Counter-Community: An Aspect of Anarchist Political Culture

Abstract

Anarchist political theory, it has been argued, is based on a simplistic polarization between good and bad. An example of this diagnosis can be found in the works of Karl Mannheim who, discussing the political philosophy of Gustav Landauer, the German anarchistsocialist, observed: We perceive in Landauer what is characteristic of all anarchists, namely the antithesis between the 'authoritarian' and the 'libertarian' a contrast which simplifies everything and blurs all practical differences, which lumps together as authoritarian everything ranging from the police state through the democraticrepublican to the socialistic state, while only anarchism is regarded as libertarian.' One would expect writers sympathetic to the anarchist cause to deny or at least to debate such criticisms. Surprisingly, Peter Marshall in his recent study of anarchism, proposes a similar simple characterization of anarchist politics. 'While society is invariably a blessing ... all [anarchists] accept that the State is an artificial superstructure separate from society.'2 One can easily cite other works, also written by writers sympathetic to anarchism, whose very titles suggest the same simple polarity: for example, James Martin's Men Against the State (1953) or Pierre Clastres's Society against the State (1977). Is it correct to say that anarchism is based on this simple sense of polarization? Or is there evidence of a more subtle and complex appreciation of the interplay of forces in anarchist thinking? This article will introduce and debate the anarchists' concept of 'counter-community'. Through understanding this concept, the anarchists' seemingly polarized, rigid thinking, their apparently erratic political record, their frequent shifts in political strategies and tactics will become, if not more convincing as political arguments,