moderate amounts as enhancing the independence of the individual, and collective property (in, for instance, a factory) as vital to the self-direction of the people who are to be its owners.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading