Monday, March 24, 2014

Anarchy = Hierarchy = Reality. Bitches


But what happens when the state means equality? Then, as "anarchist" Noam Chomsky will never tire of reminding us, we should accept the state for what it has achieved in the name of "social progress," "equality," "human rights," and blah-blah-blah-vote-Obama.


I'd say that if we can't dispense with the "Left" and "Right" nonsense, then we should focus upon the clearest, most simplified meaning from which we can understand any "left vs. right" dichotomy: and that's Equality vs. Hierarchy, or, perhaps instead we should say, Idealism vs. Reality.

One thing anarchist philosopher Crispin Sartwell does very well is expose how hypocritical and delusional modern Progressives are regarding their stated ideals versus the reality of the state policies and programs they favor. His message boils down to this: Dude, if you support massive state intervention in the personal or financial lives of other people, what you exactly do NOT support is equality since the machine of government you employ to create the New Jerusalem must have nothing less than pure, absolute power. Hence, if you're a Progressive, or, for that matter, if you're a black-clad "anarchist" chucking rocks through Starbucks windows and reading Noam Chomsky on the weekends, you support Hierarchy. Sorry, brah.

Every anarcho-communist in the world supports hierarchy and domination. And, hey, why shouldn't they? The recognition of hierarchy in society--every society--demands humility in the face of this ultimate fact based solely on reality: it sucks, but some people are just better at some shit than others. Some poets are better poets than others. Some artists are better artists. Some lovers better lovers. And so on. So, when an An-Com declares with a smug, self-righteous grimace plastered all over his face that "Anarchy means anti-hierarchy, anti-authority and anti-domination, not just anti-state!" he's making an appeal--unwittingly, in most cases--to hierarchy, authority and domination, namely, his own. When an An-Com screams about how Bakunin or Goldman or Kroptkin were all anti-capitalists as well as against the state, he's making an appeal not only to authority, but to tradition as well. It wouldn't be the first time clueless hypocrisy expresses itself in Progressive circles.

The failure to understand the fundamental difference between the "Left" and the "Right" will necessarily lead people to a state of confusion over various contemporary political movements. I was stunned to learn in high school, for example, that most "anarchists" consider themselves to be left-wing Progressives. Hmmm....Common sense would tell us that, for once, Harry Reid is closer to the truth: if anarchy means "no government," then Republicans are more like anarchists. But that common sense only makes sense if you recognize that the "Right" (in ideology if not in practice) accepts and recognizes that there are real, substantive differences in human beings throughout the world. So, actually, common sense isn't that common. Thomas Jefferson, my libertarian hero of the American Founding Fathers, was leading people astray when he claimed that "all men are created equal." Are they? Maybe, but I doubt it. We're born with serious differences, genetic and cultural and environmental differences. We certainly all face the Reaper equally. We all share a metaphysics of Equality when the end is near.

That's one of the important points of Christianity: be modest, humble and grateful for life, dear sinners, for life is short, and your finitude and human fallibility should never be denied if you wish to live a meaningful spiritual life. I'd say that's sound advice. It even shares some theological insight with the lessons of Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, Antigone, and Oedipus at Colonus. Moreover, such humility in the face of death also shares insight with the Eternal Recurrence. How would you live your life if a dark angel swept into your room in the middle of the night and ensured you that you must live this exact same life in every detail, over and over again, forever and ever? Would you rejoice? Or would your heart be filled with terror and dread? Dwell on that thought for a moment before you reply, you speck of dust!

Thus, the fact of our inevitable death compels a kind of humility, a leveling--literally a leveling of six feet under--amongst otherwise inherently unequal creatures. But when we human beings attempt to overcome the inevitability of death, our final goodbye to live in the Underworld of Equality, we deny the reality of the living. Hence Nietzsche's railing against not only Judeo-Christianity, but also Democracy, "Progress," other mythological spooks or shadows of God: we must affirm and celebrate life in the here and the now, mother fuckers! That's reality.

Build a house. Paint a beautiful work of art. Write a novel. Live your life. Fearlessly, passionately and use your god-given animal instincts for Christ's sake. If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight. We all have to fight. And suffer. And die. Enjoy it.

