What is anarchism. How to be an anarchist The main idea of ​​anarchism

Take your time. You are developing a mindset. Don't rush into it because it's weird or because you're bored. Carefully consider each thinker's point of view and each principle. What makes sense to you?

Live like an anarchist

Start with yourself, live by personal principles. Exercise as much control as possible over your own life. Nobody owns you, but you live in a society. No power over you is legal unless you violate the rights of others or voluntarily give power to others in work, play or community management, just as you should not have power over others if they do not agree.

• Think about your own relationships. Do you have equal relationships with friends, family members, loved ones, colleagues? If you have power over them and they don't agree with it, find a way to fix the situation. Talk to them about your anarchist beliefs. Explain that you want to create an egalitarian relationship. It could be a public utopian group.

1. Consider your relationship to hierarchical authority. Many anarchists have problems with the state, hierarchical religion, and large regimented organizations. Think about the relationship to each of these objects.

   Promote equality, but understand that without the enforcement of individuals by the government, this would not be possible. Think gender equality, sexual equality, racial equality, religious equality, equal opportunity and equal pay. Solidarity through the dream of unsanctioned/unforced equality is a founding principle of anarchism, which detractors would call mob rule.

   • Help those who are unfairly offended by the "system". Promote choice and dedication to work in your chosen professional field in order to gain knowledge, experience and skills for career advancement. Women continue to be among the less qualified, underpaid category of people in the workplace. Help secure the right to equal pay in your chosen profession. Racial minorities are often subject to infringement of rights. Help promote racial diversity. Try these opportunities and what they offer to society.
   • Remember that using big government to reinforce the government's vision of equality is socialism or Marxism. The main idea of ​​anarchism is that you earn what you deserve, and if the state takes away your income, then this goes against these beliefs.

2. Find people who share similar beliefs. Find a community of people who believe the same as you and live in a small, informal circle of friends (perhaps a commune). You need to rely on others. It's unavoidable. You can learn from each other, teach each other and expand your circle of acquaintances.

Introduction

1. Origins of anarchism

2. The essence of anarchism and its basic principles

3. The main directions of anarchism

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

In sociological science, power is considered as an integral part of society, "a function, a necessary element of the social system."

Political institutions that ensure the establishment and maintenance of political power are the most important social institutions. The state is one of the main social institutions that controls social life and determines social norms. The difference between the state and all other forms of collectivity is that only it, having political power, has the right to create laws to regulate and preserve property for the benefit of the whole society or a separate group of people standing at the head. The state also has the right to use public force to enforce these laws and protect the state from outside attack. In the modern concept, the state controls the relations of various social groups and strata, and sometimes even individual individuals. But the state also seeks to regulate all aspects of human life, all types of interaction between individuals.

Thus, the question of the role of the state, the degree of its intervention in various spheres of society is extremely important, especially in Russia, where traditionally state intervention in people's personal lives was very widespread. It is precisely this question that, in fact, is devoted to such a socialist doctrine as anarchism.

A part of the people, although never a majority, has always been attracted by the anarchist idea that society can and should be organized without oppression from the state, and power should be eliminated and replaced by the cooperation of individuals.

Anarchists reject the state, advocate the elimination of any coercive control and the power of man over man. This means that social relations and institutions must be formed on the basis of personal interests, mutual assistance, voluntary consent and responsibility of each member, and all forms of power must be abolished. L.N. Tolstoy, speaking about the problem of the state, argued that “the state is violence”, and his words: “It is so simple and undoubted that one cannot disagree with it” characterize the attitude towards the theory of anarchism.

Some researchers consider the problem of power so broadly that they deny the existence of a sociological study that would not be directly or indirectly related to the problem of power.

1. Origins of anarchism

Anarchism (from the Greek anarchia - anarchy, anarchy) is a socio-political and socio-economic doctrine that is hostile to any state, opposing the interests of small private property and the small peasantry to the progress of society based on large-scale production. The philosophical basis of anarchism is individualism, subjectivism, voluntarism.

