The Fundamental Contradiction of Anarchism

It seems obvious that anarchy in the sense of the absence of governmental authority must lead to the dominance of the strong over the weak. This result, it seems, can only be averted if the existence of an anarchist system quickly leads humans to lose their desire for getting their way at the expense of other people's interests. However, this seems especially unlikely if your view of capitalists, policemen, soldiers and the like is that they not only represent a bad system, but are utterly bad people.

Either I'm wrong or people are too stupid to realize this or they're just looking for convenient excuses to set cars on fire.

(HT to Christian for his side of a short exchange on this issue. Which bothers him. Which isn't surprising given that he lives in Berlin.)

1 comment:

John Althouse Cohen said...

My favorite thing I've ever read about anarchy was in an interview with John Lydon. He said he's not an anarchist because there's no way anarchy will end up benefitting the poor.

Of course, John Lydon is the real name of Johnny Rotten, the singer of the Sex Pistols, who sang "I am an anarchist!" in one of the most famous rock songs of all time, "Anarchy in the U.K." And this points out something else about anarchists, which is that they themselves are often not serious. Anarchism is less often a genuine political statement than it is a fashion statement.