Political unity as a concept
Every so often it is preached by anarchists that we need to be more united with other groups to get things done. That a broad unified movement is the only way we can win. To an extent this should be true. If you have three groups and the other two unite against the third then they would have an advantage. On the surface, unity is a sound unquestionable tactic. We should always be seeking to unite with others against a common enemy. Yet there exists an issue in the concept of unity. Combining groups of different goals and methods comes with the risk of either one group dominating the other or restricting either group from engaging in their means and ends. Unification can involve compromising vital principles or rendering an organizational structure less efficient. For one faction to align with another can create situations where they end up working against their own self-interest. In many cases, united movements started out of brief convenience but ended in outright betrayal. The concept of unity is often employed to the detriment of anarchists especially.
Left unity
A fair number of anarchists and various leftists preach left unity. Support for left unity is often driven by two main assumptions. The first assumption is that various socialists share the same end but simply disagree on methods. The second is that large numbers are needed to remove capitalism and the state.
Various socialists do not share the same ends. It is often repeated that both Marxists and anarchists support a stateless classless society. This oversimplifies the issue. Marx and Engels saw revolution as an authoritarian action. To them, the servants overthrowing the masters and maintaining their new freedom is authoritarian. The anarchists often disagree on this point. For a servant to overthrow their master and want to continue to live without their master is an ongoing revolt against authority. To the Marxists, revolution is often something done through a group seizing power of the present system and then imposing their new system from the top down. The anarchists recognize that the means of seizing power over the state inevitably defines the ends. If a goal is acted upon through authoritarian methods then the goal will be defined as such. Change must come from below and occurs through the very means we engage in.
The concept of a large broad coalition threatening capitalism and the state is another flawed premise. If one side wants to abolish police and the other wants to use police to repress anyone they consider counter revolutionary then it doesn’t matter if they outnumber a common enemy. The divide between the two lays the groundwork for an inevitable conflict which has already unfolded historically such as with the Ukraine Free Territory and Syndicalist Catalonia. In both cases the Marxists actively imprisoned and murdered anarchists despite supposedly being united against an active common enemy. Large numbers means nothing if there is no actual cohesive ideological framework and strategy beyond just uniting against common enemies and the broadest issues. Such organizations that work off this big tent rhetoric often create environments where critique of dictators and certain states is seen as “breaking left unity”. It actively forces anarchists into a compromise with methods and goals at odds with anarchism.
Libertarian unity
The concept of libertarian unity between anarchists and self-described libertarian capitalists is built on a number of premises. One such aspect is that libertarian broadly refers to general opposition to the state. An equivalence is made between anarchists and individuals that support the authority of capitalist organizations. Another presumption of libertarian unity is that there exists a working strategy on removing the state that benefits all sides regardless.
Libertarian was a term originally used by people such as Joseph Dejacque interchangeably with anarchist communism. Capitalism is inherently authoritarian. In all variants from laissez-faire capitalism to capitalism involving the intervention of the state, capitalism is inherently hierarchical. It concentrates wealth into the hands of the few at the expense of the average individual. The means of production is controlled by an owner class that then uses their power to create a relation where those with only their labor to sell make them richer. For those who assume there exists no authority in this relation it should be asked, who goes on strike the worker or the capitalist? Capitalism also relies upon the arbitration and protection of the state to function. For the owner class to continue to exercise their authority and settle disputes they rely upon the courts and the police. Often this relation between capitalism and the state evolves into corporatism. The owner class accumulates enough wealth to the point that they can engage in lobbying and the funding of think tanks. At the core of the concept of libertarian unity is the misunderstanding that capitalism is compatible with individual freedom when it only favors the interests of a ruling class.
It is also argued that the removal of the state will benefit both libertarian capitalists and anarchists but this misunderstands the actual means and ends of both sides. Anarchists are opposed to hierarchical institutions such as capitalism and the state. The removal of the state involves acting towards nonhierarchical alternatives to the state on both a collective and individualistic level. Freedom comes when individuals actively give and take freely. Horizontal organizing operating according to mutual aid is both the means and ends of anarchists. Capitalist libertarians despite their claims of being opposed to the state only effectively work to privatize the authority of the state. There is no interest in addressing hierarchical structures but instead transforming aspects of the state into organizations driven by the profit motive that still benefits a ruling owner class. Murray Rothbard who was a prominent proponent within the capitalist libertarian movement even goes as far as to argue for privatized police. The capitalist system relies on divides of power and the existence of authority to function. The means of ends of the rightwing libertarians and anarchists are inherently at odds.
