The only problem I have with it–and it’s a minor one–is that I believe Mr. Laning makes too much of a deal about an alleged difference in the terms anarchy and anarchism. I would describe the difference as follows:

Anarchy in any condition in which no person has a coercive hierarchy over anyone else. The term comes from Greek and literally means without rulers. Note that a ruler and a leader are not the same thing. John can choose to follow Sally, and if he does, Sally is by default John’s “leader.” But John can also choose to stop following Sally if he wants. (One can call this a “noncoercive hierarchy” if one wishes, although I personally would not even bother using the word “hierarchy” at all to describe this sort of relationship.) Sally only becomes a ruler when she forces her leadership upon John irrespective of John’s wishes. Becoming a ruler (i.e., establishing a coercive hierarchy) is, in fact, the only thing prohibited in an anarchy, for naturally anarchy ceases to exist in any place where a coercive hierarchy exists.

So, let’s say a highwayman waylays you on your way to the agora, points a gun to your head, and says, “Your money or your life.” This highwayman has effectively erected a coercive hierarchy, with him as ruler and you as the ruled, with him as king and you as his subject. Until the highwayman pays restitution to you, his victim, a coercive hierarchy will remain in place between you and your robber. Once restitution is paid, the rulership is thereby disestablished and you both become equal again; in other words, anarchy is restored.

Thus, the retention of anarchy requires what Jefferson called “eternal vigilence” and what Lord Acton called a revolution in permanence.

Anarchism is simply the ideology advocating anarchy.

Mr. Laning is correct that chaos is not anarchy, and anarchy is not chaos. In fact, I would argue that coercive hierarchies (including the state’s) is inherently chaotic. Thus, anarchy and chaos are mutually exclusive.

Best regards,
Alex Peak

This is interesting. If the government stopped using violence to enforce it’s power, what would make it a government? Government is usually defined as a supreme authority in a given territory. But if a government used only non-violent action, then it’s tactics–persuasion, non-cooperation, non-violent intervention–are available to practically everyone. What would make a non-violent police force different from a direct action based activist group, or a non-violent regulatory agency different from a voluntary coordinating body like a sports league, or a welfare agency different from a charity or non-profit, etc?

Seems to me that taking violence out of the state would involve just the kind of decentralization of power that anarchists are talking about.

I remember speaking once with Mike Beard, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence President. Mike has been working in the field of non-violence for over 40 years now and has seen more dark days than bright ones in that time. Once, after having a tough day myself, I asked him, “What keeps you going after all these years?”

He told me it was faith, faith that in the greater arc of history, humanity IS making progress. He believes in his heart that one day the terrible gun violence we see in the United States will be a distant memory.

I will never forget that, I found it very inspiring and think of that conversation often.

“I said nothing of the kind. Your sarcastic reference to “humanity becoming perfect [in the] distant future” is referring not to my words, but Mohandas Gandhi’s.”

So you disagree with him?

“There are probably many criticisms that can be made of Gandhi, but he was certainly an astute observer of human nature.”

Oh, apparently not.

The problem with saying (or agreeing, in your case) that “Representatives [of government] will become unnecessary if the national life becomes so perfect as to be self-controlled,” is that it implies that government will always be necessary, because national life can never be perfect. It highlights perhaps the worst contradiction of Gandhian dogma: he demanded nonviolence from the dominated, but not from the political system of violent domination itself (government).

“As for your claim that I believe “society needs protection from Neo-Nazis,” well I’m certainly grateful that our government does provide such protection.”

Yes, you made that clear. But your so-called governmental protection comes at a high cost: the exploitation and domination of others.

“That said, I provided several contemporary examples of violence (or incitements to violence) in my blog that do not involve Neo-Nazis.”

You’re right, I should have said “because society needs protection from neo-Nazis and Republicans” — it would have been much funnier. Seriously though, I attempted to address protection against a wide-range of “bad guys” (which I thought was your larger point) when I discussed “aspiring authoritarians” and “destructive or greedy opportunists who aim to harm others for their own personal gain.”

“Hitler was never elected chancellor of Germany.”

I didn’t claim that he was.

“Even at the height of their power, in July 1932, the Nazis only won 37.3% of the vote.”

Only 37.3%? This wasn’t a two-party system. They were elected the largest party by a wide margin, such that “no similar party in any country at that time had achieved comparable electoral success.” The Nazis held 230 seats after that election, while the next largest contingent (Social Democrats) held only 133.

