Social anarchism
Part of a series on |
Anarchism |
---|
Social anarchism, also known as left-wing anarchism or socialist anarchism, is the branch of anarchism that sees liberty and social equality as interrelated.
It advocates for a social revolution to remove oppressive forms of hierarchy, such as capitalism and the state. In their place, social anarchists encourage social collaboration through mutual aid and envision non-hierarchical forms of social organization, such as voluntary associations.
Identified with the socialist tradition of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, social anarchism is often contrasted with individualist anarchism, due to the latter's criticism of socialism.
Political principles
Social anarchism is opposed to all forms of social and political power, hierarchy and oppression, including (but not limited to) the State and capitalism.[1] Social anarchism sees liberty as interconnected with social equality,[2] and considers the maximization of one to be necessary for the maximization of the other.[3] Social anarchism therefore employs a utilitarian ethics, concerning itself with the well-being of all, as it considers each person's happiness to be equal to those of others.[4] As such, social anarchism seeks to guarantee equal rights to freedom and material security for all persons.[5]
Social anarchism envisions the overthrow of capitalism and the state in a social revolution,[6] which would establish a federal society of voluntary associations and local communities,[7] based on a network of mutual aid.[8]
The key principles that form the core of social anarchism include anti-capitalism, anti-statism and prefigurative politics.[9]
Anti-capitalism
As an anti-capitalist ideology, social anarchism is opposed to the dominant expressions of capitalism, including the expansion of transnational corporations through globalization.[10] It comprises one of the main forms of socialism, alongside utopian socialism, democratic socialism and authoritarian socialism.[11] Social anarchism rejects private property, particularly private ownership of the means of production, as the principal source of social inequality.[12] As such, social anarchists typically oppose propertarianism, as they consider it to exacerbate social and economic inequality, suppress individual agency and require the maintenance of hierarchical institutions.[13]
Social anarchists argue that the abolition of private property would lead to the development of new social mores, encouraging mutual respect for individual freedom and the satisfaction of individual needs.[14] Social anarchism therefore advocates the breaking up of monopolies and the institution of common ownership over the means of production.[15] Instead of capitalist markets, with their profit motives and wage systems, social anarchism desires to organise production through a collective system of worker cooperatives, agricultural communes and labour syndicates.[16]
While social anarchism has rejected the statism of Orthodox Marxism, it has also drawn from Marxist critiques of capitalism, particularly Marx's theory of alienation.[17] Social anarchists have also been reluctant to adopt the Marxist centring of the proletariat as revolutionary agents, instead identifying the revolutionary potential of the socially excluded segments of society.[18]
Anti-statism
As an
In the place of a state structure, social anarchists desire anarchy, which can be defined as a society without government.[23] Social anarchists oppose the use of a state structure to achieve their goals of a stateless and classless society,[24] as they consider statism to be an inherently corrupting influence.[25] They thus have criticised the Marxist conception of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", which they consider to be elitist,[26] and have rejected the possibility of a "withering away of the state".[27]
However, some social anarchists such as Noam Chomsky sometimes hold state hierarchy to be preferable to economic hierarchy, and thus lend their support to welfare state programs like universal health care that can improve people's material conditions.[20]
Prefigurative politics
Alongside its opposition to political and economic hierarchies, social anarchism upholds prefigurative politics, considering it necessary for the means to achieve anarchy be consistent with that end goal.[28] Social anarchism prefigures itself through participatory and consensus decision-making, which are capable of generating the diversification of political values, tactics and identities.[29]
Social anarchism therefore promotes self-organization and the cultivation of a participatory culture, encouraging individuals to "do things for themselves".[1] Social anarchism upholds direct action as a means for people to themselves resist oppression,[30] without subordinating their own agency to democratic representatives or revolutionary vanguards.[31] Social anarchists thus reject the political party model of organization,[17] instead preferring forms of flat organization without any fixed leadership.[32]
