We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Anarchism is the theory and views that proclaim the freedom of a person from any compulsory control of him or someone else's power. Anarchists advocate the elimination of all forms of exploitation and coercion. For the first time, the ideas of anarchism were formulated by ancient Greek and ancient Chinese philosophers. But the main theorist and founder of traditions is Pierre Joseph Proudhon. His works were published in the middle of the 19th century.

Anarchism is largely misunderstood today. To accept or deny them, it is worth getting rid of a whole series of delusions and considering the views of the anarchists.

Anarchism is chaos and disorder. Few people want to see chaos around them, which repels people from the ideas of anarchism. But another theorist, Pyotr Kropotkin, wrote bluntly that the doctrine only wants to free a person from the yoke of capital and the state. At the same time, social foundations are not denied, but they are the basis. Anarchism does not want to entrust concerns to the state, requiring the involvement of all members of society. And the myth is more characteristic of modern society. Chaos is total coercion, in which everyone can influence everyone by force and not be afraid of punishment. This is the notorious management. Chaos occurs when an individual tries on the role of a boss or a state. Legalized chaos and government is the state. Anarchists believe that it is his control and monopolization that creates poverty and instability. Without governments, people would have less incentive to commit crimes against each other.

Anarchists oppose organization. This myth can be found even among scientific researchers. Some in all seriousness suggest not to consider Mack Stirner an anarchist because of his desire to establish the organization "Union of Egoists". Anarchists are portrayed as bright individualists. Sometimes the spread of this myth is politically motivated. People are incited in absentia against the theorists of anarchism and their "absurd" views. But the teaching itself has always thought of organization. Only its authoritarian forms, built on centralization and hierarchy, are denied, those where decisions descend from top to bottom. Anarchists want to see decentralized and self-governing organizations, in which solutions, on the contrary, would move upward. Then there will be no division into rulers and ruled. In Proudhon one can find arguments for building a new socio-economic system with the control of the workers and the choice of candidates who can always be recalled.

Anarchism is a modified bourgeois individualism. This opinion was put forward by Marxists, ardent critics of anarchism. But is it possible to call this doctrine undemocratic? Can the party dictatorship in the Soviet Union be considered more open and free? Anarchism stands for the development of individuality and individual freedom, but democratic principles remain the basis. Public organizations should not be associated with the state. Individualism, on the other hand, justifies authoritarianism, and for anarchists, individual freedom is determined by self-government and the absence of hierarchies, which differs from the state. The antidemocratic nature of anarchism may lie in the fact that the majority can be wrong. But minority rule will be despotic in any case. So anarchism is against trusting a minority, even one chosen by the majority. This will help protect against abuse of power.

Anarchists are only opposed to the state. This myth deliberately hides a significant part of the teaching of anarchism. But the first book of the theoretician was not at all devoted to the state, but to property. She was openly called theft and power. After all, the owner acts as the owner in relation to the one who uses the object. This is how exploitation begins. Proudhon concluded that the property should be abolished. It must be owned by the groups of people using it. This system of rights was called possession, and it had to do away with wage labor. That is, back in 1840, the anarchists demanded workers' control over production. The analysis of the nature of property complements the analysis of the state; these principles are closely related.

Anarchism is impossible by human nature. Kropotkin did not try to idealize a person, representing anarchists better than other people. Power can spoil the best. Theories of government control and equilibrium are intended only to assure the powerful of the world that it is they who are in control of the processes. But how can the imperfect be given power over others? Anarchists perceive people as they are, and therefore they hate power that spoils a person. Proudhon wrote that man began with equality and will end with it.

Anarchism is utopian. Anarchy should not be considered an idealized and unattainable world. The very struggle for freedom is already changing people. Kropotkin considered those who support state ideas to be utopians. Hierarchy only corrupts, while resistance to it hardens character. The new world can appear only in the struggle with the previous one.