Elements of the anarchist worldview and individual philosophical ideas of an anarchist nature can be traced for many centuries. The desire for the complete liberation of the individual in a free society, the opposition of power and exploitation, passes through various civilizations and epochs. This trend can be characterized precisely as proto-anarchism. The first anarchist ideas go back to the philosophical schools of ancient Greece and China (although the germs of proto-anarchism can be traced in different countries of the world, including Egypt, etc.). Ancient Greek proto-anarchy traditionally includes sophistry (Antiphon, Diogenes of Sinope and others) and the teachings of the Cynics. The Taoist tradition of Lao Tzu and Zhuang Tzu belongs to the ancient Chinese. Anarchism in its modern form was formed from the secular as well as the religious schools of thought of the Enlightenment, in particular from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's ideas about freedom and morality.

In addition, many religious Christian heresies, such as, for example, the Anabaptist movement, can be considered the forefathers of modern anarchism.

For the first time, the basic principles of anarchism appeared shortly after the English Revolution of the 17th century. In the pamphlet "Truth triumphing over slander," J. Winstanley wrote about the corruption of people by power, about the incompatibility of property and freedom. With the conviction that the results of people's own activities could put an end to an unjust world order, he led a group of his followers in 1649, called the Diggers.

Winstanley's ideas were borrowed by some areas of English Protestantism and later found their most striking reflection in Godwin's "Study on Political Justice", which became the basis of modern anarchist theory. William Godwin (1756-1836) became himself the first theorist of modern anarchism.

Godwin not only presented the classic anarchist argument of the power of human nature, the impossibility of human beings to freely act according to reason, as the cause of social evil, but he also presented a model of a decentralized society in which small autonomous communities are the basic unit. These communities function without any governing bodies, since even democracy is a form of tyranny, and the distribution of powers under representative government leads to the alienation of the individual. Godwin also denied such a source of power as property. According to him, industrial development and technological progress will lead to a reduction in working hours to thirty minutes a day, which will facilitate the transition to a free society (P.A. Kropotkin also said in his works that in his contemporary society, four hours of work for each person is sufficient to satisfy all material needs). Significant influence of Godwin can be traced in the works of such poets and thinkers as P.B. Shelley, W. Wordsworth and Robert Owen.

The first libertarian theorist who openly called himself an anarchist was Pierre Joseph Proudhon. He is rightfully considered the true founder of modern anarchist theory (unlike Godwin, he had followers). Proudhon proposed the idea of ​​"positive anarchy", when order arises as a result of people doing what they themselves want to do, and such a system balances itself, coming to a natural order, where social order is created by business transactions. At the same time, like Godwin, Proudhon was opposed to the revolutionary transformation of society, he imagined anarchy as “a form of government or constitution in which public and personal consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all freedoms. In such a case, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, bureaucracy, taxation, etc., had to be reduced to a minimum. In this, in particular, forms of monarchy and intensified centralization disappear, to be replaced by federalist institutions and a way of life based on the commune."

By "commune" Proudhon meant local self-government. His ideas inspired many followers of anarchism in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Anarchism in the 19th century was widespread in France, in Italy, in Spain.

At this time, anarchism was finally formed and self-determined - in the struggle and polemics with two other influential currents, also generated by the French Revolution - bourgeois liberalism and state socialism. Liberalism drew attention to the importance of the political freedom of a citizen (recognizing the need to preserve, albeit in an extremely simplified form, the state), socialism proclaimed social equality, calling total state regulation the way to implement it. The motto of anarchism, which opposes both fronts, is rightfully considered the famous words of M. Bakunin: "Freedom without socialism is a privilege and injustice ... Socialism without freedom is slavery and bestiality."

During the work of the International Association of Workers, anarchists clashed with communists who rejected the views of Proudhon. The theories of the anarchists were called into question by the teachings of Marx and Engels, since, in their opinion, the refusal of the anarchists from the coming of the proletariat to political power is a feature of the subordination of the working class to the bourgeoisie. After 1917, anarchism first became the "third force" of the civil war, and then it was called a counter-revolutionary movement.

