Remarks On Sophisticated Anarchism

There's a difference between Anarchism and Anarchy. Sounds strange but might be better understandable if it's compared to theory and practice: last one is often associated with violent activism.

The theoretical orientated Anarchism isn't imperatively calling out violence. By researching the founder times of Anarchism in Russia and Italy examples of violent actions might stand in the foreground but they are not representative: Just like in all factions which end on -isms even the Anarchism is divided into a moderate and a militant wing.

While the militant Anarchists call for immediate action against the rejected political ideology even under the use of life-endangering measures the moderate Anarchists which I define as Sophisticated Anarchists (being aware that the initials might lead to conclude a hidden message referring to an infamous Third Reich unit, I can assure that there is absolutely no relation to them.) are seeing themselves as more like setscrews on the round table of all political ideologies.

To become a Sophisticated Anarchist you have to internalize all of those political ideologies and reject them. Which means a certain maturity is required. The wildfire of teeners declaring themselves of becoming labelled as Anarchists has nothing to do with the S.A.'s

Mostly Anarchism will be localized in the left spectre among Socialism and Communism. On one side correct in the Manichean view that there primarily exists only left and right. But the S.A.'s are if we keep the Manichean point of view in-between both striving to point out the weak points and errors both sides have.

Regarding all rejected political factions S.A.'s are de facto closer to the Liberalism. Which figures out another line of demarkation between Liberal Anarchists and Leftist Anarchists. Even in the right spectre between Conservatism and Nationalism some Anarchists - admittedly not few - are to be found.

The original meaning of Anarchy is 'no authority'. (It's important not to confuse this with anti-authoritarian behavior.) That doesn't mean ἀναρχία calls for a chaos provoking do-whatever-you-will but more for the personal responsibility of the individual so that leader figures become needless. It's a dream of a functioning society of individuals (many political ideologies are claiming that for themselves; actually the Democracy is neutrally regarded - still - in the leading position of the main political systems.) and will often be regarded as Utopism.

Finally a personal note: I generally reject -isms. They support the Divide-and-Conquer systematic.

The Arab (Off-)Spring

What is left of the revolutionary momentum after two and a half years uprisings in the Middle East and Northern Africa?

Witnessing the actual ongoings especially in Egypt some if not many are having the feeling that a nebulous situation not easy to comprehend is getting additionally ambiguous. That might be true regarding the complexity of army, tribes and brotherhoods, of secular as well as religious movements, of stubborn tyrants, allies, proxies, hate- and fearmongers. Everyone seems to blame the other sides for inciting violence, spreading hate or hijacking popular movements. By victimizing or declaring themselves as conspiracy targets they avoid taking responsibility for their (in-)actions and continue the pervert mood in the game for power. The global bystanders' community reacts varying, on a spectre from passionate support for one or the other side to completely ignoring the incitements, be it because of opposing interventionism in general, be it because of avoiding to get too much involved.

By summing up all players at the field one group which is not only obviously the greatest one is missing. The people. Stuck between think- as well as real tanks, true lies and false promises the civilians are in each revolutionary uprising the ones facing sacrifices and paying the price for decisions and reactions each single involved faction is making. The outlook for this price is a better, a brighter future based on freedom, justice and perspectives the growing up generations will harvest one day. Compared with the population pyramid in the Arabic speaking region a country like Germany for example appears geriatric. But that‘s another topic. Let‘s focus back on the involved countries since the Arab Spring broke out:

In the beginning there was hope

After toppling a fistfull of opressive regimes - Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt and Ghaddafi in Libya - the alliance of Arab dictators became a much more exclusive club still led by Syria‘s Assad who claims his justification by eradicating rebels as well as unarmed civilians. Other tyrants managed more or less to retire - in the case of Saleh in Yemen - or to survive their electoral period to vanish from the screen - like Iran‘s Ahmadinedjad. Those who successfully toppled their unwanted leaders implied their hopes in a future granting them more freedom, restoring dignity and justice as well as equality. The era of nepotism and corruption and the constant fear of random violence through security forces should belong to the past. All these hopes and expectations defined the fundament a new, fair nation would be able to build up. But the process of the demanded change not only requires time but also the insight that Arab democracy needs some adjustment tools like trial-and-error due to the circumstance that it is a political form those countries lack of experience. (Western elitists made the fault to expect a perfectly shaped house of democracy similar to their own ones built up by a finger snap.) Some revolutionaries were aware of that from the beginning of the turmoils, others had and still have to walk a road of painful experiences to reach the desired goals.

