Anarcho-communism?! What, are you crazy?! [Or: Are there advantages to direct democratic methods of organizing?]

Are there advantages to direct democratic methods of organizing?

I think there could be.

I would argue that, in a functional anarcho-communist society, individuals and voluntary associations will not be constituted as organizations that represent a small number of people; rather, they will be culturally constituted as (often loose-fitting) systems of organization with a democratic structure.

Only when that cultural understanding and expectation is strong can such a society truly take shape, and especially last.

If they aim to be taken seriously at all, organizations that operate on an anarcho-communist basis are not and cannot be concerned only with the demands of a small group, but with the entire group of workers or groups of individuals who share their concerns.

Anarchists will not simply argue for the establishment of a group to take control over labor, but they will argue that workers, human beings, collectively should participate in this process, to achieve a balance between collective interests and those of the individual, while refusing to create some ruling class that disproportionately (and otherwise unjustly) benefits from both.

Oddly enough: This would be a situation that, in some ways, would resemble elements we already see in representative government in the Western world. Most governments at least pay lip service to serving the people. However, in a more anarchic organization, any representative would function solely as an instantly recallable delegate, with few (if any) special powers, privileges, or rights not enjoyed by other members of the group. In other words, if it is an anarchic organization, all dictator-like powers would be stripped away, thus avoiding the emergence of any power-mad, bloodthirsty authoritarian leader.

It is not any “boss” that is being served and we’re not organized for the sake of maintaining a hierarchical structure of inflexible, “permanent” authority. Rather, the group exists to serve whatever purpose is deemed necessary and desirable, and if interest in its aims and efforts naturally wanes, then the organization will dissipate as well. (What might be called “voting with one’s feet.”)

This isn’t to say it’s an ideal scenario and that no problems would exist in such a framework. However, it’s also obvious that occasional failure/lack of interest already happens in present-day society. A key difference would be an interest in substantially limiting power and, I would hope, rejecting the idea of imposing individual or cultural superiority through violence.

Of course, it must be said that, regardless of the system employed or stated aims, people can and will take good ideas and make them look like the worst ones ever devised.

Still, even when pressed to conform to the present-day status quo values, and even when I sheepishly acquiesce, my mind (and I suppose my “soul” or my “essence”) always comes back to these basic precepts, and not just out of some quest for ideals and utopia. Nor is it because I zealously and steadfastly cling to some anarchic dogma. No, my reason is far milder: There is simply a strong element of common sense to it.

When push comes to shove, I naturally reject the ways in which abstract entities (governments, corporations, superstitious churches, irrational symbols like flags, etc.) have people inverting reality to render humans and their communities into mere abstractions. It is as if the real becomes fake (or abstract) in order to make the fake appear real; people become ideas, and ideas become the paramount reality no matter how many are sacrificed in the process.

On that note, I would add that any organization with legitimacy and value (however slight) recognizes the need to limit its power. In fact, even most governments (which anarchists obviously criticize) have some system of “checks and balances” which, over time, give them some degree of legitimacy. However, these checks are far from adequate and often enough are whittled away, sometimes to the point where the system barely resembles the values it claims to most cherish (Example: The Constitution-preaching Republican “party of law and order” attempting anti-constitutional coups to install Donald Trump in 2020, with him even declaring that we should “terminate” parts of the U.S. Constitution that prevent him from being “reinstated”).

In that regard, even when more legitimate, non-hierarchical organizations comically fail or have lackluster results, it’s no more a cause of concern than when authorities successfully implement policies that leave huge mounds of corpses and make humanity look like a pox upon itself.

Democracy has fallen and we can’t get up…or can we? (And yes, I mention anarchism here)

As the United States teeters on the brink of theocratic, plutocratic neo-fascism, a pertinent question is whether, after everything we have seen gained over time, and after everything we have lost (or risk losing), it is possible to build a real society on a more rational basis: can we, as we live in a non-democratic state, abolish this oppressive state by the means of freedom? . . .

This is not necessarily just a concern for any self-professed anarchists. Increasingly, anyone even marginally on the left, including mainstream liberals and neo-liberal/capitalist-types, has reason to ask such questions.

I have often quoted Rebecca Henderson, of Harvard Business School, who stated:
“I think the decline of democracy is a mortal threat to the legitimacy and health of capitalism.”

Yes, the stability of capitalism itself is under threat, from itself, and even some self-professed capitalists are recognizing and attempting to reform the system.

The problem is, we hear that we work for freedom in the democratic state, for a free government, in a free state, and all that rhetoric, yet we will never be free when society is brutally subordinated to a monopolistic and hierarchical form of government. At best, we can be relatively less oppressed, for the moment. This is exactly what we discovered in 2022 after a theocratic Supreme Court keeps trying to reverse its previous, relatively progressive decisions. We have also seen a malignant narcissist attempt to overthrow a national election and install himself as a dictator, all based on lies and conspiracy theories.

Crucially, none of these things would happen in a genuinely more anarchic society where there are no dictatorial leaders, and any leaders are merely delegates with no special powers, privileges, and rights. Decisions would be made democratically, directly, so we would not be utterly dependent on the supposed wisdom of a Supreme Court, or on people like Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or any other servants of oligarchs.

In fact, to counteract many of the disastrous events unfolding, society must move more in a direct-democratic direction, even if it never reaches the appearance of a full anarchic utopia (or whatever term ones wishes to use). Quite simply, the “moderate Democrats” are failing us, and will most certainly continue to fail, as stronger authoritarian tendencies take hold

. In fact, if you are a liberal/progressive and doubt that the Democratic Party itself is a problem, consider that Joe Biden has nominated Andrew Biggs, an anti-Social Security conservative, to be in charge of Social Security. That’s right; Your retirement savings might someday disappear entirely under this typically insidious 2-party system.

