This is what anarchism looks like.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Italians gathered across their balconies to sing, and Iranians performed poetry on theirs.

Groups of people self-organized to pick up medicines and deliver groceries, and people taught free classes online.

Around the world, mutual aid groups sprang up to raise emergency funds and support their communities with all  kinds of direct services.

All of that was a form of political anarchism.

Even the singing Italians.

Hi!

I'm Ellie Anderson and this  is Crash Course Political Theory.

[THEME MUSIC] Twentieth-century feminist  revolutionary Emma Goldman  didn’t want to define anarchism for us, because she said anarchism is all about thinking for yourself.

But she threw us a bone.

She described anarchy as “The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law.” And also, crucially, “the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.” Most of the political theories we’ve talked about in this series assume that societies require a central authority to keep the peace, and that without one, everything would collapse.

Remember Hobbes?

He thought life without government would be,  quote, “solitary, poor,  nasty, brutish, and short.” Which is also how I describe myself when I haven't had enough coffee.

But anarchists sort of turn that on its head.

They believe that governments, with their hierarchies and tanks, are inherently tyrannical.

And humans are naturally cooperative, rather than naturally violent or competitive.

Still, it’s hard for me to  imagine life without governments.

I mean, where else are nerds like me supposed  to spend their prom nights if  not their local public libraries?

But seriously, apart from  some small-scale experiments  by groups like the Paris Commune  or the Zapatistas in Mexico, we can literally only imagine it.

Because it’s not exactly easy to poof governments away for the sake of experiment.

Except in rare moments, like after natural disasters or during a pandemic, when a bunch of our systems fall apart.

Then, writers like Rebecca Solnit argue,  we can see a glimpse through  the new forms of organizing that emerge to meet people’s needs without government oversight.

Anarchists point out that people have organized themselves since long before states existed.

Of the roughly three hundred thousand years that modern humans have been doing their thing, state-level societies have been around for only five thousand of those years.

And we still naturally organize ourselves, even when we’re not in crisis.

According to anthropologist David Graeber, daily life is full of anarchy: we wait in line to board the bus, even if the police aren’t there to make us, and we voluntarily join organizations, like sports teams and book clubs.

But it makes me curious.

If we’ve always naturally organized ourselves, then why do states exist?

As it turns out, for anarchists, it all goes back to private property.

Once we opened that can of worms, and land and resources no longer belonged to everyone like they did in  many hunter-gatherer societies, property owners wanted to hang on to their wealth.

So, in the anarchist worldview, the state doesn’t keep everyone safe from chaos —it just keeps the rich, rich.

Or, in the words of ​​Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French journalist whose work became the basis of anarchist theory in the mid-nineteenth century, ”property is theft.” A fire catchphrase.

Almost as good as the famous  line from the Godfather: “when you’re here, you’re family.” Or, wait, I think that’s something else…?

Anyway, all property, Proudhon believed,  represents the labor of many,  claimed by a single owner.

That’s because the value of a factory isn’t just created by the person who owns it – it’s also created by those who built it and those who work there.

Proudhon said that property should be owned by everyone who gives it value; otherwise there can’t be equality.

If your Marx senses are tingling, that’s because anarchism is also deeply influenced by socialism.

Both theories agree that economic  exploitation hinders freedom.

But Marxists believe we can create a government that protects its people from this exploitation by giving power to the workers.

Anarchists, on the other hand, believe that it’s impossible to have any form of centralizing power without  economic exploitation.

So, the ideas of Proudhon and others would develop into classical anarchism, which calls to abolish the state and replace it with free associations of workers.

They would trade goods and services, and cooperate with other regions through a union of self-governing communities.

A lot like those mutual aid groups that popped up during the pandemic.

Proudhon’s ideas were picked  up by Mikhail Bakunin,  who took things a couple steps further, opposing hierarchies of all kinds.

He wanted no bosses, no landlords, no kings, and no library late fees.

OK, that last one was just me.

And he railed against the  oppression not just of workers but also of women and children, believing that all people who labored  should benefit from that labor.

He argued for individual workers to organize themselves into groups that share resources and decision-making power, a  concept known as collectivism.

And he wanted to challenge the state directly —through violent revolution, if it came to that  —which, it did.

He brought his ideas right  to the barricades of the  1848 revolutions that were erupting across Europe.

Meanwhile, the Russian aristocrat and geographer Peter Kropotkin had a slightly different take.

He was swayed to anarchism after visiting a group of self-governing Swiss watchmakers.

