Why are you not an anarchist?
Posts are always one of us anarchists or communists telling you what the problem is or what the solution is. I want to know from our non-anarchist readers why you are not anarchists. I thought of asking the same of the non- communist, socialist, syndicalist etc… but I am scared that will become just another ‘voluntary’ discussion. I want to know what objections many have to anarchism.
I am not asking to teach, respond or school you. I simply wish to know why you might reject the ideas of anarchism, a stateless society or an egalitarian society.
So please leave comments that might help me understand why you are not an anarchist. It is my asumption that if you read Gonzo Times you grasp concepts like anarchism, communism or property rights etc… So please help me understand your view.
4:27 pm
The whole concept of anarchism replacing the government is not logical. Anarchist organizations start small. Most of them, in my opinion, will remain pretty small compared to the United States of America. Worker-owned cooperative business thrive right now all over the country. Each one of those is a small bit of anarchist cooperation.
The best way to be irrelevant is to require smashing the entire state before you’ll do anything!
7:43 pm
Thank you for your perspective Amy.
10:15 am
I guess you could call me “anarchist in principle”, in that I think all social interactions should be voluntary to the maximum extent possible; my problem with fully accepting the label “anarchist” is that I don’t see a sure way of getting from here to there (and the obvious objection, that there also isn’t a way of getting from here to a minimal state, or even a “decent state”, is both entirely valid and doesn’t answer the question).
First, if a stateless society is inherently more efficient and all-around better than the state, and I believe it would be, then of course the state is going to do its best to suppress it, as the state always has suppressed Society’s attempts to make it obsolete. The Kevin Carson (who, by the way, is brilliant and I admire greatly) is optimistic, but remember, if you read the title of that article as “Why Corporate Capitalism is Unsustainable Without Forcing the Entire Population into Actual, Literal Slavery” then that optimism lasts about as long as you don’t believe the state will do exactly that to ensure its survival. And if you think that is the likely path we are headed, then you might as well consider yourself a Mars Inhabitant (because you’d like to live there some day) as you would an anarchist.
Then, somehow, the worst mess of statism is going to have to be cleared up, and it might be that the only entity with the resources to take care of that mess is the state itself. I’m thinking, in particular, the problems of nuclear power; dealing with the Chernobyl mess alone is going to require unbelievably vast capital outlays for a very very long time. Then we still have nuclear weapons to dispose of, safely, again something requiring vast concentrations of capital. Virtually all my anarchist friends of all persuasions agree that such concentrations would not exist in a free society, and see that as a feature, and of course it is unless you have an actual existential threat to humanity that will require exactly that to clean up. It could be that a free society would generate so much free wealth that we’d be able to pay for it with charitable donations, but I’m not all that big on “could” when “can’t” means “can’t deal with awful shit that will remain deadly for an order of magnitude longer than documented human civilisation has been around”.
(This is one of the few places that the state is actually doing very good work, when they’re not kicking the can a few decades down the road; it’s just a shame that they’re hell-bent on creating more of the same problems at the same time.)
Can I still write for GT anyway?
8:33 am
While A state exists (I think this will be quite a while) I do think that it is reasonable to attempt to get it to clean up it’s messes. Such as nukes. I also think it’s necessary to build a foundation for a new society while it exists.
Yeah you can write at GT. We don’t have a requirement really stating you have to be of a certain political persuasion. I would however love to see GT have more non-political content one day soon.
9:48 am
I am not against the principles of anarchy but I do have questions regarding its application on a grand scale. The problem is at an answer is only theory at this point as there are no large-scale, i.e. US sized examples, of traditional anarchist societies. I do not believe that is a legitimate reason to dismiss it, however, as many do. The American experiment had never been done in this fashion, albeit on a much smaller scale than what we have now. Success is arguable and remains to be seen, as our current path would indicate.
I suppose my biggest concern is that every anarchist I read (admittedly, my knowledge is green compared to many), when explaining their visions of society, seem to assume that their society is filled with like-minded individuals. I would say the same for any social theory. However, that’s not based on reality. Perhaps a gradual shift over a very long period of time, a natural progression would take place where you could have everyone on the same page. Again, without force or coercion (not condoning those measures at all) I think that would take quite a long time. I’ll use an example of what I’ve read more than a few times from more than a few anarchists who call complete, immediate dissolution of the state. I’m no fan of any form of government right now but I don’t want to live in anything close to that, as an immediate change. To call for it is just plain ignorant. It’s impossible to imagine the chaos that would ensue and the resulting wars as a result. As other comments have stated, there are so many other considerations to account for, which the average theorist seems to fail to do. The nuclear aspect may be the most important as far as damage/harm potential, but it’s certainly not the only factor.
Plainly stated, as Mr. Eunson said above, the population of this country should be a primary concern. I would add that I believe that to be THE primary factor as to why nothing will work. There is no social and/or political theory/system that can work which could come close to meeting the needs of 300 million people. Scratch that, there is one: forced compliance. I am most certainly not advocating this type of system, only pointing out that I believe it’s the only way to get this large of any population on that same page. Look at what we’re dealing with now. Does anyone think we live in a “free country” anymore? If you do, you are an idiot. Yes, on a scale of freedom and personal liberty, we enjoy greater lenience than, say, those states enforcing sharia law…or just about any monarchy in history. But to call is a free society is completely false. We are living in a country where forced compliance is standard policy. The genius of the system, however, is that our government thrives under a vail of deceit, manipulation, and propaganda. This opens up an entirely different can of worms, but getting back on point, part of why (I believe a large part) is the sheer size (area and population) of this country. Again, you could point to any nation state with a sizable population and make the same argument regardless of “form” of government.
