b) Anarchism

Anarchism is a political ideology that questions authority and the concentration of power in society. They argue that it is wrong to just blindly accept the authority of governments or political leaders just because it has always been that way. Instead, intellectuals should always question those powers to test whether they are justified. If an authority cannot justify why it exists, then anarchists believe it should be challenged and even removed.

Creative Thinking Skills - Creating Novel Solutions to Authentic Problems

Is authority really necessary? What would happen in a society if we suddenly removed it? Could people organise themselves fairly? This is question that anarchists have long pondered and this task will help you consider it.

Task 1 - Like Robinson Crusoe, imagine that you and 100 people have been shipwrecked on a desert island. You all have to create a new society from scratch. There are enough resources to survive for everyone, but there are currently no rules, laws, institutions or forms of government. In groups, discuss your plans to survive and create a plan or diagram that answers these questions:

1. How will decisions be made?
2. Who will be responsible for organising work?
3. How will disputes and disagreements be resolved?
4. What happens if someone refuses to follow the group's decisions?
5. Will your society need leaders and laws?

Task 2 - One day whilst exploring, to your surprise you find a body washed up on the shore. You groan as you realise it is a world famous anarchist. As he wakes and you explain the society you have created, would he:

1. Support any parts of your new society?
2. Criticise any parts of your new society?

Teacher only box

Task 1 - You can help students to discuss their plans by sharing some of these ideas:

1. How will decisions be made? - Direct voting, consensus, elected representatives, or committees?
2. Who will be responsible for organising work? - Rotating responsibilities? Elected managers? Freedom?
3. How will disputes and disagreements be resolved? - Group discussion? Mediation? Community rules?
4. What happens if someone refuses to follow the group's decisions? - Sanctions? Authority to enforce?
5. Will your society need leaders and laws? - Yes for order and coordination, no for voluntary cooperation

Task 2 - Remind students that anarchists are not against rules, they are just against illegitimate hierarchies and powers that enforce rules from above. 

• An anarchist would like - decisions being made collectively, voluntary cooperation, shared ownership of resources, mutual aid between islanders, decisions by consensus or fair voting, equality
• An anarchist wouldn't like - a permanent ruler, small groups making decisions for all, unequal ownership, ability to coerce given to small groups like police, laws without collective agreement, authorities.

One common mistake is to believe that anarchism is simply the idea that all rules are bad, and that chaos or disorder is better. Most anarchists would disagree with this view. They would argue that people are capable of organising themselves in society without the need for strict rules or authorities. Anarchists argue over the best way to achieve this cooperation, but it could be done through mutual aid and voluntary organisations like trade unions.

Due to the questioning of authority, you can see how this could lead anarchists to be involved in a wide range of causes and movements throughout history such as the rights of individuals and civil liberties, to workers' rights and more collective identities. Anti-colonial and anti-governments across the world have also been supported by anarchists. Some modern anarchists even focus on championing the rights of the environment and non-human animals, as well as female suffrage and the rights of marginalised groups such as LGBTQ+ rights.

The debate over anarchism is ongoing. By questioning power and authority, it is easy to see why many view the ideas as unworkable. Order and authority are seen as key features of a functioning society, including laws and institutions. If these are removed, many fear that ‘anarchy’ and violence would follow. Supporters of anarchism say this is just scaremongering, and that by questioning power, anarchists hold it to account and help society to balance power amongst all people more fairly.

To understand why anarchism developed, it is first necessary to consider the historical conditions in which anarchist ideas emerged. Between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, many Europeans lived in societies where power was highly concentrated in the hands of a small number of people. Kings, emperors, land owners and religious leaders all exercise authority with very little accountability. Most people had no say over the power these groups had. For centuries, many people had accepted these authorities as natural and necessary, however this view became challenged over time. 

One reason was due to the rise of absolute monarchies. These were Kings and Queens that held unchallenged power. In France, King Louis XIV (1643-1715) famously declared that ‘I am the State’. He felt that his word was the law. He justified this under the idea of the divine right of kings which argued that God had given power to monarchs. This led to situations across Europe where rulers used their power unfairly. The execution of English King Charles I in 1649 and later the French Revolution of 1789 challenged this as people started to declare that political authority came from the people, rather than a King. Intellectuals began to realise that if even Kings could be questioned, what other forms of authority could be? 

