Debating the State V - Anarchy

Anarchy, often misconceived as chaos, is, on closer examination, a nuanced, complex and varied political philosophy advocating for a stateless society. Could it lead to more equitable communities?

Generally, anarchists argue it would lead to more equitable and autonomous communities because it promotes voluntary cooperation, challenges hierarchical structures, nurtures individual freedom, encourages mutual aid, and provides a critical historical perspective on government.

Anarchy challenges the foundations of traditional centralised governance, proposing a radical reimagining of societal organisation. In this essay, I explore the historical evolution of Anarchy, some critical thinkers, and the practical implications of a society without government. We'll examine the role of voluntary cooperation, critique hierarchical structures and consider the potential for individual freedom and mutual aid in an anarchistic society. I also look at how there are incompatible versions of Anarchy that might all want to get rid of the state but have very different ideas about what comes next.

Authors Note: There's been a delay between my last debating the State article on Dictatorship and Debating the State V (Anarchy) because I hadn't planned to include this as an option. Initially, I'd envisioned the series as a traditional argument between Republic and Monarchy. However, https://substack.com/@cordane pointed out that in a series called Debating the State, we must ask if having a state at all is desirable.

So, I can openly admit to having had a blind spot on Anarchy as a political theory and needed to do further reading. I've not read and digested in as much depth as I would have liked to - only as time has allowed, so any mistakes and misconceptions are mine, and I am happy to have them pointed out in comments, ideally with references, and I'll acknowledge and make any corrections. 

Of course, if the common thread of different anarchies is abolishing the state, we should start by understanding what Anarchists mean by the 'state'.

Monopoly of Violence

The German Max Weber, in his essay "Politics as a vocation", defined a state as 

"A human organisation that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."

Max Weber

In political science, the definition of a state is a central concept that has evolved significantly over time, 

"Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force." 

Errico Malatesta - Anarchy

The concept of the modern nation-state can be traced to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, later cemented by the American and French revolutions. This treaty, marking the end of the Thirty Years' War in Europe, is considered a foundational moment. It established the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference, laying the groundwork for a state as an entity with a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

The Treaty of Westphalia's impact was profound in shaping the political landscape. It signalled a move away from the feudal system and the dominance of religious authority in European politics, leading to the emergence of sovereign states as the primary actors in international relations. This shift was instrumental in developing the nation-state, where the notion of a shared national identity became increasingly important. This was a break away from the Feudal system, where no lord, including the king, had a monopoly on violence - lesser lords could act in their fiefdoms without doing it in the king's name. 

New states emerged as empires crumbled and colonial territories gained independence throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. These states often formed from provinces or colonies of empires, leading to a diverse and complex international community. Decolonisation, particularly after World War II, saw a significant increase in the number of states, each with its unique historical and cultural background.

There is no established minimum or maximum size regarding the size of states. States vary dramatically in size, from vast countries like Russia to small city-states like Monaco or Singapore. What matters more in defining a state is fulfilling the criteria mentioned above rather than physical size And international recognition. So, statehood becomes more complex when considering entities like Kosovo. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008 but is not recognised as a state by the United Nations. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) provides a classic definition of a state: having a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. By these criteria, Kosovo could be considered a state. However, international recognition plays a crucial role in the practical existence of a state. Entities like Kosovo exist in a grey area of international law and politics without widespread recognition.

"Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen."

― Friedrich Nietzsche

Origins of Anarchy

Etymology

The etymology of the word "anarchy" traces back to ancient Greek. The term is derived from "anarchia," which itself comes from the root words "an-" (without) and "archos" (leader or ruler). Literally, "anarchy" means "without a ruler or leader."

In the early periods of Athenian history, the archons were the highest-ranking state officials, and their decisions had far-reaching impacts on society and politics. The Greek word "archon" played a significant role in this context. In ancient Athens, an "archon" was a public official; these individuals were key figures in the Athenian government. The word "archon" comes from the same root as "archos," and it means "ruler" or "lord." Originally, these archons held considerable power in Athenian society. Over time, however, their authority was reduced as Athens developed more democratic methods of governance. 

The concept of "anarchy" as a political term, implying a society without a structured government or ruler, emerged much later in history. But while they are connected in the desire to get rid of the hierarchical state, there are competing interpretations of what the post-state world would look like. 

Modern Anarchy was developed as a philosophy in the nineteenth century.

Joseph Proudhon - The Father of Anarchy

"Property is theft!"

Joseph Proudhon.

Joseph Proudhon was born on January 15, 1809, in Besançon, France, and is widely recognised as the father of modern anarchism. His upbringing in a family of workers and peasants profoundly influenced his future ideologies as he grew up experiencing the struggles of the working class. Despite financial hardships, Proudhon received an education through scholarships, which was not common for people of his background during that time. Initially working as a printer, he was exposed to socialist and radical ideas shaping his later works.

Proudhon's first significant work, "What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and Government" (1840), marked a significant turn in his career. In this groundbreaking book, he made the famous statement, "Property is theft!" challenging prevailing notions about property and capital. He argued that property, in essence, was a tool to exploit the working class, a concept that stirred significant debate in socialist circles.