Similarly, in a 2022 Texas race for Congress, Nancy Pelosi chose to back Henry Cuellar, the only anti-abortion Democrat in the House of Representatives, against the pro-choice Jessica Cisneros. This was at a time when the Supreme Court was already known to have plans to scrap Roe v. Wade. If that’s not enough, Cuellar enjoys significant support from the NRA, at a time when many progressives were calling for more gun reform due to mass shootings like the Uvalde school shooting. Not enough? Well, Cuellar had also had his office raided by the FBI, suggesting he was under investigation for some sort of criminal activity.
Still, Pelosi chose to back him, and it may have very well given Cuellar the lead.

This meant, of course, that there would be one more conservative Democrat calling the shots in the United States.

Quite simply, people cannot rely on voting alone anymore. The country needs more anarchic, bottom-up approaches to our society and its institutions. The top-down approach is ruining lives, and it’s only going to get worse if we try to rely solely on the goodwill of politicians and corporations.

Even though I hesitate to call myself an anarchist, or any other political label, it is simply undeniable that electoral politics alone are not cutting it, and never have and never will be enough. More people must be encouraged to question the authoritarian nature of the American government, which is harder to deny as reality.

To anyone who thinks that anarchism is merely a simple condemnation of modern society, it is hard for most anarchists to accept that there can be some instant turning back of the clock to some pre-modern reality. It’s no more realistic than saying we can wave a magic wand and have everything be perfect. Solutions must be sought in the present day.

This system is actually still relatively “peaceful,” but it is merely the calm before the storm, before far-right fanatics attempt a literal purge from society various marginalized groups (in addition to creating new ones, which is a habit no oppressive system can go without).

The system of so-called “law and order” has variously revealed itself to be no better than forms of organized crime such as racketeering and extortion, as well as murder; In contrast, for examples of the good within humanity, we can have the ordinary trades unions, clubs, volunteer work brigades, fund-raising groups, consumer co-operatives and mutual aid societies, which are necessary for some sort of successes against the authoritarian excesses.

Though “one man, one vote” still has its place, it is no longer clearly in the foreground, as this system of domination of man by man increasingly no longer labors under the illusion that it cares for the citizens. The question now is, Will the citizens organize effectively to take care of each other?

What might an ‘anarchist utopia’ look like?

As I discuss anarchism here, I am not merely trying to set forth my own views on everything, but attempting to present aspects of what an anarchist utopia would really look like, at its best, most ideal condition. I will then go on to suggest, as I have before, that plenty of anarchist ideas are applicable (to varying degrees) in decidedly non-anarchist societies and social environments.

Now, as I have said before, I don’t even bother calling myself an “anarchist,” because I believe society is pretty far removed from anarchism, and that we are basically “locked into the system” for the time being. I also don’t bother saying “I would abolish prisons,” or some such things because, frankly, I am not a dictator, so such immense, bold proclamations aren’t really for me to make (plus, I think every society will have police powers, so the main question is what form they will take).

Still, I’ll discuss more on a utopian society. First, though, I must deal with a few pesky little issues, such as the ideological foundation on which such a society must be built (at least if it wishes to last).

Since, under the anarchic lens, the individual is seen as the measure of all things (rather than abstract entities like gods or laws), an anarchist society would have to have some mechanism by which each individual’s autonomy is respected. One might propose a type of formal document here, but a Constitution does not create either obligations or rights unless people respect it anyway. Maybe that does not inherently mean it’s not worth doing, but a formal agreement is not truly some inherent guarantee of anything.

Just as we have seen with governments, a guarantee of rights (or what have you) guarantees very little. Also, something like a contract, in and of itself, does not truly equal agreement or consent, as those can be broken, and people’s attitudes change; what they agreed to at one point may have changed, due to circumstances, and sometimes one simply cannot continue in their agreement, for whatever reason. Also, let’s face it: Contracts are often even intended to play dirty little tricks on people and are therefore notorious already, even without my critiquing them here.

So really, what matters most is that the culture of agreement, fairness, and respect for individual autonomy is already largely in place. That is, this is more of a cultural matter than it is a contractual one.

If an individual feels they are not sufficiently free to do whatever they want, within reason, and what they want is non-violent, then it would become necessary to build institutions that protect the individual’s rights.

This means that both the institutions of society and their interactions with the natural environment would need to be based on the principle of reciprocity of relationships that is inherent in our natural social life.

For example, the relationship between an individual and a child, parent, friend, or another adult would be based on the principle of reciprocal and mutual aid, with a recognition that society’s only as strong as its “weakest link.”

A society based on this form of reciprocity would likely create three primary forms of economic exchange: public (non-privately-owned) markets based on voluntary exchange, goods and services as freely exchanged gifts and favors (a gift economy rather than legally imposed “debts”), and free contracts related to constructing and maintaining public goods (with the contracts clarifying the purpose of the arrangement, tasks at hand, etc., rather than emphasizing legal threats intended to protect a capitalist class). In an anarcho-communist approach, money would not apply.

Notice how this would all infuriate capitalists, who would instantly dismiss it as some pipe dream.

Why is that?

Anarchism might be described variously as fearsome, powerful, healthy, and just as infuriating as every other political philosophy.

Though often hated and feared, anarchism is a diverse philosophy that has significant influence in many countries, philosophically and tactically.

To varying degrees, anarchism has influenced modern social and political movements and ideologies (again, philosophically and tactically).

Its influence includes both radical political groups and, to a lesser extent, even democratic political parties (and no, that does not necessarily mean the Democratic Party of the United States, but political parties in a democracy which sporadically borrow, intentionally or otherwise, some anarchist ideas from time to time).

Freedom and whatnot

A free society under utopian anarchism is one where complete control over the means of production is divided between workers, “consumers,” and the communities impacted by the material products of labor. As hierarchy has been rendered null and void in this utopian setting, there is no attempt to discriminate between a majority and a minority of societal owners. Here, “ownership” is communalism, which also would supplant “State ownership.” Everyone owns the means of production and public goods.

The arrangement is not subjected to any legal restrictions, and “equal protection of the laws” is rendered unnecessary, as the society overall offers equal protection. Equality already sort of is “the law of the land.” There could still be leaders, but they would only play a loose representative function, be instantly recallable, and have no special powers, privileges, and rights in an organization defined by opposition to dictatorial will.

