In its crude sense when used in colloquial dialect, anarchism is regarded as the operation of a society without the presence of a state or alternative political vanguard to enforce law and govern the people, often being synonymous with chaos and connoted with political violence. It is also clear to note that little is done to distinguish the similarly rooted yet subtly differing ideas of anarchism and anarchy, with the latter being more widely used in quotidian discussion, relating more to a state of disorder and limited organisation of society. However, what is often disregarded is that anarchism and anarchy can often exist in more implicit forms that do not necessarily feature use of force, direct action and political violence so as to achieve revolutionary aims and reconstitute existing models of society (Christoyannopoulos, 2024). It can instead take on a more pacifist appearance. As described in Henry David Thoreau's Theory of Civil Disobedience, an approach similar to what is often referred to as anarcho-pacifism, can be seen as the ultimate means of achieving individual and collective liberty within a society governed by the people. The present role of the state "in the formation, a contract between the governors and the governed is entered into - the governors to protect the life, property, liberty and provide basic necessities of life and conducive environment for the wellbeing of the governed who in turn submit to and obey the laws promulgated for the general good" is considered, with anarchy in is supposedly chaotic form seen as something to be disapproved of considering the disparaging of the state as a form of civil disobedience, by which their role to "protect the life, property, liberty and provide basic necessities of life and conducive environment" is clearly disparaged (Thoreau, 1849). This sentiment, however, appears to arguably more effectively represent a form of community orientated anti-establishment libertarianism, as opposed to social anarchy. Equally, it must also be noted that chaos and disorder along with the failed use of direct can prove to remain equally prevalent in societies with strong governments and concentration of political and economic influence amongst a select group of individuals as observed here, which would thus go against many common perceptions of support and participation in anarchist activities. Therefore, it is through critical analysis of philosophies centred around social justice and the bringing about of peace so as to revolutionise society, such as those of individuals such as Leo Tolstoy, that one can understand the merits of anarcho-pacifism and how social anarchy can potentially be achieved through comparatively peaceful means. This is what this article intends to observe, as well as the supposed flaws with these methods.
Leo Tolstoy, a Russian novelist widely regarded for his religious theory- by which, as well as demonstrating a passionate distaste for the Orthodox Church and the clearly evident hierarchical system amongst the clergy traditionally, he considered Christianity as a doctrine for ethical and moral teaching, favouring an end to state and public-led political violence and social inequality- proved to act as an important figure in the development of many anarcho-pacifist philosophies. He uses this religious rhetoric to rationalise the idea that, if there was no God, love and reason should be one’s greatest qualities and so vilify nihilism, disrespect for others, and violence. One can make reference to his 1900 work On Anarchy in which he also presents something of a form of admiration for the motives of many anarchists (Tolstoy, 1900). He asserts this linking back to his emphasis on the importance of rationality in peacefully achieving revolution when he is quoted:
“(one) must submit to them your other inclinations, and not let them submit to your animal nature — to the cares about the commodities of life, to the fear of annoyance and material calamities”.
However, a reason in which Tolstoy’s principles may perhaps be ridiculed by anarchists and considered as supposedly counterintuitive, is that while he shows sympathy and admiration for the motives of revolution and feels that it would potentially be positive as a means of achieving his personal humanitarian aims, he doesn’t mention any specific methods of achieving this except for purely through the will of God and the strength of one’s inner self. This would thus mean he puts oneself and their development above the advancement of humanity and thus relatively speaking not prove to have such a great net influence on revolutionising society as a whole. This can be clearly observed through his claim that nobody knows whether revolution will take place and that this is purely determined by how well one has regenerated themself in the process. Also, in relation to his view of anarchy being derived from the sentiments of many progressive religious groups, how far these principles can be considered as truly anarchic is also something that some would question, seeing as historically a lot of these Christians had been reluctant to label themselves using the term anarchists (Barclay, 2009).
Overall, while much dispute can be had as to what constitutes anarchism and anarchy, and more pacifist and morally driven theories on the subject may perhaps be seen as overly idealistic and not revolutionary enough on a larger scale, it is clear that they can still somewhat effectively function in conjunction with pacifism. The idea of all anarchy being violent and relying on direct action can thus be disproven, and the ethics and philosophies of individuals such as Tolstoy can very much be seen as having their place in the advancement of understanding of social anarchy. His works, although also raising other questions as to what constitutes anarchy, provide effective nuance to this and further redefine revolution, perhaps appearing to act as the point of intersection of libertarian and liberal values with revolutionary aims directed at developing oneself on a personal level to respond to and initiate social change.
Barclay, H, 2009. Anarcho-pacifism. Published in The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest. DOI: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp1663
Christoyannopoulos, A, 2024. Mapping the Landscape Between Pacifism and Anarchism: Accusations, Rejoinders and Mutual Resonances. Published in British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 27(1). pp. 407-429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481241257806%0D%0AThe%20British%20Journal%20of%20Politics%20and%20%0D%0AInternational%20Relations%0D%0A2025,%20Vol.%2027(1)%20407%E2%80%93429%0D%0A%C2%A9%20The%20Author(s)%20
Thoreau, H.D., (1849). Essay on Civil Disobedience. DOI: https://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Online/texts/201/Thoreau,%20CivilDisobedience.pdf.
Tolstoy, L, 1900. On Anarchy. Published by The Anarchist Library. Source retrieved from http://tolstoyandpeace.wordpress.com/tolstoy-on-non-violence/on-anarchy-1900/. DOI: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-on-anarchy
No comments:
Post a Comment