QandO
Questions and Observations| « The Blame Game | Main | Full Disclosure » |
|
April 12, 2004 The Concept of Anarchism Anarchy, or anarchism, at least as I’ve come to understand it, is often misrepresented in order to discredit it. No surprise there. Its also misrepresented by those who profess to “believe” in it. Again, no particular surprise. Its often assumed, by both of those sides, to be something its’ not. That assumption goes like this: Anarchy is the absence of a hierarchy. Or as Jon pointed to in his post about it, “in a state of anarchy ... there will be no “ruler” ... no “highest power”.” Do we agree that seems to be a generally understood meaning of anarchism, among both present day proponents and opponents? If so, I’d like to take this opportunity to disagree. I don’t find that those definitions properly or adequately define anarchism. For anarchism to have any usefulness, the concept of lack of any hierarchy must be discredited and discarded. Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, this is all pointed toward what has come to be known as anarcho/capitalism, so I need to be up-front ... the concept of anarcho/capitalism is very appealing to me theoretically. And, in all honesty, I’d like to see something like it at some point in our history, just to see how feasible it is in reality and how well it can maintain itself in a world which seems to constantly look for ways to enslave itself and others. But its feasability is the subject for another day. Let’s not get sidetracked. Back to my disagreement concerning how anarchy is defined. Instead of accepting anarchy as “the absence of a higher power”, or hierarchy or “ruler”, I find the following modifier to make the concept much more viable and true. “Anarchy is the absence of an IMPOSED hierarchy.” You ask,” imposed in what way?” Why imposed on me without my permission. In other words, a hierarchy which leaves me no real choice in whether to be a member or not. A hierarchy which assumes my inclusion simply because I am considered a member of a group, nationality, or class by accident of birth. A hierarchy based in coercion through which it exploits its “membership”. Frederick Hayek once proferred a definition of “freedom “ I find more useful than any other. He said, “Freedom is the absence of coercion”. 6 words which succinctly encapsulate the concept. Anarchism’s thrust isn’t so much the absence of hierarchy as the absence of coercion. It attempts to formulate a society that is truly free by eschewing coercion in favor of voluntary participation (or NOT as the case may be). An example of an imposed hierarchy is any government, regardless of its political stripe. A democracy is as much an imposed hierarchy as a totalitarian regime because they both use coercion as mechanism for exercising their power. In the case of a “democracy”, it uses its monopoly on force to impose the will of the majority on the minority. Which brings us to the second ‘why’? Why do you see the two as essentially the same? Because my inclusion and membership is an accident of birth, and not a matter of conscious choice. Because in the case of both, I will be coerced into doing the will of the government, whether I agree or disagree with it, whether I participate or refuse to participate. Regardless of my choice or actions, the government has the ability to force me to its will. And because I can’t “opt out” and still live in my home or homeland. In other words, because I have no real choice about membership or options concerning membership. So what does that mean for anarchy then? Well this is the crux of my disagreement with the popular characterization of anarchy. Most believe that anarchy is unworkable because, by definition it can never HAVE a “ruler” or “hierarchy” and still be “anarchism”. . However, when one looks at the addition of the modifier “imposed”, such a restriction is essentially waived. Anarchy may eschew an imposed hierarchy, but the construction of a hierarchy chosen voluntarily which maintains the ability of individuals to leave at will gives the concept a different thrust. Now, if one so chooses, he may join or leave this hierarchy at will. There are a thousand questions the inclusion of this modifier bring to the fore, and I certainly don’t have all (or even many of) the answers. Nor was it my intent to attempt to answer them here. Instead my intent is to make the case that anarchy is often misunderstood and misrepresented. That anarchism, when defined as I have here, suddenly makes a bit more sense, or at least, doesn’t conjure up visions of berserkers running wild in the streets with nothing to hold them back. It is somewhat more plausible when compared to the brand of anarchism out there now which claims the absence of ANY hierarchy. More importantly, it can claim something the other definition can’t claim: an actual viable alternative to “the state” at some time in the future. Yes, much would have to change. That’s a given. And yes, I’d agree we’re no where near that point now. Its more than a little vaguely utopian at this point in history. But I could imagine a time when “good men” evolve in their thinking and their institutions of state to the point that a minimalist government could be positioned to allow anarchism to successfully evolve. The “withering away of the state” as Marx discussed. But surely not with the structure he advocated. Instead one founded on and grounded in individual rights and capitalism. Utopian? At the moment, yes. But Robert Nozick wrote an entire book (“Anarchy, State, and Utopia) in 1974 detailing his concept of how this could be accomplished. And, this point is as important as the definition I’ve used above ... anarchism is NOT a ‘revolutionary’ concept as some of the younger “misrepresentatives” would have you believe. Anarchism, instead, is an ‘EVOLUTIONARY’ process which takes us from the large welfare state through various evolutionary stages to the minimalist state, which in turn evolves into anarchism. That’s the rub. Anarchism as a ‘spontaneous’ event is indeed chaos. There is nothing to fill the vacuum. The devil is in the details and I’m well aware of that, but as a point of departure for a discussion of how that evolution might happen, the concept of ‘anarchism’ (as an acceptable and understandable concept) has to be dealt with first. I’d be interested in your comments. |
I think the phrase "evolve in their thinking" is appropriate, and necessary. As human nature stands, I simply don't see that it's possible.
I do understand the concept of anarchism, and the difference between the misunderstood anarchy and anarchy as you have defined it. I simply don't see how they will remain fundamentally different.
Who punishes violations? If me (and my tribe) are violated/threatened, how will we defend our rights? Based on human history, we will do so individually when we can...and collectively, when we must. So, of course, the reprisal will be collective. Or, worse, the violators will begin the violation as a organized "power".