Proudhon wrote "System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Poverty" (1846). This work critiqued his era's economic theories, highlighting capitalism's inherent contradictions. This book prompted Karl Marx to write "The Poverty of Philosophy" in response, illustrating the impact of Proudhon's ideas on contemporary thinkers.

In "The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century" (1851), Proudhon outlined his vision of a society where workers had direct control over their lives and means of production. He advocated for a decentralised, federative society, a concept that became a cornerstone of anarchist philosophy. This work demonstrated his belief in the possibility of societal change through peaceful and evolutionary means rather than through revolutionary upheaval.

Proudhon's "Confessions of a Revolutionary" (1849) was both an autobiographical reflection and a deeper exploration of his political beliefs. In this, he elaborated on the necessity of societal change, advocating for a shift away from authoritarian structures.

A significant part of Proudhon's ideology was Mutualism, a form of socialism advocating for mutual associations or cooperatives in trade and industry. He believed in a society where workers shared equal status and profits, a stark contrast to the capitalist structures of his time. As one of the first to label himself as an anarchist, his ideas were pivotal in shaping the anti-authoritarian strands of socialism. He strongly advocated federalism, believing in the decentralisation of society, where localities and regions held greater autonomy.

His consistent critique of state intervention and authority laid the foundations for many principles central to anarchism. Proudhon argued that society could self-organise without the need for a main governing body, a revolutionary idea at the time.

Proudhon's legacy lies in his substantial impact on later anarchist thinkers, such as Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin. His concepts on property and opposition to state control continued to influence socialist and anarchist movements across Europe and globally. He remains a significant figure in political thought, especially for his contributions to developing anarchist philosophy. His work continues to be relevant in contemporary discussions about social justice, economic equality, and the role of the state.

Bakunin - Anarchy's Architect

"If there is a State, then there is domination, and in turn, there is slavery."

Mikhail Bakunin

Mikhail Bakunin was a Russian revolutionary anarchist and socialist and one of the major figures of the 19th-century anarchist movement. He was born on May 30, 1814, in the Russian Empire. His family was of an aristocratic background, but Bakunin quickly developed a disdain for the constraints and privileges of aristocracy. He received a military education in Saint Petersburg and served in the Russian Imperial Guard, but he soon became disillusioned with the autocratic Tsarist regime.

Bakunin left Russia in the mid-1840s and spent much of his life in exile, travelling across Europe. He became actively involved in various revolutionary movements. His participation in the Dresden uprising in 1849 led to his arrest and eventual extradition to Russia, where he was imprisoned for many years. Despite this, his commitment to the anarchist cause never wavered.

Key Works and Ideas:

1. "God and the State" (1882): Though unfinished, this book is one of Bakunin's most famous works. It critiques religious and political authority, arguing for the abolition of both the state and organised religion as oppressive institutions that hinder human freedom.

2. "Statism and Anarchy" (1873): In this work, Bakunin criticises the Marxist idea of a transitional state (Dictatorship of the proletariat) and argues for an immediate transition to a stateless society. He also provides a detailed critique of the authoritarian tendencies he perceived in the Marxist approach.

3. "Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologism" (1867): This work outlines Bakunin's vision of a decentralised, federated society based on socialism and the abolition of the state. He advocates for local autonomy and a bottom-up organisation of society.

Philosophical and Political Contributions:

Bakunin proposed a form of anarchism that emphasised collective ownership of the means of production and direct action as a means to overthrow the capitalist state system. He was a strong proponent of liberty, believing freedom was the absence of any form of external authority over the individual. Bakunin was a crucial figure in the early international workers' movement, participating in the First International, where he famously clashed with Karl Marx.

This confrontation was not merely a personal disagreement but represented a fundamental ideological rift within the workers' movement of the 19th century: Marx believed in the necessity of a transitional state (the Dictatorship of the proletariat) to dismantle capitalist structures and pave the way for a communist society. He viewed the state as a tool that, under the control of the working class, could be used to achieve socialist objectives. Bakunin opposed any form of state, which he saw as inherently oppressive. He advocated for the immediate abolition of the state and its replacement with a federation of free communes and associations. Marx believed there must be a centralised party to organise the proles. Bakunin, though, was suspicious of any form of centralised control, including political parties. He believed strictly in spontaneous, grassroots movements and direct action as means to initiate societal changes.

Mikhail Bakunin's vigorous opposition to any form of centralised control, his advocacy for direct action, and his vision of a decentralised, federated society have influenced various anarchist movements. 

His rift with Marx divided anarchists and communists: it had ramifications which continue to this day in the authoritarian/libertarian divide on the left. 

Kropotkin - the Cooperator

Another Russian aristocrat Born in 1842, Kropotkin's early life was marked by privilege, but he soon developed a keen awareness of social injustices. He received a military education and spent time in Siberia as a geographer, where his observations of communal practices in Siberian villages influenced his later theories about cooperation and mutual aid. Kropotkin's experiences in Siberia, along with his studies of economics and biology, led him to question the prevailing social and political systems. He became increasingly critical of the state and capitalism, eventually embracing anarchism as a solution to the problems of inequality and authoritarianism. 

