The Anarchist Principle

[Era Might]

Since Anarchism is a topic of interest on this phorum (or a topic of disinterest, depending on your viewpoint), I thought I would post this useful reflection by Paul Goodman on anarchism, since it's a concrete attempt to flesh out what anarchism is. Goodman's anarchy is not "mere anarchy" (to borrow a phrase from Yeats). I post this without comment, for your discussion:

[quote]Anarchism is grounded in a rather definite proposition: that valuable behavior occurs only by the free and direct response of individuals or voluntary groups to the conditions presented by the historical environment. It claims that in most human affairs, whether political, economic, military, religious, moral, pedagogic, or cultural, more harm than good results from coercion, top-down direction, central authority, bureaucracy, jails, conscription, States, preordained standardization, excessive planning, etc. Anarchists want to increase intrinsic functioning and diminish extrinsic power. This is a social-psychological hypothesis with obvious political implications.

Depending on varying historical conditions that present various threats to the anarchist principle, anarchists have laid their emphasis in varying places: sometimes agrarian, sometimes free-city and guild-oriented; sometimes technological, sometimes anti-technological; sometimes communist, sometimes affirming property; sometimes individualist, sometimes collective; sometimes speaking of Liberty as almost an absolute good, sometimes relying on custom and “nature.” Nevertheless, despite these differences, anarchists seldom fail to recognize one another, and they do not consider the differences to be incompatibilities. Consider a crucial modern problem, violence. Guerrilla fighting has been a classical anarchist technique; yet where, especially in modern conditions, any violent means tends to reinforce centralism and authoritarianism, anarchists have tended to see the beauty of non-violence.

Now the anarchist principle is by and large true. And far from being “Utopian” or a “glorious failure,” it has proved itself and won out in many spectacular historical crises. In the period of mercantilism and patents royal, free enterprise by joint stock companies was anarchist. The Jeffersonian bill of rights and independent judiciary were anarchist. Congregational churches were anarchist. Progressive education was anarchist. The free cities and corporate law in the feudal system were anarchist. At present, the civil rights movement in the United States has been almost classically decentralist and anarchist. And so forth, down to details like free access in public libraries. Of course, to later historians, these things do not seem to be anarchist, but in their own time they were all regarded as such and often literally called such, with the usual dire threats of chaos. But this relativity of the anarchist principle to the actual situation is of the essence of anarchism. There cannot be a history of anarchism in the sense of establishing a permanent state of things called “anarchist.” It is always a continual coping with the next situation, and a vigilance to make sure that past freedoms are not lost and do not turn into the opposite, as free enterprise turned into wage-slavery and monopoly capitalism, or the independent judiciary turned into a monopoly of courts, cops, and lawyers, or free education turned into School Systems.

--Paul Goodman, "The Anarchist Principle"[/quote]

Edited April 3, 2011 by Era Might

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1301842872' post='2225592']
Since Anarchism is a topic of interest on this phorum (or a topic of disinterest, depending on your viewpoint), I thought I would post this useful reflection on Anarchism, since it's a concrete attempt to flesh out what anarchism is; it's not "mere anarchy" (to borrow a phrase from Yeats). This is written by Paul Goodman, an important anarchist thinker of the 20th century. I offer it without comment, for your debate:[/quote]

This is the sort of thing that really makes me want to use the term "voluntaryism" exclusively. Too many people have resorted to aggressive violence as a means to their ends under the name "anarchist." Too many bomb-chucking nihilists and antinomians. I do not recognize them as anarchists. They're statists, like all the rest.

True peace and order is found only when the majority of the individuals who make up a society submit to the rule of Jesus Christ. Submission to the rule of Jesus Christ cannot be coerced. Force can be used only in [i]direct[/i] defense against actual and immediate physical aggression. In other words, the only moral violence is directly defensive physical violence to protect physical things. A soul cannot be directly defended by physical violence.

