Anarchists are creative people. Their imagination, in particular, is quite a powerful engine of fantasy. Anarchists are also intelligent, though clearly not versed in history and geopolitics, or at least they have allowed their ideology to get in the way of the pragmatic reality surrounding their preferred method of societal structure.
What particularly shocks me is the number of anarchists who claim to be atheists.
At a cursory glance, the two seem to go together. Atheism may be seen as the rejection of religious authority, and anarchy is the rejection of governmental authority. But that isn’t what atheism is to me. To me, atheism is the lack of evidence for any gods. In my eyes, this lack of the divine strips the very real human religious figures of any authority they may attempt to wield.
To me, religious figures are nothing but charlatans who derive their power from the ignorance of fools.
Government has no shortage of charlatans, especially throughout history. In fact, government and religion were usually indistinguishable in the past. From the god-kings of Pharaoh, Alexander, and the Caesars to the theocrats who ran Europe during the Dark Ages, it would have seemed impossible to most people in the past to imagine anything different.
But a funny thing happens, from time to time. In the modern age, we call it “secularism:” the idea that religion ought to play no part in governance. It’s a relatively rare idea, one which only gained a foothold a few times, and it has always stumbled along the way. Despite the perils of its arduous journey, secularism limps on against the might of religious authority.
As an atheist who studies history and sees our past not as a time far removed, but as events that occurred due to the actions of people who are very much the same today, I am troubled by the attitude of anarchists towards the secular state.
I always expect the usual conservative onslaught, the constant attempts to ram whatever dogma is en vogue this week down the throats and up the asses of every citizen… and yet secularism finds a strange enemy in certain corners of American thought, corners that are particularly ripe with the cynicism all democracies require in order to function. Democracy loses a valuable, criticial thinking ally in the anarchist.
There has never been, nor will there probably ever be, a group of people who did not have religion. Many people exist who lack what we would call a “government,” but religion is ubiquitous. Among people without a government, religion is the ultimate authority. This is not how I want it to be, but it is reality.
Somalia is a classic example of anarchy gone wrong, but why not look elsewhere? There are other pockets of the world where bureaucracy doesn’t exist, where “constitution” is nothing more than your ability to stomach the untreated water in your small village.
In the mountainous regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, anarchy has “worked” for generations. Small tribal groups, many of them nomadic, dot the harsh landscape. If you asked them, most of these people wouldn’t know what “country” they live in.
On a good day in these regions, girls can’t go to school (if there even is a school available for boys) and women are stoned to death for being raped. On a bad day, outsiders bombard them with weaponry that is centuries ahead of their own, killing thousands.
This is anarchy. This is what happens when power is deferred away from a governing body that is bound by restrictions while being simultaneously empowered by the collective accomplishments of its protected citizenry. When the secular state crumbles, charismatic demagogues no longer have to worry about those pesky limits on what they can do with their authority.
Authority never disappears, it only changes form.
The secular, democratic state cannot eliminate religion, nor can it prevent corruption when it is tacitly winked at by voters. However, corruption and abuse of authority are not functions of the state, but are instead elements in human society that exist independent of any governing body.
Perhaps most troubling is that the rejection of a democratic, secular state is little more than a manifestation a people’s lack of faith in themselves.
One final note. Perhaps the most empty “fact” touted by anarchists is that “the state” is responsible for more deaths than anything else in the world. This emotionally loaded claim is strangely parroted by atheo-anarchists who will gleefully try to pronounce (in another debate, of course) that religion is the cause of most of the suffering now and throughout history.
It can’t be both, and since there is no statistic going back to the beginning of time (for either governments or religion), perhaps it might be best to take a look at what is actually killing people today.
Statistically, war is not the leading cause of death, nor is capital punishment or police abuse. Cars are much more dangerous than “the state,” and even those two combined cannot hold a candle to disease. Heart and lung problems caused by our own lifestyles blow all other causes of death out of the water. Even in this time of war, a person is more likely to be killed by a friend or relative than by “the state.”
And those are facts you can actually look up.
When the secular state crumbles, charismatic demagogues no longer have to worry about those pesky limits on what they can do with their authority.
ReplyDeleteThat's right. Thank God Adolph Hitler had those pesky state limits on his power, otherwise some charismatic demagogue might have come along and led Germany to dictatorship and ruin.
However, corruption and abuse of authority are not functions of the state, but are instead elements in human society that exist independent of any governing body.
Anarchists are against all tyranny, including private tyranny, which is why they don't stand in opposition to the state only, but oppose capitalism and the current capitalist definition of "private property" as well.
And you'll find property (both the state's claims to it its "territory" as well as the corporation's and landlord's) at the root of hierarchy and oppression, if you dig down deep enough.
LOL Godwin's law, you lose.
ReplyDeleteBesides, Hitler created new titles and powers for himself in a country wracked by anarchy and economic exploitation from outsiders. Hitler is what happens when there is no working system in place, not what happens when an established constitutional democracy elects a charismatic leader. Thank god we had all those anarchists to fight him off... oh wait, it was other "the states" who stopped him.
Still, you mentioned Hitler, so congrats on admitting defeat.
Anarchists are against all tyranny, including private tyranny, which is why they don't stand in opposition to the state only, but oppose capitalism and the current capitalist definition of "private property" as well.
And you'll find property (both the state's claims to it its "territory" as well as the corporation's and landlord's) at the root of hierarchy and oppression, if you dig down deep enough.
So... because you, one anarchist, believe this... all anarchists do? Because I find most anarchists to be anarcho-capitalists (which you have eoloquently pointed out on numerous occassions to be nothing but Corporatocracy. I think you'll find even fewer anarchists who oppose private property. That's more of a socialist idea, one not even I adhere to.
