Can I just do another on politics before getting back to why I’m really here, the struggle against anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style? Because I was talking with some young people about utopian anarchism the other day and a few thoughts crossed my mind. There is a connection to my usual concerns because one common path to utopian anarchism leads through the fake anarchism of right wing “libertarianism,” which is itself a direct offshoot of anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style. Let’s discuss.
Recall two distinctive features of anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style is it obscures the role of economic power in social relations, and it obscures the ethical issues relating to economic power, which are exogenous to neoclassical welfare economics. A distinctive symptom of exposure to anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style is the conviction society is better, more ethical, if government endorses and expresses particular views on the definition, distribution, and use of economic power, but never delving into the ethical issues involved. “Libertarianism” takes suppression of the role of economic power and the related ethics, including the social ethics of the social mechanisms to address those ethics, government, democracy, to the next level, by supposing their take on the relevant issues implies greater “freedom” or “liberty.” “Libertarians” are famous for incorrectly and inappropriately using the rhetoric of utopian anarchism by pushing their own preferred arrangements relating to economic power so far in the background that, as a matter of rhetoric, they seem to disappear entirely for some people. For “libertarians” posing as anarchists, that is, fake anarchists, “government” is translated to government they don’t personally approve, “law” to laws they don’t personally approve or that interfere with ones they do approve, etc. It’s a sort of selection perception.
One path to utopian anarchism starts with attraction to the rhetorical use of the concepts of “freedom” and “liberty” in “libertarianism” / fake anarchism while failing to understand the rhetorical program, taking fake anarchism rather more literally than one ought. That’s not the only path to utopian anarchism to be sure. There’s also a nominally “leftist” path that runs through the old counter-culture “hippie” movement of the 1960s with their communes, etc. Utopian anarchism is funny that way. A mysterious place, where right meets left. It’s possible because the complete absence of government, law, actual anarchy, is traditionally neither “right” nor “left.” It’s just a chaotic state of nature in which the most ruthless, violent, egoistic individuals rise to the fore. The trick is what people imagine follows.
This leads to the distinctive undefined quality of utopian anarchism, in which some sort of utopia is introduced as the natural, inevitable result of anarchy, but the particular characteristics of the utopia are variable and bounded really only by one’s imagination. For “leftists" it can be a peaceable, small scale, authoritarian communism, some form of democratic socialism, direct democracy, etc. For “right wingers” it can be fascism, Social Darwinism and the reign of the “fittest,” a religious community, whatever. This is where utopian anarchism can start to become unintelligible to others because, for adherents, it’s not just or even mainly about the anarchy, it’s also about the utopia, which transforms the anarchy, and makes it, for them, “real” anarchy. With the misleading focus on anarchy, and the relative neglect of identifying and delving into the social organization, government, law, etc., particular adherents propose will appear naturally from anarchy, one sees immediately the rhetorical parallels to “libertarianism.” This odd, undefined quality seems generally taken as a good thing by utopian anarchists themselves. One fellow explained to me recently there are many branches on the tree of utopian anarchism, but what they all have in common is they all oppose tyranny, support freedom, etc. I found it largely unintelligible. So utopian anarchists have multiple, conflicting ideas about how to actually resolve interpersonal conflict of preferences, but all those ideas express “freedom” and the rejection of “tyranny?” Sounds like word play to me.
The final observation I’d like to make about utopian anarchism is there seems a certain religious or faith-based quality to the ideology in the absolute certainty, despite all evidence to the contrary, the preferred utopia will appear on cue. In my experience, one can talk to a utopian anarchist all day long about what has actually been observed to happen when government and law breaks down, when countries fall into anarchy, but it won’t make any difference. Those weren’t “real,” it won’t happen that way next time. Indeed, one utopian anarchist proposed the only reason I doubted whichever utopia he was advocating would appear under anarchy was that I was thinking what “the system” wants me to think. The system wants me to appreciate law, government. I need to free my mind from the system. Ironically, the practical problem I see with utopian anarchists is that in their zeal to escape the ostensible yoke of political democracy, they play directly into the hands of economically powerful fascists, who are also working to bring down democracy. That’s why I quite often refer to utopian anarchists as tools of right wing fascists, apparently unwitting proponents of a decline in freedom and an increase in tyranny, the opposite of their stated or intended goals. It’s also why I requested the fellow concerned the system may have gotten to my mind to please be sure the system hadn’t gotten to his own mind, wasn’t encouraging his support for utopian anarchism for practical reasons, to further the cause of fascism.
The right wing anti-democracy ecosphere in the USA includes not just anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, but a host of related ideologies and creeds, “Austrian” economics, “libertarianism” / fake anarchism, utopian anarchism, etc. Rarely do any of them advocate explicitly for authoritarian right wing government, fascism, but they all wish to see an end to our current democracy. In a practical sense, they all support the cause of the economically powerful and the rise of fascism in the USA. It’s why, when we speak of “fascists” in the USA, we’re not necessarily talking about the leaders who may explicitly advocate it. We’re also talking about their clueless tools, their helpers who, as often as not, sincerely suppose they’re fighting fascism.