~Sternhauser

Edited April 3, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1301845664' post='2225603']
This is the sort of thing that really makes me want to use the term "voluntaryism" exclusively. Too many people have resorted to aggressive violence as a means to their ends under the name "anarchist." Too many bomb-chucking nihilists and antinomians. I do not recognize them as anarchists. They're statists, like all the rest.

True peace and order is found only when the majority of the individuals who make up a society submit to the rule of Jesus Christ. Submission to the rule of Jesus Christ cannot be coerced. Force can be used only in [i]direct[/i] defense against actual and immediate physical aggression. In other words, the only moral violence is directly defensive physical violence to protect physical things. A soul cannot be directly defended by physical violence.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Matthew 21:12
[b]
Cleaning Out the Temple[/b]. Jesus entered the temple precincts and drove out all those engaged in buying and selling. He overturned the money changers tables and the stalls of the dove-sellers, saying to them: "Scripture has it, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you are turning it into a den of thieves."

ed

[CatherineM]

The anarchists I've met vaguely remind me of six year olds throwing tantrums in the middle of Walmart. They don't really seem to know what they are fussing about, they just like causing a ruckus.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1301845664' post='2225603']
This is the sort of thing that really makes me want to use the term "voluntaryism" exclusively. Too many people have resorted to aggressive violence as a means to their ends under the name "anarchist." Too many bomb-chucking nihilists and antinomians. I do not recognize them as anarchists. They're statists, like all the rest.

True peace and order is found only when the majority of the individuals who make up a society submit to the rule of Jesus Christ. Submission to the rule of Jesus Christ cannot be coerced. Force can be used only in [i]direct[/i] defense against actual and immediate physical aggression. In other words, the only moral violence is directly defensive physical violence to protect physical things. A soul cannot be directly defended by physical violence.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I think equating political theory with "submission to the rule of Jesus Christ" is problematic for a number of reasons, particularly if you're trying to defend anarchism.

Monasteries are rooted in mutual "submission to the rule of Jesus Christ." But entering a monastery is a free and supernatural vocation. Trying to turn the world into a monastery will not bring the peace of the monastery. For example, prison cells. One might make a connection between a prison cell and a monastic cell as places to foster penitence. But prison cells do not foster penitence, because the prisoner lacks what the monk lacks: the freedom of entry. The monk's cell is a threshold, the prisoner's cell is a cage. Trying to build a natural society based on supernatural vocation doesn't work. That's one of the reasons why prison is such a stupid way of addressing society's problems. Prisons are not "penitentiaries," they're schools for crime.

Also, an anarchist political theory based on "submission to the rule of Jesus Christ" equates anarchists with Christians. But 5/6 of the world are not Christian, so that doesn't leave much hope for realistic, practical anarchist politics (in the sense that Paul Goodman proposes). A social theory defined by "submission to the rule of Jesus Christ" would lead to theocracy, not anarchy, because Christ's rule is not of this world, and political theory is of this world.

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1301848863' post='2225637']
The anarchists I've met vaguely remind me of six year olds throwing tantrums in the middle of Walmart. They don't really seem to know what they are fussing about, they just like causing a ruckus.
[/quote]
I'm curious: have the anarchists you've met been mostly young people?

Edited April 3, 2011 by Era Might

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1301847903' post='2225627']
Matthew 21:12
[b]
Cleaning Out the Temple[/b]. Jesus entered the temple precincts and drove out all those engaged in buying and selling. He overturned the money changers tables and the stalls of the dove-sellers, saying to them: "Scripture has it, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you are turning it into a den of thieves."

ed
[/quote]

He drove a bunch of thieves out of His Father's house, and you say it isn't defensive violence?

