By: Tadej Ian
Some on the left political pole believe that modern anarchism, which young radical leftists like to resort to, is a revival of the dormant left political pole. But in reality, they are disoriented young people who do not know what to do with themselves and surrender to a perverted left wing political ideology.
Although Marx’s aspect of communism proved to be the most successful in the radical left political thought of the 19th century, which showed in the tragic communist revolutions of the 20th century, it was far from the only left radical ideology. In fact, communism was so popular because it foresaw that the communist elite would lead the revolution and later the intermediate socialist order. It is clear that this has attracted many political opportunists, who were dreaming more of a “great robbery” rather than about improving the situation of workers or proletarian class. This was very unequivocally expressed at the first session of Avnoj in 1942 by a Serbian communist of Jewish descent Moša Pijade. In this respect, anarchism was completely different.
Classical anarchism celebrated freedom
Mikhail Bakunin, a 19th-century Russian philosopher, is the founding father of the most striking branch of classical anarchism, understood as collectivist. In 1866 he wrote the Revolutionary Catechism, in which he presented his vision of anarchist society. In contrast to the arrogant Marx, who was in fact an elitist, Bakunin conceptually designed a system that was supposed to be individual-friendly. In anarchism, therefore, every individual plays a major role, and not the elite of professional revolutionaries. According to Bakunin, the anarchists should take care of the revolution and then immediately withdrew from it, with the community of free individuals then taking the lead.
Although anarchism is a utopian radical left ideology that could not function properly at the level of a larger entity such as the state, local anarchism was very popular, as it proved in some very successful small anarchist communities during the Spanish Civil War. These communities were soon destroyed. No, they were not destroyed by General Franco’s army. They were destroyed by the communists because it was a political competition that communism does not tolerate.
Classical anarchism thus honours freedom, tolerates no authority, and demands the unconditional equality of individuals. Even a convicted criminal has the freedom in anarchism not to accept punishment, which must not be unreasonably cruel or degrading. But in this case, his children are taken away if he has them, as he no longer has the right to raise them, and he also loses the rights of a member of the community, which means that any member of the community can kill him as a harmful animal. Members of a free community (municipality) decide on the principle of direct democracy – similar to what they did in ancient Greece in Athens. Property in this classical anarchism is in the hands of the community and not of individuals, because in anarchism inheritance is not possible. However, differences are allowed in the sense that the one who works more gets more. The point of all this is to provide the same starting point to everyone who is born into society.
The madness of modern anarchism
Modern anarchists are ideologically very fragmented. Considered as the main currents are anarchist communism, which essentially combines Bakunin’s idea with Marx’s communist idea, green anarchism, which deals not only with the idea of liberating people but also with liberating the environment from people because it criticises excessive human encroachment on the environment, and anarchist capitalism, which basically advocates for wild capitalism without any role for the state. Then there are the bizarre anarchisms, such as anarchist feminism, which combines the ideas of anarchism and feminism, queer anarchism, which “anchors” anarchist ideas with the “liberation” of the sexes, and we could list more, as there are about a dozen modern anarchisms. Each of these, listed and unlisted anarchisms, is supported by living or deceased theorists, but they are very unfinished theories, all utopian, as none of them offer a serious systemic solution that could function at least in theory.
They say paper transmits everything, and anarchist theories are no exception here. But if it is difficult to digest most of the anarchist theories intellectually, then how does the matter looks like in practice, so with the followers of these theories? Expectedly catastrophic. Adherents of these ideologies, which they follow, know the theories only approximately or not at all. Anarchist debates usually look like there are about as many different points of view as there are those debating. On an intellectual level, these are confused individuals who are unable to give a comprehensive vision of the world, which in stark contrast to 19th and 20th century anarchist activists. Namely, anarchism today attracts mainly dysfunctional individuals who, for one reason or another, oppose all forms of authority. This is not due to some ideological high-flying position, but mainly due to the negligence, laziness, and disorderliness of individuals, who are already associated by the existence of institutions with their inability to adapt, which consequently angers them. Even a lot of youthful rebellion flows into the physical manifestation of modern anarchism.
On the other hand, anarchist practice is often violent in terms of street demonstrations. Antifa with its symbolism openly shows that its members are ideologically anarchists or anarchist communists. Because fascism has an extremely negative connotation in the present period, the members of Antifa exploit their own attachment to totalitarian ideas by allegedly fighting against fascism (for those who are radical leftists, fascism is all that is politically oriented to the right). Namely, Antifa has as much in common with classical anarchism as an average moderate right wing European party has in common with fascism – nothing. On the one hand, Antifa is a training ground for young wanton people who live out their youthful frustrations through aggression and smashing, and on the other hand, Antifa is a dangerous breeding ground for opportunistic individuals who want to become new revolutionaries and carry out a new “big robbery” because they are not capable of succeeding in society in a conventional way.
The potential threat of anarchism
Everything described is, of course, extremely dysfunctional for individuals who have adopted this or that anarchism as their ideology – whether intellectually or physically aggressive form – as they hide their social incompetence and maladaptation behind beautiful-sounding ideological phrases. Thus, they are becoming the proletariat of the 21st century, blaming institutions for their personal incompetence. This is potentially dangerous because the multiplication of this phenomenon could lead to a critical mass that could, under the blackest scenario, trigger a revolution of chaos in the form of street unrest and destabilisation without a real social alternative. Instead of condemning such and other anarchist outbursts, the left parties even encourage them, as they are aware that this is a pool of their voters. This is especially true for radical left wing parties, such as the Levica party, as they themselves show open contempt for our democratic order in their words and in the actions of their leading representatives. Combined with this kind of political leadership, a horde of lost souls called anarchists could, in certain very unfavourable socio-political circumstances and at very unfavourable times, even threaten the order we know, which would certainly mean a kind of catastrophe for a country where it would happen.