Schools of thought
Characterised by its loose definition and ideological diversity,
While early forms of anarchism were largely individualistic, the influence of
The main division within social anarchism is over the means for achieving anarchy, with
Principles of social anarchism, such as decentralisation, anti-authoritarianism and mutual aid, later held a key influence on the
In the contemporary era, anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are the dominant tendencies of social anarchism.[53]
Distinction from individualism
Social anarchism is commonly distinguished from individualist anarchism,[54] the latter of which favours individual sovereignty and property,[55] and can even oppose all forms of social organization altogether.[56] While individualists worry that social anarchism could lead to tyranny of the majority and forced collaboration, social anarchists criticise individualism for encouraging competition and atomizing individuals from each other.[57] Individualism was heavily criticised by classical social anarchists,[58] such as Bakunin and Kropotkin, who held that the liberty of a few individuals was potentially harmful to the equality of all mankind.[59]
However, this distinction is also contested,[60] as anarchism itself is often seen as a synthesis of liberal individualism and social egalitarianism.[61] Some social anarchists, such as Emma Goldman and Herbert Read, were even directly inspired by the individualist philosophy of Max Stirner.[62] Social anarchism generally attempts to reconcile individual freedoms with the freedom of others, in order to maximise the freedom of everyone and allow for individuality to flourish.[14] Individualists and social anarchists have even been able to cooperate by upholding "communal individuality", emphasising both individual freedom and community strength.[57] Some social anarchists have argued that the divisions between them and the individualists can be overcome, by emphasising their shared commitment to anti-capitalism and anti-authoritarianism.[63] But others draw the line at forms of individualism that uphold hierarchical power relations.[64]
In his 1995 book, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, Murray Bookchin defined social anarchism in contrast to what he called "lifestyle anarchism".[65] According to Bookchin, it was impossible for the two tendencies to coexist, claiming there to be an "unbridgeable chasm" that separated them from each other.[66] Bookchin held social anarchism to be the only genuine form of anarchism, considering individualism to be inherently oppressive.[67] But his separation of the two tendencies has been criticised and even rejected entirely by other anarchists.[68] His analysis has been criticised as "reductive" and "undialectical", due to his failure to recognise the many connections and interrelations between the two tendencies.[69]
Although sometimes considered a form of individualist anarchism,
Criticism
The social anarchist model for building socialism from the bottom-up was opposed by Marxists, who instead advocated for a "dictatorship of the proletariat".[76] Marxists considered social anarchism to be an ideology of the petite bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat, criticising it particularly for its anti-statism, which it considered to be a politically sectarian impulse.[77] Individualist anarchists such as David Morland have also criticised social anarchism as "incoherent", due to the disconnect between its "realistic" approach to human nature and its "optimistic" view of future anarchist societies.[78]
See also
- Social anarchists (category)
References
- ^ a b Morland 2004, p. 26.
- ^ Adams 2001, p. 120; Franks 2018a, p. 557; Jun 2018, pp. 51–56; Marshall 1993, pp. 653–654; Ostergaard 1991, p. 21; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13; Suissa 2001, pp. 629–630.
- ^ Jun 2018, pp. 51–56; Ostergaard 1991, p. 21; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Franks 2018a, p. 554.
- ^ Marshall 1993, pp. 653–654.
- ^ Firth 2018, p. 495; Suissa 2001, pp. 637–638; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Adams 2001, p. 120; Firth 2018, p. 495; Suissa 2001, pp. 637–638; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Marshall 1993, pp. 655–656; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13; Suissa 2001, pp. 629–630; Thagard 2000, pp. 148–149.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 390.
- ^ Morland 2004, pp. 24–25.
- ^ Busky 2000, p. 2.
- ^ Franks 2013, pp. 389–390; Jun 2018, p. 52; Long 2020, p. 28; Ostergaard 1991, p. 21.
- ^ Franks 2018a, pp. 557–558.
- ^ a b Marshall 1993, p. 651.
- ^ Jun 2018, p. 52.
- ^ Marshall 1993, p. 653.
- ^ a b Morland 2004, p. 25.