Key Works and Ideas:

1. "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" (1902): This challenged the contemporary interpretations of Darwin's theory of evolution. Kropotkin argued that cooperation, rather than competition, was a key factor in the survival and evolution of species, including humans. This book laid the groundwork for his arguments about the natural tendency of humans towards mutual aid and cooperation.

2. "The Conquest of Bread" (1892): In this book, Kropotkin laid out his vision for a decentralised, cooperative society that operates without private property or the state. He envisioned a society where technology and social organisation ensure that all members' needs are met, advocating for the collective ownership of the means of production.

3. "Fields, Factories and Workshops" (1898): Kropotkin analysed economic trends and industrial systems, advocating for a society that combines agriculture and industry with an emphasis on local production and self-sufficiency.

Kropotkin's form of anarchism emphasised communal living and the abolition of private property and the state. He believed communities could self-organise without central authority to meet everyone's needs. He argued that state and capitalist systems were inherently exploitative and obstructed human cooperation and progress. His ideas about cooperation in nature and decentralised production influenced later ecological and economic theories.

Errico Malatesta

Errico Malatesta (1853–1932) was an influential Italian anarchist, whose ideas and activities left a significant mark on the anarchist movement in Italy and internationally. Born in Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Italy, Malatesta's journey into anarchism began in his youth, influenced by the works of Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian revolutionary and one of the founding figures of anarchism.

Malatesta's political philosophy centred around anarchism, which he viewed as a struggle against authority and the state. He believed in humans' inherent goodness and rationality, arguing that people could live harmoniously without the need for government or coercive institutions. His ideas were rooted in the belief that freedom and equality were desirable and achievable.

Throughout his life, Malatesta was actively involved in various anarchist movements and uprisings across Europe and even in Argentina. He was known for his advocacy of direct action, including strikes and insurrections, to instigate social change. Despite his involvement in revolutionary activities, he consistently emphasised the importance of peaceful and ethical means for achieving anarchist goals.

Malatesta's key works include "Anarchy," a pamphlet first published in 1891. In "Anarchy," Malatesta outlines his vision of an anarchist society, free from government and based on voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and solidarity. He critiques the existing social and political systems, arguing that the state, regardless of its form, is inherently oppressive and exploitative. Malatesta envisions a society where individuals are free to pursue their own interests in harmony with others, without the interference of a governing body.

The pamphlet is structured as a series of questions and answers, making it accessible to a broad audience. Malatesta addresses common misconceptions about anarchism, such as the notion that it equates to chaos or disorder. He clarifies that anarchism, as he conceives it, is about creating a well-organised society without the hierarchy and inequality perpetuated by the state and capitalism.

Errico Malatesta's contributions to spreading anarchist thought were significant. His advocacy for a stateless society, his critique of authority, and his belief in the potential for human cooperation and mutual aid continue to influence anarchist theory and practice. 

Key Concepts of Anarchy

Voluntary Cooperation

Anarchism proposes that societal order can naturally emerge from individuals' voluntary and cooperative interactions rather than being enforced through imposed authority and hierarchical structures. At its core, this concept challenges the traditional governance and human organisation paradigms.

To scrutinise this thesis, one might look towards historical and contemporary examples of anarchist or anarchist-inspired communities and movements. These real-world instances serve as tangible evidence, showcasing how societies can function and thrive when structured around principles of voluntary cooperation.

The Paris Commune of 1871 and the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Civil War from 1936 to 1939 are prime examples of self-organised communities based on mutual aid and cooperative principles devoid of centralised authority. These instances demonstrate the feasibility of such societal structures and highlight their resilience and adaptability.

In "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution," Peter Kropotkin suggests that cooperation is as intrinsic to human nature as competition. This perspective has been bolstered by anthropological studies, which indicate that cooperation is a fundamental human instinct for survival and societal progression.

The efficiency and morality of voluntary cooperation also weigh in favour of anarchism. Voluntary cooperation is seen as more morally justifiable and efficient than imposed authority. It nurtures a sense of community and shared responsibility, leading to social arrangements that are both sustainable and equitable.

However, critics point out issues such as scalability and complexity. They argue that while voluntary cooperation may be practical in smaller communities, it becomes increasingly impractical in larger, more complex societies where coordination and decision-making on a grand scale are necessary. Of course, we could still have many communities on a global scale. Still, with exponential population growth, they would not be in isolation, creating inevitable complexity and structure in their interaction - especially with increasing shortages of resources. 

The argument concerning human nature also presents a challenge. Yes, humans cooperate. But there is also a lot of evidence suggesting that humans are inherently competitive and self-interested, casting doubt on the long-term viability of sustained voluntary cooperation, especially on a large scale.

Anarchist societies' lack of central authority would leave them vulnerable to external threats. Economic pressures and military aggression from more traditionally organised states pose a significant risk to the stability and continuity of such societies.