Anarchism enjoyed considerable influence in Spain in the 1930s. XX century. After World War II, Kropotkin's ideas of communist anarchism spread to East Asia and Latin America.

2. The essence of anarchism and its basic principles

Anarchism is a philosophical, socio-political theory that contains many directions that can be diametrically opposed to each other. The strands of anarchist philosophy include a wide range of ideas from extreme individualism to stateless communism. One part of the anarchists denies any kind of coercion and violence (for example, the Tolstoyans, representatives of Christian anarchism), speaking from a pacifist position. The other part of the anarchists, on the contrary, finds violence a necessary component of the daily struggle for their ideals, in particular speaking from the positions of propaganda of the social revolution, as the only way to achieve a free society.

Anarchism in all forms revolves around basic principles:

1) Complete rejection of the existing social order based on political power;

The denial of power suggests that in an anarchist society one individual or a group of individuals cannot impose their own opinion, desires and will on other representatives. This also indicates the absence of a hierarchical system and representative democracy, as well as authoritarian rule. Anarchism excludes any kind of attempt to create a totalitarian society, in which all spheres of human life are totally controlled and regulated up to complete uniformity. Anarchism is person-oriented, aimed at the maximum development of each individual individually and approaches the solution of the problems and needs of individuals individually, if possible in a specific situation.

Supporters of anarchism are known to strive to build a "just society". Alas, they do not rely on scientific knowledge and do not take into account the contradictions in the mode of production, often believing that everything can resolve itself. Various "social movements", which were very numerous during the revolutions of 1848-1849, and those mentioned separately in the "Communist Manifesto", almost all disappeared with time. However, anarchism remains relevant to this day.

Anarchism appeared during a period of mass unrest. The petty bourgeoisie was forced to join the ranks of the proletariat, because the mode of production had changed, and they had to work no longer for themselves, but for the big bourgeoisie. Naturally, such a state of affairs could hardly suit a rather significant social stratum in a developed society of the 19th century. Under such conditions, an ideology was born that expressed the specific interests of social groups and classes.

Many representatives of social movements, armed with slogans about "justice", actually wanted to simply cancel the process of industrialization and urbanization. We can recall the spontaneous protests of the Luddites and other similar movements. Over time, philosophers appeared who theoretically substantiated this approach. Among them was Joseph Proudhon, who was the first to call himself an anarchist.

How could anarchism attract prominent intellectuals of its era? First of all, of course, uncompromising and radicalism.

Ultimately, he set as his goal the instantaneous destruction of the state and numerous social institutions. Not to improve, but to destroy in order to create an ideal society, abandoning the "evil experience" of monarchists, republicans, as well as various reformists.

Anarchists did not trust people who considered the evolutionary path to be the most reasonable, they also did not trust scientists and many philosophers of the Enlightenment (with the exception of Rousseau). The idea of ​​anarchists is the absence of a state, "people's communes". Since Proudhon was nevertheless one of the founders of this trend, he was not always consistent in this matter. Moreover, today many anarchists praise Proudhon as one of the most important theorists of the movement, but they seem to forget exactly what views he propagated.

For example, in On Justice, Proudhon states the following:

“By allowing a woman to perform public duties, destined by nature and matrimonial laws to purely family occupations, we stain family honor, make a public face out of a woman, proclaim the mixing of the sexes, the community of love, the destruction of the family, the absolutism of the state, civil slavery and the precariousness of property ... Emancipation can lead only to "pornocratic communism". The equalization of the sexes entails a general disintegration.

Another anarchist theorist, Bakunin, in his book "Statehood and Anarchy" criticized Marx for being a Jew, idealized the Slavs, exalted them, noting that they were "by nature" a peaceful agricultural people.

Anarchist ideals

All troubles, according to anarchists, from the state. If there is no such thing, then there will be no centralization, oppression of man by man, etc. Unfortunately, anarchists do not want to consider the situation historically. Science is generally viewed with skepticism. Almost all the "projects" of the anarchists failed. These are various kinds of communes, and people's banks, which either resembled a primitive exchange or a financial pyramid. Anarchists did not understand how the capitalist economy works and what a mode of production is.

