It now borders on the realm of cliche within anarchist circles to state that many misconceptions exist about Anarchism. It's not suprising, however, and it is worth noting. The words "anarchist" and "anarchy" are used glibly and incorrectly by most print and visual media, and this provides the initial clouding of the topic. To describe wars-- the wars in the Balkans, for instance-- as "anarchy" sparks a romantic, wild-eyed image in the mind; but it is actually completely incorrect, as anarchy indicates (as re: its derivative Greek root-sylables) the absence of rulers, and wars by their nature are highly the product of commands given by an aritocracy of the slaughter. In war, a soldier is required under penalty of his own death (silly, since the function of a soldier is to kill with total disregard of his life or safety) to follow his orders explicitly. This is obviously not in tune with the absence of rulers and immutable authority described by the term Anarchy. Nor are violence-ridden inner cities Anarchies, since the "law" of the gang or of the cop is still paramount in such settings.
Subsequently, the statements by anarchists-- in an attempt to counteract the common mythos just touched on-- that Anarchism is a developed doctrine of freedom from rule, freedom of indiviuality, and so on, is also cliche and incorrect at a bare-bones level. It is true that specifically Anarchist philosophy/doctrine has been produced for over a century, but it can hardly be said that any pan-temporal, pan-geographical, of or pan-cultural concensus has ever been reached. Certainly there are fundamental currents of thought within Anarchism, but the term and the philosophy itself languishes in eternal mist, even within the Anarchist community as a whole. Suffice it to say, the rhetoric means who-knows-what to any number of people who claim the title, people that would no doubt find each other repugnant (and often do).
Another common misconception is that Anarchists are fascists. This is more interesting than cases of terms simply mis-used by the ignorant, because it raises certain pertinant questions (questions that many Anarchists would discard post-haste, turning a blind eye as quickly as possible). To begin with, this obviously involves again a mis-understanding of the term "Anarchism." But also, there is a misunderstanding of what fascism really is, which this author finds entirely more disturbing than a mis-understanding of Anarchy. Fascism is, at its core, the ultimate glorification of one thing-- one "race"[sic], one system of thought, one culture, one gender, one "class"-- coupled with the wild vilification of all other variants. Historically, fascism has manifested mainly as a doctrine of terrorization and/or extermination, extermination of "them" so that "we" might survive, essentially Darwin gone horribly mad. The details of "we" and "survive" are often left out or are lodged in a gelatinous rhetoric. The "them" and "extermination" details, onthe other hand, are verbose, specific, and loud, and usually take over. This is the actual focus of most fascist groups.
Within this admittedly tiny outline of fascism, where do Anarchism or its misconceptions fit in? "Technically," nowhere, since Anarchism is nominally inclusive and free. But certain aspects or individuals within the overall Anarchist movement might actually come close, or even snugly fit. Anarchists who advocate or implement extreme violence are the first to come to mind. Violence has long been closely associated with Anarchism in the popular mindset. This is a poor conception, since very little violence has been committed by Anarchists in comparison to the violence done by the governments of the world throughout history-- whether "democratic"[sic], monarchical, aristocratic, oligarchical, or dictatorial. Nevertheless, some Anarchists have advocated and used violence since men like Bakunin first established the ideas of Anarchism proper. Violence does not make one a fascist, of course. But many Anarchists who use violence as a means to promoting Anarchy often implement it in a view of terrorizing or even exterminating the "ruling classes." Most unfortunately, this idea has diffused so as to include anyone with any wealth at all as a member of the "ruling class." The term "revolution" is tossed about related to this concept, but it is yet another loaded and unclear term, often misleading. While this author refuses personally to advocate any pre-emptive violence of any magnitude, it cannot be denied that one or two well-placed bullets probably have made the world a better place on occasion. But generalized violence against a group, usually in the name of "class war," obviously sits close to the concept of terrorization against an abstract group of humans espoused by fascism. This is rather obvious, however, and many Anarchists make mention of this "problem" within Anarchism.
Less obvious is the threat of fascism, now and in the future, arising from the general Anarchist movement. This has occured often within radical Marxist/Leninist groups as well as in some Anarchist groups, namely the "us-or-them, all-or-nothing" doctrinal event. Unfortunately, too many groups fall into this trap, that in solidifying their goals, direction, doctrine, and intent, a group may inadvertantly (or even intentionally, in some cases) set up a strict regime, heirarchical or not, and become pre-emptorally exclusionary or antagonistic in their politic. This is not to say that it is fascist to hold a firm belief as a collective or to deny general entry into that collective-- those things are entirely up to the collective at any given moment. But what is essentially fascist is for an established collective to begin materializing their doctrines outside of themselves, against the wishes of a populace that is effected. When a group, whatever its philosphical stance on traditional modes of authority, begins enforcing its doctrine on others, especially under threat of reprisal, it has become a fascist organization. The group may be multi-ethnic, anti-racist, and pan-sexual-- fascism isn't only a product of the Nazi party. In this way, almost any politic has the potential to become fascist, if a person or group aims at the elimination of other politics with the intent of installing their own.
Overall, the Anarchist movement is in such a shambles that this
situation has not arisen to any great degree. But the possibility certainly
exists for the future. If we assume that some day Anarchism does become
a powerful movement and aesthetic-- for it is very much a psychic
aesthetic, as are all political, social, and religious movements-- a
time could arrive when a choice must be made, to dissolve power into
Anarchy or not. That, then, will be the moment of truth as to whether or
not, at that particular space and time, Anarchy will be a fascist
event. If Anarchists choose to pre-emptorally remove the structures of
power and establish an Anarchy without a very strong (and honest) concensus
of consent, then the knife will have fallen. But, should that moment
ever arrive, if Anarchists choose instead to allow the general population
to direct itself-- in whatever direction-- then Anarchism itself will
have in some sense succeeded, no matter what the result.
If Anarchism does indeed uphold self-determination as paramount,
it cannot act as a movement of its own accord in ways that deny
determination for others. It must not!