On that note, if there are any strong disagreements that cause rifts in a given industrial organization or enterprise, people may always vote with their feet, and “splinter” off to do things their own way. However, because reasoned negotiation is sort of inherent to this sort of organization, one would expect compromises to be the norm, rather than hostile, warring camps (though, admittedly, that would still seem possible).

Another reason these organizations could work: Anarchism defines freedom in its broadest sense as a form of social existence and not merely a physical activity or the possession of a certain amount or type of property. That is its philosophical underpinning, and it’s not necessarily as “extreme” as some might have it. In fact, as suggested already, some of these themes already have a place in present-day society.

Anarchism has pre-modern origins, but modern anarchism has some similarities with the European enlightenment, which has been described as having its own legacy of freedom. Similarly, there is no doubt some crossover between anarchist precepts and certain ideas of the modernist movement (whose slogan was “Make it New,” which, in itself, sounds like an anti-traditionalist philosophy highly compatible with anarchism).

Because it rejects hierarchy and class oppression, anarcho-syndicalism could broaden its appeal today, should unions read up on its history and methods and decide to act in a similar manner. Time will tell.

With regard to individual freedom and social revolution vs. pro-status quo propaganda

Anarchist precepts do not, as is generally thought by radicals, exclusively belong either to the realm of the great ideas of socialism or to the (often cynical) talk of individualist pacifism. In reality, citizens in a Republic may apply anarchist principles every day and typically do so without realizing it. In fact, I will do on to note how even Christians can be anarchic in their general worldview (despite a stereotype of all anarchists being atheists, that has never been true, and I say this as someone who considers himself an atheist).

Regardless of how one labels themselves politically, people can see two main roads of civilization as contradictory; the roads that divide the wealth and poverty of nations.

So long as the ruling classes permit the former, they are abetting the latter, and that shall remain so.

There is, however, another road, and while its way is not straight, its direction does seem to be toward freedom and human rights.

This road is the road of an Anarchic direction.

It’s corny to say “Anarchism stands as the sword of truth and justice,” but one’s ability to question authority holds that no human being can be absolutely enslaved as an individual, but everyone can be enslaved as a blindly obedient member of a group; it says that the proverbial soul of man can be liberated but the body cannot be without a new and higher relation to man; it says that the freedom of the human spirit is essential to the social improvement of mankind, but that the enslavement of man by man is a morbid and degenerate form of enslavement, to the extent that it will always appear without purpose, even if it is promoted as giving humanity special purpose.

As part of the anarchist critique of capitalism, critics point to the problems of central economic planning and statist planning and argue that private property and profit-seeking, especially under the influence of private capital, can’t solve our most daunting problems, as they lead to undue individualization, injustice, and poverty.

“Pyramid of Capitalist System”

At most, we know there should be some intelligent economic planning, but there is great folly in leaving all of these decisions up to greedy capitalists, while we have less and less say in our working lives. It is also immensely flawed to relegate all of our major decisions to politicians, who are just as easily corrupted as the capitalists, but, even when they are not so greedy, may seek to impose their own culturally biased views upon the population through force of government.

So, rather than that, why not have society organized freely, in organizations where profit is not the primary or only concern, and where any representatives merely have a delegate (spokesperson) function and have no special powers, privileges, and rights akin to a dictator?

Well, we know why such organizations are relatively rare; They do not allow for the ascendancy and maintenance of some ruling class. They would seek to limit power, rather than have leadership attain more dictatorial power for itself.

In that regard, power has a lot of propaganda on its side, often called “the media.”

While mainstream media is not always, 100% servile to the interests of the rich and powerful, there is an undeniable tendency in that direction throughout human history. And, as power has been consolidated into fewer and fewer hands, life is squeezed out of intellectual engagement society-wide. It’s not just that society seems to be getting “stupider,” but that it’s designed to move in that direction. Such is the nature of any ideology wherein you are not supposed to question power. You will inevitably aggregate stupid and horrible results. It’s very much as Voltaire once said: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

History and popular culture still provide many avenues of intellectual exploration, but one is easily seduced by pseudo-Moral philosophers who act as the avatars of a worldly form of pure, beautiful love; however, in the process of seeking truth and wisdom, people may fall under the spell of the more earthly form of the love of money.

It is ironic, too, because the United States (the biggest purveyor of greed, violence, stupidity, and corruption) is often said to be a “Christian country,” and Christianity is said to feature both a spiritual and physical prohibition against “worshiping money.”

However, since the origin of the so-called Christian civilization (and certainly before it), human beings were always careful to pick and choose the parts of their stated religion that made them look, sound, and feel best.

After the purported death of Jesus Christ, his followers are said to have sought to replace his earthly sacrifice with their own, to embody Christ’s stated beliefs and values, which included serving the poor. Even putting aside passages that slam the rich, we have more modest statements such as Matthew 6:33, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.” Does righteousness include obsessive tax breaks for the rich, constant military expansion, and unlimited corporate power? How about immigrant-bashing and racism?

Obviously not. However, the power of propaganda means we can always look the other way and defy our own conventionally stated beliefs. So that’s why we need to employ the good ol’ anarchic lens now more than ever.

Right-Wing Terrorism, Threats, and Increased Repression Mean Big Money For Some!

The right-wingers out there are still blaming any violence from their side on “Antifa” (or anarchists, liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc.). Why is that? Well, it’s because they are liars, and conspiracy theories concealing right-wing violence are good for the white nationalist agenda so prevalent among Republicans today.

Even putting white nationalism aside for a second, blaming all violence on anarchists (or, in some cases, communists) is an old trope, and, even among those who accept that right-wing violence exists, even they will attempt to “both sides” it, severely downplaying the more common right-wing, racist violence while grossly exaggerating the other (or even claiming relatively apolitical violence is left-wing violence, or a false flag, or what have you).

