In Which I Reason About Anarchism
Are anarchists serious? I know anarchism isn't a vibrant political movement, but it certainly used to be. There were thousands of anarchists, many of them thoughtful. There are even some anarchists now. If you live in a "cool" city, you will probably see their graffiti, an A with a circle around it. (I don't live in a cool city. These are second-hand reports.)
But are there people now, or were there ever, who thought this stuff through? Suppose your goal is the blunt, unnreducible "freedom from government coercion." I suppose, looking just at ends, anarchism is the political theory for you, a theory which says freedom from government coercion is best. But don't think that if anarchist plans are successful, and total overthrow of the government happens, that your utopia will last long. Isn't it pretty obvious that new governments would reassert themselves over a lawless world in less than a week? Unless I am completely wrong, it is impossible to have a governmentless world for long.
Do any anarchists have plans for how the transition to anarchy is going to happen, such that the coercive state doesn't spring back up? Is it even possible to make such plans, consistently with the principles of anarchism? Would any anarchists like to fill me in on the earthshaking details? Or would you rather just shout curse words at me?
Of course, even if new authority didn't replace the smashed state, is an anarchist world really a good place to live? To your hardcore believer, the answer is of course "yes", but I can't make out how. I hate the police as much as the next guy, but the specter of legal action does keep some bad things from happening, no? It seems hard to make a believable case that crime *wouldn't* skyrocket in an anarchist state, so hard that I feel stupid for even discussing it.
I think the existence of anarchism is nothing but an illustration of the fact that smart people, and there were smart anarchists, can believe stupid things. Or rather, that smart people can believe nothing in particular, and call it something. The obvious comparison here is to Wicca. As far as I can tell, adherents of that religion don't believe anything in particular. (Anarchists "believe" things, but as I say, those beliefs are so transparently wrong as to not count.) What it really means to be a Wiccan or an anarchist is to belong to a group of like-minded people. Wiccans might not all believe anything, but they are all like something. Same with anarchists. I don't want to go out on a limb and say just what anarchists are like, because I may not know any, but I'm pretty sure they enjoy punk rock and graffiti, and they enjoy being resentful.
You can probably supply your own details for this anarchist mock-up, but I think it's pretty clear that anarchism is more a society of friends than liberalism or libertarianism or any of those political theories. What else could hold them together? Their half-assed social theories? Don't make me laugh. In all probability, c.1900 anarchism followed the same model; they pretended to have cogent theories, but it was all just sullen class envy pretending to be ideas. If you all have a sense that you're oppressed, that is enough to form a movement, however unrealistic. That, and having all slept with Emma Goldman at various times.
But are there people now, or were there ever, who thought this stuff through? Suppose your goal is the blunt, unnreducible "freedom from government coercion." I suppose, looking just at ends, anarchism is the political theory for you, a theory which says freedom from government coercion is best. But don't think that if anarchist plans are successful, and total overthrow of the government happens, that your utopia will last long. Isn't it pretty obvious that new governments would reassert themselves over a lawless world in less than a week? Unless I am completely wrong, it is impossible to have a governmentless world for long.
Do any anarchists have plans for how the transition to anarchy is going to happen, such that the coercive state doesn't spring back up? Is it even possible to make such plans, consistently with the principles of anarchism? Would any anarchists like to fill me in on the earthshaking details? Or would you rather just shout curse words at me?
Of course, even if new authority didn't replace the smashed state, is an anarchist world really a good place to live? To your hardcore believer, the answer is of course "yes", but I can't make out how. I hate the police as much as the next guy, but the specter of legal action does keep some bad things from happening, no? It seems hard to make a believable case that crime *wouldn't* skyrocket in an anarchist state, so hard that I feel stupid for even discussing it.
I think the existence of anarchism is nothing but an illustration of the fact that smart people, and there were smart anarchists, can believe stupid things. Or rather, that smart people can believe nothing in particular, and call it something. The obvious comparison here is to Wicca. As far as I can tell, adherents of that religion don't believe anything in particular. (Anarchists "believe" things, but as I say, those beliefs are so transparently wrong as to not count.) What it really means to be a Wiccan or an anarchist is to belong to a group of like-minded people. Wiccans might not all believe anything, but they are all like something. Same with anarchists. I don't want to go out on a limb and say just what anarchists are like, because I may not know any, but I'm pretty sure they enjoy punk rock and graffiti, and they enjoy being resentful.
You can probably supply your own details for this anarchist mock-up, but I think it's pretty clear that anarchism is more a society of friends than liberalism or libertarianism or any of those political theories. What else could hold them together? Their half-assed social theories? Don't make me laugh. In all probability, c.1900 anarchism followed the same model; they pretended to have cogent theories, but it was all just sullen class envy pretending to be ideas. If you all have a sense that you're oppressed, that is enough to form a movement, however unrealistic. That, and having all slept with Emma Goldman at various times.
posted by apk01004 at 4:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home