Anarchism - the views of Proudhon. It is impossible to associate such a large-scale teaching with one person. After all, people tend to make mistakes. The same Proudhon, defining the basic ideas of anarchism, turned out to be absolutely wrong in matters of feminism. Moreover, the thinker with his sexism contradicted his own postulates. It is impossible to exclude everyday life from the critical analysis of the hierarchy, leaving at gunpoint only the issues of state and property. Proudhon's doubts about strikes were not shared by Bakunin, Kropotkin and other anarchist revolutionaries. The teaching is not determined by someone alone, it is constantly evolving and supplemented.

Anarchists are atheists. This is also a fairly popular myth. But Bakunin in his works, although he denied the existence of God, believed that anyone can be a servant of any cult and even build religious buildings at their own expense. You just need to deprive the church of the influence of the corporation, which educates new adherents and directly interferes in politics. And Proudhon himself said that in order to condemn religion, the church must first be condemned. By the way, similar thoughts are found in the late Tolstoy.

Anarchism involves violence. Among anarchists, there are both adherents of pacifism, and vice versa. Today the first point of view prevails, but, unfortunately, it was not always so. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, terrorists with bombs taught the public for a long time to the image of a militant anarchist. But Proudhon himself said that equality must be won by word, not by sword. It is based on the principle of non-aggression. No one should exercise force in relation to the person or property of another.

Anarchism is against schools and education. Bakunin believed that it was really necessary to abolish all state universities. But he also suggested that the care of education should be left to communities and free associations. If it is beneficial for them, then the young man will receive the knowledge he needs. In public schools, anarchists see another mechanism that creates elements of a hierarchical structure. In such schools, a person is deprived of the right to be who he wants. And quality education remains inaccessible to the broad poor.

Anarchists against roads and infrastructure. Again, the issue is that roads should be built by communities if necessary. It is not difficult to get funding - to collect funds from drivers, through advertising. The enterprises to which it leads can also build roads. But the anarchists see no need to use the state here. All must be driven by supply and demand. Similar views on safety issues, fire, emergency services. The more a service is in demand by society, the better its quality and price will be in a free, competitive market.

There is no anarchism in Russia today. There are many anarchist trends in our country. Even today in Russia there are such offshoots as the anti-nuclear movement, anarcho-syndicalists distributing free vegan food Food not bombs, and anti-fascists. Fascism is the main antipode of anarchy, so it is impossible without the antipode of a totalitarian regime.

Anarchism cannot stop people from robbery, rape and murder. The fact that the world around us is infected with violence makes you wonder - can we get rid of it at all? Even correctional institutions, prisons, have become schools of crime. Government wars on drugs make millions of criminals. Obviously the current system is not perfect, so why not try a new third party solution? Anarchists believe that when the issue of personal security begins to be provided not by the state, but by individuals and companies themselves, the criminal will think twice before taking action. Patrols, which are funded from rent, can provide order. Perhaps guarded private roads will attract more attention than unsafe roads. The government imposes a single solution, while without the state there will be unlimited choice.

Without the power of government, large corporations will begin to rule everything. If society loses its government, then the consumer will rule. And large large corporations usually only help the authorities maintain control over the small business sector. It is in their interests that laws and regulations are passed. For such a corporation to remain rich without its lobby, it needs to create a quality product at a competitive price. But is that bad? For a corporation to dominate, it must either have more money than all other competitors combined, or people must see it as legitimate power. But the first moment is impossible on the market without the influence of the state, and the last one determines just the government and religion. The idea that McDonald's can enslave society is absurd, no one will consider the legitimate authority of the clown Ronald.

Anarchists are drug addicts. There is some truth in this, but there are drug addicts among the representatives of other political and social doctrines, social groups. People who call to be skeptical of the authorities are also skeptical of the government's "drugs are evil" campaign. Many anarchists are experimenters in life, using whatever tool is useful. The same marijuana helps many to relax, it is increasingly perceived as a remedy. But there are also those among the anarchists who hate any drugs. This philosophy attracts thinkers from different walks of life. So do not brand all anarchists as drug addicts.

