To the casual browser, it seems a silly, pointless debate. And in many respects, you're right! The social versus lifestylism debate explores what it means to be an anarchist.
However, underlying this debate is a less obvious thread, namely whether anarchism is an ideology -- a set of rules and conventions to which one must abide, or whether anarchism is a methodology -- a way of acting, or a historical tendency against illegitimate authority. I'll call ideological anarchists Anarchists -- big "A" anarchists, and methodological anarchists anarchists -- small "a" anarchists, so you know to whom I'm referring.
Anarchism is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:
1. The theory that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable, and should be abolished; 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists; 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.
An anarchist, then, is one who finds all forms of government oppressive and undesirable and rejects all forms of coercive control and authority. A person who doesn't fit this criterion is no anarchist.
This supports the idea that anarchism is an ideology -- a consistent set of ideas based on a core principle. Does that mean that every person who says they're an anarchist IS an anarchist? Clearly not, which forms the basis for the lifestylism argument, and anarchist opposition to the myth that is "anarcho-"capitalism.
But there's a difference between ideological objection and methodological opposition. For the Anarchists say "X is NOT anarchism" with the implicit understanding that THEY know what anarchism is about. For them, there is no need to prove or demonstrate it -- their statement alone is fact enough.
To the anarchist, lifestylism and "anarcho-"capitalism are rejected because, methodologically, they aren't going to achieve anarchism. They use the wrong means to achieve similar ends -- namely, human happiness.
The Anarchist is comfortable with the idea of a manifesto, platform, or other guiding doctrine as the means of "spreading the gospel" -- their emphasis is unity in thought and action, centralized structure, and ideological conformity as the basis for effective organization.
The anarchist rejects all of this. We hold, instead, that: 1) popular anarchist organizations cannot be created before popular demand for them exists*; 2) indoctrinated people are not free people; 3) a movement based on a central authority (e.g., the central Anarchist organization) and on masses of indoctrinated followers will be an elitist, political revolution -- NOT a popular, social one; 4) the social revolution will invariably be betrayed by these means, becoming a political revolution whereby the Anarchists seize power.
*What this means is that a mass organization, to be socially revolutionary, must be the result of mass action, not the instigator or cause of it. In political revolution, the organization leads the masses to action.
This is not a semantic difference; rather, it strikes at the heart of the movement itself, and the roots of this debate go back to the founding of the first International, which was why I posted those essays by Bakunin.
Who is right? I hold that the methodology of anarchism is more important and vital than the ideology of it. That's because I recognize that language, particularly in the services of the ambitious, is routinely turned on its head in the service of power elites. Noam Chomsky put the methodological view of anarchism best when he said that anarchism was the historical tendency of people to rise up against illegitimate authority.
The two models of social struggle from history are the Marxist model -- the idea of a political vanguard guiding the masses to a socialist utopia; and the Bakuninist model -- the idea of rejecting all political authority and using popular direct action as the means of realizing socialism in the here and now.
The Marxist model has dominated the radical left for over a century, although with the demise of the USSR, we see the ideological air clearing for the first time in decades. Anarchists must make the most of this opportunity.
My main objection to ideological Anarchism is that it depends not on freethinking and direct action, but on obedience, passivity, and conformity to either a manifesto, platform, or other mechanism of control. Further, it focuses on a top-down, centralized organization as a means of bringing Anarchism from the center outward. You can't use unfree means to attain a free society.
Further, since doctrinal purity is most important to the ideologue, they end up: 1) eternally quarrelling about minor points; 2) forever seeking out and purging heretics within their ranks; 3) alienating potential fellow travellers through this dogmatism.
For example, when the sailors of Kronstadt rose against the Bolsheviks in 1921, they were engaging in methodological anarchism -- direct popular action against illegitimate authority -- whereas the Bolsheviks had betrayed the Revolution by securing themselves in power, despite their claims to the contrary.
Anarchists reason that the social struggle itself -- propaganda by the deed -- politicizes and radicalizes the masses. When they get a sense of their own empowerment, attained through collective direct action, what you get are "anarchized" people -- folks who will understand the ideas of anarchism in practice rather than doctrinally, which is where it matters. You get empowered, active freethinkers who are not afraid to engage in direct action -- in other words, anarchists.
When you get a group of people working together, organizing and engaging in direct action against illegitimate authority, you're more likely to have folks sympathetic to anarchism than to any other methodology. The social struggle itself promulgates the anarchist idea better than any manifesto.
Sadly, what we have today are many Anarchists -- ideologues -- who endlessly squabble instead of organizing solidarity among workers. That accounts for the dismal state of the movement today, dominated by elites and factions, cliques and cadres, hopelessly irrelevant to working people. And, since the Cardinal Rule of Ideology applies -- that the ideologue is not, and cannot ever be wrong -- it means the disputes never end, and everyone divides against themselves.
Methodology is far more open -- there is that which works, and that which doesn't, and degrees between those points. If one strategy doesn't work, you adjust until you get something that does work.
The anarchist holds that the working person is ready in the here and now for social revolution, in inclination and instinct -- people want to be free; they want an improvement in their circumstances and quality of life. People don't want to be slaves -- and this is the seed from which all revolutions spring.
The anarchist, conversely, holds that human beings are basically good and not in need of guidance, coercion, and control -- indeed, we hold steadfastly to the idea that the only evils in society come about when some seek to control and coerce others, and that the mechanisms of power, privilege, and control turn even the saintliest stalwart into a conniving manipulator.
