One of the more interesting aspects of the current anti-democracy movement in the USA is the counter-intuitive alliance of anarchists and authoritarian fascists mediated through anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style. Let’s discuss that this week.
I would say anarchists working with fascists, along with radical conservatism and “small fascism” with no or at least obscure welfare state pretensions, represent the most novel issues presented by modern right wing anti-democracy sentiment in the USA. I’ve discussed radical conservatism and small or small government fascism in previous posts and will assuredly do so again. I’ve also discussed the relation of anarchism and fascisms in the USA, but I’m not sure I’ve done a committed blog post on the issue lately. I previously proposed anarchism shares with authoritarian creeds as fascism, theocratism, the supposition the fundamental social issue is accommodating egoism via the cultivation of a unified collective rather than accommodating diversity of ethical thought. It’s an interesting issue to me because here in the USA anarchists are important allies of right wing, conservative fascists and theocratists seeking to end democracy, terminate the US Constitution, yet are often conceived to be opposites on the scales of political sentiment. Some, of course, are fake anarchists or crypto-fascists who assume government and law they personally support or suppose they will arise spontaneously from the ashes of democracy, so anarchism to them just means government, law they approve, without democracy to mess it up. The commonality there seems obvious. But there are also what seem to me true anarchists who don’t try to sneak government, law into their vision of anarchy. They, I think, are the more interesting case as far as establishing commonalities with authoritarian government as fascism.
There seem to me two groups of true anarchists: those who see ostensibly beneficial social Darwinism in a battle of all against all, and those who foresee a common social will and ethics arising that allows people to cooperate peacefully with no laws or law enforcement. Although all fake and real anarchists propose they’re touting something quite good, utopias, I tend to think of those who foresee the rising of a common will and ethics obviating law as the most stereotypically utopian in the sense of far-fetched and otherworldly. My point today is that all forms of anarchism, including perhaps most counterintuitively those I would call true utopian anarchists, are rather closer in spirit to supporting authoritarian creeds like fascism, theocratism, than to supporting the ethos of democracy. All forms of anti-democracy conservatism, including true utopian anarchism, are fundamentally egoistic. Their primary concern is government may promulgate laws they don’t personally approve, which when applied to them generate what is for them a sort of tyranny. The different strains of conservatism differ in how they propose resolving that difficulty. Fascists and theocratists suppose it’s a matter of right minded government, with fake anarchists / crypto-fascists suggesting it may arrive spontaneously once democracy dies. Explicit fascists and theocratists see the issue more in terms of gaining control of government. All are concerned to make sure law comports to what they would choose to do in every particular, thus eliminating the tyranny of respecting laws they don’t personally approve. True lawless anarchists see value, as an absence of government tyranny, in a bloody war of all against all over resources or in a mystical coming together in agreement on the requisite ethical issues relating to allocating resources, resolving interpersonal conflicts, etc. They’re all opposed to accepting diversity in ethical thought, having people discuss and debate laws, create laws that may evolve this way or that depending on changing views of voters, respecting laws one might not entirely agree because of the system under which they are made.
The democratic ethos requires granting significance to the views of other people, accepting that others may not initially or even ever agree one’s ethical views in every particular, other voters may support laws one supposes ill advised or ethically dodgy. The democratic ethos is about finding a real, practical way to make a thriving human society even with such diversity in thought, relating to ethics, what society is about, what an economic system should do, where resources should go, all that. It seems quite possible to me real support for the democratic ethos may relate to accepting the notion ethical views are fundamentally subjective judgments of individuals, not objective, empirical facts with one correct answer one should enforce, one way or another. That is to say, it seems to me support for the ethos of democracy may require the ability to make a distinction between private ethics, what one supposes is ethical and right, and the social ethics of living in a society with people who may think differently. A two level issue. In that sense, one may say the issue conservatives have with the concept of diversity is rather more fundamental than the cultural and “racial” issues normally discussed. It may relate most significantly to diversity of thought as ethics, freedom in that area. Under the ethos of democracy, one faces an ethical issue of how far law agreed by other voters may diverge from one’s own ethics before one decides anti-social criminality ethically justified, given the adverse consequences for society. One doesn’t care to set the bar too low. In that context, those who understand and support the ethos of democracy may perceive many or most conservatives as unreasonable prima donnas who see society breaking tyranny everywhere, as public health measures, public education, taxes, street lights, what have you.
It’s not difficult to see the origin or at least reflection of these themes in the ethical half-theory of neoclassical welfare economics, in which the thorny normative, ethical issues addressed by democracy are set aside, and more so in misinterpretations of that theory. In bad economics in the conservative style, neoclassical welfare economics is cast as a full ethical theory, or at least added normative inputs relating to economic power are not adequately identified, leading to people not understanding, appreciating the role of democracy. Typical consequences are to suppose interpersonal ethics unnecessary, egoism good, democracy unnecessary, no power relationships exist in market contexts, economic policy should not be up for a vote, and particular ethics, laws on economic power represent “freedom” in general. It’s why I think it’s ineffective to think of our current crises in democracy in a quotidian political horse race context, about this candidate or that. It’s really about ideas: philosophy, ethics, values, economics. The crisis will persist until the underlying issues addressed. And in that realm of ideas, one must appreciate the close relationship of anarchism, both fake and real, to conservative, right wing, authoritarianism as fascism, Christo-fascism, theocratism, moderated through egoism and anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style.
For reference, I did fun blogs post on the other novel issues I mentioned earlier. A post on radical or revolutionary conservatism at https://hanselkrankepantzen.blogspot.com/2023/01/revolutionary-conservatism.html and one on “small fascism” at https://hanselkrankepantzen.blogspot.com/2023/06/small-fascism.html, but I discuss them often enough.
