Anything to learn?

This all stemmed from me re-reading some science fiction I had first read almost 20 years ago. It was one of the subjects of my previous article about Utopian Anarchist Fiction and that was written as both an examination and exhortion about the power of fiction to present the world people want to live in. On finishing that article I was compelled to re-read Ursula K Le Guin’s The Dispossessed which is about a flawed anarcho-syndicalist utopian society that has been in existence for around 200 years. On this re-read I was reminded of how good a writer Le Guin can be and pleasantly surprised at just how fleshed out her world was. She clearly had taken the time to think and write about this flawed utopia for she was not only concerned with the strengths but also the inherent weaknesses and constraints that such a society would birth. The stagnation and creep of power and bureaucracy are underlying themes in the book as the anarchists look to rediscover their own revolution and meaning in their society. Some other parts were more clownish than I remembered, her modern day American analog is sketched in crayon compared to her carefully composed anarchist moon. The poverty and power structures are far too simplistic. Nonetheless it was an enjoyable read if nothing more for the world building and to sharpen ones own intuitions. This did lead me to thinking about anarchism itself again. After all many of us have a teenage passing interest in some form of it, be it the more communist form or the capitalist form.

This lead me to doing some further reading and looking at the anarchist movement. It is a movement that is both hopelessly trapped in the past but also weirdly caught up in current day distractions. Like any left-wing movement it has become infested with the dregs of their own side and it is constantly dragged backwards by incoherent factionalism and post-modern deconstructionist tendencies. This presents as you can either read older political texts from the likes of the Russians like Kropotkin or Bakunin who whilst clearly radicals are not concerned with the notion of trans rights or the plight of Palestinians OR one can read the more modern anarchists who have seemingly become lost in this post modernist landscape. It appears more a lifestyle and an aesthetic for many than any kind of real set of ideas. Todays anarchists are seemingly incredibly short sighted and largely ineffectual. This is not to present a real defense of the anarchism of old but interestingly some of the ideas that came out of early anarchist writings do have value. There is also value in approaching the radical opposite to many of the ideas one does hold, to my mind it is worth poking holes in their arguments because this strengthens our own.

Inherent Contradictions and Anthropology

At the core of a lot of anarchist thought is the notion of freedom. This word is one they are obsessed over and indeed it has led them into many traps. Their principle is to oppose much of what we on the radical right take for granted, but often at the same time they will talk of the notion of freedom and it is a freedom to organize and live as we want. The other fact one realizes quickly is that much of modern anarchist writing is rooted in relatively recent anthropological research and studies. They rely on this as a crutch of much of their reasoning and ideas and it is never quite as strong as they think it is.

As an aside for the sake of good faith we shall ignore the obvious problems rife in the field of anthropology. It is well documented how many left leaning individuals who have carried out anthropological societies have inserted their own bias into findings or manipulated or misunderstood or just lied about some of the more primitive societies. These issues are well documented but actually don’t matter when we turn to critiquing the anarchists who rely on these studies.

Contemporary anarchists like to use examples of indigenous societies to present alternatives to how we live. They do this in a number of ways and at the heart they are always cherry picking and some of them even acknowledge this. For those of us on the radical right who actually understand the diversity of the human species none of this is a surprise. Of course different races and different peoples will develop in different ways and as such some might display a different organizational structure. There is no argument from us that certain hunter-gatherer societies were more egalitarian than others. Some might have different ideas about the work men and women do and plenty of them developed unique gift giving economic exchange models as well. The anarchist of today in attempting to sell his ideology uses anthropological studies of other peoples to say: see another way is possible.

In each of the examples I’ve read about there is not much to really dispute because it is not surprising to anyone on the radical right that different humans might live differently. What the anarchist does though is cling to these edge cases at the expense of ignoring other realities. The other element that these anarchists writers are loathe to ever unpack and admit is the homogeneity of these societies they are holding up as shining examples. All of them amount to distinct peoples, often smaller more primitive tribes in terms of technology. They have a defined boundary inherent – us vs the other. In group versus out group. This is something that the anarchist of today can never comprehend and in some ways explains the optimism of the older anarchist writers where certain homogeneity was implicit.