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1301848955' post='2225638']
I think equating political theory with "submission to the rule of Jesus Christ" is problematic for a number of reasons, particularly if you're trying to defend anarchism.[/quote]

I am not equating political theory submission to the rule of Jesus Christ. I am equating peace and order with submission to the rule of Jesus Christ. Others make the mistake of identifying the State as the source of peace and order. I am pointing out that true peace and true order cannot be brought about by violence. The State, and politics as we know it, are violent. Political action is promising to take, with force, from some to give to others. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, electoral politics is telling people they will comply with your will or be imprisoned or killed. As Mencken rightly said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods."

[quote]Monasteries are rooted in mutual "submission to the rule of Jesus Christ." But entering a monastery is a free and supernatural vocation. Trying to turn the world into a monastery will not bring the peace of the monastery. For example, prison cells. One might make a connection between a prison cell and a monastic cell as places to foster penitence. But prison cells do not foster penitence, because the prisoner lacks what the monk lacks: the freedom of entry. The monk's cell is a threshold, the prisoner's cell is a cage. Trying to build a natural society based on supernatural vocation doesn't work. That's one of the reasons why prison is such a stupid way of addressing society's problems. Prisons are not "penitentiaries," they're schools for crime.[/quote]

I agree with your assessment of prisons, but I disagree with your implication that I believe there is one all-encompassing act of submission to Jesus Christ. I do not advocate trying to create "institutions" through which men will be ruled by Jesus Christ. I advocate preaching the truth of Jesus, and thus building a society wherein men voluntarily live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, in whatever vocation they undertake. That is what every Catholic believes. I am not advocating anything novel on that front.

[quote]Also, an anarchist political theory based on "submission to the rule of Jesus Christ" equates anarchists with Christians. But 5/6 of the world are not Christian, so that doesn't leave much hope for realistic, practical anarchist politics (in the sense that Paul Goodman proposes).[/quote]

95% of the world is statist, so on that ground alone, it doesn't leave much hope for moral human interaction. Practically speaking, the State has caused more violence than it has prevented. Morally, initiating aggression is wrong. Practically, it doesn't matter if it "works" or not. Even if the desired end is achieved by immoral means, (the point being that aggression [i]is[/i] an immoral means to an end), it is manifestly immoral to pursue the good end using immoral means. Non-aggression is the only moral mode of social interaction. Aggression is anti-social.

[quote]A social theory defined by "submission to the rule of Jesus Christ" would lead to theocracy, not anarchy, because Christ's rule is not of this world, and political theory is of this world.[/quote]

You're mixing up the natures of the terms. Anarchy, or rather, what I'll probably start calling "voluntaryism," is not a "political theory." It is apolitical. It is simply a recognition that initiating aggression is immoral. The zero aggression principle is related to the Golden Rule. One need not be a Christian to be a voluntaryist. But one can certainly be a Christian and a voluntaryist. The fact that the majority of people refrain from initiating aggression will not lead to true peace and order, but it would be far more in conformity with the teachings of Christ, and as such, would be a huge leap forward from where we are. It is wrong to put someone in a prison/rape room for merely carrying a firearm without a permission slip. Do you agree? If you don't, then you think it is moral to initiate aggression. One doesn't have to be Catholic to understand the logic and the morality concerning such things. But if you can draw upon 2,000 years of Catholic tradition, it does [i]help[/i] one to come to logical conclusions about such matters.

As scripture advises, I do not put my hope in princes, in the sons of men. True peace and order does not come from politics. It comes from a lack of politics, particularly the apolitical moral teachings proposed by the Church: it comes from a moral life, lived in accord with human nature. The State operates, by its nature, through [i]immoral[/i] means. That is the core assertion of voluntaryism. Aggression is not in accord with human nature. If people refuse to acknowledge that fact, peace and order will perpetually elude them. Politicians and those who vote for them, whether they recognize it or not, are continually trying to make the round peg of human nature fit in the triangular hole of their misconception of what human nature is. And because human nature does not fit in their misconception, politics always uses the hammer of aggressive violence, to [i]make[/i] it fit.