In terms of philosophy, they preferred reductionism and idealism, when everything is explained by human nature or “will”. The more utopian and farther from science philosophy is, the closer it is to such groups. For the ideal is not in the future, but in the past, that is, the pre-state community is considered a kind of standard to which one must strive in order to gain “freedom”. Individuals who call themselves anarcho-primitivists are the most consistent, as they are not only supporters of decentralization, but also dream of destroying industry, cities and getting rid of "totalitarian" scientific knowledge.

The anarchist ideal is a "self-governing community". Moreover, there should be a lot of such communities, because the main thing is decentralization. It immediately becomes clear that it is basically impossible to use many modern technologies in such conditions, since it is unlikely that all these self-governing communities will be able to engage in large-scale production at once. The most rational solution is to simply abandon some technologies.

Communities are organized not on a scientific basis, but spontaneously, where there are no authorities and all points of view are equal. There is pluralism, direct democracy and subjective relativism. Before every important issue, you need to arrange a vote, because there is no objective truth. Is it possible to imagine how such people can organize, say, the construction of a residential facility or, say, a railway?

The issue is resolved quite easily. Here is what anarchists answer to the question of whether there was an anarchist society somewhere, which, moreover, worked:

“Yes, there are thousands and thousands of such communities. For the first million years or so, all humans were hunter-gatherers and lived in small groups of equals, without authority or hierarchy. These were our ancestors. The anarchist society was successful, otherwise none of us could have been born. The state is only a few thousand years old and still has not been able to defeat the last anarchist communities such as the San (Bushmen), the Pygmies or the Australian Aborigines.”

This is true only if the primitive society is something like what is shown in popular TV shows, cartoons or comics.

Anarchism versus Marxism

Bakunin criticizes Marxism:

Leaving aside incorrect remarks about nationality, the main complaint is that Marxists advocate centralization as a progressive measure. Bukharin correctly formulated the essence of the conflict:

“So, the future society is a society of a non-state organization. The difference between Marxists is not at all that Marxists are statesmen and anarchists are anti-state, as many people claim. The real difference in the views on the future structure lies in the fact that the social economy of the socialists follows from the tendencies towards concentration and centralization, which are inevitable companions of the development of productive forces, is a centralized and technically perfect economy, while the economic utopia of the anarchist decentralizers returns us to pre-capitalist forms and makes any economic progress impossible.”(N.I. Bukharin. On the theory of the imperialist state).

When it comes to the dictatorship of the proletariat, anarchists naturally oppose it. The reason for this is this: the proletariat, which takes power and subordinates the state to its own interests, actually becomes an exploiter itself. In order to avoid this, it is necessary in general, after taking power, to abandon any coercion of any person. That is, it is not even necessary to defend the state centrally in the interests of the oppressed class. And the fact that there is a hostile environment does not matter.

Theoretically, this was again substantiated by Bakunin:

“Man’s freedom consists solely in the fact that he obeys natural laws, because he himself recognizes them as such, and not because they were externally imposed on him by any extraneous will - divine or human, collective or individual”(Bakunin M. God and the State) .

Apparently, if you approach the situation this way, you just need to hope for the elements that everything will work out by itself. Do we need in such conditions, say, social institutions characteristic of a developed society, or can everything be implemented within the framework of primitive relations? The problem here is that very often questions of this kind are removed by the words "freedom", "justice" or "natural laws".

It is important to note that if you read the writings of modern anarchists, then almost all such provisions are generally preserved. In particular, there is agitation for small-scale commodity production, since large-scale production causes irreparable harm to the environment. Therefore, it is necessary to restore an agrarian society, which without a state, for some reason, will necessarily be anti-authoritarian.

It is interesting what a society will be like without modern technologies (including medical developments) under the conditions that we have in the 21st century, when there is a strict division of labor between groups of countries. And it is possible to change the situation as a whole precisely with the help of a rational organization, when instead of commodity production, planned production appears, the purpose of which is to provide for the material needs of society as a whole, and not to pursue maximum profit and capital accumulation.