- ^ Morland 2004, pp. 25–26.
- ^ Morland 2004, pp. 23–24; Thagard 2000, pp. 148–149.
- ^ a b Franks 2013, p. 391.
- ^ Suissa 2001, p. 639.
- ^ Thagard 2000, pp. 150–152.
- ^ Morland 2004, pp. 23–24.
- ^ Morland 2004, pp. 23–24; Suissa 2001, pp. 630–631.
- ^ Morland 2004, p. 25; Suissa 2001, pp. 630–631.
- ^ Morland 2004, pp. 23–25; Suissa 2001, pp. 630–631.
- ^ Suissa 2001, pp. 630–631.
- ^ Franks 2018a, p. 551.
- ^ Franks 2018b, pp. 34–35.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 390; Morland 2004, p. 26.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 390; Morland 2004, pp. 25–26.
- ^ Franks 2013, pp. 390–391.
- ^ Morland 2004, p. 23.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 400.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 400; Morland 2004, p. 23.
- ^ McLaughlin 2007, p. 116.
- ^ Busky 2000, p. 5; Marshall 1993, p. 6; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Adams 2001, pp. 120–121; Busky 2000, p. 5; Marshall 1993, p. 7.
- ^ Busky 2000, p. 5; Marshall 1993, p. 7.
- ^ Adams 2001, pp. 121–123; Busky 2000, p. 5; Marshall 1993, pp. 7–8.
- ^ Adams 2001, pp. 123–124; Busky 2000, p. 5; Marshall 1993, p. 8.
- ^ Adams 2001, pp. 125–126; Busky 2000, p. 5; Marshall 1993, pp. 8–9; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Adams 2001, p. 126; Marshall 1993, pp. 9–10; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Busky 2000, p. 6.
- ^ Adams 2001, pp. 124–125; Busky 2000, p. 6.
- ^ Suissa 2001, p. 638.
- ^ a b Ostergaard 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Morland 2004, pp. 30–31.
- ^ Busky 2000, pp. 5–6.
- ^ Franks 2013, pp. 397–398; Marshall 1993, pp. 692–693; Morland 2004, p. 23; Morris 2017, pp. 376–377.
- ^ Morland 2004, pp. 32–33.
- ^ Franks 2018b, p. 31.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 394.
- ^ Busky 2000, p. 4; Franks 2013, pp. 386–388; Jun 2018, p. 51; Long 2020, p. 28; Marshall 1993, p. 6; McLaughlin 2007, pp. 17–21, 25–26, 116; Ostergaard 1991, p. 21; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13; Suissa 2001, pp. 629–630.
- ^ Jun 2018, pp. 51–52; Long 2020, pp. 28–29; Marshall 1993, p. 10; Ostergaard 1991, p. 21; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Busky 2000, p. 4.
- ^ a b Marshall 1993, p. 6.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 388; Long 2020, p. 29; Suissa 2001, pp. 629–630.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 388; Suissa 2001, pp. 629–630.
- ^ Franks 2013, pp. 386–388.
- ^ Franks 2013, pp. 386–388; Jun 2018, p. 52; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Marshall 1993, p. 221; McLaughlin 2007, pp. 162, 166–167.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 393.
- ^ Franks 2013, pp. 393–394.
- ^ Davis 2018, pp. 51–52; Firth 2018, pp. 500–501; McLaughlin 2007, p. 165; Morland 2004, p. 24.
- ^ Davis 2018, p. 53; Marshall 1993, p. 694.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 388.
- ^ Marshall 1993, pp. 692–693.
- ^ Davis 2018, pp. 53–54; Long 2020, p. 35.
- ^ Busky 2000, p. 4; Long 2020, pp. 30–31; Ostergaard 1991, p. 21; Ostergaard 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Davis 2018, p. 64; Franks 2013, p. 393; Franks 2018a, pp. 558–559; Long 2017, pp. 286–287; Long 2020, pp. 30–31; Marshall 1993, p. 650.