Mutual Aid and Human Nature

None of us on the radical right are surprised that there are matrilineal societies that exist and have existed, and could exist again. Nor would I think many of us have a principled opposition to the idea of mutual aid. Indeed before the growth of the modern welfare state, something that often anarchists today support, mutual aid societies and charities flourished. The anarchist often seems to think that they have a unique claim to the notion of mutual aid when they miss one of the most important components of it: kindred and trust.

So much of what the anarchist writes about and desires comes from a place of high trust. Sharing and co-operation happen more in higher trust societies. Higher trust societies are unified ones that are usually monoethnic. This of course is anathema to the anarchist and it is one reason that their ideas fall flat. The same is true of the wider Marxist left who still exist and think in terms of class. Almost every notion of the class struggle arose initially in monoethnic societies – everyone in the factory WAS German or Russian or French. This is not some trivial observation but one that cuts to the core of these ideas. We all now know what it is like to live in low trust societies places and it is not because of ‘capitalism’ alone as the anarchist wishes it to be it is because of the outsiders who don’t live like we do.

Mutual aid and support networks were on great display recently in America but I doubt many or any anarchists were thrilled to see it. When the white Appalachian communities were hit by storm Helene many of them were totally abandoned by our hostile federal and state governments. Stories emerged all over Xitter though about white men and women coming to each others aid. Organically. Co-operation. This is the kind of stuff that the anarchist gets off on and gives them license to make more grandiose claims about how to re-organize society. That these things happens is natural and good, the idea that the anarchist is rebelling against is a shadow in the cave. Humans are a co-operative species as much as they are a competitive one and the differences we see in how that can shake out can have a multitude of factors from racial to cultural.

No Gods, No Masters

One of the more catchy sayings that reeks of teenage angst is the phrase above. It has surface appeal to many but perhaps in todays age it appeals most to the dysfunctional. The notion of anarchism is that every man and woman is their own master and that co-operation can organize society. The anti-God element stems from their almost religious belief in overturning hierarchy. This is where the post-modernist attacks on truth benefit them the most but also where the ideology starts to become the most unhinged. Hierarchy is just inescapable to humans.

We can start with ourselves – as humans we have a clear hierarchy of needs. Air, water, food, shelter. Within families and friends there are also natural hierarchies that form. This is something just natural to anyone on the radical right. Natural hierarchies are good and healthy, now some anarchists claim not to oppose this but it becomes very messy quickly because they also have stated beliefs that social institutions like marriage are inherently problematic for being an example of patriarchy. This of course gives them license to ignore how marriage benefits women and also how female power has existed and continues to exist within marriage as its own unique thing. Again we all know that one guy who’s wife seems more domineering than him and often that doesn’t end well for anyone but it can happen and does exist. The anarchist is often times trapped within ideology versus reality about such power dynamics.

Ironically for a movement not so interested in power and hierarchy there are of course a hierarchy of thinkers within the movement. Leaders who have arisen and been written about and looked favorably on. It appears that for all their high minded ideals that the best history of understanding anarchist struggle away from the anthropologists is in fact the Great Man view of history. This applies to a number of figures in the anarchist world such as Nestor Makhno – the Ukrainian anarchist war leader, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman (yes those names echo) of the ‘American’ side of things as well as aforementioned theorists like Bakunin and Kropotkin. The list goes on including figures like Durruti from the Spanish civil war. This is not a serious critical point against them nor is it a gotcha moment. This is just a reflection of reality of the history and study of anarchist theory and individuals. The very presence and rise of individuals suggests organic power and influence that all come from the natural existence of hierarchy. As Bowden riffing on Nietzsche says “there is a hierarchy in every group of individuals” and the anarchist’s opposition to hierarchy often makes their understanding of group dynamics flawed. A difference between theory and reality revealed.