In the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution led to factory owners and merchants becoming fabulously wealthy and powerful. This led to new forms of authority where individual businessmen had almost total power over the lives of their workers, resulting in exploitation. Workers questioned the authority that these people had over their lives and the system of government which enabled it. Workers' rights movements emerged that were often violently stopped. In Britain, the 1819 Peterloo Massacre saw government troops kill many workers. This made many question whether a government was deserving of its authority if it didn't listen to the concerns of its people.

Whilst many governments responded by reforming their laws to improve lives, some countries responded reluctantly, often with more repression. Russia was one such country. In 1861, millions of Russia peasants lived in Serfdom where their lives were severely restricted. That year, Tsar Alexander II abolished the system, but Serfs were forced to pay a tax to free themselves. This left millions indebted to landowners, and forced to work to pay off their debts. Russian peasants compared their lives to those of the landowners and elites who help complete power. It is little wonder that many of the first anarchists lived in Russia at this time.

For anarchists the key question became not whether authority existed, but whether it was justified. Whether it was economic inequality, a lack of political rights, unrepresentative government, the desire to form their own nation, or rebellion against the dogmatic authority of the Church, legitimacy became the key concept to judge authority by.

In response to these historical processes and events, a number of intellectuals developed ideas that would challenge these traditional forms of authority. Their ideas would develop into the intellectual movement we know as anarchism. They all shared a common belief that power should not be concentrated in the hands of elites, whether governments, religious leaders or business owners.

For much of the nineteenth century, anarchism was mostly just an ideological movement. Where it did inspire attempted revolutions, it was quickly defeated by more organised forms of authority. Thinkers like Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin were very persuasive in their diagnosis of the problems of society, but could their ideas work in practice?

One of the most historically significant attempts to apply anarchist principles in reality came with the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). This conflict began when a group of military officers led by Francisco Franco, launched an armed uprising against the elected Second Spanish Republic. Spain had become a very divided society between traditional landowning elites supported by the Catholic Church, and a growing workers and peasant movement. As Spain descended into civil war, groups like the anarchists emerged who saw an opportunity to create a better society.

The key anarchist groups was the trade union federation called CNT (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo) and the anarchist political organisation called FAI (Federación Anarquista Ibérica). Working together as CNT-FAI, they took over factories, farms and many cities in the East of Spain in regions such as Catalonia and Aragon. They created a system of collective decision making, with workers electing representatives and managing workplaces themselves. They experimented with collectivising farm land, sharing resources and improving education and healthcare.

Critical Thinking Skills - Evaluating Historical Evidence and Arguments

The British writer George Orwell travelled to Spain in late 1936 and volunteered to fight for the Republicans. His book ‘Homage to Catalonia’ describes what he observed of the anarchists. This task will help you understand how first-hand accounts can used by historians to help us understand the past.

Task 1 - In pairs, choose one of the quotes below to investigate. For your source, take notes on:

• What evidence of anarchist ideas can you identify?
• Does the source suggest success or failure of anarchist ideas?

Task 2 - Discuss your findings with the class. To what extent was anarchism successfully implemented? 

Task 3 - Does Orwell appear supportive or critical of the anarchists? How reliable do you think he is?

Quote 1 - ‘It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties …almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal’ (p.2)

Quote 2 - ‘The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining wall advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town, were crowds of people streaming constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night ... There was much in it that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for.’ (p.3)

Quote 3 - ‘Yet so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gipsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.’ (p. 4)

Quote 4 - ‘The Anarchist viewpoint is less easily defined. In any case the loose term ‘Anarchists’ is used to cover a multitude of people of very varying opinions…  …even the members of the F.A.I. , though always tinged, as perhaps most Spaniards are, with the Anarchist philosophy, were not necessarily Anarchists in the purest sense… since the beginning of the war they had moved more in the direction of ordinary Socialism, because circumstances had forced them to take part in centralized administration and even to break all their principles by entering the Government… they aimed at workers’ control and not a parliamentary democracy…’ (p.45)