There are anarchists who say that the ideal is the future, but not the past. They assume that production in an anarchist society is possible. This will be carried out by people on the basis of self-government, also without authority. There are, therefore, factories where the means of production are produced, there are factories where other products are produced.

It is known that in order to produce complex technical equipment, it is precisely centralized work that is needed when there is a plan established by engineers and other specialists on the basis of, for example, statistical data. It immediately turns out that there are many factories where they produce what they want, when they want. And most importantly, everything is decided by voting, in which incompetent people can participate.

There is no order here. And how do anarchists plan to make a separate commune self-sufficient? One commune will produce both computers and communications? There will be machine tool building, mechanical engineering, etc., etc. In general, miraculously, the whole model of society will reproduce itself in a small commune. This would be possible if computers and machines grew on trees. So in this scenario, most communes will probably not even be able to build a house due to the lack of necessary materials. Not to mention the organization of public utilities, which also needs centralism.

Practice

Let's move from theory to practice. First of all, one interesting feature of the majority of anarchists must be taken into account. In principle, they usually do not engage in political struggle, bypass it, hoping that power will come to them by itself. It is very convenient to believe in this, especially if we share idealistic concepts, the ideologists of which claim that anarchy is the “natural state of man”, to which he himself will come anyway.

Perhaps the anarchists showed themselves most clearly during the Paris Commune, because in fact it was there that these people had real power. What happened there? First, a complete economic mess. The fact is that there is a hostile environment that wants to destroy the commune, you need to somehow fight, and not start building a new society right off the bat.

It would have been wise to nationalize the banks and industries, as suggested by some revolutionaries, but it was the anarchists (Proudhonists) who objected most strongly to this. It was they who in many ways became, on the one hand, a source of confusion, and on the other hand, they were the defenders of the rights of exploiters and property rights. Of course, it cannot be said that there were only anarchists in the commune, but if you look more broadly, it was mostly petty-bourgeois currents that were present there.

The army began to practice "partisanism", the constant change of command, arranged public discussions of all tactical issues. That is, incompetent people were admitted to such questions, and their voice was equal to the voice of specialists. Under such conditions, failure was guaranteed.

Soon the Bakuninist Cluseret, who had previously failed his task in Lyon, became the military delegate of the Commune. Naturally, the opponent of centralization immediately arranged the maximum decentralization of the army, as far as it was possible at all. Failure was followed by failure, and the anarchist Klusere only aggravated the situation every day. This figure generally turned out to be unsuitable for the profession, and the soldiers with such an organization did not report anything to him. From the side of the revolutionaries who wanted to protect the commune, there was criticism, but the anarchists assured that everything had already been achieved, and soon anarchy would surely triumph.

A member of the Avrial commune noted:

“The National Guard is unorganized… no one commands it; now and then orders and counter-orders come; she doesn’t know who she should obey… she has no overcoats, no shoes, no trousers… she is left for two weeks in trenches, fed exclusively with corned beef, which leads to diseases.”

After some time, the anarchists, of course, were expelled for failures, but the people who led the army were no longer able to correct the situation. The delegate of the Commune of Rossel said that "is not able to bear further responsibility where everyone argues and no one wants to obey."

In response to an attempt to rectify the situation, anarchists issue a manifesto:

“Enough militarism, enough staff military…! A place for the people, bare-handed fighters!.. The people do not understand anything in skillful maneuvers, but, having guns and a pavement under their feet, they are not afraid of any strategists of the monarchist school.

Anarchists in that particular situation could indeed be called enemies of the people. They were engaged in the disorganization not only of the army, but in the city, infrastructure. At a time when the Commune no longer had any chance, the anarchists continued to talk about the need to abolish all authorities. Self-government "here and now" is needed, and the fact that a hostile environment was located nearby, ready to destroy the Commune, did not bother them much.