The more confused people are about violence, the more white nationalists can conceal the violence in their own movement, and hide it behind “patriotism” or irrational fears (such as “the great replacement theory,” where white people are supposedly being forcibly replaced by immigrants and other minorities, and it’s all being implemented by George Soros, which is a thinly-veiled codeword for “Jews”).

Political Violence Does Exist, and Right-wingers Capitalize on the Fear

Okay, so what about political violence makes it easy for skilled right-wing propagandists to advance their causes? For starters, we know that political violence does happen, so that general claim is by no means a conspiracy theory in itself. Every powerful lie will; at least have a few elements of truth to it, right?

It’s not like there is never evidence of momentary or sustained violence caused by, or in reaction to, systems of authority. We know there is. We can read about it in the news every day.

However, what most people don’t read about is how this violence is, in many ways, emanating from a statist reaction to any opposition to capitalism. Because, actually, some violence in North America could reasonably be seen as almost synonymous with market capitalism and white nationalism.

As the Spanish individualist anarchist Miguel Giménez Igualada explained regarding capitalism being linked to the government: “[C]apitalism is an effect of government; the disappearance of government means capitalism falls from its pedestal vertiginously…That which we call capitalism is not something else but a product of the State, within which the only thing that is being pushed forward is profit, good or badly acquired. And so to fight against capitalism [alone] is a pointless task, since be it State capitalism or Enterprise capitalism, as long as Government exists, exploiting capital will exist. The fight, but of consciousness, is against the State.”

So the right-wing reactionaries in the system are, in different ways, cracking down on those they consider rebellious against state-capitalism, and chiefly employing racism and fear of “demographic replacement” as a divide-and-conquer tactic to keep the masses in thrall of the corporate state. And, in the United States, the state happens to have a very racist history, which obviously enjoyed a resurgence during Trump’s term as President.

The Republican Party has now been almost totally taken over by Trumpism, so the overlapping interests of mega-corporations and white nationalism are getting harder and harder to conceal. Sure, maybe they are not absolutely, 100% inherently linked, but they do seem to go hand-in-hand, and we do see how bold these Republicans are when it comes to overtly tying their capitalist worldview together with overt racism. It might be said that their dog whistles are increasingly replaced by bullhorns.

On that note, it’s not like one could reasonably say “No noteworthy right-wing political violence has taken place in North America for decades.” It is increasingly the norm, and these right-wing extremists keep calling for more of it (while claiming they are not, of course, to help avoid legal accountability or other punishments).

Aside from the car attack in Charlottesville, which seemed to almost usher in the era of Trumpism, we saw some pretty obvious political violence on January 6, 2021.

Of course, plenty of right-wing propagandists out there will claim that the protests in 2020 were nothing but riots, and tend to exaggerate that particular extremist political violence (though they will always downplay the violence of police who were present, or all the right-wing rioters and, in some cases, agent provocateurs, who showed up at those protest events, often no doubt hoping to trigger a race war to implement their reactionary, white nationalist ideals).

It does not matter to them that I attended a BLM protest locally and there was not a single moment of violence or even property destruction. That fact is not generous to them, so it can be casually ignored.

Now, as messy and deadly as political violence can be, one can easily discover that certain interests are actually profiting off of this dysfunction. If nothing else, we know right-wing leaders and right-wing media are making money, propagandizing the masses to fall in line with their typically twisted perspectives on things.

The Antifa Boogeyman

Rather than focusing on all the white nationalist violence happening in this country (which has quite obviously been increasing in the past decade or so), they want us to believe that every shot is being called by “Antifa” (or a number of unnamed anarchist terrorist cells). They have said so about January 6, with the insane theory that the event — clearly intended to attack the system and impose Trump as a dictator — was these radical anarchists coordinating with the FBI.

And to do what? To have Joe Biden become President after he legitimately won the election? In what way is that any sort of radical idea? The whole conspiracy theory functions as a convoluted joke, and it’s difficult not to laugh at it, even when knowing how degrading and destructive it has been to logic itself.

However, let me be clear on something: No neo-liberal, Wall Street-serving President is acting with the full support or encouragement of far-leftist groups. If they are, then they are likely dupes, undermining their own interests. And frankly, there are no “anarchist governments” or “anarchist jurisdictions” as Trump and AG Bill Barr laughably claimed. That was them inventing a term that has no actual legal basis, but was “elevated” into existence at the whim of the wannabe dictator, Donald Trump, and his (at the time) pathetically loyal lackey, Bill Barr.

Similarly, white nationalist loon Wendy Rogers, an actual elected official in Arizona, recently claimed that the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo, New York was orchestrated by the FBI (specifically making the ludicrous post: “Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo…”) Not only was the conspiracy theory grossly offensive and rooted in white nationalist conspiracy theory, but it should also be kept in mind that this is a well-paid right-wing narrative. Again, these people are making money by presenting these ideas. They are paid propagandists.

Tucker Carlson over at FOX “News” has repeatedly said such things regarding January 6th, and he also has advanced the same “great replacement theory” that inspired the Buffalo shooter. Now, obviously, people like Tucker Carlson and Wendy Rogers are being paid to advance such conspiracy theories by some people with big money, and to (they hope) bring us closer to a white supremacist government.

And they are cynically using stereotypes about anarchists to claim anarchists and “Antifa” are somehow directly responsible for any bit of terrorist violence happening from right-wing ideology (hell, in some cases, even for apolitical violence, as lunatics like Alex Jones even claimed a school shooting was a “false flag!”). The narrative, of course, is that no right-wingers are actually violent, even when they engage in violent rhetoric on a near-constant basis and have violent beliefs involving preventing “demographic shifts” in the population (very thinly veiled language for rationalizing racial discrimination and related violence).

These right-wing ideologues are also exploiting the fact that, like nearly every other political ideology (aside from advocates of pacifism), anarchists have used assassinations as part of their perceived struggle, at various points in history. However, perhaps ironically, murder by anarchists happens way less nowadays, despite right-wingers suggesting there has been a huge uptick in specifically anarchist political violence — which again, is in fact often actually right-wing terrorism, or even relatively apolitical violence such as school shootings.

