Anarchism has always had a mystification about it. It’s a political philosophy at its origin, but it always runs into trouble with real-world applications. Living Anarchy on a large scale? Unlikely. The idea itself feels impossible. Still, when we consider the historical lineage that planted the seeds for Anarchy, a broad spectrum of both individually and socially liberating ideas reveals itself. Further, one of history’s most overtly radical and violent Anarchists may have synthesized these ideas in a way that anybody can consider and utilize to fulfill themselves.
A World Without Power
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is typically recognized as the first Anarchist, but his ideology was essentially an offshoot of socialism that involved no state interference. Mainly, Proudhon wanted a society where its members mutually offered each other an economic and social safety net without hierarchy, including ethical product trade and abolishing government in favor of communes and labor associations.
Although Proudhon was essential in coining the term and bringing some genuinely radical ideas to the forefront, even his less problematic ideas were far too romantic for any practical application. For perspective, Proudhon deemed all forms of property as physically and mathematically impossible and had an extremely misogynistic paranoia about feminist movements, proving that the patriarchy was a hierarchy that he had no issue with.
Post-Proudhon saw terms like Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism, and Anarcho-Socialism rise in popularity. This combination of Anarchism, a political philosophy, and the respective economic systems symbolized a critical distinction in Anarchist schools of thought: being an Anarchist was not necessarily meant to fight economic systems; it could also serve as a way to navigate them.
This distinction is crucial because it theoretically allows an individual to identify as an Anarchist within existing socioeconomic systems instead of necessitating that Anarchy replace those systems. In other words, Anarchism could escape the confines of a macro-political philosophy and become more flexible to the individual. These adaptations would eventually create two different yet mutually influential schools of Anarchism: Individualist and Social.
The Crossroads
Individualist Anarchism went on to be influenced by less politically minded philosophical thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner, leading to a greater emphasis on the individual’s efforts and their will than a mass acceptance of Anarchy as a formal system. An Individualist Anarchist would typically shed their perceptions of normative hierarchies in favor of a more fluid and just approach to treating other individuals.
This perspective shift made Anarchy more accessible to revolutionary and social justice movements, as an Anarchist idea of reform in …
Read the full article which is published on Daily Philosophy (external link)
