Columbia University professor of journalism Todd Gitlin writes (“The Left Declares Its Independence,” New York Times, October 8th) “the core of the [Occupy] movement … consists of what right-wing critics call anarchists.” Rather than taking the same snide, dismissive approach to anarchism typical of the news media and academia, he goes on to observe that “[t]he culture of anarchy is right,” that the interests of “[t]he corporate rich” largely control both major American political parties.
Gitlin describes contemporary anarchism accurately (if generally) as “a theory of self-organization,” one opposed to a plutocracy of elites who have “artfully arranged a mutual back-scratching society to enrich themselves.” For my life, I can’t think of a better way to describe the way that the state and capital work together against the common man and genuine free markets.
Gitlin is surprisingly genial toward anarchism, or at least toward his own image of it, but anarchists are still widely regarded as agents of chaos. The question: Why?
I’ve always been of the general opinion that the project of science itself is inherently subversive, dangerous to established ways and their guardians. Science, the quest for truth with its empirical and rational methods, explodes our preconceptions and offers us glimpses at the workings of a reality that still seems little understood and out of reach.
If the subatomic particle did not spring into being when human beings discovered it, but was always there, then we must wonder what kinds of marvels — today only the subjects of science fiction — will soon be revealed as truths. Of today’s ideas, we must wonder too which of them that are now the in realm of the eccentric or kook are in fact that wave of the future.
Through the history of the idea, and even before there was a name to designate it, anarchism’s adherents found it through a range of paths. Nineteenth century American anarchist Benjamin Tucker labeled his ideas “scientific anarchism,” the natural and inevitable result of consistently recognizing the “Sovereignty of the Individual.”
Albert R. Parsons, another American anarchist, similarly called anarchism “the usher of science,” setting it in opposition to schools of thought that “considered [some ideas] too sacred to be disturbed by a close investigation.” I offer these examples not to show that all anarchists share the same view of their doctrine’s relationship with the scientific method, but rather to gainsay what I suppose is an assumption held in common by many who read this.
None of the standard caricatures prevailing today about anarchists are any more accurate in characterizing them than are similarly uninformed reader’s digest versions of other philosophical persuasions. There are, to be sure, anomalous and unrepresentative nutcases and genuine criminals circulating among the ranks of all the various “-isms,” yet special derision is reserved for anarchists.
But again, why? Market anarchists believe simply that relationships between people ought to be consensual and based upon the foundation of mutual respect, that a true free market means that no person or group has special privileges fashioned by coercion and violence. Details vary among anarchists — and are as fiercely and thoughtfully debated as in other circles — but all harbor a conscientious objection (if I may borrow the phrase) to the state’s actual, physical domination and displacement of voluntary society.
The state is merely an idea, one way of thinking about given social questions, and one that would appear as true and as unavoidable today as, for instance, the geocentric model in astronomy. And while history has vindicated the likes of Copernicus and Galileo with respect to their judgments of that model, we nevertheless think it impossible that anarchists could be correct in their criticisms of the current system.
The anarchists I know, quite contrary to the conventional wisdom, do not oppose the state out of some erratic, unformed reflex reaction against authority. Indeed, the natural instinct in favor of freedom that I believe humans have has been very meticulously trained out of us from the time we enter the total state’s K-12 propaganda mills.
Instead, anarchism is for its advocates — in the words of Edward Abbey — “not a romantic fable but [a] hard-headed realization,” an embrace of empirical reality rather than an avoidance of it. The protesters of the Occupy movement are yearning for an alternative; anarchism is the scientific one, the substantive argument against politics and economies based on violence and oppression. The death of the state is no more scary or dangerous than the death of the idea that the earth is flat.
Citations to this article:
- David D'Amato, Two Cents: The science of anarchism, Deming, New Mexico Headlight, 11/07/11
- David D'Amato, The Science of Anarchism, Dhaka, Bangladesh New Age, 10/16/11
- David D'Amato, The Science of Anarchism, Quebecois Libre, 10/15/11
"Gitlin is surprisingly genial toward anarchism, or at least to his own image of it, but anarchists are still widely regarded as agents of chaos. The question: Why?"