To sum up: a much higher degree of peace and order can be enjoyed by people of any religion, as long as they adhere to the apolitical non-aggression principle, which prescribes behavior that is phenomenally more in accord with human nature. [i]True[/i] peace and order will only come when men rise above and beyond that[i] basic[/i] cornerstone of right human interaction, and voluntarily submit to the rule of Jesus Christ in their hearts.

~Sternhauser

Edited April 3, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1301848955' post='2225638']
I'm curious: have the anarchists you've met been mostly young people?
[/quote]

She's probably talking about the shiftless, sulky, molotov-chucking, black-clad delinquents calling themselves anarchists, when they're really antinomians/authoritarians of a Socialist mindset. Just punks, who think it's cool to break bank windows and torch cars. The classic example is the photo with a bunch of them wearing black, with black bandanas, carrying "anarchy symbol" flags and anarcho-syndicalist flags, with a big banner that says, "Reclaim Democracy." Yes. They're statists, too.

~Sternhauser

Edited April 3, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1301857307' post='2225667']
She's probably talking about the shiftless, sulky, molotov-chucking, black-clad delinquents calling themselves anarchists, when they're really antinomians/authoritarians of a Socialist mindset. Just punks, who think it's cool to break bank windows and torch cars. The classic example is the photo with a bunch of them wearing black, with black bandanas, carrying "anarchy symbol" flags and anarcho-syndicalist flags, with a big banner that says, "Reclaim Democracy." Yes. They're statists, too.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I asked because the Youth movements of the 1960s were among Paul Goodman's major social interests (Goodman is the author of the anarchy essay that I posted). He admired precisely the delinquency and petty anarchy that you describe. Or rather, he admired the impulse that was behind it. But he was also critical of the Youth movements, because he knew that they were immature. He placed the blame for their immaturity on a society that doesn't give any reason to be mature. Goodman's view of the political Youth was that they had genuine beefs that needed to be taken seriously, but that they lacked the maturity and the political language to translate their feelings into something more than petty anarchy. So Goodman was critical of the Youth movements, but he was also critical of the adults who dismissed the Youth movements. He saw himself as a voice of mature guidance.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1301848955' post='2225638']



I'm curious: have the anarchists you've met been mostly young people?
[/quote]
Yep. They like to wear black, and vandalize.

[Nihil Obstat]

They're just selfish thugs. Nothing more interesting than that.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1301858763' post='2225677']
I asked because the Youth movements of the 1960s were among Paul Goodman's major social interests (Goodman is the author of the anarchy essay that I posted). He admired precisely the delinquency and petty anarchy that you describe. Or rather, he admired the impulse that was behind it. But he was also critical of the Youth movements, because he knew that they were immature. He placed the blame for their immaturity on a society that doesn't give any reason to be mature. Goodman's view of the political Youth was that they had genuine beefs that needed to be taken seriously, but that they lacked the maturity and the political language to translate their feelings into something more than petty anarchy. So Goodman was critical of the Youth movements, but he was also critical of the adults who dismissed the Youth movements. He saw himself as a voice of mature guidance.
[/quote]

Of course they have legitimate beefs. I would say Goodman was on about that. They are simply trying to "rectify" the situation entirely the wrong way. By aggressive violence. The Statist way.

~Sternhauser

Edited April 3, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

They also don't have the intellectual wherewithal to determine the source of their problems. They settle for the superficial, immature answers.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1301860461' post='2225687']
They also don't have the intellectual wherewithal to determine the source of their problems. They settle for the superficial, immature answers.
[/quote]

While what you say is true, they also tend to not have a bedrock of virtue, which, regardless of a lack of intellectual understanding of the problem, would show them that what they are doing is wrong. Without virtue, the most intellectual, erudite individual is nothing.

When Hillary was thinking about running for president, I kept hearing women gush, "And she's [i]very[/i] smart!" I couldn't help but say, "Well [i]yes, she is.[/i]"

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

No arguments from me.