It is the duty of righteous men to make war on all undeserved privilege, but one must not forget that this is a war without end.
– Primo Levi
The existing order is corrupt and ineffective. I’m not talking about the Obama administration or even our relatively conservative first-world social democracy. I mean the whole kit and caboodle. Corporate capitalism, an over-extended and stratified federal government, a bloated welfare state, nannies and storm troopers, and an entrenched oligarchy of CEOs and professional politicians. So what’s left? Anarchism? I’ve read from the quintessential thinkers and a share of anarchist blogs. There’s definitely value to be found there. But even given that I have reservations. Aside from the logistics of it all my main issue is the potential inevitability of the state.
This is an old issue as far as anarchists are concerned, a tired canard they are sick of answering. Anarcho-capitalists answer back that, like some perpetual motion device, once a genuine free market is started up it will provide just the right level of competition so that no one can gain enough leverage to start bossing others around. Social anarchists might reply that once people are enlightened to the superiority of anarchism they will be resistant to allowing the state to reform. Right-Libertarian anarchists have, on occasion, said something similar but throwing in the phrase natural law and natural rights as they are wont to do. Without being ungenerous to those whom I respect that hold these positions I have to say that these strike me as “just so” stories that rely on incredulous odds.
The scant examples of working anarchist societies tell us little about the potential future of any given model. Especially in the post-modern virtual age the first world enjoys. If existing capitalist systems are any indication of the workings of anarcho-capitalism then it seem to me that the emergence of a state would simply a matter of time. I was born and raised in rural Kentucky where dozens of counties are powered by a single generating source that is of course controlled by a single company. If you give this company carte blanche they will gouge you for everything they can get right up to the point of losing a few customers. Geographic monopolies are common in areas like this and even more more remote areas of the midwest and Alaska.
So what happens when there is no mechanism for curtailing these geographic monopolies. What happens when instead of sewer or power it’s law enforcement. What is to stop a geographic monopoly mercenary police force (or wealthy land baron) from becoming a de facto dictator? If they don’t allow you to move out and if they control resources so that you can’t hire another mercenary force to come in and restore order (perhaps trading one boss for another)? Are you to hope to find seven honorable samurai to defend your village or wait for the man with no name? Will there be an anarchist league that goes about toppling these rural dictators? Who then will watch the watchers?
Let’s forget about geographic monopolies for a second and ask ourselves if people are ready and willing to manipulate the market and the government to ensure financial success now would we honestly expect that behavior to simply disappear now that the state no longer exists? Or to put it another way, if fat cats are deprived of the mechanism of government by which to profit and exploit isn’t it more likely that they will look to new mechanisms rather than abandon their sinful ways? Like the classic cattle baron damning the river to force out his down stream competitors. If businesses are answerable to no one but themselves then there is nothing stopping a particularly successful business from manipulating the market through violence, deceit, or through dictatorial control over their employees. Wouldn’t an anarcho-capitalist society have the very real potential to become a William Gibson-esque distopia where corporate espionage is waged with 007 lethality? Even giving that to be a gross oversimplification, the market has winners and losers and a sufficiently monied winner could buy out entire towns, crush competition, impose slavish contracts on employees who have no where else to turn. Money is power, power is control. A state by any other name. Quite possibly far worse than what we grumble over now.
The social anarchists have their own problems. There is an old saying about pacifists that I think can be applied to a world of communes and soviets. The saying goes that if we were all pacifists it would only take one unscrupulous man to rule the world. What would happen if a handful of decentralized communities were faced with an old school imperial regime complete with slavery, exploitation, and high militarism? Could they rise to the challenge? If the worker’s cooperatives enterted into federations that were part of other federations wouldn’t you end up with a structured hierarchy capable of making decisions on behalf of people who they never met? What if one commune gives birth to a generation of republicans (comical example but you get my meaning) that decide that they have so many resources that maybe they can do better on an open market? What if they then decide not to trade with other communes unless they too are free markets? What if they fund the opposition in these places or orchestrate campaigns to move in mass in order to create a pliant client state? It doesn’t even have to be ideological capitalists, it could just be a black market that concentrates power into the hands of the most ruthless criminals. How can these collectives maintain order when everyone around them is pushing their own path to political nirvana?
Of course there are answers to these concerns, or at least replies, but I’m not convinced. The state is not some alien concept imposed upon mankind from the outer darkness. It is in our nature as social animals to create hierarchies. We are born into and raised in the context of the most basic template for the state, the family. We form communities and it is inevitable that some men in those communities will become more successful than others by genetic blessing or turn of luck or strength of character and with success comes the spoils, power. And while in my soul I am an old liberal who just wants peace, love, and understanding but I’ve come to accept that old conservative maxim of lord Acton that power corrupts. Of course what if this alone is not a sufficient argument against anarchism? What if human civilization is doomed to see the growth of decadent empire, it’s fall into parochialism, and then the slow calcification of power?
What would the Ouroboros state mean for political thought? What position could a good man take in the face of this eternal return? Must we abandon all hope and resign ourselves to the nihilism of the status quo? Maybe the answer is to put one’s faith behind anarchy and take pleasure in the eternal struggle?