On the Appeal of Anarchism, a Response to Don Smith's "Are Anarchists in Occupy Aiding Grover Norquist?"
by Dave Fryett
The
short answer, of course, is no. One might think that the title of
Smith's confused article is preposterous enough to render rebuttal
unnecessary, but the questions posed are familiar and important ones,
and worthy of attention.
A large and ever-growing range of
radical political orientation goes by the name of anarchism these days.
It will thus be impossible to do justice in one article to each strain,
my hope is to capture those elements which are common to all. But what
follows is just one anarchist's view.
Like so many critics of
anarchism, Smith doesn't really know his subject. He says he understands
why Occupiers and anarchists reject working through the Democratic
Party as it would be difficult to drive out the corporatists. This he
regrets as, he insists, progressive Democrats and Occupiers are working
for the same things: economic justice, women's rights, gay rights,
environmental stewardship, a strong social safety net, an end to
militarism, an end to the police state, and an end to corruption.
At
the core of our thought is equality, anarchism is unimaginable without
it. And equality not just in one aspect of life but in all. Anarchism is
the end of hierarchical authority, the master-servant relationship, the
end of the rule of coercive power. Thus our notion of economic justice
requires the abolition of capitalism, which is positively medieval in
its hierarchy. For us corporatism and capitalism are undifferentiated,
and the distinction made between the two in contemporary political
parlance utterly specious, a canard. Thus our goals are incompatible
with those of the Democrats who want to tame capitalism, not eliminate
it.
We do not seek merely the end of the police state, but the
end of the state altogether. Another core principle for us is freedom;
the ability to act, think, engage, disengage, build, withdraw, plan,
organize, exchange, love, and dream freely. The state corrals such
liberty, confines it within acceptable parameters. Anarchism does not
wish to constrain the ingenuity of everyday people, but to liberate it,
give it a free hand. Capitalism has wrought a society remorselessly
divided into the few rich and the great many poor. It is the raison d'etre
of the state to perpetuate this inequality. The state exists to
suppress democracy as the great mass of people would never willingly
accept the pitiless economic polarization under which we are compelled
to live. In its entirety, the state is the enforcement apparatus of
ruling class power. It cannot be reformed, it has to go, as does the
power behind it. As John Holloway put it, we want "the end of
power-over, and the unleashing of power-to." Here, too, we stand in
opposition to the Democrats.
Moreover, the great majority of
anarchists reject political parties. To paraphrase Ngo Van: The
so-called workers' parties are embryonic forms of a new state. Once in
power they form the nucleus of a new ruling class and induce nothing
more than a new system of exploitation.*
I believe the history of
the communist parties of Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam et al. amply
demonstrate the veracity of Van's position.
Later in the article
Smith suggests that the state has provided us with many benefits: seat
belts...civil rights laws...pollution controls, Medicare, Social
Security, laws, constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and
press...public transportation, public schools, disaster relief,
medical research...
Firstly, we attained these benefits over the
obstreperous and often violent objection of state and capital. It is not
as though the they wanted us to have them. They were bestowed upon us
under duress. Secondly, these things come to us from government because
it has a monopoly on power and thus controls them. We get them with the
blessing of the state or we don't get them at all. We have
constitutional rights, but the only real threat to these is the
state, the same state which ever so condescendingly grants them to us.
We would not need the guarantee if not for the existence of the
government as it is the only thing which can (and frequently does)
deprive us of these rights.
Transportation, schools and the
other services listed above are the result of the labor of countless
workers, and it is they and not the state who are responsible for their
existence. The state isn't providing these services, but rather is
establishing its hegemony over them. The state rules, workers comply or
endure some of the state's other public services, like police batons,
pepper spray, cavity searches, detention, incarceration etc.
Smith,
betraying an astonishing ignorance of his topic, contends "Corporations
aren't going away, because it is efficient for people to organize
themselves into groups, both economically and politically. Typically,
such groups are hierarchical, and members of the group cooperate to
reach shared goals. For corporations, of course, the goal is to earn
money; employees benefit when their company prospers. "
Here
again we see a propensity for circular thought. No Leftists deny the
efficiency of group labor, we anarchists insist it be democratic. Under
capitalism, one faction privately owns the factory and the other, the
workers, hats in hand, beg for the opportunity to sell their labor for a
fixed hourly rate. The former sell the product of the workers' labor
for more than it cost to produce. They become rich, while the workers
will lead not much more than a subsistence existence and pass their last
years in want.
Employees do not benefit when the company
prospers, capitalists do. What is good for workers--pay raises, shorter
hours or better conditions-- is bad for the capitalists as it results
in increased costs. This is the class struggle, the irremediable
contradiction at the heart of capitalism. It's a zero-sum game.
Another
core principle of anarchism is self-management. What we want is that
the means by which society produces those things we need and
desire--factories, schools etc.--be publicly owned and run by the
workers. And, most importantly, that production be tailored to
consumption, and that the profit-motive and all its extractive abuses be
brought to an end. It means the end of one person depending upon
another for his livelihood.
We anarchists have no objection to
economic organization, as Smith put it. As to hierarchy: It should be up
to the workers to organize themselves as they see fit. To cede some
authority to a party responsible for a particular task should be their
prerogative, and is acceptable to most anarchist so long as it is
acceptable to those affected, freely given, revocable at any time, and
for the benefit of the whole and not the recipient.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