The idea that Anarchy can create societal order through voluntary cooperation requires us to reconsider established notions of governance and human nature. While historical and theoretical evidence supports this idea in certain circumstances, practical challenges related to scalability, human nature, and external threats pose significant hurdles. 

Challenging Hierarchical Structures

Anarchism, in its essence, stands as a resolute opposition to hierarchical and oppressive systems. This opposition is a reaction against authority and a profound critique of the structures and ideologies underpinning traditional governance and social organisation.

Joseph Proudhon was instrumental in shaping this critical stance. His critique of the state and private property, as explored in Harold B. Barclay's "People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy" (1990), laid the foundation for a rich tradition of anti-capitalist anarchist thought. His critique went beyond mere economic analysis; it was a radical questioning of the legitimacy of any form of imposed authority and ownership that leads to inequality and exploitation.

Barclay's work delves into the practical applications of these ideas, examining various societies across history that have functioned effectively without centralised authority. Often overlooked or marginalised in mainstream historical narratives, these societies provide compelling evidence that hierarchy is not a prerequisite for social order. Barclay's anthropological study reveals that these societies were capable of maintaining order and stability and had a sense of community and mutual respect that is often lacking in more hierarchical societies.

The key ideas presented in Barclay's work challenge the conventional wisdom that state and hierarchical structures are necessary for a functioning society. He explores various models of social organisation, from small-scale communities to larger collectives, where decision-making is decentralised and authority is distributed among all members. These societies are characterised by their emphasis on mutual aid, reciprocity, and communal responsibility rather than competition and individual gain.

Barclay also addresses the common misconception that anarchism equates to chaos and disorder. Through his examination of stateless societies, he demonstrates that anarchism, in practice, often leads to highly organised and cooperative communities. These communities are built on principles of voluntary association, direct democracy, and consensus decision-making, ensuring that the needs and voices of all members are considered and respected.

The ideas presented in Barclay's "People Without Government" offer a compelling argument for the viability of anarchist principles in creating equitable and functional societies. By examining historical examples of stateless societies, Barclay challenges the perceived necessity of hierarchical structures and highlights the potential for human societies to organise themselves around principles of equality, cooperation, and mutual aid. 

 Individual Freedom

Anarchism places a high value on individual liberty within a communal context. As explored in Clifford Harper's "Anarchy: A Graphic Guide" (1987), Errico Malatesta's writings emphasise the balance between individual freedom and collective responsibility, arguing that true liberty is found not in isolation but in the context of a supportive community.

Encouraging Mutual Aid

Mutual aid is a cornerstone of anarchist thought, suggesting that cooperation and reciprocal assistance are fundamental to human society. In his work, Kropotkin challenges the then-prevailing Darwinian notion that competition was the primary driving force of evolution. Instead, he proposes that cooperation and mutual aid are significant factors in the evolution of species, including humans.

Drawing from his observations in the natural world and human societies, Kropotkin argues that mutual aid is a moral and biological imperative. He suggests that species that cooperate are more likely to survive and thrive than those that solely rely on competition. This idea extends to human societies, where Kropotkin observes that mutual aid has been a crucial factor in d0eveloping and maintaining communities throughout history.

The book examines mutual aid among different groups, including animals, savages, barbarians, and mediaeval cities. Kropotkin provides numerous examples from animal behaviour, indigenous societies, and historical communities to illustrate how mutual aid is practised and contributes to a group's well-being and survival.

Kropotkin's work was revolutionary for its time, as it countered the dominant view that competition and survival of the fittest were the primary drivers of evolution. Instead, they presented a view of nature and humanity that emphasises solidarity, cooperation, and the inherent social nature of beings. This perspective profoundly influenced anarchist thought, emphasising that a society based on mutual aid and voluntary cooperation is desirable and in accordance with human nature. 

Practical Implementation of Anarchist Principles in Contemporary Societies

Theory is one thing; practical implementation is another. Anarchism proposes a society free from the shackles of hierarchical governance, thriving on voluntary cooperation. However, the journey from theory to practice in modern societies is more complex. Addressing these challenges demands innovative and pragmatic strategies.

Much of Anarchist's allure and romance stems from its radical vision – a world where hierarchical orders are uprooted, and individuals engage in free, cooperative interactions. This vision, shaped by thinkers like Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin, champions liberty, 

Historical instances, such as the Paris Commune and the collectives of the Spanish Civil War, offer insights, but the modern context – marked by technological advancement and global interconnectedness – presents a new set of challenges for applying anarchism.

The path to implementing anarchist principles involves political and economic restructuring and a cultural shift towards the values at anarchism's core. 

Historical Precedents

Historically, the Paris Commune of 1871 stands as a seminal example. It was a bold experiment in self-governance, where the people of Paris ran their city devoid of traditional state structures for a brief yet impactful period. This episode in history demonstrated the potential for a society based on communal decision-making and collective ownership. 