But people like Tucker Carlson and Wendy Rogers know full well that anarchists, and leftists, are a convenient scapegoat, as they have never been the most popular group in a largely conservative society like the United States. They can conveniently claim any number of things against anarchists, liberals, Democrats, Marxists, communists, you name it, and their audiences will simply eat it up, as they lack critical thinking skills and (typically) don’t seek out different sources of information.

Again, all of this is profitable for these right-wing interests. They are cashing in on it, and it’s surprising that the United States has not yet totally caved to these perverted interests.

However, they are working on it, overtime.

We can fully expect that these efforts will continue having some success, as they will begin more particularly targeting police officers, military members, and government officials who already have their ear, with their propaganda. Expect an increase in things like loyalty oaths, as well as even more conspiracy theories related to groups these right-wing extremists don’t happen to like. We can fairly predict these extremists will engage in more shootings, discrimination, bombing, and car-ramming attacks against not only relatively random people (be they “liberal” protesters or individuals in minority groups), but increasingly against major targets.

These neo-fascists will have more cases of violence, no doubt, but the real question is how much their narrative can dominate the mass media and spread to infect more already-damaged minds.

Really, one of the few things we have going for us is that, yes, there are “demographic shifts” happening that actually do threaten these narratives, to some degree. As the population becomes more diverse, it likely will adhere strictly to the white nationalist ideology.

This is partly why people like Tucker Carlson advance the “great replacement theory” to begin with. They know they can tap into these racist fears among their target audience., and that there is money to be gained by dividing the population. And, because the system has already been racist in many respects, it makes it easier to cash in, and the white nationalists can already enjoy some popular support.

And we know that white supremacy has been a reality here. In addition to hundreds of years of slavery, segregation, and countless crimes, there are endless signs. Example: To my knowledge, no politician or police officer has ever encouraged racially profiling white people for violence or other crimes, at least not in the United States. For another example, President Trump never claimed Joe Biden was some wicked foreigner, even though he specifically ran against Biden and therefore theoretically had more reason to spread sinister lies (and that lie against Obama truly was sinister, and a clear sign of what was to come under Trumpism).

Dishonesty lies at the very core of practically everything such people say, which is actually a key component of their illegitimacy. It’s not just that they encourage violence against minorities (though they do), it’s also simply that they are liars. Even that should matter, but the laws are often unwilling to touch these liars, provided they have money and powerful connections.

And so the lies spread, and the loyal opposition among the Democrats does little to combat them. These right-wing lies permeate the internet, and the virus spreads.

I recently responded to someone on Youtube who claimed “There are videos on YouTube right now where there are democrats applauding dwindling numbers of White Americans. I’m not making that up, it’s a fact.”

I responded: “‘It’s a fact that you provide no specific source for,’ but then went on to an equally important point: “In the real world, plenty of leftists/liberals/whatever have been honest enough to note that some minorities can end up voting Republican. So there is no guarantee whatsoever that any demographic shift will inherently benefit Democrats, but Republicans don’t want those kinds of people here, and talk of ‘replacement’ is how they rationalize and justify their racist ideology. Cenk [Uygur of The Young Turks] has made that observation repeatedly.”

However, no matter how much I can repeat myself, people are unlikely to hear my competing narrative as much as what’s available in right-wing media. People like myself don’t have millions or billions of dollars to buy ad time. And, hell, even if I did, there is no guarantee whatsoever that right-leaning corporate media would run my ads anyway. The system is rigged, and it’s certainly not rigged in favor of people who challenge white nationalist talking points (lies) and related violence.

Tradition Can Be Important, But We Are Not Frozen in Time…

Tradition can be valuable, but it isn’t everything. In fact, in some cases, it really shouldn’t even be anything. So I want to examine why what I call the anarchic perspective (or “the anarchic lens”) might sometimes, though not always, reject tradition. I also will delve into why free cooperation is more important than so-called “free competition.”

The anarchist lens recognizes that most of us want to be left alone (that is, unabused), that most of us want to live out our lives in peace, and we want others to do the same. We cannot adequately do so if we are seen as being “frozen in time,” which in itself potentially borders on abuse if we are systematically held back and prevented from pursuing our own, typically benign interests.

The anarchic lens recognizes that the mere promise of a free society is what enables us to make the effort to achieve these things (and, again, a free society cannot be entirely frozen in time).

And the anarchic perspective sets out the conditions and the principles to enable those of us who want to maintain the best of those promises to hold together a society that is imperfectly free yet one that is, perhaps, the best that we can hope for. That could be seen as traditional, in a sense, but it can be a dynamic tradition rather than a stilted, frozen one.

On that note, the idea of voluntary cooperation is fundamental to the idea of a free society, much more so than “free competition.”

A free society recognizes that the only way that people can cooperate to achieve mutual advantage is by recognizing and acknowledging that the individual is a major source of all that makes him or her better off, but also that we are constrained largely by the actions and abilities of one another (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse).

Now, you can find plenty of mainstream capitalist ideologues making such statements, but it is not only on economic grounds that a free society has great appeal. After all, capitalism would want to take a free society and add a price tag to every aspect of it, rendering it not so free after all (in fact, this simple reality is one of the best, most profound critiques of capitalism, as it simply wants to make everything about money, to the extent that practically nothing else is even allowed to matter under capitalist ideology and related institutions).

Other aspects are equally important, other aspects are far more important than the pursuit of money and material possessions.

For example, the concept of natural law maintains that rights do not simply come from a political body but from “God, nature or reason.” Now, I am not even a leading proponent of natural law. An atheist would challenge the existence of God, and it’s also iffy whether “nature” has gifted us with any inherent rights, as we are not all born on equal footing, and some people barely ever perceive themselves as having any rights (suggesting such views are not inherent or entirely hinged on perceptions of what is “natural” or not).

So the fanciful concept of natural rights seems to be flawed, finite, and probably outdated in some aspects.