As for the “No Gods” mantra this again strikes anyone not an ardent materialist as just infantile. Questions of the spirit and meaning are organic to humans no matter how they organize. The question of God is one that can’t just be brushed aside as some anarchists wish to do. The very nature of how religion forms across human societies shows that specialization and hierarchy happen. Be this in the more obvious form of the Catholic Church as an organization right down to shamans in more primitive societies. Esoteric knowledge is cultivated and passed on in ways that anarchist thought struggles to deal with and comprehend. It is again another simple criticism that when amplified becomes somewhat of a challenge to elements of their ideology and principles. Such questions and the competing answers human have to them about the nature of being will simply never be moved past and an anarchist society however it is envisioned is likely to still be subject to cult like religious movements that arise organically throughout human history. Marx’s proclamation of religion as an opioid of the masses remains one of the most deluded ideas to arise out of left wing thought and an example of their limits of imagination.

The other issue in reviewing anarchist history and the past is just that more often than not theirs is a contemporary history being totally owned by power. There are some great examples the anarchists reference themselves and they don’t really have a good answer for it beyond seemingly that the revolution has to be everywhere all at once. The all or nothing element of this makes it almost messianic and often explains why anarchist collectives that form and are celebrated are almost always totally crushed by the statist communists who are operating alongside them.

Oppositional Energy

Much of what anarchism looks like today is marred by the main driving impulse of many on the left: resentment and reflexive contrarianism. For example anarchists are keen to stress their are always ‘anti-fascist’ which again is a legacy of the birth of these ideas and the strawman creation to anarchists of what fascism is. No doubt most anarchists would give you conflicting and varied definitions of fascism to the point the term is as meaningless as how the liberals use it. In terms of alternatives organizations that have grown organically certain modern day groups of movements display a kind of self-organization that the anarchist would profess to encourage but in reality just reflexively oppose. Casa Pound in Italy is one example. A self organized alternative that has its roots in a fascist past but in some ways behaves how anarchists themselves profess to desire especially in supporting the exploited in our system which is the white native population (in their case actual Italians).

As such anarchist behavior and tendency just trends towards an extreme culture of critique and policing. It is one reason that anarchists have always found themselves sidetracked by gay rights issues amongst other things. There is no room in the committed ideologues mind that such aberrant behavior might naturally become frowned upon and that the social pressure against it is in fact a manifestation of what they themselves often call for. People policing themselves without higher authority but rather shared and agreed upon social norms. This of course is just unthinkable to the dogmatic and they can only explain this behavior with vague hand waving and again increasing references to other human cultures that as we have acknowledged might take a different view on male and female identity and sexuality. In the same breath of course the more self aware anarchists will still find the ability to criticize the Aboriginal Australians for their extreme patriarchal societies that exercised control over young women and girls for older mens sexual pleasure. No doubt though todays anarchists would still cheer on such ritual white humiliation tactics of land acknowledgement ceremonies. In my mind some of the true radicals of the past would at least have the belief and courage to discard these peoples entirely and look to build towards what they envision.

The change in what labor is for most people has also just eroded anarchist energy and action. Unionism is now oddly become more and more right coded especially under the MAGA movement. It has often been observed that long time leftists like Sanders were on the record in the past talking about how mass immigration is detrimental to the American worker and only increases the power at the top. The anarchist should agree with this but today are caught again in the trap of “well nations aren’t real and so no person is illegal and blah blah” but all this equates to is effectively giving the capitalist oligarchs in our society more power over everyone and the ability to disenfranchise the people most able to stand up against them. Globalism has truly defeated the anarchists as they are now tricked into supporting it under a ruse that somehow the imported masses who bring their low trust culture will be the spark of revolution. It’s just laughable.