In other words, anarchists view people as good, and systems of control as bad, whereas ideologues hold the other view -- that people are bad, and systems of control are good (so long as THEY control those systems -- if someone else controls them, then that's bad -- that's how they seem anti-authoritarian when out of power -- but just wait until they do get a measure of power, and you'll see them reveal their true colors). When they attain a position of power, they turn as despotic as anyone who preceded them. Look to the Jacobins of the French Revolution (particularly Robespierre), or the Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution as the most notorious examples of this tendency.
The organization based on a negative view of human nature will focus on power and control, centralizing these things in as few hands as possible -- the people who can be trusted with such power, whereas the organization based on a positive view of human nature will seek to disseminate power and eliminate control, decentralizing and dispersing these in as many hands as possible.
The most pernicious threat of the ideologue is that they exempt themselves from their own rules -- again, stemming from the notion that THEY have "seen the light" and the rest are either: 1) idiots; or 2) evil (for turning their backs on the Truth). Thus, they can never be reasoned with, because they are irrational themselves -- if you object to their program, regardless of the reason, then you are at fault, not them. This is why purges are a standard feature of these ideologues.
That's why a natural corollary of the ideologue is the use of force -- because they are dogmatic and irrational, all they can ultimately rely on for legitimacy is force, which necessitates centralization and control of force -- e.g., the State, in a newer, more pernicious form.
Reality exists (although some philosophers debate that, too) -- reality is objective, whereas truth is entirely subjective. If you hold out a rock and let it go, it will drop. That's because gravity is an objective force -- it's an aspect of what IS -- reality. Truth is derivative of external reality; reality isn't derivative of Truth. Where it is, you find not reality, but ideology.
The subjectivity of truth is something authorities are very uncomfortable with, because it's a revolutionary concept -- if truth is subjective, then the framework of our society collapses -- law, religion, the State -- all implode if you recognize that what some claim to be Truth is, in effect, opinion backed by force. Where power is concerned, what is considered Truth ends up as mythmaking, lies, and superstition.
Anarchists hold that truth is subjective, or they should, which forms the basis for our rejection of dogma and manifestos. No Anarchist can come up with an ultimate manifesto which can account for every possible human encounter and interaction, although some do try.
Freethinking is the only methodology you can safely rely on, in the absence of external Truth -- that is, thinking and evaluating for yourself what is and isn't, rather than letting someone else define your world for you. And the currency of this type of exchange is reason, rather than force.
Authoritarians worship an objective ideal -- the Truth. And your role in the process is to obey their Truth or suffer accordingly. Thus, the liberty-cherishing capitalist puts a "Trespassers will be shot" sign on "his" property and sleeps easy at night (even though the original title holder trespassed and shot others to get that property!), and the god-fearing Christian puts a heretic to the torch, while preaching "love one another" from the Good Book.
Ideologues are forever trampling their lofty words by their atrocious deeds -- and anarchists want no part of it. We reject them and their Truths!
It means that the only legitimate authority is that which is freely accepted, in the complete absence of coercion -- e.g., free association. This allows for an extraordinarily wide range of human activity, and creates the appearance of "anything goes" -- anarchy -- but this can only be attained through consistent, dedicated organizing on the part of the members of society.
In this manner, we reject lifestylists, because what they seek -- narcissistic autonomy -- is impossible in our interconnected society, and is not anarchistic, because it disdains class struggle and organization in favor of turning inward and abandoning human solidarity. The methodological basis for our rejection of lifestylism is that it liberates no one, including the lifestylist, and is thus no threat to illegitimate authority whatsoever. The "temporary autonomous zone" is a pipe dream, as it leaves the prime source of oppression -- the State -- untouched, unchallenged, and intact. It's the wrong method, even if the lifestylist disdain for ideology is well-founded. Social anarchists should leave lifestylists to their antics, rather than forever arguing with them. For the social anarchist, the goal, instead, is to organize effectively, rather than deriding lifestylists for their way of life.
The methodology of anarchism is valuable because it's so easy to determine if you're off course or not, whereas words and doctrines are hollow and meaningless -- they can be wrapped around the basest tyranny and made to seem sweet and true. All the enemies of liberty practice this -- the US carpet bombs people and assassinates democratically elected leaders in the name of "democracy" and "freedom" -- a claim that holds up only if you embrace the Ideology of America, rather than the methodology of democracy!
In fact, if you examine the US system of government methodologically, you find that it doesn't even remotely approximate "democracy," "freedom," "popular will," or "representation" -- but all of these words are used with nauseating frequency by the elites in power.
Lenin, while attempting to rally support for the Bolsheviks, made "all power to the soviets" the slogan of his party, knowing that popular self-rule was what the workers wanted. The workers put their faith in Lenin and Trotsky to do this, and when the Bolsheviks came to power, they quickly shifted gears, and destroyed every worker soviet they came across -- "all power to the soviets" in practice became "all power to the Bolsheviks" (which really meant The State). The "Communist" Party destroyed communism, because true communism threatened the Bolshevik power base!
The anarchist's job is solely to show the means by which libertarian social revolution can be carried out -- the anarchist's toolkit, if you will, rather than a roadmap. And this strategy is more anarchistic than the other route, because it leaves the initiative where it should be: on the street, at the shop floor, in the classroom -- a thousand arenas where individuals band together to fight illegitimate authority.
Dave Neal
9/17/97 (Revised 12/8/99)
Return to Anarchy for Anybody