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.