What is an anarchist? Given nothing to go on other than post-riot newspaper headlines, you could be forgiven for thinking it's someone prone to arson and looting. The Daily Telegraph went with "ANARCHY SPREADS", the Daily Mailmixed things up a little, adding the prefix 'the', The Sun simply exclaimed 'ANARCHY', while the Daily Star opted for the predictable 'ANARCHY IN THE UK'.
Aside from demonstrating the lack of diversity within the tabloid and right-wing press, these headlines do little to ease misconceptions about what is already a greatly misunderstood political philosophy.
In one way the word 'anarchy' used to describe what others might call 'lawlessness' or 'mayhem' on Britain's streets is reasonably apt. In the Oxford Dictionaries, the first given definition of the word is, "a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems." But it's the second definition, and the word's original meaning, "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." Which describes the anarchist's desired political landscape. Nowhere does it mention a penchant for fires or theft.
That's because anarchism is really nothing like what people perceive it to be. In an essay entitled "Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You!" the American anthropologist and anarchist David Graeber poses a series of hypothetical situations:
If there's a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?
Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organisation where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?
Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don't really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?
Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of colour, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?
Graeber suggests if your answers to these questions are: yes, yes, yes and no, you are well on your way to being an anarchist. You could be of different political persuasions and arrive at the same conclusions, but Graeber is highlighting that anarchism is a philosophy increasingly aligned with people's sympathies as the world becomes less fair.
Of course, those with the greatest motive to discount anarchism as a legitimate political philosophy are those in the positions of power it seeks to dispose of. So it was hardly surprising when the police recently issued this press release urging the public to report suspected anarchists:
"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local Police."
This demonisation of anyone who identifies as an anarchist is reminiscent of McCarthyism, as Ellie Mae O'Hagan pointed out in the Guardian back in May. Actually though, the police's definition of anarchism - which looks suspiciously like the Wikipedia entry on the subject - is accurate enough, without explaining the improvements to society its advocates theorise. So what are they?
To find out, and so that I might help dispel some of the myths routinely disseminated by mainstream media rather than add to them, I recently attended an anarchist meeting. You might think 'anarchist meeting' sounds like an oxymoron, but while there are different schools of thought, organisation without hierarchy is generally accepted as essential among anarchism's adherents.
Far from being populated by unsavoury characters intent on reducing UK streets to rubble, in attendance were editors; high-ranking union members; Phd students; a CEO; an anthropologist; a bookshop manager and a software engineer. There were plenty of others whose careers I didn't ascertain, but everyone there seemed friendly, intelligent, and generally the kinds of people who want to improve society rather than smash it up. (Though there was the odd Rasputin-like beard and funky hairstyle)
As I discovered, central to anarchist philosophy is the belief that the concentration of power - hierarchical systems where a few at the top are given disproportionate influence over everyone else - is destined to lead to unfair societies and corrupt governments. More than that, some anarchist theory suggests that problems in society like crime are exacerbated, if not created, by hierarchical systems as a symptom of being powerless in a world where power is everything.
Several intelligent questions were asked at the meeting, including how a hospital - one of the most hierarchically run organisations there is - would operate without a centralised decision making process. The answers given didn't quell my doubts about how emergency situations could be dealt with without individuals having the authority to make the kinds of quick, important decisions where 'jazz hands' style consensus might not suffice. But points about monetary savings through the removal of layers of bureaucracy, and cheaper, not-for-profit drugs, made the kind of sense often missing under profit driven political systems.
In general, anarchism is about genuine democracy and empowerment, where everyone is equal and nobody is afforded a platform to exploit others for profit. It isn't perfect - as shown by the different trains of thought within the movement - and I still have my own doubts about how things would work under an anarchic system, but with the way the global economy looks right now, few would argue our current system is without some grave flaws of its own.