There additionally exists another issue with the assumption of libertarian unity being a viable strategy. Capitalist libertarians simply do not have any comparable projects or organizations that are even remotely compatible with anarchism. The vast majority of capitalist libertarians are limited to the United States and engage in electoralism through the existing Libertarian party which is comically overshadowed by the two main ruling parties. Engaging in state elections does not threaten the state. Opening a business that follows the rules and regulations of the state and perpetuates capitalism does not bring people any closer to living free from reliance upon capitalism and the state. What does threaten the state is engaging in forms of direct action as opposed to electoralism. Groups such as Anarchist Black Cross or the Really Really Free Market projects are examples of anarchism already on the ground. Aligning with capitalist libertarians only further justifies electoralism and the co-optation of such projects for the financial interests of the ruling capitalist class.
National unity
Another example of how the rhetoric of unity behaves as a flawed concept comes in the form of national unity. Unity around a nation is often a completely arbitrary set of standards that compels otherwise free individuals to act against their own self-interests in service of an existing state. It serves as the greatest illustration of how unity often misleads people to work against themselves. Throughout the entire history of nations, the preaching of unity has been used to drum up support for senseless wars where both members of the nation and those considered outside the nation are slaughtered senselessly. Nationalist unity functions the same as leftist and libertarian unity in that it preys upon broad similarities or common interests to get individuals to work towards a system that does not benefit them.
There exists a small but underlying current of individuals who claim to be opposed to the state but seek to preserve nationalism which should be addressed. One such example being the national syndicalists who tried to co-opt anarchist syndicalist movements and actively aided fascist forces such as during the Spanish civil war. Economically they supported creating a working class that would serve to preserve the state at their own expense. In other variations of anti government nationalism such as in the writings of books such as The Turner Diaries, it is made clear that anti government sentiment is often co-opted to preach in favor of outright genocidal policies. Racial supremacy and national unity often go hand in hand due to the shared interest of constantly creating a chosen group and an excluded enemy group. Nationalism tries to label and sort individuals into groups that do not hold their best interests. Instead it is the interest of the nation that takes priority and as such this is in practice just a more authoritarian state. Much like libertarian and leftist unity there is no future where anarchism can be realized through national unity.
Towards Actual unity
Unity in the sense of uniting broad movements with no further consideration for means and ends have a tendency to be ineffective. Marxism, libertarian capitalism, and nationalism all seek to utilize the energy of anarchists towards their own ends. Anarchism does not involve working with Marxists or capitalists. Unity between groups with fundamentally different approaches and goals is ineffective.
There are some who argue for pan anarchist unity or synthesis anarchism as a solution. Just like the previous examples, pan anarchism tries to combine a wide range of ideologies that often contradict each other and engage in widely different actions. Broad unity between anarchists can be just as effective in completing short term goals much like big tent left unity groups but does not direct energy towards effective cohesive action alone. There does however exist forms of organizing that “unify” people in an effective manner.
Examples of effective forms of unity in an informal context can mainly be observed with affinity groups. Individuals sharing a unity of methods and goals along with knowledge and specific views on various social issues ensures a cohesive form of unity. Affinity groups achieve this in an informal and flexible manner where members and level of participation can vary widely. These groups tend to involve anarchists of the same ideological type or at least maintain that all involved are capable of taking unified forms of action. While left unity groups demand that anarchists serve the cause of seizing state power and capitalist libertarians attempt to co-opt anarchist movements for the interests of the owner class, the affinity groups serve as a model tool for actually uniting anarchists towards anarchism.
More formal examples of effective anarchist organizing comes in the form of especifismo and platformism. These examples do not involve creating broad unity between anarchists and non-anarchists or even different anarchists but anarchists that are already ideologically unified. Some groups influenced by these concepts include Black Rose Anarchist Federation, Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, and Revdia. Unity in this form is built around anarchists unified on strategies, and goals in formally established organizations. Collective responsibility is stressed in such groups and non-anarchist elements are actively excluded. The goal of such organizations is not to grow into broad united movements to replace the state but to ensure that like minded anarchists are working together to maintain specifically anarchist projects while engaging in collective responsibility.
In both the informal and formal examples, unity is not preached as a means of trying to make a large big tent movement. It is not about appealing to the masses but organizing with those who are already united in their means and ends. Unity in this form is effective for anarchists because like minded individuals are coming together to focus on cohesive forms of action and further refine their own ideas. Energy is not wasted trying to adapt largely incompatible tactics and ideas but instead concentrating that energy into direct forms of action and discussion relating to anarchy. Anarchists do not work towards anarchism by engaging in statism or capitalism. Attempts to create broad movements of various anarchists of different currents also leads to the same lack of cohesion and direction. Effective unity needs to involve individuals already united in self-interest from the start working together through the same means and ends.