Anarchism vs. Anarchy

 

 

This is a follow-up blog to my last blog on Bret Weinstein and the anarchistic nihilism of the violence and looting in his home city of Portland, Oregon.  I want to elaborate more on the distinctions between anarchistic nihilism and political and philosophical anarchism, or, in other words, the crucial difference between anarchism and anarchy.  Not that I’m particularly sympathetic to either political or philosophical anarchism.  As socialist Hal Draper has pointed out, under anarchism it would be like the Wild West, for there would be no intervening body such as a state to protect the weak and defenseless from the bullying strong.  For to have such would be to restrain the “freedom” of the bully!  Also, I read an account of how anarchism would supposedly work in practice, through a series of interlocking autonomous local communes—where the communes themselves, and their mechanisms of cooperation among themselves would clearly resemble—state mechanisms!  Thus, to me, the state is a tautology:  it exists out of necessity, it has needed functions to fulfill, it is there because needed regulation and management, even repression of evil and malevolence, are called for under human social arrangements; even purely local ones, as there simply is no automatic “invisible hand” to spontaneously regulate, neither in the market, nor in other vital social functions.  When both Marx and Bakunin wrote, in the 19^th Century, one calling for the gradual “withering away of the state,” i.e., gradual anarchism, while the latter wished to abolish the state immediately, the modern welfare state was not only not in existence, it was even unheard of.  It didn’t come about until the 1890s, after the deaths of both Marx and Bakunin, and near the death of Engels (who died in 1895).  In the 1890s, that wily conservative Otto von Bismarck, as leader of a united Germany, passed the Anti-Socialist Laws, which forbade the German Social-Democratic Party from propagandizing the socialist cause, while, simultaneously, providing for workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance—thus appeasing the working class.  Prior to that, the state was neoliberal, if not openly repressive, and carried out no welfare measures.  So, it was thus impossible for either a Marx or a Bakunin, or their followers, to envision a different kind of state, and the states when then existed were hostile not only to the working class, but to ordinary citizens as a whole; and viewed its function as a state in purely negative terms—to restrain in the name of “freedom,” and to control from the top-down.

 

As a socialist I engaged in an anarchist-socialist dialogue through two book reviews for the hard-copy socialist journal New Politics of two books from anarchist publisher AK Press:  the first, from 2010, of Noam Chomsky’s Chomsky on Anarchism, Chomsky, Anarchism, and Socialism - New Politics, the second from 2013, of the anthology The Accumulation of Freedom,  Anarchist Economics and the Socialist-Anarchist Dialogue - New Politics.  The Chomsky review is especially relevant here, for Chomsky, a self-professed anarchist, is often derided by other anarchists as a “reformist.”  For example, while he believes, rightly, that all authority should be questioned, interrogated, he concludes that not all authority is bad; indeed, some is necessary and beneficial.  Similarly, Chomsky holds that a major problem besetting the Third World is too little government, state power and intervention—that too much authority and power there is in private hands, is controlled by neoliberalism in the service of neoliberal capitalist interests against the needs and wishes of the people.  On these, we socialists and political and philosophical anarchists can agree.

What we can’t agree on is the nihilism engendered by anarchist acting out; it’s descent into mere anarchy, not political anarchism in any meaningful or constructive sense.  While I can certainly positively hold with anarchists on the need for individual autonomy, even against the “popular masses,” and the generally beneficial achievement of such anarchism in the arts, where the freewheeling artist creates compelling freewheeling art, beyond that, as a socialist, there’s little in anarchism I can accept; and when it comes to anarchy, there’s nothing I can accept.  As a prime example of both, consider the Sex Pistols’ song, “Anarchy in the U.K.”  I certainly can embrace the opening words of brazen statement in the song, “I am the anti-Christ/I am an anarchist,” but cannot accept, embrace, the later statement in the song, “I want to destroy.”  For the act of revolution, of successful social transformation, is constructive more than it is destructive.  As an example, when we destroy the rotting, decrepit shed on the weed-strewn lawn, we must also construct not only a new edifice on the property, but also cleanse it of its weed-infested, unsightly nature, or else our work will become as naught.  Social change that lasts is constructive, not merely destructive of the old order; and, as Bret Weinstein pointed out, the destruction in rampant anarchy presently going on in Portland, Oregon, is not revolution of a positive sense, but negative, nihilistic anarchy which is only destructive, and alienating of the very people we need to reach.