My theory: anarchism realizes that genuine order arises from an earlier chaotic state. This is of course demonstrably true in the realms in which science is allowed to hold sway – galaxies self-organizing from clouds of dust according only to the laws of physics, for instance, or climax ecosystems evolving over millions of years to a point where there is incredible resilience, diversity, and complexity without there ever having been a need for any overpowering agent to impose its will on the proceedings. That this is how the world works is a well-understood scientific principle – order arises organically out of chaos – but it is anathema to the guardians of false order. Imposed order is, of course, only managed chaos. So it's a form of projection, for one thing — making the people who want to let chaos do its thing and mature into order out to be the ones "threatening" an "ordered" society with the spectre of chaos. But it's also a scientifically illiterate misunderstanding of the nature of nature — of the role of chaos — by the people whose irrational fear of it keep it on the increase.
Anarchism is not the absence of Gov’t, whose role they generally propose will be assumed by market forces. It is instead the absence of objective law, which negates equality before the law and results in merely another form of statism, defined as theft of freedom by a collective.
It is assumed that Anarchism gives no power to initiate force, but gives power to any individual or gang of individuals who choose to retaliate force. By what law? Determined by who? Answer: by whatever law that one personally desires and, if necessary, by whomever one can afford to effect those laws in a competitive free market of laws. It results in law being the whim of a gang, group, tribe or society.
Capitalism is a political system. It is not merely an economic one, but also requires a system of law; and the principles of both must not be in contradiction. Capitalism proposes a system whereby Economics and Law are consistent (w/o contradiction) to the Science of Ethics that recognizes the primacy of the Individual’s Right to Life, Liberty, Property & Choice – the primacy of Freedom.
Capitalism is men dealing as traders by free and voluntary exchange to their mutual benefit. Where men may not obtain value by force and no one may initiate the use of force against others; where Government's role is to protect individual rights to Freedom: Life, Liberty, Property & Choice; where equality before the law is the standard practiced without equivocation.
Government’s legitimate and moral role is the military – protection from invasion, police – protection from criminals, and courts – adjudication of property rights. Period. It is “hands-off” — separation of State and economy. And this is in alignment with the founding principles of America that were compromised at its very outset and still requires completion of what the founding fathers only started.
The concept of Death is not the opposite of the concept of Life; it is the absence of Life. How can one feign to have knowledge of the absence of Life? One can only know it as the alternative to Life, which is non-existence.
Good points Bert. In general the non-thought process looks something like this: anarchy=chaos=violence. Ultimately this leads to a paralyzing fear and a search for a "protector". I'm partial to H.L. Mencken's line: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
I wonder if the Ayn Rand Center gets a royalty for every cut-and-paste bot outbreak?
The word democracy too used to be used as a synonym for chaos. The ruling classes do not want ideologies that threaten them to be seen as anything but bad.
It’s simple.
The information industry is owned by the same landed interests as the banks. The education system is part of itThe information industry is owned by the same landed interests as the banks. The education system is part of it, of course, it is through education that the populace has been made ignorant. "You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong equitably to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." Jean-Jacques Rousseau
"Land … Is the mother of all forms of monopoly." Winston Churchill
"As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of almost all the produce." Adam Smith
And we owe all this money through all these banks, to all these holding companies or something? For our own land? Plus interest? Is that correct? Why not just tax land instead of labor? Make land cheap and labor expensive? Well? Why not?
Can't have a world without poor people? Would that just be too weird? Afraid you'll have to do everything all by yourself? Don't freak out. Everything will be exactly the same as it is now, except everyone will have a lot more power over how they spend their time, especially if they choose very well. That's it. Anarchy? Kind of, ya.
Just equal access to land, fair rent. Nothing wrong with fair rent. Too simple? Gripe to nature. Not my fault. She has an attitude or something. Won't give in on the square root of pi either, sheesh. Land value taxation is not difficult, not complicated and not possible to avoid. Rent happens, no matter what we do with it.