You can never eliminate all the tools of oppression. If you give the poor their homes, they will lose it to the crafty before long. If you give production to the workers, they will be quickly run out of business by those who have specialized managers making decisions. I wish this wasn't the case, but I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.
Uh, Godwin's so-called "law" (at least in the way you cite it) doesn't apply to my comment, so you didn't even get that right.
ReplyDeleteIf you have to resort to Hitler, your argument is bunk. Period. Thanks for playing.
ReplyDeleteyour argument is bunk. Period.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I expect someone to say when they've already lost the debate. Thanks for admitting defeat.
There isn't a debate until you bring something to the table. Provide some sort of evidence, some example in history where a complex government became a simpler, non-centralized system, and anything but anarchy... I mean chaotic violence occurred.
ReplyDeleteThere's a reason anarchy has the connections it does. It's violent rule via might-makes-right.
How do you, in terms of the "state" killing people, explain something subtle like a dictator (Hussein) blocking UN aid from getting to his own people thus starving them to death?
ReplyDeleteOr Mao. Or whomever we know systematically killed citizens.
Those are tantamount to 9/11 arguments. Sure, 3000 people died in one day on 9/11, but several times more people died that year from drunk driving... but we didn't abandon our civil liberties to fight drunk drivers.
ReplyDeleteWe're talking about hundreds of thousands per year dying from coronory disease, every year, year after year, regardless of who is in charge, regardless of any factors. Isolated incidents, even if they reach into the millions (which they do) still can't add up to the cumulative toll of disease.
I suppose I could also count the people dying as a result of a lack of there being a functioning state, such as in the DR of the Congo or Somalia. Those also reach into the millions, with baby eating and systematic rape being a lovely side dish to the main course of anarchic slaughter on toast.
2.1 million people died from diarrhea last year. 7.2 million died from heart disease. Stalin and Mao bow to mother nature on this one.
ReplyDeleteYou're skirting the issue. Mother Nature is not man. We do so by design.
ReplyDeleteAdn this thing that 3000 people died is bad but really more die in car accidents is a pathetic strawman. It's not even a strong one.
It's violent rule via might-makes-right.
ReplyDeleteA classic statist projection! The state is nothing but "might makes right" from start to finish.
If you want to talk about modern “religions,” I’d say “secular democracy” is about the biggest one going nowadays.
ReplyDelete“I always expect the usual conservative onslaught, the constant attempts to ram whatever dogma is en vogue this week down the throats and up the asses of every citizen…”
And liberals never attempt to ram any dogmas down people’s throats and up their asses?
You mention the tribes in the mountainous region of Af-Pak, and then follow it up with this: “This is what happens when power is deferred away from a governing body that is bound by restrictions while being simultaneously empowered by the collective accomplishments of its protected citizenry.” How about an example of a modern secular democracy that devolved into “anarchy”—and no, I don’t think Somalia counts.
“Perhaps most troubling is that the rejection of a democratic, secular state is little more than a manifestation a people’s lack of faith in themselves.”
Are you joking? I have plenty of faith in my ability to run my own life. What I don’t have much faith in is that some elected “representative” is going to govern in a way that promotes the general welfare (speaking of fantasies) as opposed to promoting the interests of the folks who financed his/her campaign.
“Perhaps the most empty “fact” touted by anarchists is that “the state” is responsible for more deaths than anything else in the world.”
This is a ridiculous strawman. No anarchist is comparing the state to infectious disease and heart attacks. They’re comparing the state, as a form of human organization, to other, smaller forms of human organization—and this claim is usually made in response to arguments like yours that absent the state human societies would devolve into violence and chaos. The point being, of course, that modern states are capable of killing on a much larger scale than some tribe in Somalia.
Your entire “argument” boils down to a rationalization for the status quo dressed up as pragmatism. There may be good arguments about why anarchy wouldn’t work, but all you have here are appeals to history and a couple of contemporary tribal societies which are, for all intents and purposes, still living as they did a millenia ago. I’m sure plenty of people in the 18th century were laughing at this crazy fantasy called “democracy.” You yourself even mention that at one time people probably couldn’t envision the separation of church and state. Well?
@ TC: "Mother Nature is not man." What does that have to do with the fact that "the state" doesn't kill more people than any other method? That is the fact I refuted. The leading cuases of death are not tyrannical governments. Period. That was my point on that. I'm sorry if you want to obsess about the ways people kill each other, but I could argue every single case of "government" killing someone is, in fact, religious or economic. Since religion and commerce exist outside of government... abuse will still occur. And since all I keep hearing about how horribly inefficient government is, I can only assume private interests will do an even better job oppressing us.
ReplyDelete@Nikk: Explain to me how anarchy is not might makes right? There's no doubt a government wields force, but the justice systems of governed nations are far more fair than vigilantism or hired goons. Deal with it.
@Joe: Your idiocy doesn't even deserve a response. How does Republican taint taste, cause something tells me you're a connoisseur.
Also, TC, I just checked, and Hussein did not refuse aid, he was refused aid through an embargo, and was only allowed limited foreign trade of oil for consumer goods and food. Maybe I missed something, but I as far as I can tell, it was the UN.
ReplyDeleteShit... I just said UN around anarchists...
*stands back and shields eyes*
that "the state" doesn't kill more people than any other method
ReplyDeleteThe argument is that states kill more than any other human individuals or institutions. Period, that's it (and no one that I'm aware of has argued what you're claiming to "refute"), so indeed your response is a strawman and nothing more.
Hussein: And even that he prevented from getting to his citizens.
ReplyDeleteYou brought in stats about mother nature. Not me.
Maybe you should explain to me what constitutes a state for me. For in the 20th century, to me, the state (Nazi Germany, Mao China, Stalin's Russia etc.) have killed and their numbers rivals MN.
No?