Anarchy is not merely a catch phrase or punk rock-ism for me, meant to be chanted in the company of fashionable punk rockers, it is a preferable life style. As many misunderstood anarchists have remarked it upon many a time before, anarchy is not chaos, as many drunk/chaos punk types (and society) would like you to believe. Anarchy is many things.

One of the many things anarchy is to me, is an autonomous life style that combines the best aspects of humanity (which do seem scant at times) into a community based on freedom, autonomous rule, and equality for all hum_n kind. This may seem a lofty goal, but that’s not the point, the point of this little self-explanatory article has little to do with what I desire for all of us to achieve, for that has been (basically) summed up already. What I want to remark upon, are methods to this madness. That is the key as far as I’m concerned.

One frequent problem that anarchists have run across is the notion of propaganda by thought versus propaganda by deed. On one hand, there is the frustration of a world torn apart by the little things, money, power, and the lust for more of it. Hum_n interest has been shoved to the wayside. It is in this desire that many have expressed the notion of propaganda by thought over the standard violence society breeds. On the other side of the anarchist coin of thought, are those who see the only way of expressing their unrest and distress at our or any other system of government (By Corporate Interest, For Corporate Interest) as one that must relate to the masses. That of destruction and violence (see McKinley’s assassination) which will curb the sense of the public and make them aware that there are other options of “governing”. 

Both of these methods have their validity, with some dispute between whether propaganda by deed is far too harsh or propaganda by thought is not powerful enough a tool by which to spread the message. That is much of what I intend to discuss.

In the first place, I was at one point very strongly in favor of the deed end of propaganda. It seemed the only way of attracting a vast amount of public attention. “Bringing the mountain to Mohammed” (Mohammed being the vastly shepherded populace) if you will, seemed the best way. But since that point, I have made a concerted effort to at least examine other options, being personally of a peaceful nature. My examination has brought me to one conclusion. Propaganda by deed has done more harm than it has good.

My conclusions are based on several things, historically and recently. Historically, I have noticed a trend for the only noted activities of anarchists (aside from activities noted by anarchists themselves) are acts of violence. Note this definition from Thorndike-Barnhart’s dictionary:
Anarchy:

           1.absence of a system of government and law.
That’s just fine, that’s about right in fact, but moving on to #2:
           2. disorder; confusion

Now admittedly, that is a surprisingly decent definition of anarchy, but none the less, it still maintains its connection to violence in the minds of the public. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve heard anarchy used in the place of chaos by any number of individuals from all ranges of the political spectrum (minus, of course many on the farther left, who perhaps know anarchists or are more aware of anarchism’s true goal). Suffice to say, the mainstream population and media have their collective heads up their collective asses when it comes to anarchy and anarchists.

This notion leads one to believe that this equation by the masses of anarchy with violence is based on a very limited view. It seems that the only anarchists or self-proclaimed anarchists in the public eye are those who have committed acts of violence. Governments also use public knowledge or belief as a tool. The need very little propaganda against anarchists in order to propagate the “violence” and chaos of the Anarchist Movement. Of course the movement has also been cheapened to some degree by legions of trendy punk jockers in their search for the latest craze. But I digress.

When speaking of historical relevance aside from public opinion, I point out several examples of anarchism being equated historically with violence. First off, we have the assassination of William McKinley, an act that is often attributed to an anarchist. Due to the lack of anarchism in the public eye, the only other major record that I can remember from my “History” Book in middle school is the Haymarket Riot, which is also severely distorted in favor of the capitalists. As far as a more recent and definitely relevant issue there are the anarchists who took front stage in the not too distant direct action in Seattle during World Trade Organization talks. Why I mention this is because it is a perfect example of propaganda by deed. This group of anarchists went out into the streets and destroyed targets of opportunity (Starbucks and Nike, I believe) as well as protesting. While I have no objection to the damage of bullshit corporate properties, I also wish to point out the problems that unfortunately arose. In their favor, there was (albeit briefly) impressive coverage in many mainstream magazines (typically the liberal mainstream media, though) which at least opened up a forum for discussion of anarchist thought. The problem is that these forums were over-shadowed by the media’s bloodlust for violence and their proclivity to maintain the anarchists as the “violent” ones, although it was obviously the corporate guardians (commonly known as police) that created and spread the violence. But it didn’t matter, since violence “is what anarchists do” in the eyes of masses.