They sincerely believed that the commune is an example for all countries that will soon, looking at the anarchists, also throw off their chains. Marx considered the main mistake of the Communards to be the refusal to march on Versailles while there was a chance to defeat the reactionaries. The Communards preferred to simply "resolve local issues." Enemies became stronger and eventually won with a blow. Do not forget that after the liquidation of the commune, there was a “bloody week”, when several tens of thousands of people were simply exterminated without trial.

The anarchists greatly helped the reaction, because they did not fight the counter-revolution even in their own region and abandoned the "punitive organs". There were a lot of enemy agents in the city.

In terms of organization, the Proudhonists decided to use the theoretical developments of the teacher. Instead of organizing social programs in the city, they set up a kind of “free pawnshop”, where workers were given miserable pennies for valuables. By the way, in just a couple of months, the Proudhonists managed to collect valuables worth 180 million francs. And the expenses for the management of this pawnshop, as conceived by the authors, were to amount to 960 thousand francs per year.

What did the workers put in? Mostly tools and essentials, sometimes even machine tools. When it became clear that this usurious office had simply robbed all the people, they began to talk about its liquidation. However, a member of the Commune, Jourdes, said: “To destroy a pawnshop is to encroach on [private] property”(Minutes of the Paris Commune. T. I. C. 256.).

No wonder the workers were disillusioned with the Commune. She did not achieve any special social conquests. The revolutionary government even abandoned the idea of ​​establishing an 8-hour day. It is interesting that some modern historians praise the Communards for the fact that they “took on the functions of intermediaries between labor and capital” and went “on constructive forms of economic competition with capital, and not its violent destruction” (Isaev A.K., Shubin A. V. Democratic socialism - the future of Russia. M., 1995. P. 18–20.).

The classics of Marxism from the very beginning gave a correct assessment of the situation. Engels very succinctly stated why the Commune fell:

"It was the lack of centralization and authority that cost the life of the Commune". Narodnik Lavrov remarked that the Commune announced a "social revival", but did not even try to implement it. She announced "the end of the old governmental and clerical world, the end of militarism, bureaucracy, exploitation, the stock market game, the end of monopolies and privileges", but did not take a single decisive step towards their end. She put forward a program of social revolution, but did not dare to carry out this program.

Petty-bourgeois ideas were partially realized at the very beginning of the proletarian revolution of 1917, when dangerous criminals like Krasnov were released on parole, when they organized self-government in conditions of total devastation and civil war, and almost abolished prisons and the judiciary. These ideas cost the revolution dearly. Certain advances and successes began only after they were abandoned, when they began to consistently pursue the policy of the Bolshevik Party.

Anarchists during the civil war sometimes sided with the Bolsheviks, and sometimes against. The same Makhno did not understand at all what to do in this situation. For example, when the anarchist group had the opportunity to take control of the city of Yekaterinoslav, they simply failed to arrange anything there, telling the workers that they needed to organize production themselves and establish exchanges, no one knows how and with whom. As a result, the infrastructure began to fall apart very quickly. Over time, due to the lack of firearms that do not grow in the field, anarchists even began to turn to their enemies.

However, Makhno, unlike the anarchists of the commune, still can hardly be called such an opponent of authoritarianism. He himself was quite authoritarian. Another thing is that he tried to consolidate backwardness and ignorance by force. Over time, even banknotes with the image of Makhno appeared. His power was almost absolute, and all parties and organizations were banned. The population had to obey the anarchists, and those who disagreed were simply physically destroyed.

In Spain, the anarchists managed to largely repeat the path of Makhno, but they still created some “collectives”, where, in fact, they organized completely petty-bourgeois production in their own interests. Collective decision-making, if ever, was only among the leaders of the movement. Such power could not hold out for a long time and the population turned away from the revolution.

You can also remember Mao Zedong. Many will immediately say that the comparison is incorrect, since he was not an anarchist. However, it is important to note that Mao was not entirely Marxist. More like petty bourgeois. On questions of tactics, he was closer to the Narodniks than to the Marxists. And this was especially reflected in the question of centralization. Marxists have always advocated centralization, because in this case, intelligent planning can provide for the material needs of the whole society. Mao, on the other hand, was radically different from the Marxists in this sense, since at the very beginning he advocated decentralization.

