The Archaic Anarcho-isms

by Eric Gronseth

The debate over two varieties of anarchism, syndicalism and capitalism, and how each would fare in securing social, economic and personal freedom, has confirmed an unnerving reality regarding modern anarchic thought.  

Anarcho-syndicalists, for instance, argue that if the State were dissolved, syndicalism, a form of human arrangement that would give the masses the ultimate authority, would best protect individual liberty.  

Anarcho-capitalists dispute syndicalist logic, insisting that if the State were disbanded, the voluntary exchange of goods and services through the free market would best serve individual rights.  

Prevalent in these anti-statist arguments is a fact that negates any usefulness in such discourse: THE STATE IS STILL HERE.  The U.S. government is larger and more invasive than it was yesterday, and it will most assuredly grow more destructive in the future.  

What purpose does it serve then, towards the destruction of the State, to debate in any form the intricacies of syndicalist and free-market anarchism?  Proponents of these forms of anarchic arrangement have written for countless hours and produced numerous essays documenting their ideal, almost utopian social and economic order.  How does this help abolish the State?  

Such a discussion, while nonetheless interesting, should be saved for the day when the State is dead and we, as individuals, can decide what form of governance best suits our individual rights.  Until such a day, any dedication to such an argument is, frankly, pointless.  Let us thus turn attention to methods of achieving an anarchist America .  

The Four Ways to Anarchy  

So that we can one day live in splendid freedom (or so that anarcho-isms regain their relevance), we must focus on methods of abolishing State authority.  

Personally, I know of only four methods [1], some of which are more effective in modernity.

1)     Political rebellion.  Can there be such a thing?  The act of voting has rightly been interpreted as an infringement on the rights of man.  Even national parties that are dedicated to reducing the influence of the federal government cannot agree on pertinent issues.  The Libertarian and Constitution parties are afflicted by such minor distinctions.  Furthermore, some single-issue parties, while libertarian in nature, separate themselves in order to spotlight individual issues [2].  Any attempts to change the government at a national level will require collusion by these parties.  Conflicting egos, however, make this option less likely to succeed.  

2)     Armed insurrection.  Is it moral to forcefully abolish your enslaver?  I believe so; however, as a modern proposition, especially when the American standard of living is taken into consideration, this option is less than acceptable.  On this method, we can take a note from the current situation in Iraq .  Iraqis are rebelling against U.S. occupation for the same reason Americans will not: economics.  The Iraqi rebellion was spawned because food and water were scarce and few employment opportunities were available.  With food in the fridge and reality television distracting Americans from their servitude, armed insurrection poses many problems in the current state of this nation.  

3)     Join the government.  While this would definitely lead to an anarchic state for the individual, it is too immoral to even contemplate.  

4)     Individual or group secession.  As a sustainable method of removing the clutches of the State from our lives, this method deserves further consideration.  

Anarcho-secessionism?  

In the great spirit of “my anarcho-ism is better than yours,” I entitled this section appropriately.  Merely “Secessionism?” would have worked; however, modern anarchists are so consumed with labels that, to them, such a principle probably mandates the use of the prefix “anarcho.”  

Secessionism addresses the two reasons why anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism remain worthless in the current statist environment.  

First off, once the name “anarcho-ism” is scrutinized, it can be viewed as outdated theorizing destined for nothing.  Contemporary anarcho-ists perpetuate the belief that if the State were abolished (anarcho), their particular blueprint for human order (syndicalism, capitalism) would be the supreme form of group arrangement.   

“If the State were abolished”?  We need an anarchist movement based on methods of abolishing the State, not on which human order would be best somewhere, sometime, in the distant future, if the State were gone.  

Secondly, the use of anarchist labeling has created the very condition that the Democrats and Republicans are derided for: a difference in name that, once examined, reveals that both factions are one in the same.  Anarcho-syndicalists complain about the State and anarcho-capitalists complain about the State.  Neither will commit to any effectual change.  

In similar fashion to these two anarcho-isms, however, secessionism succumbs to an elementary flaw.  According to secessionist thought, the individual, in order to become free, would have to get off of his or her ass and do something about the State.  

The solution to the State?  

All anarchists, regardless of label, believe that the State is the primary source for the theft of individual rights: the proverbial debt, death and despotism.  

Anarcho-syndicalists, however, will examine these State policies, complete with corruption and social and economic fallacies and complain, “These problems would be solved by syndicalist anarchism.”  

Anarcho-capitalists, likewise, will examine these State policies, rife with corruption and social and economic fallacies and protest, “These problems would be solved by free-market anarchism.”  

Secessionists, conversely, will examine these State policies, filled with corruption and social and economic fallacies and secede, creating their own anarchic system.  

Is this the best option?  

It should be wholly obvious to any anarchist that government, by its very nature, will neither relinquish control nor allow evolutionary reforms in political matters.  What incentive would it have to do so?  Why would any governmental authority, once established with its grip on power, readily dissolve itself?  After all, the State believes that we are better off under its control.  Unless a massive, national movement of libertarian-minded individuals ensues, political evolutionism is doomed to fail.  

Likewise, we spew rhetoric about keeping arms in order to place a check on government, but libertarians will not forcefully demolish the State.  Even if anarchists would place life in the proper perspective, the people would never view armed rebellion as legitimate.  Until the day the U.S. economy collapses, thrusting the masses into a state of shock, this option does not stand a chance.  

How about defeating the State by becoming the State?  Again, I hope no one considers this.  

Conclusion  

You cannot vote yourself out of slavery.  The free-market will not get you out of slavery.  Neither will the states ( Virginia , Oregon , etc.) nor the people.  And, most importantly, the State will not remove the chains it has burdened you with.  

Rather than spending one more minute documenting the particulars of the various anarcho-isms out there, let us realize that neither debate, discussion nor deliberation will solve the affliction produced by the State.  Only direct removal of governmental authority from our lives will solve these problems.  In order to achieve true, personal freedom, we must take action.  

What is preventing any of us, right now, from dissolving all bonds with the State?  Many have done so in the past and many continue to do so today, often times with successful results.  With this pinnacle of defiance, secessionists have removed themselves from the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government, resulting in the benefits of voluntary association, mutual protection and self-designed court systems.  

Granted, the shift from a statist culture full of conveniences and human interaction to a secessionist lifestyle might feel awkward.  But is modernity worth the expense of your freedom?  A secessionist movement would seem fitting here at Strike The Root, complete with its homepage portrait of Henry David Thoreau.  Wasn’t it he who said: “Most of the luxuries and many of the so-called comforts of life are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.” (3)  

Secession is a viable option for three reasons: 1) You immediately remove your economic, political and social ties with the State, thus living according to your standards.  2) If anarchists were to put down their pens (or keyboards), pick up their firearms and secede, the State would not be able to interject, for an armed stalemate would be created.  3) There is no other viable option.  

As the State becomes ever more intrusive, I, for one, look forward to the day when, upon becoming completely self-sufficient, I perform the ultimate act of recalcitrance and remove all bonds that I have with any and all forms of involuntary governance.  This is the essence of secessionism: the last viable option.  

Footnotes, Sources  

      (1)  If someone knows of any other methods of attaining anarchy, please make it known.

      (2)  A hilarious example of a single-issue party is the Guns and Dope party.

      (3)  Thoreau, Henry David, Walden