“I find it curious that while you criticize Presidents Bush and Obama (and others) for using an extreme example like the Nazi Party to justify military actions, you have no hesitation to use that extreme example in support of your own arguments. “

Where? — other than to refute your own argument. Besides, the point was not to banish all mention of Nazism, but to avoid using them to justify governmental domination and exploitation, etc., as you did.

“Certainly you are fully aware that Germany has now been a healthy, functioning democracy for over 60 years.”

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the merits of a “healthy, functioning democracy.” And at what cost was this “achieved”?

“I find unconvincing your argument that somehow power corrupts only when man is placed in some type of defined political process.”

Who said “only”? I wrote that anarchism is a rejection of “all forms of political and economic exploitation.”

“The notion seems to be that if you take government out of the equation, man will magically rise to a higher moral standard and behave well with his/her neighbors.”

No. Government will only be taken out of the equation by people who decide that they no longer want it and are willing to take action.

“I can imagine right now what the well-armed Americans who spend their days raging about “Obamacare” and “Socialism” would think about your peaceful anarchy based on the principal of “mutual aid.” Put simply, it would be anathema to them (even though they detest government as much as you do).”

Should I be surprised that non-anarchists don’t like anarchism?

“How do you propose to get them to agree that “it’s no longer acceptable to benefit from the pain and suffering caused by the exploitation and domination of others”?”

I don’t propose to. They, like you, will have to decide for themselves whether it’s ok to benefit from the domination of others (they’ve already decided; they think it’s awesome!). I’m not holding my breath for this to change, especially in this country, where Americans have a love affair with imperialism. But not everyone has to become an anarchist for an anarchist society to sustain itself.

“Many Americans not only believe in “justified” violence, but take pride in it. In such an environment, how can you say with any confidence that the “hierarchy” of privileged versus exploited individuals is suddenly going to disappear when government is disbanded?”

I didn’t. Hierarchy and government won’t exist in an anarchist society because otherwise it wouldn’t be called an anarchist society.

I still think you’re missing the crux of my argument: you can’t force people to be free; you can’t create a peaceful society through systemic violence; and you can’t make people be anarchists. Anarchism is not indoctrination, nor is it the belief that people are unenlightened fools who need to learn The Truth. Anarchism is simply a choice — the choice to live without ruling others. When a group of people make that choice and band together to ward off governmental oppression, then an anarchist society will form. If they don’t, it won’t. It’s that simple. There’s little else you or I can do about it, except to decide for ourselves what kind of principles will guide our actions, and whether or not this includes supporting the domination of others.

You ask: “… how can you say with any confidence that the “hierarchy” of privileged versus exploited individuals is suddenly going to disappear when government is disbanded?”

Jason said, “Government will only be replaced by free societies when enough people in a community affirm that it’s unacceptable to be ruled, or to rule others, and organize themselves into a large enough group to withstand those seeking to rule them.”

Chicken vs. Egg? He’s suggesting the hierarchy will go away before the government does.

—-

This is my take on it: I think we have to acknowledge the limitations of both systems. It’s important to admit that Jason and many other anarchists are correct when identifying the flaws of government. While it offers protection to some people at some times, it also brings destruction. It enables abuse at a grander scale. Even some of the most ardent patriots will concede that government is fallible. An enlightened state of anarchy, as described by Gandhi, is the ideal scenario.

But anarchists need to remember that there is a time and a place, and it probably isn’t right now. Ladd is right, that there are large threats (social and environmental) that require grand coordination through some sort of managerial (governmental) construct. I wouldn’t go as far to say that we need government’s guns to protect us from these militia-types, as I subscribe to non-violent action, but government is a tool that can be wielded carefully and non-violently.

Ladd: ” What is going to bring about the “fundamental change in principles” in these individuals (who number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions) that you describe? How do you propose to get them to agree that “it’s no longer acceptable to benefit from the pain and suffering caused by the exploitation and domination of others”? ”

Evolution. It’s hard to believe one could convert a die-hard, gun-wielding maniac. Because it is indeed very difficult if not impossible. But you can his/her kids.

From primordial goo to globalization – our combined existence has become more and more inter-connected and interdependent. Our social constructs become more complex and bring us closer together and our world gets smaller and smaller. The human path is on a trajectory of progress.

It’s difficult to think that, given the past century’s genocides and wars, but if you look at the statistics… it is safer to live today than it was 100 years ago, and 1000 years ago and so on. Fewer people have died, per capita, from violence in this century than any other and it is steadily declining. Despite sensationalist news stories about violent conflict… consider all the resolutions that are made peacefully everyday. More neighbors live side by side in peace than those who do not. More communities are reliant on adjacent communities than those that are not. More nations trade and cooperate than those who do not. Non-violence is the Way. The news and history is simply a recording of the events where we’ve strayed from our past.