At the end of the 1950s, the idea was put forward in China to create "people's communes", which are decentralized and fully self-sufficient. They should simultaneously engage in agriculture and industry. Like, the state "dies off" in this way. What actually happened? The peasants not only plowed, but also smelted iron in makeshift blast furnaces, exploitation was brought to the limit.

During the experiment, about 30 million people died in a very short time. The experiment lasted only a few years, and already in the early 60s the project was abandoned. But then again, there are still people who idealize such a model.

Perhaps the "People's Communes" in China were hindered by the fact that they were not completely free, did not make decisions based on the opinion of everyone in general on any issue? This is probably what some modern anarchists think.

In spite of everything, anarchism is not outdated. In the course of neoliberal reforms, anarchists are becoming more and more. It is even good for representatives of the ruling class if a significant part of the protesters take the side of such petty-bourgeois movements, since in reality they do not pose any threat to capitalism, which history confirms.

Jan 21, 2016 Stanislav Chinkov

“Mom is anarchy, dad is a glass of port” - this is how some young people talk about themselves in V. Tsoi's song. With port, for example, everything is clear, but what does anarchy have to do with it? Let's try to understand.

Anarchism (literally - anarchy) is a system of philosophical views that denies any coercive control and the power of some members of society over others. Anarchy calls for the elimination of any, considering them to be organs of exploitation and suppression. Anarchist - Desiring complete and absolute freedom.

Humanity is characterized by love of freedom, and therefore the ideas of anarchism are initially perceived by many with sympathy. But later disappears.

Basic principles of anarchism

The ideology of anarchism is based on remarkable principles, such as equality and fraternity, complete freedom (including associations) and human mutual assistance. And most importantly - the absence of any power. A real anarchist is a person who sincerely believes in such a construction of a society where one leader or a group of them cannot impose their demands on others. Therefore, he denies not only authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but even an anarchist is one who advocates a complete rejection of forcing a person to participate in any actions against his will (even with the most noble goals!). It is assumed that a person can participate in any public projects, only realizing his own responsibility. And since the individual can do little alone, associations of people are assumed to be freely united with a common goal and have equal rights in its implementation.

On the issue of public administration

But how is it possible, denying all power, to carry out public administration? An anarchist is one who sees the solution to this problem in collective rule and the development of grassroots initiative. That is, when implementing any public projects, the initiative comes from the bottom up, and not from the top, as is customary now (the simplest example is the election of management at enterprises).

Such an approach to social organization is considered by many to be idealistic. It requires members of a society built on the principles of anarchism, a special self-organization and the highest level of culture. After all, a person who denies outside power must be able not only to freely build his own life, but also to establish a peaceful, conflict-free coexistence with other people who, like him, yearn for complete unlimited freedom. Is it necessary to say that in a modern, not the most perfect society, this is almost unrealistic? I. A. Pokrovsky, a well-known Russian jurist of the early 20th century, wrote: “If there is a doctrine that truly presupposes holy people, it is precisely anarchism; without this, it inevitably degenerates into the bestial.

Destroy or build?

Prominent anarchists complain that their ideology is often misunderstood in society; anarchism is credited with an uncharacteristic desire to return the world to wild laws and plunge it into chaos. But let's figure it out.

Anarchism as a theory has existed for hundreds of years and consists of dozens of directions, often contradicting each other, or even completely opposite. Anarchists cannot decide not only in their relations with the authorities and other parties. They cannot achieve unity even in their understanding of civilization and technological progress. Therefore, there are almost no examples of successful construction and then stable maintenance by anarchists of any significant projects in the world. But there are more than enough examples of destruction (however, sometimes useful) carried out by supporters of anarchy. So, if we return to Tsoi's song, anarchy and a glass of port wine are a very real combination, anarchism and a revolver are also. But to imagine a creative anarchist is somewhat more difficult.