The revolutionary roadmap may vary at the first sight from country to country. That deceives. By replacing the metaphorical roadmap with a ladder the first three steps became clearly visible:

First step: Overcome your wall of fear.

The initial spark which flowed around - an occurence convicting more and more people no longer to silence the injustice and to rise up with uplifted chest risking to face uplifted arms - resulted from an unpredictability not even the hard-boiled circles of power could foresee to prevent what came after it. From the more conservative appearing Tunisian society to the revolting nature of the Egyptians the people in the whole region saw their chance to end the state of misery they were in for a long period. Suddenly a majority opposed publicly against the missmanagement of their political elites. The concept of intimidation worked no longer in favor of the tyrannical systems. The people began to become aware of their power to intimidate the tyrants themselves.

Second step: Don‘t ban justified and constructive criticism in your own rows.

Regimes have among all bad characteristics one which is best described as „Don‘t listen to the voice of the people even if their objections are constructive“. By letting them unheard the people are increasingly feeling of not being taken for serious. This inability creates earlier or later a powder keg of discontent leading in the worst case for the dictators to a popular uprise.

The revolutionary movements had to learn since the beginning of resistance that they have to avoid making the same mistake as the opposed regimes. In some cases this process is arduous and tenacious; in Syria for example there is still not reached a consensus of unity among the people strong enough to bring Bashar in distress. That might result inter alia from the traumatizing feeling of being left alone the Syrians have. (Indeed the world community couldn‘t yet find a common formula to help the revolting and in the meantime for survival fighting civilians.)

The ability to handle criticism is both a basic premise for a successful revolutionary roadmap and an essential advantage to become taken for serious.

Third step: Constantly prove not getting undermined.

The Achilles heel of every uprising movement is getting infiltrated by forces definitely not sharing the goals and demands of it; this could happen through a third party or even through the counterparts themselves, e.g. the regimes.

The actual case of the first democratically elected president toppled by the people with the assistance of the armed forces shows clearly the risks and dangers popular movements are facing: by taking down the Brotherhood (Ikhwan) member Morsi the Security Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) presented itself as assisting executor of the people‘s will. Many in and particularly outside Egypt emphasized that as a military coup referring to the granted legitimacy the democratical elected president had in his position.

Suddenly voices were heard murmuring something of a ,hijacked‘ revolution, even of an uprise ,in its beginnings undermined‘. While the last accusation is seriously doubtful the question of a rebellion being hijacked should let ring the revolutionary alarm bells. Not that the verdict of being infiltrated leads to a threatening state of paranoia, that would be more a characteristic of repressional systems, besides remarked. The constant awareness is necessary to know-your-foe who uses also tricks and techniques to shatter an uprising without fighting it heavy-armed.

Simply by taking these three steps forward the popular revolutions in the MENA proved being ready to continue the fight for their demands. The race towards stable tyrant-free independence shows Egypt and Libya after those two and a half years in the pole positions (while the Libyans have to manage democracy under the aspect of their tribal society the Egyptians are stuck in-between SCAF and Ikhwan still trying to find a kind of third way towards a generally accepted political form), the Yemenis are continuing their soft revolution to reach their demands by finding reasonable compromises to deal with the nature of their political class (which is tribal and military dominated) and the Syrians sadly are facing all obstacles a revolution brings with in the most drastical manner and beyond.

But all uprisings have one evident point in common: that they are largely led by people being able to brace long-termed the project of change. As long as this basic claim to continue the roadmap is granted the revolutionary momentum will last until one day  its' demands are fullfilled.