Another significant historical instance is found in the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Civil War. In this period, large swathes of Spain, particularly in Catalonia and Aragon, saw the emergence of communities operating on principles of mutual aid, direct democracy, and worker control of industry. These collectives managed to create a functioning society based on anarchist principles, albeit briefly under the pressures of war and external opposition. Orwell admired the social revolution occurring in Barcelona, where the anarchists had significant influence. He noted the sense of equality and the absence of class distinctions in the anarchist-controlled regions. Orwell described the atmosphere in Barcelona as one of revolutionary enthusiasm and social equality, where traditional class hierarchies were overturned.

Emerging in the late 20th century, the Zapatista movement has created autonomous municipalities in Chiapas, Mexico. These communities operate on principles of horizontal governance, collective decision-making, and respect for indigenous rights and culture. The Zapatistas have shown resilience and adaptability, maintaining their autonomy for decades in the face of external challenges.

However, they are small-scale, and in the case of Paris and Spain, short-lived. How could they work on a larger continental or Global scale?

Challenges in the Scalability of Anarchist Systems

 With its roots in small, cohesive communities, anarchism faces the test of applicability in larger, more diverse societies. Can the principles of decentralisation and voluntary cooperation effectively manage the complexities of large populations with varied interests and needs? Can Anarchist societies competing for resources co-exist peacefully?

The discussion of whether a federation of smaller anarchist communities could effectively address global challenges like a pandemic response or environmental issues such as the reversal of the ozone layer depletion, as large organised states have done, raises several complex matters. This also ties into the concept of the Dunbar number and the challenges of maintaining equality and decentralised governance in larger populations.

The Dunbar number is a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. Proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, it's often cited around 150 individuals. Beyond this number, it becomes challenging to maintain social cohesion and mutual understanding without formal structures.

Maintaining the direct, personal relationships and consensus-based decision-making typical of anarchist communities becomes more complex in larger groups. This often necessitates some form of delegation or representation, which can be seen as a step towards more hierarchical structures.

Large states have the advantage of mobilising resources, coordinating large-scale public health responses, and enforcing lockdowns and travel restrictions. Indeed, in the end, the weaknesses of Anarchy are the strengths of Dictatorship we considered in the last essay. An anarchist federation might struggle with efficient centralised coordination but could excel in community-based responses, localised decision-making, and mutual aid.

Addressing global environmental issues often requires international agreements and enforcement mechanisms beyond local or community-based solutions. While a federation of anarchist communities could contribute through localised ecological practices, the coordination for global-scale solutions might be challenging without some overarching authority or consensus mechanism.

In larger-scale communities, we meet a necessity for some form of representation or delegation, which is a critical issue. The key is how these roles are structured and controlled. In true anarchist philosophy, delegates would be directly accountable to their community, recallable, and their role would be administrative rather than authoritative. The challenge is to maintain the core principles of anarchism - voluntary association, mutual aid, and horizontal decision-making - while scaling up. This could involve rotating leadership roles, direct democracy tools, and strong community engagement to prevent the centralisation of power.

There have been historical instances. where anarchist communities have managed large territories and populations, albeit for limited periods. Contemporary examples include social movements and cooperatives that operate on anarchist principles on a smaller scale.

While large organised states have shown some effectiveness in addressing global challenges, the potential for a federation of anarchist communities to do the same remains theoretical and untested worldwide. Saying that - 40 years of failed climate treaties have shown us that States have also been unable to deal with climate change. The key issue of scalability revolves around maintaining anarchist principles of decentralisation and direct democracy while effectively managing the complexities of larger populations and global challenges. Transitioning from small-scale communities to larger federations without reverting to duplicating hierarchical state structures has not been successfully demonstrated. 

Transitioning from State-Centric to Stateless Societies

This shift is not merely a change in governance but a profound transformation in societal structure and individual mindset. It involves dismantling entrenched institutions and power structures, which is a monumental task given most societies' deep-rooted reliance on state mechanisms. The transition also requires a cultural shift towards embracing anarchist values, which can be a gradual and complex process.

Strategies for Transitioning 

One key strategy proposed to start at the grassroots level by increasing local autonomy and community-based decision-making. This approach involves empowering local communities to make decisions directly affecting them, creating a sense of ownership and participation. It's about shifting the focus from top-down governance to a more bottom-up, community-centric model. This gradual shift could help ease the transition, allowing communities to adapt to new ways of self-governance and cooperation - but it could also create more complex hierarchies. 

Another critical aspect of transitioning to an anarchist society is the role of education and cultural change. In this context, education goes beyond formal schooling and would require cultivating an understanding and appreciation of anarchist principles such as mutual aid, solidarity, and voluntary cooperation. This is fundamental cultural change – reshaping societal norms and values to align. This cultural shift could be facilitated through various mediums, including art, literature, and community activities, which can help disseminate anarchist values and encourage a broader acceptance and integration of these principles into everyday life, but is competing with other creeds. 