Now that’s my kind of vacation.

Kropotkin built on Bakunin’s idea of collectivism.

But where Bakunin thought  “each according to his labor,”  Kropotkin thought, “each according to his need.” Which was basically a way of saying, you don’t have to prove you’re  worthy of having your needs met.

He imagined a society run  kind of like a public library —I know, I know, just wait it gets better.

He says: “The librarian does not ask what services  you have rendered to society  before giving you the book, and he comes to your assistance if you do not know how to manage the catalogue.” I think we can all agree that no matter what political system we’re talking about, it really should be run by librarians.

Anyway, this vision is called anarchist communism – it’s a lot like communism but  without a centralized state,  not even a centralized state made of workers.

These days, there’s still  tons of debate over anarchism.

One of the main critiques is, sure, a stateless society sounds cool in theory, but how could it exist in reality?

It’s impractical!

And folks have all sorts of  ways of responding to this.

Like, OG anarchist influencer Emma Goldman, who we mentioned at the start, said that what’s really impractical is clinging to a bad system and expecting different results.

The only logical response to a problem, she argued, is to try something new.

We saw a real-life attempt at something new in the Occupy movement, which sprang up in September  2011 in New York City, and eventually spread to more than a hundred US cities and 25 other countries.

Their rallying cry was: “We  are the ninety-nine percent.” It was a response to extreme wealth disparities, and the fact that super-wealthy people — the one percent — hold so much political power.

Thousands of protesters marched on Wall Street, the financial capital of the country, and then built a live-in  community in Zuccotti Park.

They cooked and cleaned and loaned out books, and every evening they formed a general assembly to talk about the future and propose new ideas.

But despite all the steam,  the encampment fizzled out  in just fifty-nine days, and the  media moment was all but over.

They wanted to do politics differently, so they never came up with a list of demands, and when they couldn’t reach consensus,  they split into a bunch of  different interest groups.

Which is itself a major critique  of the theory of anarchy.

By design, no one litigates what  counts as anarchy and what doesn’t.

And so, anarchist groups can  sometimes lose political momentum.

This lack of central authority also explains why and how a wide swath of political perspectives have laid claim to anarchy.

Perspectives that are in some cases far removed from the ideas of political theorists.

Like, while a lot of anarchist theory grew out of Marxist arguments, some self-proclaimed anarchists have quite the opposite approach.

Take for example crypto-anarchists.

Their main goal is to use  technology like cryptocurrency  to get rid of the need for a state, allowing folks to exchange money without regulation by governments or banks.

So, hardcore anti-capitalists and pro-capitalist  crypto-finance bros can all  consider themselves anarchists, because resisting state authority  can take a lot of different forms.

For example, one of the major divisions among anarchists concerns violence: whether it’s okay—or even necessary—to use it.

While anarchist beliefs can  fuel movements like Occupy,  they are not universally peaceful.

Goldman herself was involved  in plotting the attempted  assassination of steel magnate Henry Clay Frick.

When it came to revolution, she considered violence a justifiable means to an end.

And we’ve seen violent players aligning themselves with anarchism more recently as well.

For example, the Boogaloo movement has been known to capitalize on moments of political turmoil, like the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, to incite violence, often under the mantle of an imminent second civil war.

Their anti-government views  led some far-right followers  to get involved in the  insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021.

Still, not all anarchists believe that the state must be destroyed to make way for anarchy; others argue that building  anarchistic communities within  existing states will reduce the  government’s power over time.

And that doesn’t necessarily  look like spray-painting  tunnels or throwing hand grenades.

It looks more like talking to their neighbors and  volunteering at community  gardens and soup kitchens.

Providing services that governments might otherwise provide, or might be failing to provide.

In this way, anarchist thinkers such as Colin Ward have pointed out, there’s such a thing as everyday anarchism.

Meaning, life is full of  people who help each other.

Which makes me wonder, what  would the world look like  if we nurtured these seeds of anarchism with simple, everyday gestures of mutual aid?

Although stateless societies have rarely existed in the modern world, anarchist ideas live on.

They exist in autonomous communities  like the Zapatistas in Mexico,  in social movements like the Arab Spring, and in pockets within communities,  in response to both global  disasters and local needs.

Meanwhile, anarchists continue to debate  the best way forward: revolution,  or book clubs, or both?

A perennial debate which Goldman reminds us, is central to anarchism itself — so that it can be ever-flexible to fit the needs of the time and place.