Is Anarchism Doomed to Live on the Fringe of Politics?

‘Indeed, lifestyle anarchism today is finding its principal expression in spray-can graffiti, post-modernist nihilism’ and ‘anti-rationalism’. ‘These trendy posturings, nearly all of which follow current yuppie fashions, are individualistic in the important sense that they are antithetical to the development of serious organizations, a radical politics, a committed social movement, theoretical coherence, and programmatic relevance.’

The above words, written in Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm by the theorist Murray Bookchin, epitomize a bitter criticism of ‘lifestylists’, who he blames for anarchism’s transformation from a social movement into an individual lifestyle.

The attitude he puts on trial is that of the ‘self-styled’ anarchist, the ‘bohemian’, who is more concerned with innovations in ‘art, behavior, and clothing’ than working towards the emancipation of human society from capital. The anarchist tradition that once worked towards social change has mutated, according to Bookchin, into a fashionable clique:

‘The black flag, which revolutionary social anarchists raised in insurrectionary struggle in Ukraine and Spain, now becomes a fashionable sarong for the delectation of chic petty bourgeois.’

Anarchism is not the only left-wing movement to have received such criticism. Marxists too receive scathing reviews from their own ranks, who sometimes see their donning of hammers and sickles as nothing more than an aesthetic exercise, a hobby for middle-class students, and not as a serious attempt to change society. Anarchists, however, in their tendency to avoid state politics and, at times, even refusing to vote, have to go further than the Marxists who have placated themselves with electorialism. In rejecting party formation, anarchism has to dedicate itself to creating other sources of power.

The kind of organization this involves differs depending on which anarchist you speak to, but the general idea is that anarchists should work towards building what is known as dual power. This involves organizing working and non-working people in associations that can directly contest the state, or which can provide services to local communities without the need of state involvement.

When approaching the topic of dual power, the famed Italian anarchist, Errico Malatesta, described the:

‘impelling need for specifically anarchist organisations which, both from within and outside the unions, struggle for the achievement of anarchism and seek to sterilize all the germs of degeneration and reaction.’

Organizing along anarchist lines, then, is a method through which we can start to build up power at the behest of the community, but it is also a way of directly bringing that community into conflict with the reality of capital. Trade-unionism, in particular, confronts workers with ‘the economic power that belongs to the owners of the machinery of production’, (William Mellor, Direct Action) and, in the ensuing struggle to lessen that power, brings to light the true realities of the capitalist system.

There are some counter-arguments to the usefulness of the trade-union, but each still sticks to the principles of organizing against capital. The anarchist Colin Ward, for example, saw modern trade-unions as having ‘accepted the notion that you gain more by settling for less’, but celebrated all community-based action aimed at helping society move away from dependence on the state. In one lecture later named Social Policy: An Anarchist Response, he says:

‘When we compare the Victorian antecedents of our public institutions with the organs of working-class mutual aid in the same period, the very names speak volumes. On the one side the workhouse, the poor law infirmary, the National Society for the Education of the Poor in Accordance with the Principles of the Established Church; and on the other the friendly society, the sick club, the co-operative society, the trade union. One represents the tradition of fraternal and autonomous associations springing from below, the other that of authoritarian institutions directed from above.’

Ward’s lecture idolizes actions that arise almost spontaneously, and at a local level, in response to a community need. Although he explicitly sees trade-unionism as a hierarchical and often bureaucratic exercise, the organizations Ward praises here still contribute to the idea of dual power. The ‘fraternal’ tradition he highlights is fostered through actions that directly help people, either in terms of money, housing, health or education.

Can we say that anarchism today is working towards that community organization?

Yes and no, I would say.

There appears to be a split between those anarchists who wish to organize change, and those anarchists for whom anarchism has become a ‘fashionable sarong’, as Bookchin puts it, nothing more than a phase for students, rebels and punk fans. Not helping this attitude is the modern anarchist’s propensity towards petty criminal acts, often mistakenly labeled “praxis”, which alienate regular people. Mere rebellion to the state and capital is replacing efforts to lay the groundwork for society beyond it. Non-compliance with state oppression should not rely on wanton destruction, but it too often does.