In today's digital age, technology and digital platforms offer unprecedented opportunities to facilitate decentralised governance. These tools can enhance communication, coordination, and decision-making within communities. For instance, blockchain technology could create transparent, decentralised systems for resource allocation or voting, ensuring fairness and reducing the need for centralised control. Similarly, social media and other digital platforms can organise, mobilise, and educate communities about anarchist principles and practices. A battle is going on to decentralise our online systems and remove our online hours from centralised unaccountable monopolies. 

Conflict Resolution and Maintaining Order

Another pressing concern in a stateless society is resolving conflicts and maintaining order without centralised authority. Anarchism advocates for self-regulation and community-based dispute resolution, but the effectiveness of these methods in larger, more complex societies is a subject of debate. The challenge lies in developing systems that can handle conflicts efficiently while adhering to anarchist principles of non-coercion and voluntary association. What room is there for justice if there is a danger of vigilantism, nimbyism, and nepotism in small communities- how can they be regulated without hierarchical authority.

Modern Case Studies 

Rojava Experiment in Northern Syria

The Rojava region in Northern Syria presents a significant case study. Since the Syrian Civil War, Rojava has been noted for implementing democratic confederalism, which aligns closely with anarchist principles. This system emphasises direct democracy, gender equality, and ecological sustainability. Despite facing immense challenges, including military conflicts and political isolation, Rojava has made notable strides in establishing a society based on cooperative economics and grassroots democracy (Biehl, 2016).

Occupy Sandy in New York City

 Another example was the response to Hurricane Sandy in New York City, where the Occupy Sandy movement emerged. This movement, growing from the Occupy Wall Street protests, organised community-led disaster relief based on mutual aid and solidarity. It demonstrated how decentralised, non-hierarchical networks could effectively mobilise resources and support in crises, challenging traditional disaster response models.

Peacing Together in New Zealand

In Otepoti/Dunedin, Aotearoa/New Zealand, the 'Peacing Together' group was formed in 2015 to promote peaceful community values through events and festivals. This initiative, rooted in local cultural concepts like kotahitanga (unity) and manaakitanga (hospitality), employed bicultural and anarchistic organisation methods. The case study highlights the importance of community building as a method of peace activism and the challenges and successes of organising based on peaceful principles.

These case studies reveal common themes in the practical application of anarchist principles. They underscore the importance of community involvement, the challenges of sustaining such initiatives in the face of external pressures, and the potential for grassroots movements to effect meaningful change. Each case provides a unique perspective on how anarchist principles can be adapted to different cultural and social contexts, offering valuable lessons for future applications of anarchism in modern societies.

Theoretical vs. Practical Anarchism

As discussed earlier in the essay, theoretical anarchism is rooted in the vision of a stateless society where voluntary cooperation and mutual aid are the cornerstones. Kropotkin argues that cooperation, rather than competition, is a driving force in human evolution so societies can function effectively and justly without hierarchical structures or centralised authority, emphasising freedom, equality, and communal solidarity.

However, the practical application of these ideals, as seen in the case studies of Rojava, Occupy Sandy, and Peacing Together, reveals both alignments and divergences from theoretical anarchism. These real-world examples demonstrate the potential for decentralised, cooperative models of social organisation… they also highlight the challenges in maintaining these systems, especially in the face of external pressures and the complexities of modern societies. For instance, while Rojava has made significant strides in democratic confederalism, it grapples with geopolitical challenges and resource limitations.

Transitioning from theoretical to practical anarchism would require pragmatically adapting these principles to address real-world challenges. This adaptation requires flexibility and innovation. For example, using digital technology in Occupy Sandy to coordinate relief efforts shows how anarchist principles of decentralised organisations can be effectively applied using modern tools. Similarly, Peacing Together's cultural and community-focused approach illustrates how anarchist ideals can be contextualised within local cultural frameworks.

While theoretical anarchism offers a compelling vision of a more equitable and accessible society, its practical implementation is complex and multifaceted. 

Anarchy in the Twenty-First Century

As I write this, the doomsday clock stands still at 90 seconds, and we are closer than ever to human annihilation. 21st-century challenges such as globalisation, overpopulation, and environmental crises have put us on a path that seems to lead to collapse. 

The range of Contemporary anarchies that have evolved differs from their 19th-century roots in several ways. While the core principles of opposing hierarchical structures and advocating for voluntary cooperation remain, modern anarchism increasingly intersects with environmental sustainability, digital technology, and global interconnectedness. The rise of digital platforms and social media has created new avenues for decentralised organisation and activism, and the growing awareness of environmental challenges has led to an emphasis on sustainable living and ecological responsibility within anarchist thought.

 Globalisation presents both challenges and opportunities for anarchism. On one hand, the interconnected nature of global systems can make the decentralisation of power more complex. On the other hand, globalisation has also led to a heightened awareness of global injustices and the limitations of state-centric solutions, potentially opening up spaces for anarchist alternatives. Anarchist approaches could offer solutions for more equitable and sustainable forms of international cooperation.

Anarchy may only work well in a village - but we have a global village now. 

