No Pasaran! Anarchism surrounds us!

‘!No Pasaran!’ I say- without of course the upside-down Spanish exclamation mark which Microsoft Character Map refuses to give me. Bourgeois bástards! After reading Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia I became quite interested in how anarchism can possibly be an organised political movement- so I looked up the CNT. Anarchist brigades dressed in red scarfs and cloaks impaling Fascists in the dusty valleys of Murcia- forward, comrades!
Anarchism seems to have disappeared as a political movement these days. It seems that the anarchist principle was just Balkanisation- to an incredible degree. Anarchist ruled territories in Spain in the 1930s were so decentralised that more or less every village had its own comittees which were responsible for everything the local people needed. Of course, distrust of centralised government led to a lack of unity, divisions which have plagued the left since Marx and Engels started writing, and the Anarchists fell apart. Even the Communists and Socialists in Spain fired on Anarchist positions. Poor people. The idea of greatly decentralised ‘government’ is a noble one, but what happens with agressive foreign powers? With competition in the market economy? With diplomacy- how do you debate with a rabble of leaderless vigilantes who distrust the very government you represent- or indeed any government?
Anarchism taken to the extreme would, I suppose, be a commune of working people without a leader who rely on their morals to keep them from falling upon one another. Perhaps it was the anarchist leader, Buenaventura Durruti, who said ‘the only Church that illuminates is a burning one‘. You see, even high profile leaders making violence-inciting statements causes a common belief- in this case, that the Cardinals should burn- and therefore unifies ‘anarchists’ and crushes dissenters. Anarchism is about dissent, however. That’s why one could call the Levellers early Anarchists- or at least, the building blocks for the movement. It’s a good question- why should any human being consent to the rules of a government if they haven’t had a say what its policies are. Then, we work ourselves into the argument that democracy will always leave out the wishes of the minority then where are we left?- we’re left with a confusing blog post mehmet the twelfth will not himself even understand when he rereads this. So, we bring this onto the back burner. And move to Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge for humankind of the digitised labyrinth of techie acronyms that is the twenty-first century.
Uncle Wikipedia tells us: ‘ there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, beyond their rejection of compulsory government’. Now I see.
A further look at the word ‘anarchy’ tells us that it derives from the Greek ‘an + archon’- meaning- rule without leaders. So there we go. Rule without leaders. So why is Durruti described as an anarchist leader? My brain is now severely addled.
According to Kropotkin, anarchist societies would automatically produce all goods common to society. But where does this lead economic competition? Where does this lead the free market economy? This is called anarchistic communism but if these two words rang true, then the communism part would eventually entail the leaders of this ‘production-for-the-good-of-all-people’ rise up and become, gradually, the autocrats- and Marx’s zig-zaggy diagram of how society operates would actually prove true. Ending in the proletarian revolution, in which the proletariat, intelligensia and workers would overthrow the autocrats and live in blissful socialist harmony. This does not explain the presence of this- arguably successful anarchist ‘leader’- in Ukraine in around 1919.
Nestor Makhno (a well-groomed chap with a fine head of hair) led independent anarchist brigades in Ukraine in the Russian Civil War and secured a large slice of the Ukranian cake (or Rye-Bread or whatever it is Ukranians eat) for himself. Makhno and his associates were tolerated by the Bolsheviks, who later betrayed them and sent Makhno fleeing to Paris. Probably the problem with the anarchists in actual military conflict is the fact that hierarchy shouldn’t exist in an anarchist army. Which leads us on to how anarchist soldiers can possibly be led. Thus explaining why the badly led anarchists standing in temptation’s way for the Bolsheviks were such a pushover after their leaders fled. We see the period from around 1919 to 1945 as a huge global fight between Fascism and the allied forces of Communism and Social Democracy. Throw in anarchists such as Makhno and these things get more interesting. Were they communists? Or were they anything? If Uncle Wikipedia can’t define it without correcting himself, then I’m certainly stumped.
Anarchism in literature is another thing. I recently heard of the author BS Johnson, whose major work in progress was so controversial that he committed suicide when it wasn’t well reviewed- this book is now regarded as a wonderful addition to anyone’s shelves. I say book, but I really mean… pamphlets? Book-box? This book, BS Johnson’s The Unfortunates is two bound pages of an introduction to the novel, and the rest of the pages are loose in a box. The box is shuffled, and aparrently in any way they’re moved, the story can still be read- albeit with a more surrealistic sense. Genius. Pure literary anarchism. Only problem is, it’s out of print. There is a copy on amazon.co.uk for the princely sum of £19, and I am tempted. If you hear from me again in the next week, assume I haven’t bought it

Mehmet10 + Mehmet 2