Quote 5 - ‘…Roughly speaking, the C.N.T.-F.A.I. stood for: (i) Direct control over industry by the workers engaged in each industry, e.g. transport, the textile factories, etc.; (2) Government by local committees and resistance to all forms of centralized authoritarianism; (3) Uncompromising hostility to the bourgeoisie and the Church. The last point, though the least precise, was the most important. The Anarchists were the opposite of the majority of so-called revolutionaries in so much that though their principles were rather vague their hatred of privilege and injustice was perfectly genuine…’ (p.45)

Quote 6 - ‘Philosophically, Communism and Anarchism are poles apart. Practically — i.e. in the form of society aimed at — the difference is mainly one of emphasis, but it is quite irreconcilable. The Communist’s emphasis is always on centralism and efficiency, the Anarchist’s on liberty and equality. Anarchism is deeply rooted in Spain and is likely to outlive Communism when the Russian influence is withdrawn…’ (p.45)

Quote 7 - ‘During the first two months of the war it was the Anarchists more than anyone else who had saved the situation, and much later than this the Anarchist militia, in spite of their indiscipline, were notoriously the best fighters among the purely Spanish forces.’ (p.45)

Teacher only box

The following information can be used to review student perspectives on each of the sources:

1. Success - Anarchist principles visibly transformed everyday life and workplaces as he discusses worker control, collectivised businesses and the rejection of Church authority.
2. Mostly a Success - Quote 2 suggests enthusiasm and support although Orwell admits some personal reservations. Highlights how revolutionary culture could be found everywhere.
3. Success - Orwell describes optimism, the low unemployment and greater social equality found in Republican Spain at this time.
4. Failure - Mentions how wartime conditions forced anarchists to join central government, compromising their principles in the process.
5. Mixed - Orwell clearly demonstrates the adoption anarchist principles by the main political parties, although it does not prove they worked successfully in practice.
6. Some Success - Anarchism appears deeply rooted and influential but the quote mainly describes ideology rather than implementation. Orwell suggests how the left-wing was plagued by the split between anarchism and communism which seemed incompatible.
7. Success - Orwell credits anarchists with helping save the Republican cause early in the war, although he notes problems with discipline.

Task 2 - Overall, you could argue that Orwell suggests that anarchist ideas were implemented to a significant extent in Republican Spain but incomplete in many ways. It transformed aspects of economic and social life but wartime conditions made a completely decentralised anarchist society difficult to sustain. We know from history how problems in anarchists governments contributed to decision making inefficiencies, especially during the key battles of the war.

Task 3 - Orwell is valuable because he personally witnessed revolutionary Catalonia and fought on the Republican side. He provides detailed observations of everyday life that official documents might not reveal. Students might acknowledge that this is just one viewpoint though. 

These groups implemented many of the ideas of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin. Concepts such as mutual aid, local decision making, collective ownership of property and hostility to authority were all experimented with. For a time, it demonstrated that anarchist ideas could work and that people could cooperate without being compelled. Yet critics have pointed out that the war created special circumstances which motivated people to cooperate more.

News of these social revolutionaries soon spread throughout the world and thousands of international volunteers flooded to Republican-held Spain. Known as the International Brigades, many individuals travelled to Spain to support the Republican cause, ranging from Marxist communists to anarchists and moderate socialists. The British writer George Orwell was just one of many famous volunteers. He later describes his experiences fighting in his book ‘Homage to Catalonia’. 

In the end, the Republicans were eventually defeated and a dictatorship under Franco established. Whilst not perfect, the war had shown that anarchism could work in practice. Many of the ideas and groups of the time would eventual inspire other movements across Europe and the world, well into the twentieth century and today.

As we have seen in the past, anarchism was not just about rejecting all authority. It was about questioning whether authority is legitimate and necessary. In that way, although there are few truly anarchist political groups throughout the world today, there are many movements who continue to question the legitimacy of authority. They subject those who hold power, like governments and corporations, to the idea that they should be accountable.

One contemporary thinker is the American intellectual Noam Chomsky. Chomsky has applied many anarchist ideas to the question of power and authority. Since the 1960s, he has questioned US foreign policy in Vietnam and other places and has argued openly against apartheid, imperialism and corporate power. He argues that if an authority cannot demonstrate that is acting fairly, then it should be changed or reformed. He applied this to many modern issues like government surveillance, workers' rights, education, policing and others.