Economics

Anarchism and the radical right seem to most closely meet when it comes to theories around economic activity. Most counter-cultural movements have looked with skepticism on the consumerist and capitalistic dominant culture and in this arena anarchist thought and ideas do start to align somewhat with the radical right. That is they make sense more than they become ridiculous in other arenas such as political power. Of course there are strains within anarchism, like any movement it is a broad tent. At the labor organized end sit the syndicalists who see the labor movement and worker organization through unions/syndicates as a way to radically change the nature of work. This is very much of its time and the most famous examples people will point to existed in the Spanish Civil War where anarcho-syndicalists did take control of factories and ran them. Once again we return to the reality of a de-industrialized West though and as factory jobs have been exported there are simply less workplaces like that. The service and knowledge economy is pretty different today as compared to the past when many anarchists were organizing and theorizing. Factories that employ large numbers of people do function as communities with shared bonds from hardship and skill – it is why auto unions remain strong today. The right wing view of this is not to oppose this but to place it in its place. Our people should not be exploited by a governing class that despise them! White workers are in the worst place of course because we are despised most, the stories of Indian H1Bs in the American tech workplace are largely stories around how nepotistic and ‘brotherly’ they can be towards each other. Protecting them on racial unity grounds, something in theory an anarchist would oppose if they could get past the anti-white propaganda they have been fed.

As a product of its time anarchist economic approaches do seem to align more with the pre-industrial model. That is to say cottage industries. If you work for yourself or even run a family business you have control of the means and your own destiny. Neo-luddites make an appearance here and they could be seen by both anarchist and rightist as worthy of defending. Centralization of the means of production took the looms out of peoples homes and into factories. There was of course a huge efficiency gain here but it changed many peoples relationship with what work was and meant in their lives. Within the anarchist milieu exist both technophiles and primitivists. The technophiles see technology as a path to their promised land of an anarchist society as it being ultimately able to liberate man from the drudgery of work and the primitivists are not dissimilar to the Pine Gang bros from a few years back. They are enthusiastic supporters of Ted K and his ideas and their ideal looks much more similar to the native peoples that all anarchists seem to gush about whenever they come across some small inconsequential tribe that has no easily defined leader. Both these camps share an approach that is more centered though around needs versus wants and promote ideas like gift economies.

As we’ve looked at already such mutual aid gift economies can and do exist in the real world. Borrowing tools from your neighbor or friend. These all stem though from high trust environments both of which require mono ethnic and thus mono cultural conditions to successfully exist. Within workplaces the same holds true and so as a society becomes more diverse trust is eroded in every place that exists. Think about how this manifests in your life, most white collar workers today are working in offices that are staffed and cleaned by people of a different race. This underclass effect removes any hopes at solidarity that the anarchist or racial fascist might dream of but both would desire to exist. We on the right can be at least honest about this and in small areas this can just about exist but those moments are rare and fleeting. More often than not poorer whites are forced into more ethnically diverse and lower trust environments whilst upper class wealthy whites are creating enclaves that become largely staffed by Hispanics.

Perhaps it is my latent Northern European Prot bias but I think that work is important for most people. We are unequal and thus not everyone will pursue the higher arts if they do not need to. Most people fall into despair, the opioid crisis is as much about the collapse of the Rust Belt economies as it was about the Sackler’s scheming. Being a drug addict gives more meaning than collecting the dole ever would and in a lot of places the power of community from work is sorely missed. Those anarcho-syndicalists who see the struggle as having the most chance with unions and in industrialized organization are onto something but of course with the rapid deindustrialization of the West they are likely outdated and easily forgotten in favor of the lifestyle that contemporary anarchism has become about. There is then some overlap between attitudes towards work and meaning here and that extends in a few other directions as well. Most on the radical right are skeptical of capitalism and the excesses it has driven us towards. We don’t like the commoditization of everything and the transfer of meaning and career towards the gig economy. We though are able to call out the problems of what a globalist multicultural world looks like when every Deliveroo driver is brown and can barely drive or speak English.