Although I had made my opinion before the Seattle mess, I wanted to point out that it certainly confirmed my preference of propaganda by thought. The main reasoning for this (aside from the prior noted peaceful nature) is apparent from what I’ve seen come from the deed form. The brief forum for anarchist thought isn’t worth the stumble that anarchism took down the violence route in public opinion. Most people of course feel that violence = destruction of property. This is not so, but the public are set in their ways. Therefore, as long as the masses are of this opinion, propaganda by deed is simply not a realistic way to gain support for the movement.

It is also important not to shove anarchism down the throats of anyone. First off, that is defeatist in respect of the principles of anarchy. Anarchy is an autonomous life style in which people are allowed to govern themselves. To bludgeon people with anarchy is akin to tearing the roots from a tree and expecting it to grow. It is in this, as well as other respects that I choose the tenets of propaganda by thought.

It is difficult to say where the best point of attack is in seeking to establish a public understanding of anarchy. 
One possible approach is to spread the word heavily on the internet (one thing that I’m working on myself). This would be an acceptable means to spread knowledge, and it’s very easy to network (hence: internet). The only major problem facing this tactic is that, although the web is vast and millions hear the siren call, it is still rather limited towards the scope that we anarchists would like to achieve. It leaves too many people out of the loop. But at least it’s feasible from the aspect of cost.

The next option open is mass distribution of anarchist literature and networks of anarchists working in respect to flood their region with information on anarchism or ways to find anarchist writings or works in that vein. The problem facing this method is the costs are often astronomical (especially for working class anarchists like myself without much capital). It is also taxing on the environment from a paper standpoint. But at least it’s an option.

Punk can be another option for activism (obviously) and being involved with the peace/anarcho punk movement I’ve found it to be a good way to reach out to people, especially because music has an incredible amount of power to motivate and to create conduits. One problem I’ve found since my introduction to punk is picking through all of the bands (and there are quite a few out there) to find the ones with the anarchist movement at heart. It is hard enough to find a band that talks about more than getting drunk and hasn’t fallen for the right wing anti-PC conspiracy. Of course you could always start your own band. In any case, although I might just be biased, punk can be a powerful tool. But also, underground punk is hard to come by for someone new to the movement (or it wouldn’t be terribly underground, would it?). This aside, the punk movement still reaches far too few people.

These are just several of the many options open to anarchists. The revolution I see, as the piece is entitled is an intellectual one. Anarchists cannot be born or bred, nor can they be programmed (once again, that would demolish the basis for anarchy). An anarchist is created in the mind of an individual. An anarchist must be an anarchist of their own volition. Of course the duty of any anarchist is to make those who may find the anarchist philosophy to their liking aware of the possibility. It is only by ousting force fed public views that anarchy can spread and this is not a simple task. Anarchy will and must begin in the mind, otherwise the individual will not take to it. This is a process that was begun many years ago, continues today and must continue well into the future for our utopia to be realized. In all likelihood few or none of us who spread the word in the present day will ever see the day that an anarchist utopia we dream of. Though sad, this is also irrelevant, owing to the fact that anarchism should never be strictly about the present, but that it must allow for the future. This is one of the most basic principles of the anarchist (hence egalitarian) movement. 

Of course, once anarchism has gained a wider-spread acceptability, struggle, strife and violent revolution may be necessary (although I truly hope not) for anarchy has always denied those who feel the need to rule or gain power over their fellow hum_n being. Despite that fact, the groundwork that has started to be laid must continue. Without a redefining of hum_nity and strong anarchist base (i.e., two components of intellectual revolution) no revolution, bloodless or not will ever succeed.

* Removal of the fourth letter in hum_n or any of its incarnations for the purpose of neutering the word

Next:
a bubble within a shell?

back to top...