 

      

Some "kingly" thoughts on Princess Di

I’ve never, ever had kindly thoughts on constitutional monarchies, such as Britain’s, which is not only an oxymoron, but a ridiculous anachronism.  And even less tolerance for absolute monarchies, which still prevail in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern Arab states, not to mention that de facto monarchy in the grossly-misnamed Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), where its first leader, Kim Il-sung, was succeeded in power by his son, Kim Jong-il, and he, in turn by his son, Kim Jong-un—such regimes are cruel despotisms, medieval-style tyrannies in this, the 21^st Century!  Nor for that narrow-based “electoral” monarchy, the Catholic Papacy, where the Pope is “elected” to succeed his predecessor only by a vote among the Cardinals, who choose one such from their small ranks.  To this diehard socialist and democratic republican, monarchies of any sort are just plain atavistic and stupid.  Period!  

Aesthetically, the last word on monarchies, especially the British, was stated by the seminal British punk rock band, the Sex Pistols, in their outrageously but delightfully snarky song, “God Save The Queen;” a notable protest song that , I’m glad to say, although written in 1976, the 25^th Jubilee of the rule by Queen Elizabeth II, still outpolled the actual Queen’s 65^th Jubilee by 3-1 among the British populace!   I’m proud to have penned a poem honoring the Sex Pistols, published in Indianapolis’s Flying Island literary journal in 2015, posted online at http://flyingislandjournal.blogspot.com/2015/10/sex-pistols-we-are-all-punks-poem-by.html;

along with a link to a video of the Sex Pistols performing “God Save The Queen,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02D2T3wGCYg.

That being said, I did (and still do) have a warm spot in my heart for that outrageous commoner, Fergie, Sarah Ferguson, who married into the British Royal Family and proceeded to turn it topsy-turvy; and also for that other commoner, Kate, now Duchess of Cambridge and baby-making factory, who’s so outraged the Queen on several times when, on official visits, the wind has accidentally blown up her skirt in public, showing a delightful pair of gams!  (See, as male, I’m automatically “sexist” according to Politically Correct feminist women—so I’ll just revel in it, as that’s the way I’m biologically hard-wired!)  And yes, of course, that member of minor British royalty, Princess Di, Diana, who ended up haplessly in marriage to Prince Charles; and who died tragically in an auto accident in Paris 20 years ago this year.

Despite her royal blood, and the surely humiliating ritual of being examined by Royal Physicians to ensure she was still a virgin at the time of her marriage, Di was affably down-to-earth in ways the Royal Family wasn’t.  Further, she delighted the tabloids by wearing skimpy bikinis, and by even having an affair during her loveless marriage with a young Lieutenant in the British armed forces.  According to a recent article in the London Times, because of these and other supposed transgressions and affronts to the arrogant royal degenerates, she was treated with “feudal cruelty” by the rest of British royalty—but was beloved by the British populace in a way the other royals were never so, and indeed, could never be.  I remember around the time of her death talking to a British customer at my job in a parking garage, who said the British people loved Di because she was so humanly affable, and who went on to describe Prince Charles as a “prig.”  Well spoken!  And even after her divorce from Charles, when she became a jet-setting celebrity, she still maintained that honest affability, that air of truly decent and touchingly human reserve, something so obviously foreign to those other constantly publicity-grabbing “celebrities” such as Kim Kardashian.  She found all this folderol a bother, even as the paparazzi insisted on commodifying her by constantly taking photographs of her to sell, denying her any privacy whatsoever.  And it was in a vain attempt to escape these prying paparazzi that she tragically died when the automobile she was in crashed.         

 Prince Charles stated once that he never loved Diana.  Certainly an appropriate comment from this priggish, shallow fellow who’s had nothing to do all his life, and no other purpose to his life, other than wait for the Old Bag on the throne to die!  That’s enough to almost (I say almost) make me feel sorry for the hapless Charles; who now has even been denied the chance to succeed her, as the 90-yeaqr-old Queen herself has designated William and Kate to succeed her as occupants on that useless throne.  Though Charles has had some minor accomplishments:  he once gave a socially- and religiously-conservative speech a few decades ago now that did draw favorable attention, and was a reasonable stab at actual thought; he’s also knighted several British rock and pop stars of far more merit than he, creating Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, Sir Van Morrison, and yes, even Sir Mick Jagger! (Knighted December 13, 2003.)   And I do hope that, before he dies, he does have one final “honor” (which I’m sure will never happen), that of knighting, creating, Sir Johnny Rotten (aka Johnny Lydon), lead singer of the Sex Pistols and one of the most thoughtful men in rock, thus giving “God Save The Queen” the “royal” recognition it’s long overdue!

So, please forgive my “bourgeois sentimentality” here as I say a few kind words for Diana, which she does truly deserve!