I suppose my biggest concern, as others have pointed out, is getting from point A to point B. A being where we are now, to B, an anarchist society. I cannot ignore the reality of human nature, especially, the reality of American human nature. Make no mistake about it, we are not what I would consider a “peaceful” people. Yes, we can live in our subdivision sans daily violence, but on a larger scale, we are a blood-thirsty breed. Immediately (or even over a short period of time) take away the boundary of laws we’ve become accustomed to, and we’ll have wars on every street in America. That said, a slow, gradual education would produce the exact opposite, but I still believe it has to be on a much smaller scale. There are social norms that also aren’t accounted for… regional differences, climate, what about religion? I don’t think that organized religion, as we know them now, are are congruent with an anarchist society. I’m sure many will disagree with that… but again, what is the basis of any religion? Compliance, conformity, and blind obedience.
Lastly, on a personal note, much of this rambling may seem to defend our “system” as it stands now. I assure you that is not the case. However, once again, I cannot ignore reality as too many folks do. Reality, while objective in some ways, is based on facts regardless. Facts that we cannot just eliminate from any equation. I attempt to consider the reality we live in today, and imagine small, conceivable measures at restoring some sense of freedom and personal liberty to our society. One fact is, we’ve allowed this government not only to spin completely out of control, but also we’ve relinquished all control to a very small percentage of our population, who are completely out of touch with the majority of this population. It has morphed into a fascist oligarchy. Don’t believe me, give it a couple more years… it will be blatantly, painfully obvious. A subsequent result is that the system has a stranglehold on its self-preservation. In other words, it ain’t going anywhere any time soon. We must work with the tools we’re presented with. That does not mean change is at their behest, I don’t believe that. However, I do believe small, gradual change is key. Education is paramount. We are dealing with so many problems at every conceivable angle. Our economy is in the shitter. The endless wars on “terrorism” and on drugs, which are nothing more than their tools of enforcing power and control. Our food system (along with education, I believe is #1 problem) is completely corrupt. As stated, our education system has been on a downward spiral since 1971 (DoE). Healthcare, corporate/government cronyism, police state shifts, general corruption in government, this list could go on and on and on. How do we make any sort of change that matters? It needs to start small, start with spreading the word…education, not in the systematic sense but on a personal level. Get people fired up about the bullshit; there’s plenty to go around! Communication is key. Hold people accountable. Your “representatives”? Who are they representing? Always, always ask, WHO BENEFITS?
7:31 pm
My reasoning for not fully embracing anarchism is somewhat two-fold (although I certainly sympathize with much of the philosophy underlying it … at least what I’ve seen of it to date anyway and more “in the weeds” study would likely only affect the degree of that sympathy marginally). However, both ultimately hinge around certain negative human behavioral tendencies towards domination of others to the point of violating their natural rights (i.e. perpetration of theft, fraud, murder, physical assault,destruction of personal property, etc.) which I will simple refer to here as “ass-hattery”.
In part, my reasons are practical ones. Generally speaking, we tend not to come across too much of such ass-hattery in our day-to-day lives … most especially those of us who have the good fortune to live in countries where a plurality of the populous isn’t skirting starvation and has to worry about where their next meal will come from. However it is still present on the whole in even the most “well-off” countries. The purpose of a state (or at least one of the *legitimate* purposes of a state) is to guard against such ass-hattery, keeping it in check so that the rest of us can go about our lives without having to worry about guarding our lives, liberty and possession every waking minute of the day. This is certainly not to say I think the state should protect us from every imaginable danger (say, by trying to legislate what adults can and cannot put into their own bodies because whatever it is could be harmful to us over time) especially considering that I would identify primarily as falling somewhere in in the libertarian field edging on minarchist in certain aspects. I simply concede that there are *few* issues that can better be resolved through a state … preferably one limited to just those few things (like enforcing contracts … or protecting its citizens from attack from other aggressors, especially if those aggressors are foreign nations). Even if the state ends up contributing to the “ass-hattery” level on occasion, without one there is nothing to counteract acts of “ass-hattery” in the personal sphere thus leaving people have only themselves and any kin/allies to rely. With all my relatives living at least 2 counties away, I’d like to not be forced by circumstance into have to defend my life, liberty, and personal property pretty much 24/7/365.
The remaining reasons are more theoretical but possibly more weighty than my practical concerns. Without a state, as long as “ass-hattery” is enough of an issue (i.e. the “if men were angels” premise noted in Federalist Papers #51 continues to not reflect human nature taken as a whole), people will have a desire to have some form of protection from the potential malevolence of others, say by setting up some group or order (a “Brute Squad” perhaps .. hat-tip if you know movie that reference was from
) to protect members of the community and generally maintain some level of order. So long as this need exists, I don’t see how you can have a truly anarchistic society (at least in the long term) as any “group” or “order” that can use force against others for even the most minimal and benevolent of reasons will retain some aspect of the state even if that aspect it’s scope is limited to less than the shadow of the state it replaced. Such a group may not be recognized as a state in the de jure sense but they could certainly become one in a de facto manner. At worst, this could shifts a once anarchistic society into an oligarchy when the group decides that they have enough “muscle” to have everyone else do what they command.
If the day comes where “ass-hattery” is either not an issue or barely registers, then I could see a solid argument for societies the world over to shift away from maintaining governments to adopting whatever form of anarchism that best suits them and their culture. Until that point though, I cannot wholly embrace anarchism.