Fictional Utopia

One of the reasons that the Dispossessed remains such a good book is that Ursula K Le Guin clearly did the reading and research. Her imaginative qualities as an author then allowed her to translate the visions of the likes of Kropotkin and the anarcho-syndicalists into an at least partially believable world. Her anarchist utopia is flawed and is quite human in that respect and it is through her novel she brings it to life and thus in some ways it is weirdly a better text than anything a theorist could write. To examine it is to understand what she as a partial believer sees as necessary to obtain this place.

Language. On the anarchist moon the people speak Pravic. We learn that this is an invented language that was intentionally created to support the anarchist ideas. This is quite clever if you think about it – it allows them to reduce the notion of ownership and reshape thought through language. Not a new idea for it has often been observed that German seems to have produced a large body of thinkers and ideas in part because of how their grammar works compared to English and other languages.

The Family Unit. The family unit is not destroyed here entirely, our protagonist takes a life partner and they have children together but the removal of the convention of marriage and the willingness of the characters to place society and its needs above their own as family unit is a theme within the book. Much is made of how disrespecting of this the Division of Labor is and it is even conspiratorially implied that partners are deliberately broken up and posted to different places.

Communal living. Communal living in dormitories is the norm for single people it seems and is encouraged. There are private rooms that can be assigned (nothing is ever owned) for couples or even solitary people but it is clear that in this world people live in dormitories as the norm. Children are also put to live in dorms at a young age. The protagonists are seen as outside the norm for having a daughter that only just starts going to the childs dorms at age 4 for example.

Labor and Technology. A key part of the story is the technological system the anarchists use to gain work and assign it. People can specialize and are then assigned as needed by a computerized system. Work is seen as an obligation, part of society. More distasteful jobs often are shared by people. It is implied that every 10 days for example you are expected to be the person who cleans the dormitory for the others or maybe joins a trash collection crew. One of the themes and sources of tension in the society though is the power this centralized labor division is slowly accumulating even though it is critical to their survival and the functioning of society.

Scarcity. The anarchist world is a harsh desert planet. It is possible for the people to survive there but it is austere and lacking in decadence and abundance. This seems to be in part why the system works. There is just enough. No one goes hungry except during the drought and famine in the novel but even that is seen by many in the story as a reaffirmation of the bonds of brotherhood of their society.

Work. It is stressed in their language Pravic that work and play are almost the same thing. People work to be part of a community and some do specialize whilst others are general unskilled laborers. Syndicates are created by workers that organize the work and this too forms a degree of tension as this is a power center. Food is provided to every person in cafeterias and indeed there is never any evidence in her world that people cook at home so all eating is communal.

Le Guin understands that for her imagined society to work she must reimagine a number of things and the ones above are probably the most important. She was smart to imagine the anarchists coming up with a new deliberate language that helps de-emphasize personal ownership. People don’t own stuff in this world they use it and share it with others. Similarly there is an early portion of the novel that effectively amounts to education and indoctrination of children. They are taught to live by the societal rules and it is peer approval that is the most powerful currency. For all the short comings she herself writes about in the story it is a remarkably well thought out vision of what anarchist society would look like and it accepts that there must be a ruthless break from the past and commitment of true ideologues to raise the next generation and for this to perpetuate. It is not even that everyone is a believer, she allows for the outliers to exist as they have in all societies. They are the people who are more individualist (egoists) who flit between settlements as they wear out their welcome and are moved on. The conflict resolution is described as both passive aggressive and outwardly violent in the worst case scenarios.

Le Guin’s anarchist world also looks at the nature of the size of anarchist settlements. The largest city on the world functions somewhat differently from smaller communities. This is true in our everyday existence as well. Through being a writer and thinker with imagination she understands that things like hierarchy and community have a real world dynamic. It is not to say that anarchists object against characterization but it is through a literary fictional exploration that these things become more tangible. It is certainly more useful to look at a society like this than tiny hunter gatherer groups existing on the fringes today.

National Anarchism?