Although anarchism remains a minority political ideology, many of its ideas continue to influence intellectuals like Chomsky and broader social movements across the world. Campaigns for environmental protection or economic equality still draw upon those ideas of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin. Some groups still draw upon examples of anarchist direct action to challenge authorities. For example in France in 2018, protests by anarchist groups led to the destruction of private property, shops and a McDonalds was burned down. 

Nevertheless, there are many who continue to question the ideas of anarchism. Forms of radical protest can undermine anarchist support. There is also the fact that many of the problems confronting the world in the recent past have required greater regulation and coordination by authorities - not less. This raises a question that young historians will need to answer in their own lives. Does the rich intellectual tradition of anarchism help us with the problems of the world today, or was anarchism wrong? Do we need more authority in the world today?

Case Study 1 - Occupy Wall Street

In 2011, thousands of protesters gathered in New York's Wall Street, home of the US stock exchange. Protesters had been criticising growing economic inequality and corporate power. Since the 2008 economic crash, banks around the world had been ‘bailed out’ by tax payers and many sought more accountability over banks for this. The Occupy groups that emerged used assemblies and collective decision making rather than appointing leaders. These groups reflected anarchist ideas of decentralisation of decision making and mass participation.

Although the movement didn't achieve major political reform, it did help others in society by popularising debates about corporate and banking interests. It soon spread to hundreds of other cities around the world like London and Hong Kong. Many historians have argued that Occupy was an example of anarchist principles in action. In 2012, Noam Chomsky commented, ‘The Occupy movement spontaneously created something that doesn’t really exist in the country: communities of mutual support, cooperation, open spaces for discussion … just people doing things and helping each other.’^[2]

Case Study 2 - Mutual Aid during COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-2023, communities around the world spontaneously created volunteer networks to support each other. Individuals delivered food to vulnerable people, collected medicines and helped neighbours. All without government direct or support. These actions were known as mutual aid. 

We can trace the idea of mutual aid to the Russian anarchist intellectual Peter Kropotkin who argued that cooperation was a natural part of human nature. For many anarchists and others, the pandemic showed that humans can cooperate and help each other without government authority. Yet critics argued that the main tools to fight COVID, such as society lock-downs and the trialling of vaccines, required the extensive use of government authority and power.

Case Study 3 - Environmental Activism and Deep Ecology

Most environmental activists have argued over time that large corporations and governments have led the destruction of the natural world, primarily due to the focus on unsustainable economic growth. This has prioritised the exploitation of natural resources in order to sustain human systems. Some environmental thinkers like Arne Næss have supported living in harmony and humility with the natural world as a solution. 

“The smaller one comes to feel compared to the mountain, the nearer one comes to sharing in its greatness. I don't know why this is so.”  

Næss, A. (2016). The Ecology of Wisdom. Penguin Classics. 

The Deep Ecology movement shares many similarities with anarachist principles, such as Kroptkin's emphasis on cooperation and mutual support. Kroptkin gained many of his initial ideas by studying the biology of the natural world. The focus on grassroots activism and decentralisation appeals to many environmentalists. Some activists have even gone further. Groups like Extinction Rebellion have used nonviolent civil disobedience and disruptive direct action to hold governments to account about issues like climate change and the biodiversity crisis.

Case Study 4 - The Digital Revolution

Since the rise of the internet and social media in the 1990s and 2000s, societies have transformed in the way they communicate and organise. In many ways, this reflects anarchist ideas. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that people should cooperate through voluntary associations rather than rely on powerful institutions. Social media and instant messaging have made this possible on a global scale. Online communities and open-source software also illustrate the ideas of mutual aid developed by Peter Kropotkin. As we all know, digital networks allow us all to collaborate without the need for government or corporations.

Yet the digital revolution has also created new challenges that require authorities to exercise their power. Whilst the internet begun as an anarchist paradise of free exchange and cooperation, it is now a very different place. Unknown actors have misused the internet via misinformation, hacking, cyber-bullying, and extremism. The business model of social media itself operates by selling our identities to corporate powers for advertising. The rapid development of AI also raises the question of the legitimacy of power. Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman warned that concentrated power could threaten freedom. Yet these challenges require greater control of the internet by authorities.