As Robert Wright describes it in his book, Non-Zero… human life is a non-zero sum game. As a species, we benefit more from cooperation/coordination than we do from competition. As this principal becomes more apparent, fewer people will be driven towards violence (physical and not) as a means of resolving conflict reducing the need for government.

So what does that mean for us today? If it’s inevitable – why should we be concerned? Well… this is an ideal state and if we heed the advice of some of our sages, we must “be the change we wish to see in the world” to bring us to this enlightened stage faster. Stop acting violently and competitively. Start acting in cooperation and solidarity. Tread lightly on the earth – as our foot steps affect everything around us and the future.

Everything changes. And for humanity (whose genetic cards are stacked) the change will be for the better. Embrace it. Darwin said it wasn’t the strongest or smartest (read: most powerful) that survive. It’s those most willing to accept change (adapt).

I am a bit disappointed to see that you have oversimplified—and in some cases misrepresented—certain arguments made in my blog.

This starts in your first paragraph, where you paraphrase my piece and claim that I said, “Maybe [peace be obtained through anarchy] someday in the distant future when humanity becomes perfect, but not anytime soon because society needs protection from neo-Nazis.”

I said nothing of the kind. Your sarcastic reference to “humanity becoming perfect [in the] distant future” is referring not to my words, but Mohandas Gandhi’s. My blog ended with the following quote from Gandhi: “Representatives will become unnecessary if the national life becomes so perfect as to be self-controlled. It will then be a state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler. He will conduct himself in such a way that his behavior will not hamper the well being of his neighbors. In an ideal State there will be no political institution and therefore no political power.” There are probably many criticisms that can be made of Gandhi, but he was certainly an astute observer of human nature.

As for your claim that I believe “society needs protection from Neo-Nazis,” well I’m certainly grateful that our government does provide such protection. That said, I provided several contemporary examples of violence (or incitements to violence) in my blog that do not involve Neo-Nazis.

Moving on, your claim that the Nazi Party “was democratically elected into control of a national government” is historically inaccurate. Hitler was never elected chancellor of Germany. Even at the height of their power, in July 1932, the Nazis only won 37.3% of the vote. That percentage actually declined in November 1932. Two months later, Hitler was installed as chancellor through a backroom deal by one man, President Paul Von Hindenburg. By this time, due to political fragmentation and the desire of Germany’s leaders to undermine democracy in the country, no parliamentary government could be formed and un-elected chancellors, appointed by the President, were relying on him to rule by decree (without the consent of the legislature). The Weimar Republic ultimately failed because its democratic institutions lacked a broad base of popular respect and support (for a number of reasons, including anger over the Treaty of Versailles, severe economic problems that led to hyperinflation and even mass starvation, etc.).

I find it curious that while you criticize Presidents Bush and Obama (and others) for using an extreme example like the Nazi Party to justify military actions, you have no hesitation to use that extreme example in support of your own arguments. Certainly you are fully aware that Germany has now been a healthy, functioning democracy for over 60 years.

Nor do I presuppose an anarchist society without “anarchists,” although you seem to assume that all anarchists have the same exact vision as you do. Your definition of anarchism as “free societies based on the principles of mutual aid and free participation that reject all forms of political and economic exploitation” is yours—you do not speak for all anarchists, let alone all Americans or human beings. From what I understand, the anarchist tent is quite a big one, with some anarchists endorsing the use of violence, private security forces, corporate structures, etc. And some anarchists would also prefer chaos.

I find unconvincing your argument that somehow power corrupts only when man is placed in some type of defined political process. The notion seems to be that if you take government out of the equation, man will magically rise to a higher moral standard and behave well with his/her neighbors.

I don’t buy it. I can imagine right now what the well-armed Americans who spend their days raging about “Obamacare” and “Socialism” would think about your peaceful anarchy based on the principal of “mutual aid.” Put simply, it would be anathema to them (even though they detest government as much as you do).

What is going to bring about the “fundamental change in principles” in these individuals (who number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions) that you describe? How do you propose to get them to agree that “it’s no longer acceptable to benefit from the pain and suffering caused by the exploitation and domination of others”? Many Americans not only believe in “justified” violence, but take pride in it. In such an environment, how can you say with any confidence that the “hierarchy” of privileged versus exploited individuals is suddenly going to disappear when government is disbanded?

These are the questions I would have loved to have seen you tackle in your response, and the ones that most need answering.