Perhaps the environmental crises of the 21st century, such as climate change and resource depletion, are what most strongly necessitate a rethinking of traditional political and economic systems. Anarchism, emphasising decentralisation, local autonomy, and community-based solutions, could provide valuable frameworks for addressing these challenges. The principles of mutual aid and sustainability align closely with the needs of environmental stewardship and resilience building.

Sons of Anarchy- Different Interpretations 

Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary.

Mikhail Bakunin

As a political philosophy, anarchism encompasses a diverse range of ideologies, all of which advocate for the abolition of hierarchical structures, particularly the state, but differ significantly in their vision of post-state society. We can identify several key strands of anarchism: anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, and other forms.

Anarcho-Capitalism:

• Core Belief: Anarcho-capitalism combines anarchism with free-market capitalism. It advocates for eliminating the state and creating a society where market forces and voluntary transactions govern all interactions.

• Economic System: Emphasises absolute private property rights and a free-market economy without government intervention.

• Critique: Critics argue it could lead to significant inequalities and the rise of private entities as de facto states.

Anarcho-Syndicalism:

• Core Belief: Anarcho-syndicalism focuses on the labour movement and aims to establish a society where workers collectively own and manage the means of production.

• Economic System: Advocates for direct action, such as strikes and workplace revolts, to abolish and replace the capitalist system with a federation of worker collectives.

• Contrast with Anarcho-Capitalism: Unlike anarcho-capitalism, which upholds private property and capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism seeks to dismantle capitalist structures and replace them with worker-controlled systems.

Anarcho-Communism:

• Core Belief: Anarcho-communism combines anarchism with communism, advocating for a stateless, classless, and moneyless society where resources are shared communally.

• Economic System: Proposes the abolition of private property (in contrast to anarcho-capitalism) and the collective ownership of resources and production.

• Social Structure: Envisions a society organised around voluntary associations and direct democracy, with production and distribution based on the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Green Anarchism:

• Core Belief: Green anarchism integrates environmental concerns with anarchist principles. It emphasises sustainability, ecological balance, and the rejection of systems that lead to environmental degradation.

• Approach: Advocates for reorganising society in harmony with nature, often incorporating elements of anti-industrialism and a critique of modern technology.

Individualist Anarchism:

• Core Belief: Individualist anarchism emphasises individual autonomy and personal freedom, often rejecting large-scale economic or social systems favouring individual initiative and voluntary cooperation.

• Economic System: Can vary widely, with some individualist anarchists advocating for free-market principles (similar to anarcho-capitalism) and others supporting mutual aid and small-scale communal living.

New Anarchism:

• Core Belief: New Anarchism represents a contemporary evolution of anarchist thought, distinguished by its focus on diverse, decentralised forms of resistance and organisation. It emphasises direct action, horizontal organisation, and prefigurative politics, often in response to globalisation and modern socio-political challenges.

• Philosophical Underpinnings: New Anarchism diverges from traditional anarchist ideologies by placing less emphasis on rigid ideological frameworks and more on practical, adaptable approaches to social change. This form of anarchism is characterised by its fluidity, inclusivity, and focus on creating the structures of a new society within the framework of the old.

• Contrast with Traditional Anarchism: Unlike classical anarchism, which often focuses on a clear opposition to the state and capitalism, New Anarchism is more concerned with a broader range of issues, including environmentalism, anti-globalisation, and social justice. It is less about adhering to a specific anarchist tradition and more about applying anarchist principles to contemporary problems

Scholars like David Graeber and Andrej Grubačić have been instrumental in articulating the principles of New Anarchism. Graeber, for instance, has highlighted the movement's inclination towards innovative forms of practice over ideological debates. At the same time, Grubačić has emphasised its anti-sectarian nature and commitment to decentralisation and direct democracy.

Critics of New Anarchism often point to its lack of a unified theory or clear long-term strategy, arguing that its emphasis on decentralisation and diversity of tactics could lead to fragmentation and a lack of coherent direction. Additionally, some traditional anarchists view it as a departure from the fundamental principles of anarchism, mainly its historical focus on class struggle and anti-capitalism.

New Anarchism has influenced various global movements, particularly those that emerged in response to globalisation and the 21st-century socio-economic conditions. It is visible in movements like Occupy Wall Street and various anti-globalisation protests, where the focus is on direct action, grassroots organisation, and creating alternatives to existing societal structures within the current system.

While all these forms of anarchism share a common thread in their opposition to hierarchical structures and the state, they diverge significantly in their envisioned economic systems, methods of organisation, and societal goals.

Anarcho-capitalism stands out for its ugly embrace of free-market capitalism, in stark contrast to anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism, which seek to dismantle capitalist structures. Green anarchism brings an ecological perspective, emphasising sustainability and environmental stewardship. Individualist anarchism, focusing on personal autonomy, can overlap with capitalist and communist principles, depending on the interpretation. 

In conclusion, this has been a fascinating topic to research, and I am grateful for the suggestion; it will shape the continuation of the series. This was a blind spot for me, but I learned that Anarchy is more than just a simple idea about chaos. Instead, it's a deep and varied way of thinking about a society where people work together willingly, help each other, and don't have strict hierarchies.