With that said, we might mention in conclusion here that it's unfortunate to see Crispin downplay the role hierarchy would play in any truly free, anarchistic society. Yes, mutualism can take care of the poor, and non-state, privatized agencies could handle food, the roads, healthcare and probably most of the law and the courts as well, if you got the state out of the goddamn way all together. But in the video below Crispin disappoints us infidels at the Cantankerous Mustache when he capitulates to the assumptions of "anarchist" Cindy Milstein. For example, she states that certain "words can be violent," and that the threat of losing one's home (if you fail to make your mortgage payments) or of being in perpetual debt is a "form of violence". In other words, she's making the Progressive "ubiquity of structural violence" argument; i.e., anything unpleasant with the world, or anything that disagrees with the utopian vision of Progressivism, is "violent" and thus unjust and should be exterminated, even if it be the world--reality--itself.

Perhaps I'm being unfair to Miss Milstein, but I tend to cringe with disgust and loathing at the kind of religious fanaticism she expresses here. (But her performance is balanced with some comedic elements: For example, she insists that she's against hierarchy, and then speaks out as an authority on anarchism. That's always a good laugh.) And I sincerely wonder if, were her minions to gain power, whether she would consider this blog, or any words on any blog she disagrees with, to be a form of "structural violence". I suppose death in a mass grave wouldn't be so bad, but I would prefer to live if I had the option. Forgive my cynicism, but I doubt that, were she given the power, Miss Milstein would give me (or Crispin) any other options, however. The soul of Anarcho-communism is based on communism, that is, "Progressivism," or what we could call Secular Puritanism, whose religious and metaphysical principles could be summed up in one little phrase that tweaks their Judeo-Christian forebears: Not only in death, but in life, all are Equal.

Sure. And I can paint a mural as well as Michelangelo did. Get real, you sons-a-bitches. Look, there's no reason not to support small-scale, localized forms of anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism so long as they're based on the voluntary freedom of association. I'm certainly a fan of mutualism and anarcho-capitalism. But I have a serious problem with the majority of people who claim to be anarcho- socialists/syndicalists/communists. Many of them are openly hostile to anyone who disagrees with them, and many have no problem admitting that, "after the revolution," they would feel little hesitancy in using violence to redistribute the wealth and to silent dissent. (Crispin actually does well here in the video when he counters Miss Milstein and says something like, "It's not as if the claim regarding the relationship of anarchism to violence has no basis in history.") That is, they've inherited the Progressive pathological tendencies of intolerance and authoritarianism.

Milstein parrots Kant, and the tradition of Judeo-Christianity secularized during the Enlightenment, that all human beings, all animals and the earth have "inherent worth"--Secular Puritanism at its finest in its denial of reality. Crispin should have replied thus: no, woman, there is no value, anywhere, aside from what we assign to those things deserving of value. Nature doesn't care if you die. The soulless anal rapist has no inherent worth, at all, aside from the mercy we extend to him. But some people do create things of worth and value, whether they be Fortune 500 companies or Japanese poems or hot dog stands in New York City. Some people and some things are worth more than others. Therefore, anarchy does not mean equality. Anarchy naturally entails hierarchy, praise Jesus, because hierarchy entails difference, diversity, plurality, and beauty while "equality" always, always signifies enforced mass conformity to the lowest common denominator, which, if you happen to find yourself "on the wrong side of history" by disagreeing with Progressivism, sometimes entails death.

Anarchy is an affirmation of reality, which is an affirmation of life, and therefore an affirmation of hierarchy. The murderous religious cult known as Progressivism understands this principle as well even if it's in denial about it. That's just the way it is. Reality bites, suckas. Embrace the stinging pangs of reality and life. In one of his most cliched aphorisms, Nietzsche reminds us: what doesn't kill you, will make you stronger. Feel that pain, fellow monkeys of the earth? Feel that sting of suffering in your eye? Your brain? Can you taste that blood and cruelty that washes over our meaningless lives? Seize it! Suck down that sour milkshake called life, bitches! Drink it. Drink it up!






No comments:

Post a Comment