Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...

with much of this thinking, particularly that conventional social structures are coercive.
Out of the consensus that there are things such as racism and sexism in society, this is
logical. However, there has been acknowledgment from some sectors of anarchism that
say that these cultural oppressions have somehow usurped class oppression, to the point
that it is easier to gain support over issues of racial and gender discrimination than it is
for issues of class oppression... a sentiment that would seem apparent in contemporary
conflict theory. Lastly, anarchists agree that political and economic authorities are usually
different people and organizations, but would disagree that they do not have a symbiotic
relationship most of the time. The capitalist State functions in-tandem fashion with many
forms of authority; whether they are truly independent (and at what level) is questionable.
The classic study of the American elite, done by C. Wright Mills in The Power Elite
(1956) showed the “cohesive interpersonal network composed of top leaders in business,
the federal executive branch of the government, and the military, who successfully
controlled key national decisions” (Moore, et al. 2002, p. 726). In Moore's recent study, it
was discovered that there was also a sizable connection with major nonprofit
organizations to this elite network.
Dahrendorf argued in Class and Class Conflict in Modern Societies (1959) that Marx's
assumption of class deriving from property was only partially correct. He states that
authority actually supersedes property in power—an incredibly anarchist idea. Of course,
economic power can be derived from property, but that property is attained and retained
through the authority of economic laws and the State. Authority indicates control more
surely than property does. Dahrendorf's definition of authority (the probability that a
command will be obeyed) hinges upon the legitimacy given to the authority. From an
anarchist standpoint, even though power may still exist, the authority of
someone/organization can be simply revoked by refusing to respect its position of
legitimacy. Thus, they/it can still force someone's actions, but the command itself is not
being respected (therefore authority is lost).
Thus in modern society, most conflict plays itself out in organizations, primarily
bureaucracies (intensely hierarchical organizations where orders flow from those above to
those below). In any given conflict, there are order-givers and order-takers (in this sense
Dahrendorf is reducing class struggle to a binary conception, like Marx). 18 These two
groups have latent interests that become manifest, i.e. class consciousness. Unlike Marx,
Dahrendorf did not believe that manifest interests was inevitable, and that certain things
could enhance or impede the process of interest group formation (groups that act upon
their interests in a class-conscious manner). Anarchists have historically approached the
question of “manifestation” differently than Marxists. Lenin specifically advocated a
vanguard that would lead the people into revolution, while anarchists claim that only the
people can lead themselves in to revolution. Any other process would be a subversion of
goals and needs by anarchist “leaders”, divorced from the people/workers/proletariat
themselves.
18 Semantically, the word “order” is here more synonymous with “command” rather than with
“organization”. Anarchists are frequently libeled as being pro-disorder. They are, in fact, usually
opposed to disorder and are pro-order, just not a hierarchical form of social organization.
[ Williams 19 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]