Political Philosophy — Anarchism
Order Without Orders: What Anarchism Actually Argues
Anarchism is the one political philosophy most people have an opinion about without having ever encountered what it actually claims.
The Idea
The word 'anarchism' has been so thoroughly hijacked — by newspaper headlines, black-clad riot imagery, and casual insult — that its actual intellectual content has become almost invisible. Which is a shame, because the argument at its core is genuinely interesting and worth taking seriously. Anarchism is not the belief that chaos is good. It is the belief that hierarchy itself — not just bad government, but the structural fact of some people having coercive authority over others — is both morally unjustifiable and practically unnecessary. The anarchist position asks a question that is easy to dismiss and hard to actually answer: why should anyone have the right to command your obedience simply by virtue of occupying a role? Not because they are wiser, or more virtuous, or have earned your trust — but because they are the state, the boss, the institution. Anarchists from Peter Kropotkin to Emma Goldman argued that most of what we attribute to the necessity of authority — cooperation, infrastructure, conflict resolution — emerges naturally from voluntary association. They weren't naive about human nature; they were deeply suspicious of what concentrated power does to human nature. The tradition spans mutualism, syndicalism, communism, and individualism. Its thinkers disagreed vigorously about economics, property, and tactics. What united them was a refusal to treat the legitimacy of authority as a given — and a conviction that asking the question seriously was the beginning of political maturity.
In the World
In the spring of 1936, something improbable happened in the Spanish region of Catalonia. As fascist forces under Franco launched a coup, large parts of Barcelona and the surrounding countryside were reorganised — almost overnight — along anarchist lines. Factories were collectivised and run by their workers. Trams kept running. Hospitals functioned. The famous journalist George Orwell arrived in December of that year and wrote, in 'Homage to Catalonia', that he had stumbled into a town where the working class was 'in the saddle'. He described it as disorienting precisely because it worked: 'There was no boss-class, there were no menial workers, it was a bare and hungry but not ignoble life.' The Catalan experiment — drawing heavily on the anarcho-syndicalist union CNT, which had over a million members — lasted roughly two years before being crushed, first by Stalinist communist factions within the Republican side, then by Franco's victory. Historians still debate how functional or sustainable it truly was. But its existence complicates the reflexive dismissal of anarchism as mere fantasy. It was not a utopian pamphlet. It was a city of nearly a million people reorganising itself under extraordinary pressure, and for a period that is longer than most political experiments get. Whether it could have endured is a separate question from whether it happened — and it happened.
Why It Matters
You don't have to be an anarchist to find the central question useful. Most of us move through institutions — workplaces, governments, universities, platforms — accepting their authority as a background condition of life rather than something that periodically needs to justify itself. The anarchist tradition is a persistent reminder that legitimacy is not the same as legality, and that familiarity is not the same as consent. It sharpens your thinking about when deference to authority is genuinely reasonable — because someone has expertise, or has earned trust, or because coordination requires it — versus when it is simply habit dressed up as necessity. It also asks something uncomfortable about your own position: in the hierarchies you participate in, are you the one whose authority goes unquestioned? Engaging seriously with anarchism doesn't require agreeing with it. It requires only the intellectual honesty to admit that 'this is how things are' has never, in the history of political thought, been a sufficient answer to 'but should they be?'
A Question to Ponder
Is there an authority in your life — an institution, a role, a rule — whose legitimacy you have accepted without ever actually examining the reasons for it?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable