Anarchism: A Dead End Movement?

Anarchists everywhere have always gotten bad reputations. Most everyday people understand anarchism as a political philosophy that believes the disintegration and removal of government and government powers would be best, finding them to cause more harm than good. They figure that we would be better off living in state-less societies, based on voluntary association and work. While this is their case, people often understand anarchists to be destructive, rude, obnoxious, lazy, uncooperative, and a plethora of other negative terms, although this is not always the truth. People seem to only hear the worst about them, the news and media focusing on those anarchists who give the rest a bad name, causing the movement to seem as if it glorifies chaos and destruction.

There are different types of anarchists, but for the sake of this article, I’ll only refer to those anarchists that are given a bad rep, and those anarchists that cause it.

A large group of anarchists (I’ll call them “progressive anarchists”) are actually very politically-minded people, keeping tabs on current events and express interest in a better world. These people are not looking for chaos or destruction of natural civilization, but for progress and cooperation, and to keep vital power out of the government’s hands that could wrongly oppress them in some way, shape or form. While most of them are interested in the complete removal of government and police, some recognize the fact that a small form of (often very) limited government would be necessary for society to function properly and safely. Some of these anarchists can even be found participating in government as mayors, city council, etc.

Aside from the previously mentioned, there’s another equally as large, if not larger, group of anarchists that vary greatly in what they stand for, but they have one thing in common -- they all feel the government, and cops, are completely and 100% useless and unnecessary. Some might study politics and government in depth, though most of them haven’t a basic understanding of the current events, and could be considered as “followers”. These anarchists often have some sort of disgruntled past, having ran into an issue or two with the police or the government where they felt they were done wrong, and these anarchists often are younger (ranging from 14 to 30). Often, they’re okay with the idea of chaos and destruction, being able to do whatever they want, whenever they want. To paint a picture of one of these anarchists could be as described: Jobless or shows disgust for working for someone, no regards for authority, messy, refuses to vote, huge drug user, might be considered a “punk”, listens to punk and hardcore bands, etc. (Please know that I am not saying everyone like this is a “destructive anarchist”, but this is what the average one looks like. As a person with both types of anarchists as close friends, I am basing this off of personal experience, and am not trying to be derogatory in any way.)

Often at some point in life, these anarchists grow out of their “destructive” stage and evolve into a more “progressive” stage. A good example to use of a person (and band) who had somewhat recently undergone this evolution would be a favorite of mine, the (used to be) anarcho-punk/alternative/rock band, Against Me (stylized as Against Me!) The front man and lyricist, Tom Gabel, was a die-hard anarchist from the inception of the band at the age 17, recalling his bouts with police who had (no doubt) treated him unfairly, causing him harm and mistreatment based on looks. This caused him to tread the waters of anarchism, and Against Me was often regarded as a pinnacle in anarchist music, writing songs such as Baby, I’m an Anarchist!

Recently however, the band took a new turn on things with their music, leaving their old “true” anarchist fanbase angry and unhappy with them, and especially with Gabel. From writing songs such as Baby, I’m an Anarchist! in the beginning, to I Was a Teenage Anarchist now, Gabel expressed in multiple interviews how he had grown out of anarchism and why, stating that “I'm in a place where I don't need to subscribe to any kind of labels in order to justify my existence or complete my identity … I think that anarchism as a philosophy is something I very much identify with and see a lot of merit in, but the anarchist movement a lot of times I feel like has a lot of short comings and it's full of shit.”

While progressive anarchists are incredibly intelligent, useful, and well versed in politics and express true interest in creating a better, less-oppressed society, their destructive counterparts are causing them to promote their views of anarchism in vain, making people everywhere paint a very not-so-pretty picture of anarchism as a whole. Because of this, anarchism is widely regarded as just straight out being chaotic and unproductive.

Complete and total anarchism (in the terms of destructive anarchists, not progressive) would turn out to be a very bad and useless accomplishment if we somehow managed to achieve it. You can complain about the police all you want, but in the end, they’re necessary. Government is necessary. Humans are meant to create societies and elect leaders --- we’d end up doing the same thing if total anarchism came over us. We would find that one person among us who seemed the most charismatic and go to them for guidance. Problems would arise, and we would organize a small group of people to watch our towns. That would be the beginning of yet another government.

As Tom Gabel said himself, “Anarchism is truly just another flag, and I say burn it along with the rest of them.”