This article is about the branch of anarchism emphasizing social equality. For the libertarian political philosophy within the socialist movement, see Libertarian socialism.
Social anarchism, also known as left-wing anarchism or socialist anarchism, is the branch of anarchism that sees liberty and social equality as interrelated.
Social anarchism is opposed to all forms of social and political power, hierarchy and oppression, including (but not limited to) the State and capitalism.[1] Social anarchism sees liberty as interconnected with social equality,[2] and considers the maximization of one to be necessary for the maximization of the other.[3] As such, social anarchism seeks to guarantee equal rights to freedom and material security for all persons.[4]
Social anarchists argue that the abolition of private property would lead to the development of new social mores, encouraging mutual respect for individual freedom and the satisfaction of individual needs.[13] Social anarchism therefore advocates the breaking up of monopolies and the institution of common ownership over the means of production.[14] Instead of capitalist markets, with their profit motives and wage systems, social anarchism desires to organise production through a collective system of worker cooperatives, agricultural communes and labour syndicates.[15]
While social anarchism has rejected the statism of Orthodox Marxism, it has also drawn from Marxist critiques of capitalism, particularly Marx's theory of alienation.[16] Social anarchists have also been reluctant to adopt the Marxist centring of the proletariat as revolutionary agents, instead identifying the revolutionary potential of the socially excluded segments of society.[17]
However, some social anarchists such as Noam Chomsky sometimes hold state hierarchy to be preferable to economic hierarchy, and thus lend their support to welfare state programs like universal health care that can improve people's material conditions.[19]
Characterised by its loose definition and ideological diversity,[32] social anarchism has lent itself to syncretism, both drawing from and influencing other ideological critiques of oppression,[33] and giving way to a number of different anarchist schools of thought.[34]
The main division within social anarchism is over the means for achieving anarchy, with philosophical anarchists advocating for peaceful persuasion,[43] while insurrectionary anarchists advocated for "propaganda of the deed".[44] The former have upheld an anarchist form of education, free from coercion and dogmatism, in order to establish a self-governing society.[45] The latter have participated in rebellions in which they expropriated and collectivised property, and replaced the state with a network of autonomous and federally-linked communes.[46] The aim was to build a socialist society, without using the state, from the bottom-up.[46]
Principles of social anarchism, such as decentralisation, anti-authoritarianism and mutual aid, later held a key influence on the new social movements of the late-20th century.[47] It was particularly influential within the New Left and green politics,[48] with the green anarchist tendency of social ecology drawing directly from social anarchism.[49] Social anarchist strategies of direct action and spontaneity also formed the foundation of the black bloc tactic, which has become a staple of contemporary anarchism.[50] The social anarchist principle of prefiguration has also been shared by sections anti-state Marxism, particularly that of autonomism.[51]
In the contemporary era, anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are the dominant tendencies of social anarchism.[52]
Distinction from individualism
Social anarchism is commonly distinguished from individualist anarchism,[53] the latter of which favours individual sovereignty and property,[54] and can even oppose all forms of social organization altogether.[55] While individualists worry that social anarchism could lead to tyranny of the majority and forced collaboration, social anarchists criticise individualism for encouraging competition and atomizing individuals from each other.[56] Individualism was heavily criticised by classical social anarchists,[57] such as Bakunin and Kropotkin, who held that the liberty of a few individuals was potentially harmful to the equality of all mankind.[58]
However, this distinction is also contested,[59] as anarchism itself is often seen as a synthesis of liberal individualism and social egalitarianism.[60] Some social anarchists, such as Emma Goldman and Herbert Read, were even directly inspired by the individualist philosophy of Max Stirner.[61] Social anarchism generally attempts to reconcile individual freedoms with the freedom of others, in order to maximise the freedom of everyone and allow for individuality to flourish.[13] Individualists and social anarchists have even been able to cooperate by upholding "communal individuality", emphasising both individual freedom and community strength.[56] Some social anarchists have argued that the divisions between them and the individualists can be overcome, by emphasising their shared commitment to anti-capitalism and anti-authoritarianism.[62] But others draw the line at forms of individualism that uphold hierarchical power relations.[63]
In his 1995 book, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, Murray Bookchin defined social anarchism in contrast to what he called "lifestyle anarchism".[64] According to Bookchin, it was impossible for the two tendencies to coexist, claiming there to be an "unbridgeable chasm" that separated them from each other.[65] Bookchin held social anarchism to be the only genuine form of anarchism, considering individualism to be inherently oppressive.[66] But his separation of the two tendencies has been criticised and even rejected entirely by other anarchists.[67] His analysis has been criticised as "reductive" and "undialectical", due to his failure to recognise the many connections and interrelations between the two tendencies.[68]
Although sometimes considered a form of individualist anarchism,[69]anarcho-capitalism is typically rejected as a legitimate anarchist school of thought by social anarchists, who uphold anti-capitalism as a central principle.[70] The two have engaged in a contested debate over the term "libertarian", which was initially a synonym for the "left-libertarian" social anarchism but was later also claimed by "right-libertarian" anarcho-capitalists, with each rejecting the "libertarian" credentials of the other.[71] In contrast, social anarchists accept American individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner as genuine, due in part to their opposition to capitalism.[72] In turn, modern anti-capitalist individualists like Kevin Carson have drawn inspiration from social anarchism, while retaining their pro-market views.[73] Libertarian scholar Roderick T. Long has thus suggested that left-wing market anarchists could use their position to mediate between social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, arguing for an ecumenical view of anarchism and libertarianism.[74]
Franks, Benjamin (2018b). "Prefiguration". In Franks, Benjamin; Jun, Nathan; Williams, Leonard (eds.). Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. Routledge. pp. 28–43. ISBN978-1-138-92565-6. LCCN2017044519.
Suissa, Judith (2001). "Anarchism, Utopias and Philosophy of Education". Journal of Philosophy of Education. 35 (4): 627–646. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.00249.