Nevertheless, we do know that the perception of rights can and does come from somewhere, and it is definitely not always from the state, or any other official or unofficial source of claimed authority. Rebellions do happen (though, of course, not all rebellious acts have equal merit, and some rebellions should barely even be considered rebellion at all if they are merely related to one form of illegitimate authority violently competing with another).

Whether natural or not, anarchism is generally considered the most revolutionary of all political ideologies, but also sees itself as leading to a new society, even when an existing society has reached its potential, and even if this society has already achieved a level of security and living standards significantly above that of any of its predecessors. If anarchic principles are to have any meaning or staying power, it cannot simply be some ideal society “without authority,” but a new society in the sense that people are continually allowed to live and innovate without unnecessary (usually systemic) hurdles put in front of them.

Of course, there will always be debate/discussion of what is necessary and what is not, and where the freedom of the individual or the group begins and ends. However, that debate is best had freely and intelligently; safely, and without the threat of immediate violence, imprisonment, or death for merely having a different point of view.

Schools of Thought / Individual and Group Dynamics

I am going to talk about what leads anarchists to advocate revolution (the theory and practice of the abolition of the authority of the ruling class), from below up to a new society based on a libertarian collectivity, while doing plenty of name-dropping of some historical anarchists of note.

There are competing schools of thought on revolution, with some advocating traditional violence, which more pacifistic advocates of anarchism might liken to just another form of statism.

At the same time, the use of coercive, violent state power in the modern world is not the only thing anarchists address. In fact, some prefer the system of command and the authority of the state to become completely obsolete simply through organizations that prevent (rather than preserve) inequalities in the social order, rather than some prolonged, bloody struggle (though mainstream critics of anarchism will always emphasize the assassination angle of anarchism, even though there were always pacific anarchist critics of “propaganda of the deed,” and obviously anarchists neither invented nor perfected assassinations better than any other political movement or force. There were also anarchist criminal gangs, such as the Bonnot Gang, too, which always threatened to make a mere spectacle out of anarchism).

Some roots of anarchism lie in the thinkers of the 18th century, who opposed monarchical despotism, imperialist nations, religion, and capitalism (though to be clear, there have been “Christian Anarchists,” meaning not all anarchists are atheists).

Some anarchists have been influenced by the teachings of the American philosopher and inventor Josiah Warren (1798- 1874).

Anarchism may be adopted by small or large revolutionary groups, but it’s also important to note that many among the working classes apply what are essentially anarchist principles, often without regarding them as such. There are also elements of anarchist thought in philosophers like Emmanuel Mounier (1095-1950), as well as activists like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.

Also, even though Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) advocated against communism, finding it to be against liberty, others, such as Henri Simon (1922), advocated council communism as a more liberty-based alternative to state communism. Also, anarcho-communists such as Emile Pouget (1860-1931) and, especially, Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) would argue that stateless communism was the main way to achieve liberty and equality in society.

In any case, practically any anarchist worth a damn opposed Stalin and Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat, and we now have the benefit of hindsight to recognize Stalin as one of the most notorious authoritarians in human history.

“The Leader” is Gone? The Individual and the Group

As noted before, one need not be a self-described anarchist to (at least occasionally) abide by some anarchist principles. In fact, most people do from time to time. For example, even a protestant or catholic organization can be charitable, and decent things might be said about any organization based around affinity groups and direct action. That’s because, in truth, anarchism is more about doing good deeds than anything else, including all the labels.

Again, the anarchist movement (such as it is) often draws criticism from various traditionalists, some of whom have described it as violent (though, again, plenty of anarchists are actually still pacifists).

Anarchism does not dwell in some exaggerated gulf between society and the individual, recognizing that the two concepts and realities actually often go together. For example, Emma Goldman (1869–1940) considered herself to have both communistic aspects and respect for individualism. This is partly due to the tradition of the individualism which informs anarchism, as well as its political philosophy of praxis, which seeks to combine direct action with an organization (rather than solely focus on the philosophy, or talking and thinking).

Anarchist philosophers such as Rudolf Rocker (1873-1958), Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman (whose work influenced the free love movement) are important influences on political philosophy, with individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), being a particularly influential individualist anarchist.

Also, in his book An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793), William Godwin (1756-1836) argued that “government is a corrupting force in society, perpetuating dependence and ignorance, but that it will be rendered increasingly unnecessary and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge and the expansion of the human understanding. Politics will be displaced by an enlarged personal morality as truth conquers error and mind subordinates matter. In this development the rigorous exercise of private judgment, and its candid expression in public discussion, plays a central role, motivating his rejection of a wide range of co-operative and rule-governed practices which he regards as tending to mental enslavement, such as law, private property, marriage and concerts [Godwin surely was not referring to music concerts here but things relating to these other topics “in concert”].”

Anarchism still has plenty of internal debates, including those between supporters of more politically centralized federalism and supporters of a more loosely confederated organization. Still, to get a real sense of the organic nature of anarchism, one might look back to the 1600s, when Gerrard Winstanley of the Digger movement desired to reclaim “the common lands” from England’s Enclosure Acts, to reject the “privatization” of lands that had previously been held in common.

Winstanley most certainly didn’t care to call himself or his movement anarchist. He just knew something was wrong with what was going on and acted on what he considered right. He stated powerfully: “If they prove desperate, wanton or idle, and will not quietly submit to the law, the task-master is to feed them with short diet, and to whip them, for a rod is prepared for the fool’s back, till such time as their proud hearts do bend to the law … If any have so highly broke the laws as they come within the compass of whipping, imprisoning and death, the executioner shall cut off the head, hang or shoot to death, or whip the offender according to the sentence of law. Thus you may see what the work of every officer in a town or city is.”

The Anarchist Lens: Where does ‘the war of all against all’ come from?

Through the anarchism’s study of hierarchies, it attempts to expose the root of the conflict and hostility in society, or “status.”

Why is there often the appearance of a “war of all against all?”

This analysis doesn’t mean that people who are more adept at organizing and subverting hierarchy can change everything, but it does mean that any approach to ending inequality must begin from a radical understanding of the problem (though I use the term “radical” somewhat loosely here, as what is deemed radical often just amounts to logic).