I can’t quite tell if this is a response of sorts to two pieces that William Gillis and I wrote a few weeks before. William wrote that “All scientists should be anarchists,” because a free market society would provide the best environment, both intellectually and economically, for the hard sciences to progress. [1] I added that the converse was roughly true as well, namely that anarchists are scientists, because anarchism, as a radical philosophy, was about taking things down to the roots to better comprehend the nature of the world around us and to improve upon that nature. [2]
Regardless of this being a response to ours, I’m thrilled that writers within the anarchist milieu are beginning to push back against the anti-tech and anti-science views which are so often espoused and confounded with radical discourse.
Thanks for the wonderful article!
-Isis
1) https://humaniterations.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/…
2) http://www.patternsinthevoid.net/blog/2011/09/eve…
Isis, much less than a response, I'd go ahead and say that pieces like you guys' are the sort of thing that inspire me, keeping me thinking and writing, and reminding me of the real dedication to scientific truth that led me to anarchism. My piece here is nowhere near the level of analysis that the stuff you posted is exploring, so keep it up!
-Dave
Indeed, under anarcho-Capitalism you can buy your own version justice if you have enough money and firepower which coincidentally be the beginning of a new State all over again.
Great article! I especially appreciate that you've drawn attention to the fact that anarchy does NOT equal chaos – and the alternative definition of "self organization". A missing component in most anarchists awareness is knowledge of effective principles by means of which such organization can take place. "Market forces" is a grossly inadequate guideline.
The link below describes a well-researched alternative to hierarchy that is consistent with the best principles of Anarchy – as it encourages corrective feedback (the opposite of bureaucracy), and amplifies creativity. I hope thoughtful anarchists will give it serious consideration.
Terrific piece, but there is no mystery as to the question of "why anarchists are still widely regarded as agents of chaos". It's that a decent chunk of humanity are 'natural serfs' who are happy so long as they can wear their chains lightly (note: that does NOT mean that I support the 'natural élite' whackery of Leo Strauss and others).
It is for the same reason that atheists have always been viewed askance by the gullible: the gullible believe that atheists' absence of belief in some idiotic Stone Age tribal absurdity means – a fortiori – a lack of any moral system whatsoever. That obvious nonsense, but try telling that to anyone who believes in a genocidal Sky Wizard who loves foreskin and burnt offal (it could be said that anyone who believes such nonsense is starting WAY behind the 8-ball when it comes to rational debate about anything, but let's leave that aside, given that 68% of US citizens believe that angels and demons intercede in their everyday lives [Pew Poll, 2007]).
Likewise, there are folks like 'Whildman' and 'Gil' who believe – without thinking hard about it – that the absence of a coercive government will result in the rise of armed aggressive gangs: implicit in that supposition, is that the bulk of people will simply permit the depredations of the new gangs and will not organise in their own defence (they are currently not permitted to do so – under anarchy there would be nothing to stop them).
The overwhelming majority of human livestock are too busy working their asses off so that the tax-parasites can take half (and still run up debts with the livestock's children as guarantor); they are too busy trying to keep from drowning to be able to try and do the legwork required to discriminate between competing political-economic theories, so they outsource that legwork to some or other authority figure… in much the same way that their forebears did with regard to their theological affairs.
And – shock horror! – the same thing happens: when Church hegemony was the primary obstacle to human development, there was an ecclesiastical class who had the same aims as the ruling classes, and who held themselves up as the sole intermediaries between man and the Sky Wizard. Their modern counterparts are vermin like Bill Keller (who fell to his knees and gobbled administration cock to help gin up war with Iraq, then had the temerity to criticise Julian Assange's dress sense) and Tom 'Suck on This' Friedman – a man whose sole claim to fame is that he fucks an heiress. Add Kristol, Beck, and the rest of the Court Jesters, and can you really be surprised that the average schmoe can't distinguish between anarchism and Zoroastrianism?
Nobody protested much when Galileo was persecuted for Geocentrism Denial; very few people were outraged when the Church dug up Wycliff's bones and burned them. When Giordano Bruno was burned alive, the crowd will have cheered.
And the same people will bray their approval if they outlaw anarchism (again): witness the relative lack of outrage in the state in which I live (Victoria, Australia) at the promulgation of a new law that would make it an offence to insult the tax-feeding shitbag who is the Gaming Minister (who – for the record – is a tax-fed cretinous weak-assed 5'3" bitch faggot career parasite).
It takes years of coercive indoctrination to produce those so-called "natural serfs."