A trip to r/anarchism on Reddit gives a flavor of what I am talking about. Filter to the top of all time, and you find that many of the posts often idolize protest, whether with violence, graffiti or arson, and not organization. Leaving arguments of the validity of violence aside, anarchism as an ideology is condemning itself to permanent counter-cultural status, to a state of guerrilla warfare with no sign of ending.

I certainly appreciate the rationale for such attacks on capital. Violence and vandalism can be seen as direct action in the sense that they make immediate statements against capital. I do not wish to alienate or be entirely dismissive of fellow anarchists here, instead I wish to criticize some of their methods.

In an era where the state is becoming synonymous with “society”, attacks on the state are looked upon as an attack on society itself. The black flag, and the anarchist “A”, are coming to be seen as antithetical to peace and prosperity within people’s communities.

You might be inclined to think that I am on Bookchin’s side here in regards to lifestylism, but this is not the case. Whilst anarchism has become in many ways a subcultural fad, a lifestyle, Bookchin’s sectarianism glosses over the positive aspect of counter-cultural practice.

The difference between what I would call ‘positive lifestylism’, and ‘negative lifestylism’, is that the former practices anarchism in a way that connects with the community, organized or otherwise, whilst the latter isolates itself through the overuse of symbolism, flag-waving and minor rebellious acts — damned forever to society’s fringe.

What lifestylism can, and must, achieve if it whats to contribute positively to society is the spreading of anarchist ideals. Living the values of the movement, even if only temporarily and on a small scale, can help ourselves and others feel what an anarchist society might be like. It needs to bring to light what Colin Ward calls the:

‘fleeting pockets of anarchy that occur in daily life.’

Any act of counter-cultural significance, which build common bridges between people, furthers the anarchist cause even if not explicitly labelled as anarchistic.

A wonderful example, as pointed out by my colleague in his Anarcho-Accelerationist Primer, is that of the gay community in the United States. Faced with the hostility of homophobia all around them, they ‘created queer communities’ and ‘retreated into them’, they built up an identity and support group that allowed them to not only survive but to prosper in opposition to a state that despised them.

Much like anarchists, the gay community can be said to have built up a counter-culture, but much unlike anarchists, this counter-culture has seen successes the world over. I would argue that the gay community has done more to spread the values of our movement, e.g community, solidarity, individual expression, than we ever have.

There is obviously much that we have to learn if we have any hope in hell of regaining the center stage.

Firstly, anarchists need to shift their goals to one of construction rather than destruction. Instead of smashing shop windows, spray-painting anarchist symbols, and setting things on fire, we should be building shelters for the homeless, getting people involved in community art programs, and feeding the hungry. Our goal should be to make the world beautiful, not destroy it.

To destroy is only to force communities into relying further on the state to help them, to create is to foster a community that can rely on itself. Whether this is done by building community schools, art-centers or unions, organized efforts to improve people’s lives will have a greater effect than simple acts of rebellion. This is the essence of dual power.

There are many anarchists, and non-anarchists, doing this already. Some very notable examples are the various trade-unions around the globe, and the anarchist Industrial Workers of the World, the co-operative movement, whether that be in industry or housing, and efforts to support the poor, such as Food Not Bombs. Besides this, there is an immense amount of community action and charity going on all around us. Anarchist values can be found everywhere, we just need to step up and take part in it.

Secondly, and finally, anarchists need to re-brand their cultural efforts if they are to win the cultural war which plagues modern society. The black, or even red, flag is no longer the symbol and hope and prosperity that it once was, and the organizations which fly them have very little support outside of left-wing circles. The only exception to this was perhaps Latin-America, but even groups there are losing their revolutionary potential. If the anarchist “A” is leading people to turn their backs on us, then we must trade it out for something else.

I don’t have all the answers, but I know that we must briefly step out of the anti-capitalist fronts and anarchist federations, and step into the community action groups and trade-unions. Let’s stop waving our black flags from the fringes of political discourse, and make ourselves known in people’s everyday lives.