There is an appealing romanticism to it - I'm just not sure it's scalable or that I have the optimistic faith in human nature. Moving from a society run by a state to one without it isn't easy. Significant challenges include how to make anarchism work for large groups of people, how to keep order without a central power, and how to fit these ideas into our complex, connected world.

As a Stoic, I'm a cosmopolitan, and as a Cosmopolitan, I'm an anti-nationalist, and it is a logical progression to, therefore, be against the nation as our political unity.

I want to investigate this further and write about how anarchism and Stoicism might reconcile. Stoicism is about being part of a more extensive community and caring for others. Looking at anarchism through the lens of Stoicism could open up new ways of thinking about building a fair, equal, and peaceful world. By combining different ideas, we might find new solutions to the big problems we face today.

Anarchists are idealists, and Stoics know we are only human wretches - but it is still good practice to picture the sage. Certainly I’m not optimistic about where a world of competing nation states is taking us, but there are clearly some benefits to economies of scale and central organisation.

It comes down to what we believe about human nature. Maybe if we couldn't thrive in anarchy then we aren't worth saving.

"We were born of risen apes, not fallen angels, and the apes were armed killers besides. And so what shall we wonder at? Our murders and massacres and missiles, and our irreconcilable regiments? Or our treaties whatever they may be worth; our symphonies however seldom they may be played; our peaceful acres, however frequently they may be converted to battlefields; our dreams however rarely they may be accomplished. The miracle of man is not how far he has sunk but how magnificently he has risen. We are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses."

Robert Ardrey - African Genesis: A Personal Investigation into the Animal Origins and Nature of Man (1961)

References

• Duara, P. (2004). Decolonisation: Perspectives from now and then. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203485521

• Jackson, R., & Sørensen, G. (2016). Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford University Press. https://www.academia.edu/38384002/Introduction_to_International_Relations_Fifth_Edition_Robert_Jackson_and_Georg_Sorensen

• Weber, M. (1918). Politics as a Vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (pp. 77-128). Oxford University Press.

• Ker-Lindsay, J. (2009). Kosovo: The path to contested statehood in the Balkans. I.B. Tauris. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40038970 

• Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States. (2016). In J. Klabbers (Ed.), International Law Documents (pp. 2-4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316577226.005

• Osiander, A. (2001). Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization, 55(2), 251-287. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3078632 

• Philpott, D. (2001). Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691057477/revolutions-in-sovereignty 

• Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/abs/james-c-scott-seeing-like-a-state-how-certain-schemes-to-improve-the-human-condition-have-failed-new-haven-and-london-yale-agrarian-studies-yale-university-press-1998/562F8C3310E11202AA8ABCDB19064AB4 

• Proudhon, P.-J. (1970). What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government (D. R. Kelley & B. G. Smith, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. 

• Proudhon, P.-J. (1966). System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Poverty (B. R. Tucker, Trans.). A. M. Kelley. 

• Proudhon, P.-J. (1989). The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (J. Robinson, Trans.). Pluto Press. 

• Proudhon, P.-J. (2009). Confessions of a Revolutionary: To Serve is to Reign (J. Crump, Trans.). Freedom Press.

• Galián, L. (2017). New Modes of Collective Actions: The Reemergence of Anarchism in Egypt. DOI: 10.1057/9781137530868_15

• Kropotkin, P. (1902). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. https://archive.org/details/B-001-004-329 

• Malatesta, E. (1924). Anarchy. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy 

• Huemer, M. (2012). The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-28164-7.

• Baker, Z. (2023). Means and Ends: The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States. AK Press.

• Barclay, H. B. (1990). People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy. Kahn & Averill.

• Dolgoff, S. (1974). The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution 1936-1939. Free Life Editions.

• Huemer, M. (2012). "The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey."

• Biehl, J. (2016). Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan. Pluto Press.

• Landau, L. (2022). "Mutual Aid as Disaster Response in NYC: Hurricane Sandy to COVID-19." World Scientific News.

• Joyce, J., & Llewellyn, J. (2017). "Implementing the principles of kotahitanga/unity and manaakitanga/hospitality in community peace activism: An experiment in peace building."

• Bates, R. (1983). The preservation of order in stateless societies: A reinterpretation of Evans-Pritchard's The Nuer. In Essays on the Political Economy of Rural Africa (African Studies, pp. 7-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511558740.003

• Gluckstein, D. (2006). The Paris Commune: A Revolution in Democracy. Bookmarks Publications.

• Klein, N. (2002). Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate. Picador.

• Harper, C. (1987). Anarchy: A Graphic Guide. Camden Press.

• Scott, J. C. (2012). Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play. Princeton University Press.

• Robert Ardrey - African Genesis: A Personal Investigation into the Animal Origins and Nature of Man (1961)

• Jennifer E. Smith, Hamilton's legacy: kinship, cooperation and social tolerance in mammalian groups, Animal Behaviour, Volume 92, 2014, Pages 291-304, ISSN 0003-3472, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.029. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347214001146)