And who has the right to enforce those violations? Or to determine what constitutes a violation? Even Objectivists cannot agree on objective reality and the definition of rights. Surely, the world is not going to come to universal agreement.
But...even if they come to close-enough agreement, such that a proper structure can be established to allow an anarchic society...what happens we the general public demands more security? After all, "power" wins every time. And when sufficient "power" is applied, an anarchy becomes nothing more than a democracy at best...and despotism, at worst.
It will take quite an evolution.
Posted by: Jon Henke at April 12, 2004 06:55 PM
"I think the phrase "evolve in their thinking" is appropriate, and necessary. As human nature stands, I simply don't see that it's possible."
I always imagine two people in the middle ages having a similar conversation with one of them saying "Representative republic? As human nature stands, I simply don't see that its possible. The only model that fits human nature is monarchy."
Admittedly, A/C is utopian in its vision, especially as we view our world now (we still have feudal monarchies for heaven sake), but then the only consistent thing in our history has been change. There's little evidence that we'll remain static and even less that our thinking will stagnate. Couple that with technology we can't even imagine yet, and we may certainly find the ability and the will to do precisely what I'm suggesting and make it work.
But unless you can sort of see how that evolution would work (i.e. you can't jump from the welfare state, who's institutions you live with to a anarchist society who's institutions you can only imagine) and the steps necessary in that evolution to "change thinking" and "evolve institutions" to the point I suggest, then they'll remain something "unworkable" in your head.
That's not to say we can't talk about them, but I'll again point to the fact that Nozick consumes an entire volume doing so and still doesn't answer everything.
Suffice it to say that much of the success of such a model lays with capitalism, at least in my opinion, and not just as an economic engine, but as a social system (based in individualism and rights). It is through capitalism (i.e. the anarcho/capitalist ideal) that anarchism stands its best chance of future success.
I'd recommend the Nozick book if you haven't read it Jon ... he speaks of the "protection associations" very early on. You might find his thoughts interesting in that regard.
Anyway, my goal here was to define anarchism in a more positive and useful way than it is usually done. I've hopefully done that in such a way that we can talk about some of your questions at some later date. To do so now would be to jump a bit further ahead than we should since it would leave some of the foundational arguments unstated before jumping into the details based on them (rights, indivdualism, capitalism, etc). That usually leads directly to confusion, backtracking and then, well, further confusion.
Posted by: McQ at April 12, 2004 10:11 PM
In my thinking, the most pressing issue in regards to individuals collectivizing and coercioning other individuals via government, rather than accepting the freedom of individual sovereignty, or anarchy, is fear and ignorance.
Fear is fed to individuals via governmental laws and regulations, which lead individuals to "feel" they cannot defend themselves from possible injury unless there is a law protecting them. What individuals do not grasp is that the law does not protect them, it only denies individuals the right to protect themselves through acceptance of a false sense of security.
Ignorance, is self induced, and fear is the appetizer which causes individuals to gorge on it. Anarchy requires individuals to think, governmental rule, does not.
I do not think it requires an evolutionary process to eliminate the fear which could lead to an anarchistic life. I think it requires a willingness to admit individual ignorance and a thirst to think for yourself. When individuals are fed information and encouraged to think through the information themselves, then the hobbles will be removed and striding to freedom can begin.
Posted by: John Venlet at April 13, 2004 09:27 AM
John Venlet: Fear is fed to individuals via governmental laws and regulations, which lead individuals to "feel" they cannot defend themselves from possible injury unless there is a law protecting them.
I disagree.
How does a law (or regulation) against murder or thievery create a “Fear” within the individuals that did not already exist?
The “Law” is simply a proclamation of the morality and values of the Society.
It is the societies way of saying that if you express this output (X) then we (i.e. Society – the other individuals banded together in common purpose) will express output (Y) as the response (i.e. the “punishment”, the negative reinforcement designed to prevent occurrences of X).
John Venlet: What individuals do not grasp is that the law does not protect them, it only denies individuals the right to protect themselves through acceptance of a false sense of security.
Hmmm …
What individuals do not grasp is that the law (against rape) does not protect them (from rape), it only denies individuals the right to protect themselves (from rape) through acceptance of a false sense of security.
Is that what you believe Mr. Venlet?
Sounds like a bunch of incoherent nonsense to me.
I’d say that the Law against rape is Societies way of communicating that if you rape someone (action-X) then the Society (as a whole) is going to respond by taking away your freedom and incarcerating you for a very long time (action-Y).
Kind of the same way as The Laws of Physics communicate that if you touch a hot stove burner (action-X) it will burn you (action-Y).
John Venlet: Ignorance, is self induced, and fear is the appetizer which causes individuals to gorge on it. Anarchy requires individuals to think, governmental rule, does not.
You mean where:
Think = have Faith that there are no ultimate consequences for action.
John Venlet: I do not think it requires an evolutionary process to eliminate the fear which could lead to an anarchistic life. I think it requires a willingness to admit individual ignorance and a thirst to think for yourself. When individuals are fed information and encouraged to think through the information themselves, then the hobbles will be removed and striding to freedom can begin.
Yet to hear you talk I would have thought that Anarchy was the default state? I mean … do animals form “governments”? Do you consider animals “anarchist”? Why not?
Do you ever coerce your children Mr. Venlet?
Do you decree rules and regulations that your children must obey under threat of punishment? Perhaps you should start practicing what you preach at home as a “first step towards a greater anarchy”?
Let me know how it works out …
Posted by: The Serpent at April 15, 2004 03:56 PM