Generic, conformist, ho-hum explanations just don’t work as well as the anarchic lens, and conformist ideology should mostly be examined critically, to understand how simplistic propaganda works.

There is a vast amount of mythologizing propaganda involved in promoting this system in idealized form, almost like easy-to-swallow pills.

For example, psychologist crybaby and right-wing darling Jordan Peterson laughably said: “The number one predictor of accomplishment in Western societies is intelligence. What’s the number two predictor?: Conscientiousness. Well, what’s that? It’s a trait marker for hard work. So, who gets ahead? Smart people who work hard.”

Now, honestly, those are a bunch of generic and see-through claims, but people embrace them because they employ feel-good mythologies about accomplishment, using a bunch of words that sound nice and virtuous, such as intelligence, conscientiousness, and hard work, etc. However, anyone who’s lived any kind of life knows it’s more complicated than that. Not all “accomplished” people are necessarily deeply knowledgeable, nor do they universally do the greatest job, work the hardest at it, etc. In fact, if we are talking about success, wealth, power, and fame, some people are practically born accomplished due to nepotism. Or, even if that’s the case, they had tons of resources available to them that others did not. It’s not just “smart people who work hard” that get ahead, Jordan.

Now, obviously what I just said is not even particularly radical. It’s something practically anyone with real-life experience could note, and I think even someone like Jordan Peterson knows that. However, real-life explanations for how the world actually works are less likely to fit on a bumper sticker.

Just People Doing Jobs, and Certainly Not Always Well

It often makes sense to approach issues rather conditionally, in the form of “If we are to have this, it should be used in this way.”

For example, police and military organizations supposedly exist to protect and serve people, and not the other way round. However, because of the nature of authority and authoritarianism, there are endless examples of it being the other way around, where we protect and serve these institutions, or are even sacrificed at their altar. In fact, that is arguably actually the norm.

And that is often allowed through mythologizing what could otherwise be seen as jobs. So, what is The Secretary of Defense? It is a cabinet-level position, a job, defined as “the principal defense policy advisor to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct and primary concern to the DoD [Department of Defense] and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense.”

But notice how it does not include language like “ordained by God” or some other idealistic imagery. If anything, the language there is a little bit too dry, too uninspired. But, in a way, that is preferable. Either way, it perfectly illustrates the difference between myth and reality, emotion vs. fact, simply doing a job versus serving a divine purpose, and how different a job looks from any other over-inflated myth of national greatness.

The military and police are not merely positive social forces that inherently protect us but often serve as war-making institutions.

Clearly, these institutions don’t necessarily need to be destroyed, but they need to be described and faced as such. Similarly, we should not want to glorify schools, school officials, or any number of institutions of society. We should see them primarily as jobs people do, and recognize that people within them can be flawed, if not sometimes “evil.” Sometimes these institutions can be improved upon or, if enough people will it, be done away with.

They are sometimes, in themselves, social problems with social solutions – and change can sometimes come from within the institutions themselves, or from some outside force (and, particularly if an institution is violent enough, people may be quite literally forced to rebel against it, if they wish to survive it).

The Individual vs. Society

Some have always blamed struggle on the individual, and lament them as losers and failures. Sociologist C. Wright Mills, on the other hand, noted way back in 1959 that “the very structure of opportunities has collapsed, ” adding that “Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions require us to consider the economic and political institutions of the society, and not merely the personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals.”

And it’s especially strange how often those speaking about “individual responsibility” still favor status quo institutions as their go-to example of how things ought to be. Well, are these institutions really that much about individual choice or judgment? No, they are about conforming to the ways and guidelines of those institutions, typically subverting one’s individual will to them, playing by their roles and rules, and working for their outcomes. And, of course, these institutions (typically) end up serving functions and purposes far greater than the concept of individual responsibility.

In fact, even these institutions typically don’t act all that individually.

The police, army, and other government institutions are, in fact, interlinked, and it is through analyzing this interdependency and intersecting institutions that anarchist analysis can be used to understand the root of the conflicts between the powerful and the oppressed.

In other words, anarchism means a little bit more than “without authority.” The anarchic lens is actually an intellectual framework, and it can technically even be applied within a system of authority.

What About Specific Anarchist History and the Anarchic Lens?

Anarchist theories and movements have always existed, even if they were not identified as such. In fact, although it’s not often acknowledged, anarchism used to be harder to avoid and it pissed authorities off.

Anarchist Communism became very influential in the Spanish Revolution, especially with the 1936–1939 Spanish Anarchist movement, while the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) took the revolutionary syndicalist theory further and experimented with a range of strategies and organizational forms that are still used by revolutionary unionists around the world (though, for better or worse, the “propaganda of the deed” aspect of anarchist history has often been cited by its critics as indicating anarchism simply means political violence…though, of course, anarchists are not the only people in human history who have employed violence, including perhaps hypocritically).

In the last quarter of the 20th century, anarchism underwent a resurgence in influence, with various international anarchist federations and autonomous social centers being established, and publications like Socialist Review (at least marginally anarchic) appearing.

Explaining Anarchism

Anarchist communities, clubs, and informal collective living patterns have also been documented worldwide and will be in the future. Why? Plenty of the precepts are appealing to people, including even conformists, who inevitably end up abiding by at least some anarchist ideals at some point in their lives.

Political thought shouldn’t just ask “how should we be governed?” but also simply “should we be governed?”

Anarchism may seem like a political philosophy that developed in the 19th century out of a primarily English-language movement. Some think it began with the works of English writer William Godwin, or that it was a Luddite-like reaction to industrialist overreach.

However, it goes back further than Godwin (though, if you allow me to digress, I would like to mention that Godwin wasn’t just considered a father of modern anarchism, but also the father of “Frankenstein” author Mary Shelley).

If you want an example of an anarchist movement that goes back a ways, check out the Digger movement of the 1600s.