Anarchists are not serious, they know nothing about politics. To become an anarchist, you have to be well versed in politics. These are people obsessed with their idea, who seriously discuss the future of mankind. Anarchists understand historical patterns and see objectively what government power is. It is a violent, monopolistic and non-profit force. If you ask an anarchist about some political issue, you can expect a long, detailed conversation.

Anarchists cannot defend the country from foreign invaders. In a stateless society, even more people will defend it. Instead of one military man who is supported by the state, under anarchism, much more people can stand up for protection, who will be financed by their interested clients. Defense is the same business as others, because people want to live in safety and protect themselves from the armed encroachments of enemies and competitors. War is beneficial when it manages to parasitize on tax flows. Under anarchism, defense capability will increase, as will personal defense. Would it be easy to take over a country where any of the millions of citizens can buy firearms from the store?

Anarchists consider themselves omniscient. Unlike democrats, republicans, socialists, communists, liberals and others, anarchists do not pretend to know what is best for a person and how to live. It is assumed that only the citizen himself should determine this, based on his own interests. Anarchists have several theories about the possible functioning of society, but the most important thing is to rule out aggression. And under this criterion any government, endowed with power, no longer falls.

Anarchism assumes the absence of any rules. Anarchism does not deny rules or laws. The main thing here is the absence of rulers. Man is still responsible for his actions and property. It's just that in a stateless society, the laws of a residential complex operate in an apartment, and in a department store, the laws of this very store. In a quiet family area, noise in the evening will be prohibited, and somewhere parties and drugs will be allowed. The road campaign will write the driving rules and so on. Businesses will abandon stupid unreasonable laws, as this will quickly scare customers away. In a decentralized society, we have personal freedom and rules do not govern our lives. When there is a question of ownership or violation of the rules of the crime committed, then private courts or arbitration companies can decide it. They will achieve success and recognition by making fair decisions. In this way, it will be possible to get away from the state monopoly on arbitration and corruption in the courts. And this is just one of the ideas.

Anarchism boils down to graffiti, broken glass windows and riots. Vandalism has never been an end in itself of anarchism. Such actions are part of the struggle against the state system with domination over the individual. It is power that breeds violence.

Anarchists are just another political party wishing to seize power. The goal of the anarchists is not at all to seize power, but to destroy it.

By their actions, anarchists damage the national interests. It is quite possible that the term "national interests" conceals the interests of the ruling elite. The people get the same wars, taxes, police persecution and infringement of rights. People have their own interests, which allow them to organize themselves.

Anarchists are slackers who don't want to work. Under anarchy, labor will be replaced by robbery. Anarchists see a society in which labor will be free. And work under conditions of forced exploitation, when income goes up, cannot be a matter of pride.

Anarchism sooner or later comes down to communism. In the anarchist movement itself, there is no consensus on this issue. Anarcho-communists consider it unacceptable to use hired labor and the presence of private property. This group believes that after the fall of the state, it will be possible to distribute everything to everyone and demand from everyone according to their abilities. But the anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-individualists recognize property, as well as the human right to work voluntarily anywhere, including on the basis of labor relations. In a society where there is no coercion, different models are possible. But in general, anarchists are against monopolies in politics and economics. Enterprises must be outsourced to workers, and economic strategy must be determined by workers' consent.

Anarchists cannot provide social security for disabled people.It is believed that no one, except the state, can support pensioners and disabled people. But by doing so, the authorities put society on the needle. Funds for pensions and benefits are taken from the very people at the expense of taxes and duties, tariffs and inflation. But most of the fees are not spent on the maintenance of pensioners at all, but on officials, the police and the army. Perhaps the elderly could be better maintained without intermediaries? In a stateless society, social security is possible in different ways - at the expense of the team, voluntary charitable assistance, the same relatives.

Watch the video: Noam Chomsky 2013 What is Anarchism? (August 2022).