- ^ Long 2020, pp. 30–31.
- ^ Long 2017, pp. 287–290; Long 2020, pp. 31–33.
- ^ Long 2017, p. 292.
- ^ Long 2020, pp. 33–35.
- ^ Ostergaard 2006, pp. 13–14.
- ^ Ostergaard 1991, p. 22.
- ^ McLaughlin 2007, pp. 17–19.
- ^ Morland 2004, p. 27.
- ^ Morland 2004, pp. 27–28.
- ^ Morland 2004, p. 28.
- ^ Franks 2013, p. 397; Suissa 2001, pp. 640–641.
Bibliography
- Adams, Ian (2001) [1993]. "Anarchism". Political Ideology Today (2nd ed.). ISBN 0-7190-6020-6.
- Busky, Donald F. (2000). "Defining Democratic Socialism". Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. ISBN 978-0275968861.
- Davis, Laurence (2018). "Individual and Community". In Adams, Matthew S.; Levy, Carl (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. London: S2CID 150149495.
- Firth, Rhiannon (2018). "Utopianism and Intentional Communities" (PDF). In Adams, Matthew S.; Levy, Carl (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. London: S2CID 149636440.
- Franks, Benjamin (August 2013). "Anarchism". In Freeden, Michael; Stears, Marc (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. .
- Franks, Benjamin (2018a). "Anarchism and Ethics". In Adams, Matthew S.; Levy, Carl (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. London: S2CID 149845918.
- Franks, Benjamin (2018b). "Prefiguration". In Franks, Benjamin; Jun, Nathan; Williams, Leonard (eds.). Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. LCCN 2017044519.
- Harrell, Willie J. Jr. (2012). ""I am an Anarchist": The Social Anarchism of Lucy E. Parsons". Journal of International Women's Studies. 13 (1): 1–18. OCLC 8093224507. Retrieved 21 June 2023.
- Jun, Nathan (2018). "Freedom". In Franks, Benjamin; Jun, Nathan; Williams, Leonard (eds.). Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. LCCN 2017044519.
- Long, Roderick T. (2017). "Anarchism and Libertarianism". In Jun, Nathan J. (ed.). Brill's Companion to Anarchism and Philosophy. ISBN 978-90-04-35689-4.
- Long, Roderick T. (2020). "The Anarchist Landscape". In Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought. S2CID 228898569.
- OCLC 1042028128.
- McLaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism. Aldershot: LCCN 2007007973.
- Morland, David (1997). Demanding the Impossible? Human Nature and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Social Anarchism. LCCN 97-1672.
- Morland, David (2004). "Anti-capitalism and poststructuralist anarchism". In Bowen, James; Purkis, Jon (eds.). Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age. ISBN 0-7190-6694-8.
- Morris, Brian (2017). "Anarchism and Environmental Philosophy". In Jun, Nathan J. (ed.). Brill's Companion to Anarchism and Philosophy. ISBN 978-90-04-35689-4.
- Ostergaard, Geoffrey (1991) [1983]. "Anarchism". In Bottomore, Tom (ed.). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought (2nd ed.). LCCN 91-17658.
- ISBN 9780470999028.
- Spafford, Jesse (2020). "Social Anarchism and the Rejection of Private Property". In Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought. S2CID 228898569.
- Spafford, Jesse (October 2023). Social Anarchism and the Rejection of Moral Tyranny. ISBN 978-1-00-937544-3.
- Suissa, Judith (2001). "Anarchism, Utopias and Philosophy of Education". Journal of Philosophy of Education. 35 (4): 627–646. .
- LCCN 00-035503.
Further reading
- Baldelli, Giovanni (2010) [1971]. Social Anarchism. LCCN 2009030191. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
- Bookchin, Murray (1995). Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm. AK Press.
- Shantz, Jeff (2013). "Introduction". In Ehrlich, Howard J. (ed.). The Best of Social Anarchism. ISBN 9781937276461.
External links
- Media related to Social anarchism at Wikimedia Commons