As the Encyclopedia Brittanica notes, its de facto leader, Gerrard Winstanley, was “a dissenting Christian” (yes, not all anarchists are atheists) in 1649, urging his countrymen “to manure and work upon the common lands,” and his movement was called the True Levellers (or Diggers, as they are called today, for whatever reason). Animated by a perceived injustice, Winstanley and the True Levellers tried to revert privatized land back to common ownership, fighting England’s “Enclosure Acts” that ended up privatizing land that had been previously available for common use.

So, when people such as myself refer to capitalism as a legal system, this is a very solid example of exactly what I mean. The Enclosure Acts are also a plain example of laws being used not to benefit the common good, but to forcer property and class distinction, allowing land and resources to become a tool of exploitation, benefitting one class at the expense of another. In reality, it is “the system” itself that ends up radicalizing some people, and this will continue to be the case so long as there are still people.

Why anarchists often critique Marxism / Why states create enemies / Where anti-authoritarianism comes from

Engels memorably declared that “Marx was before all else a revolutionist.”

So, why do anarchists typically have problems with some key Marxist ideas? Well, it’s not because Marx didn’t speak truth to power.
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels told the Bourgeoisie: “Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class.”

There is a little bit of fire to those words (a nerdy fire, but a fire nonetheless). However, putting the fire aside, there is a problem with Marx’s idea of “economic determinism” as well as the “dictatorship of the proletariat” idea, both of which rest upon the assumption that humans are incapable of regulating their own social and economic relations, and that the state is the only body capable of doing so. Basically, in both revolutionary and anti-revolutionary approaches under Marxism, either side will sort of need to say “Praise Be Unto The State”…though, under Marxist dogma, the state is somehow expected to just “wither away” by a certain point, making way for a stateless utopia.

Anarchists don’t think that will work.

Since all institutions, be they capitalist, communist, or otherwise, are (generally) ultimately dependent upon power relations, what emerges from the bitter contradictions of modern state-capitalism is ever greater force and violence.

Violence is legitimized as necessary to defend the system against “enemies” who seek to subvert it. And that is largely why violence so often goes hand in hand with “patriotic” propaganda, and why it is mythologized. In reality, political offices and jobs for the state are actually mere vocations, but that simple reality of what is happening must be masked under symbolism and grand rhetoric, usually about how great we are and, of course, how our enemies are so much worse.

And, even though most modern states see themselves as more civilized and advanced, it’s truly no different from establishing traditional enemies of a tribe, which has often been tied together with bizarre superstitions and, in some cases, petty grievances (aside from the more obvious territorialism and bloodlust).

Of course, sometimes these conflicts are internal, or within the systems themselves, even among elites and ruling political parties. An obvious example would be Donald Trump and his “Big Lie,” which he repeats over and over again because he can’t stand the idea that he lost an election fair and square. If you look at that, it ties a leader’s bruised and bloated ego into a perceived conflict between the dominant political parties, and easily goes hand in hand with superstitions and other lies.

In case you haven’t noticed, none of that is only because of the economic system. In fact, this sort of instability could ultimately end up hurting the economy, and not just the poor.

As is well known, this principle of establishing enemies has most consistently been practiced through the structures of the police, the military, the bureaucracy, the prisons, and the courts, which act as physical manifestations of this power and shape our world.

Having created a global, “democratic” public sphere, capitalism has sought to quell the resistance and suppress the emerging threat of autonomous and coordinated action, which is currently the only potential means of taming the authoritarian, greedy, global beast (democratic reforms have not been entirely meaningless, but a lack of opportunity among the public has made direct action more necessary, lest the system grow more powerful, and simply crush them, or choke them of any alternative modes of existence).

Meanwhile, existentialism might emphasize the negative effects that authority, and the search for authenticity under it, can have on human nature, or one’s being. A quest for meaning within a system where everything’s a commodity can be difficult, especially if one is socially alienated.

That’s one reason the reduction of authority is a key part of historical and contemporary anarchism (“without authority”) and is tied closely to the concept of decentralization. This theme is often viewed in opposition to state and hierarchy.

Philosophically, this is perhaps best represented by Emma Goldman’s statements about anarchism and how it regards authority’s fake “order” (she helped popularize anarchism for a reason).

In fact, it has been argued that everyone has some anarchic tendencies in them. Why? Anarchism is the political expression of the social instinct; it descends from the simple wish to be free, and it expresses itself in the desire to abolish all authority, all domination, all forms of a social system that rest upon force and fraud. It is a political view that wishes to end politics.

For me, personally, it comes down to a question: Do we really need to be locked into “the system,” or does it make sense to have a wider field of options?

Of course, my writing about this is yet another symbolic act, but it may still be helpful to expose some of the lies built into authority, to expose various tactics in their endless varieties of mutual antagonism.

If nothing else, maybe this symbolic act will make you question if you are a bit of an authoritarian yourself. Are you truly wise and intelligent or an authoritarian who is controlled by emotion; a self-interested egotist who was limited by propaganda over the course of your lifetime?

Also, I might encourage some cynicism, in the good sense.

Is that “service with a smile” genuine, or is that person merely paid to do it, and they actually resent or hate you? Obviously, there are nice people out there, but the point is not that I am cynical here, but that the world encourages intelligent people to be. The world, as is, often encourages and rewards phoniness, while doing the same for sociopathic or psychopathic behavior.

And, frankly, if the world wants me to be less cynical and doubt the sincerity of what’s around me, it would improve its image by being less of an anti-intellectual bummer, rather than merely assuming a critic (such as myself) is the source of all this perceived negativity, rather than, yes, the system itself.

But see, that’s just another way they get you. They want us to think the radical leftist critics are the problem, and if enough people believe that, they don’t really need to question the system, do they? ‘

Well, people can go on living like that until they have no other choice…until perhaps the system itself transforms them into rebels by taking things too far. But the question is, will that anger be expertly channeled in creative ways that better mankind, or will the system exploit those feelings to divide and conquer the population even more, perhaps to the point of genocide, thus perpetuating the cycle we all know and love (*wink*)?