How to “Doom” Anarchism

via Center for a Stateless Society

How to “Doom” Anarchism: A Response to Dakota Hensley

Can there be such a thing as a “conservative anarchist?” Yes, as is true of any broad political label – socialist, democrat, libertarian, the list grows longer every day as the far right tries to appropriate the language of other tendencies. Ultimately, one can identify with whatever values they want, this is the foundation of many views I hold. After reading through “The Conservative Anarchist,” it appears that Dakota Hensley and I both share this general principle, and I’m sure there’s many other areas in which we might broadly agree. Where we appear to differ is in our conception of how individual values should be regarded.

Let’s consider a hypothetical society in which the state is gone, borders have been abolished, and communities are created by freedom of association. If I, a nonbinary person, am threatened by a growing contingent of transphobes in my immediate vicinity, and I’m not willing or able to leave, I should be able to use my resources and connections to create a support network to defend myself against any perceived threat. It also works in my best interest to use whatever means I have available to make my social environment safe for me; if this involves applying pressure to people who don’t respect peoples’ pronouns or claim that “gender is determined by biology,” that’s entirely consistent with anarchism. Hensley has a much different view on this than I do: “Anarchism is about building a society in which no one forces their beliefs on others. As long as you respect the views and lives of others, your personal views don’t matter.”

…no, it’s not. Depending on the specific definition of “forcing one’s beliefs onto others,” there’s plenty of ways one could fit “forcing their beliefs on others” into a consistent, principled anarchism. If someone accuses me of forcing my belief that trans women are women onto them, I don’t see that as anti-anarchist unless I suggest using hate crime legislation to put transphobes in prison. In any ideal safe space, incentives exist to keep bad actors out and encourage positive behaviors. “Force” is arguably used when we kick someone out of a space for using slurs or when we make fun of Trump supporters, yet I wouldn’t expect many anarchists to be against such actions.

There is a more charitable reading of this, however. In the context of the rest of the article, “respecting the views and lives of others” involves the validation of peoples’ gender identities, preferred pronouns, and not using certain trigger words or slurs, in which case I agree with the second half of Hensley’s statement. My concern is that certain folks may attempt to frame such requests as an imposition on one’s freedom of expression, a common tactic used by reactionary libertarians and self-described “small government” conservatives.

The language of limited government and individual sovereignty can definitely be pushed further to radicalize people from right-libertarianism to anarchism, but it’s worth acknowledging the massive inconsistencies in the general conservative notion of “limited government.” The usual implication of this rhetoric isn’t abolitionist in nature, but rather a resistance to “socialism” (expansion of medicaid, increasing the minimum wage, empowering unions, etc.) informed by decades of red scare propaganda and the growth of Koch-funded think-tanks. As a result, most conservatives are much more supportive of “big government” than their rhetoric suggests.

Despite this general tendency, Hensley makes a noble attempt to take conservatives at their word regarding anti-statism and individualism, noting the organizing potential within Appalachian communities.

While these views are uncommon among anarchists, they’re not uncommon among the people of Appalachia where anarchist distributism would do well in an area that prides itself on its individualism yet has a strong sense of community. Combine it with an ardent social conservatism and anarchism would explode here. Many forget that Appalachians don’t vote. Turnout is quite low here. Even if you, like me, aren’t a social conservative, you can alter your message and focus on the aspects of anarchism that could appeal to social conservatives.

In defining conservatism through this example, I think Hensley makes a very solid case for the genuine parallels between conservative communitarian values and anarchist theory. In general I’ve heard many good things from organizers I know regarding collaborating with conservatives and libertarians to make otherwise small projects very successful, in some cases converting individuals from right to left. I myself am a living example of that conversion, as my anarchism is an outgrowth of the anti-authoritarianism that drew me to vulgar libertarianism. If Hensley had expanded on this section and explored the ways that communities in Appalachia uphold individual autonomy and mutual aid, skeptics would be met with a compelling argument for how conservatism could be applied to very radical ends.

Unfortunately, Hensley doesn’t do this, instead attempting to garner sympathy for “social conservatives” as a broadly defined group: 

Many forget that most social conservatives would be okay with a ‘leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone’ approach to these issues. My readers may think that I’m too sympathetic to the average social conservative. I should remind you that only 7% of Americans use Twitter. The conservatives on Twitter (much like the liberals) are a small, small fraction. The average conservative [holds] conservative views on social matters but do support things that strengthen the individual and community and would be open to anarchism if it was presented to them in a friendly package.

In addition to the downright bizarre point about twitter conservatives somehow being a common point of reference, it’s strange that Hensley is so strongly attracted to the conservative idea of “strengthening the individual.” Anyone familiar with the broader individualist tradition beyond Ayn Rand and the work of classical liberals should immediately recognize the ways in which western “individualism” is in many ways counterproductive to empowering individuals. While conservatives may indeed claim to support “freedom from government tyranny,” they will also often claim loyalty to the nation, much in the same way that they will defend the Second Amendment right before defending cops and soldiers.

