“[A]n ideological philosophy and political movement that had been thought of as a dusty oddity, a relic of the late 19th century, has returned to the fore,” writes Abe Greenwald in Commentary. Worse yet, opines Greenwald, this return is fraught with “enough consequence that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently denounced terrorism ‘whether it comes from the right, the left, from al-Qaeda, from anarchists, whoever it is.’”
Like those rumors of Mark Twain’s death, recurring claims of anarchism’s demise and resurrection are greatly exaggerated. Greenwald misinterprets his own observations. It is not resurrection he sees, it’s resurgence: A cyclical phenomenon driven primarily by the reliably recurring failure of the modern state to deliver on its most basic promises of peace, prosperity and respect for human rights.
At its least introspective, anarchism seems a merely visceral response to those failures. When confronted by some particularly repugnant manifestation of X, it’s only natural to reflexively posit Not-X as the solution. The growth of the state — its increasing size, its ever more insistent insertion of itself into new areas of human interaction, and its thoroughness in regularizing and co-opting, rather than remedying, social ills — makes it more and more the usual suspect for the role of X. Thus the more and more frequent renascences of anarchism as populist street theater.
Beyond that visceral expresion, anarchism — fundamental, principled opposition to the existence of the state — survives as numerous unbroken (though often evolving) intellectual traditions, awaiting, nay begging, adoption by those street actors as both explanatory tool and plan for more considered action.
As the Hobbesian experiment we call “the state” polarizes along the lines of its own contradictions of “left” and “right” authoritarianism (Hobbes, meet Hegel!), anarchism emerges not as antithesis, but as synthesis. When the state runs short of convincing fictions (“constitutionalism,” “dictatorship of the proletariat,” “fuhrerprinzip”) to disguise those contradictions and stands weakened, near collapse over the pit of its own digging, it is anarchism we invariably see approaching, shovel in hand, ready to bury the failed experiment and turn, with humanity, to new ones.
For two centuries, give or take, the anarchists have — sometimes in breathless anticipation, sometimes in a stoic spirit of resigned obduration — looked for inspiration to Cato the Elder’s admonition that Carthage must be destroyed. The state, we say, must be destroyed, the sooner the better. Can someone please pass the salt?
Translations for this article:
- Portuguese, O Retorno do Retorno do Anarquismo.
We are everywhere!
There are a lot more of us everyday it seems. I'm fairly young (20) so I am not a good reference, but since I have found anarcho capitalism I've been seeing many more anarchists (of all sorts, capitalist, socialist and all others). The shame is that whenever a resurgence in the philosophy arises, there is also a resurgence of true hardcore statism.
The current boom in anarchism can be likened to the Tea Party emergence with the election of President Obama. It is easy to protest against a common foe,but this does not build a permanent coalition. The harder task is to sustain growth in our movement.
Pizzly, surely you do not actually believe that market anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and anarcho-communists are different examples of members of a more fundamental set, called merely 'anarchist'. Or do you?
An anarcho-communist, so called, wants to abolish private property in producers' goods, among other restrictions to be imposed on individuals. So how do you suppose that he will sustain this prohibition without a government to enforce his will? In fact, how will jobs be assigned? It won't be done by independent capitalists with a desire to hire labor at freely negotiated rates; no such hiring agent will exist in the anarcho-communist paradise. In the anarcho-commie paradise, there's only one hiring agency, assuming that there's any production at all and that you're not too weak from starvation to work.
Maybe the anarcho-communist (or socialistic anarchist) isn't really an anarchist it all but a disingenuous child with a flag that's partly black, to feign antistatism, and partly red, to signal his true intentions. Unfortunately, the red color isn't for one of the money metals. More like red for a culture that would be red in tooth and claw.
A task made almost enjoyable, but certainly more effective with the help of Stefan Molyneux
Not a particularly flattering article, but I dont know why I expected it to be.
Also…
"…anarchism arose in response to an undeniably unjust social, political, and imperial order. Anarchists railed against regimes in countries in which genuine monopolies were sanctioned and the poor were punished by all manner of law and taxation."
Phew.. Good to know those times are over.
This response was submitted to Commentary Magazine:
http://gazinglongintoanabyss.blogspot.com/2011/04…
I responded to Commentary. Your site won't let me post it. I basically pointed out how he completely ignored free-market anarchy and anti-statism. And then I intimated all anarchists thought this way "in maodern times." Complete bull, and some outright lies, but I have always felt it's better to confuse the enemy, rather than explain things to them. I left references to Spooner, though, and others, so maybe a reader or two will check them out?
Hahahahahahaha!
Like Jim, I found your comment funny.