I am also, in case you were wondering, not an Anti-Christ.
I’m less than certain what I want, and am very vague on the subject of how to get it.
I’ve been following the Broadsnark blog for a while now, and trying to learn a little something about the political philosophy of anarchism. I’ve flirted with libertarianism in the past, and I’m big on the idea of personal freedoms, so it’s an interesting concept.
It’s also extremely easy to know more about anarchism than almost everyone else. The term “anarchy” is usually only brought out to refer to things like riots, where large numbers of people are acting chaotically and aggressively, and society seems to have completely broken down.
But if you think that angry mobs throwing bricks through windows is a fair representation of anarchy, you might as well think that communists want to saw people’s legs off until everyone’s the same height.
Anarchists, broadly speaking, are opposed to the existence of a state, which uses force to coerce the general population into doing things they wouldn’t otherwise want to do. Within that criterion, there are many differing ideas, but they’re all basically against hierarchical authorities ordering people about.
With me so far? Congratulations! You now know more about anarchists than 98% of the world (and 100% of mainstream media outlets (note: both of these numbers are estimates that I just made up)).
Anyway, Mel’s latest post on Broadsnark is in some ways a good summing-up of why I’m not an anarchist.
She admits to some cognitive dissonance, and to trouble in settling on a complete set of “ideologically pure” points of view. Despite being against the state’s very existence, she admits that:
The need for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and for social security is real.
It’s not hard to understand what’s causing her dilemma. The ideals she strongly believes in don’t allow for a governing authority… and yet the benefits such an authority can bring may be vital.
I’ve struggled with similar ideas myself. I’m against almost all restrictions on free speech, but do I really want the Westboro Baptist Church to be allowed to picket soldiers’ funerals? It would make things so much nicer if some powerful state force could just shut them up, wouldn’t it?
There are two obvious ways the dilemma can be resolved. On the one hand, you can acknowledge that holding unwaveringly and inflexibly to your fundamental principles is not, in practice, the best thing to do in every situation. Maybe some types of speech are so hateful, offensive, or damaging, that they should be restricted. Maybe some kind of governing state is necessary to provide for certain basic societal needs.
Alternatively, we could stick to our guns, grit our teeth against the unfortunate consequences that might not go entirely our way, and believe that these principles are worth holding onto, and are more noble and important than our momentary personal preferences. Yes, even despicable homophobes can have their say. Yes, freedom from authority is more important than any potential personal benefit from government handouts.
I often find myself going the compromise route. Although I like to consider myself a capitalist, I also think that various tax-funded social “safety nets” are a good thing, or at least have the potential to be. The NHS, for instance. I’m not sure what would replace that in an anarchist society, but I’m not convinced it would be an improvement. (Which isn’t to say the government-run NHS couldn’t be improved upon. Of course it could, but my optimism about what the state could achieve is what fundamentally sets me apart from most anarchists, I guess.)
As for Mel’s resolution of her internal struggle… well, it’s not really clear. She’s seen people who’d have had much less of a chance at having a decent life if not for state efforts like social security. But this itself isn’t persuasive enough to induce a compromise on principles. The conclusion she reaches is to “embrace the doubts, ambiguities, and moral dilemmas”. Which seems to be a useful but unsatisfying way of pushing the problem aside and deciding not to worry about any inconsistencies for now.
Personally, I have no trouble compromising on this one. There are drawbacks to a system of authority like a state, but centralised government can provide many things which I’m not convinced would otherwise exist, so the benefits of having the infrastructure seem worth the trade-off. (I still take issue with some aspects of the current arrangement, but that’s not to say I don’t think it should be there at all.)
So. Is compromise ever okay, if what you call your “principles” are to mean anything? Is it irrational fundamentalism not to allow some wiggle room based on the pragmatic effects of those principles? Are brick-throwing mobs always bad? Let me know what you think.
I think it’s pretty simple, really. None of us is smart enough to oversee the entire complex system that is human behaviour (not even our own). Thus, it’s theoretically impossible to think up a system that will tell you the right thing to do in every circumstance.
A person decides to hold a principle because it seemed like the best thing in all (or most) circumstances she could think of when formulating it. So every principle has a certain scope, even if you would very much like it to be universal. Deciding, when the time comes, not to expand that scope is not at all the same as negating the principle.
By the way, I’m very amused by the commenter who said “It’s the true state of nature. But it has always been a minority opinion.”
And here I was soooo sure you were the Anti-Christ. My search continues….
The reason we need those programs right now is because society was designed so poorly and inequitably by a handful of people. Conservatives say, screw the rest of the people. Liberals say, let’s make things slightly better for people. Neither really wants to fundamentally change how things are done – to make those programs unnecessary because those peoples needs would be met fundamentally.
Anarchism is a set of principles. It’s an ethic. It’s a belief that individuals on equal footing, working together, will always come up with something better than what is imposed by a handful of powerful (and inevitably corrupt) people.
My post was more directed to other anarchists and libertarians about how we handle the interim. As we push toward less hierarchy and more justice, how do we make decisions that take into account the present human condition?
Anarchists usually tend to support social programs, without spending enough time thinking about how they may actually set us back from the ultimate goal. Libertarians on the right tend to want to get rid of all social programs without thinking about the consequences for people. My point was that, while we won’t be able to come up with a neat answer, we should be expressing those contradictions – rather than glossing over them.
If I were the Anti-Christ, wouldn’t I inevitably deny it anyway? So, you probably shouldn’t be sure of anything.
Okay, so. Anarchists are not fundamentally in favour of these social programs, when it gets right down to it, because society should be ordered differently so that they aren’t necessary. But you can support them in the meantime as a lesser evil, unlike the libertarian approach, which would scrap them in accordance with principle and not worry about the negative practical effects. Am I with you so far?
I guess my main stumbling block is that I don’t understand what’s supposed to exist that can ever make such programs unnecessary. It seems like it’d have to be something that can do their job better – providing for the elderly and infirm and anyone else who it’d be nice if society could take care of them – but without being organised through a central authoritative government. I just don’t see how that’s supposed to work.
How can you will “more justice” into existence, while getting rid of all hierarchy? Even if it’s a pragmatic, step-by-step process, the end goal is still no hierarchy at all. But I don’t understand by what method a supposedly completely equitable system can be expected to bring about such wonderful justice.