The response to the nationwide protests and the popularity of police abolitionism is a perfect example of how many people on the right are terrible allies for anarchists. Conservatives, libertarians, and anarcho-capitalists have often been the first to oppose peaceful protests, villify anti-fascist activists, and support state violence against groups they perceive as “threats to private property” or advocates of “big government.” Hensley appears to exclude these people from their definition of “conservatives,” but I cite this example to demonstrate that a “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone approach” can always be co-opted by fascists and isn’t always complimentary to anarchism. National anarchists, Hoppeans, and the libertarian to alt-right pipeline – largely promoted by Murray Rothbard’s insistence on alliances with holocaust deniers and paleoconservatives – are only a few other examples of reactionary appropriations of “anti-state” rhetoric.

The trick for those of us doing outreach is to exploit these contradictions and dissuade people from the authoritarian elements of the rhetoric without validating their beliefs as consistently “individualist.” Hensley appears to concede to conservatives that they already have a valid understanding of individualism and that we as anarchists need to reward them for it.

Similar lines of reasoning are used to argue for outreach to the left, a tactic I’m aware that Hensley opposes: “Those tankies say they’re anti-capitalist,” a vulgar anarcho-communist might say, “hence we share the same goal and need to present anarchism to them in a friendly package.” Hensley and I would likely agree that there are obvious flaws in this argument: because the anarchist conception of “capitalism” differs significantly from that of marxists, it’s probably not a great idea to put stock in such an unstable alliance, because even if we use similar language and political aesthetics, we aren’t talking about the same thing, and even if we do put anarchism in a “friendly package,” the campaign will have effectively reduced anarchism to an emulation of leftism more than anything else.

I don’t think either of these positions – reaching out to the left or the right – are worth rejecting entirely. My intent is to illustrate how this argument looks in the context of what the author has said elsewhere; Hensley, in advocating outreach to conservatives while vocally opposing outreach to the left, ends up supporting a rightward shift in our general outreach strategy. This is the worst case scenario, of course, but it’s worth considering since the far right has honed their ability to use this rhetorical strategy, and I don’t want Hensley’s article to be a potential entry point – even if only by accident.

To put my primary criticism bluntly, Hensley leaves too much to the reader’s imagination. Some people read this article as alt-right entryism, and others see this as a good reminder that not all conservatives are nazis (although with lines like “If we ignore conservatives, we’ll doom anarchism,” it’s not hard to see why queer folks, people of color, leftists, and other marginalized groups wouldn’t receive Hensley’s message with open arms). The biggest issue for me is that Hensley speaks in incredibly broad strokes that could validate the views of national anarchists while alienating readers threatened by social conservatism, making the piece difficult to approach from any perspective.

The very first sentence I quoted, “Anarchism is about building a society in which no one forces their beliefs on others” is a perfect example of what I mean: to some, “no one forcing their beliefs on others” implies liberation from systems that impose stratified social roles on women and men respectively, to others it might be a buzzword for opposing the “gay agenda” forcing queer pride in their face when they just wanna watch the football game. It’s not clear what Hensley wants to achieve beyond extrapolating their intentions by comparing their twitter feed with their published work, and it’s incredibly frustrating.

It’s no revelation that our organizing efforts might have to involve a maoist or two, a few centrists, and, every now and again, some conservatives. By working with these people, however, we don’t need to defend the legitimacy of “maoist anarchism,” “centrist anarchism,” or “conservative anarchism.” Not all of our allies have to be anarchists, and that’s okay insofar as we’re able to work with them effectively without threatening the people we’re trying to help. Yes, “conservative anarchists” can exist, but we’re not “doomed” if some of us choose to keep a safe distance between ourselves and conservatives. If you choose to use your privileges to “recruit” from the right, that’s your prerogative. For some of us, however, conservatives can be dangerous. Reaching out to potential allies is a noble effort, but if we spend more time cozying up with right-wingers than we do defending people from oppression, we will certainly, as Hensley says, “doom anarchism.”

There are 16 Comments

anarchism is doomed and i embrace it.
anarchism is an impossible project however you phrase it.
anarchism is doomed to be plagued by imbeciles who think the most pressing discussion is who or how to recruit from which segments of society, or how to reform it.
anarchy is chaos. everything is in turmoil.
polemos is the mother of everything, including desire, the mother of suffering. you're not in control, you're fated by your will, and you suffer from the consequences of your indulgences and inhibitions. you're also fated to die. an anarchist can only claim their defiance, since there's no permanence, and no triumph over death, nor the terror its undertow, and the horror in its wake.

Yes, we only have to look at the assassination of Duke Franz Ferdinand by the crazed malcontented Serbian national socialist anarchist and the subsequent death of 20 million innocent people in WWI to know that anarchism as a popular movement is DOOMED by the negative reception just the mentioning of its name causes with most people. WHY DOESN'T ANARCHISTS PUBLIC RELATIONS change the name to something like, FREEISM or NONLAWISM, and the PR people should do free meals like Hari Krishna do to win the hearts and minds of the common people. Only then has it a chance to become an acceptable idea for society.

I get that, and agree, but books n private apartment parties n shit is sooo much more important. Also being trans is like the fucking praxis above all others, or else.

transphobe is butthurt because they don't get invited to apartment parties

https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
My "Assassination Politics" essay. Will eliminate all governments, taxes, militaries, wars, nuclear bombs, etc,
Solve's David Friedman's "Hard Problem" written in his book, "The machinery of fredom" written 1973/1989/2014.

Been having roughly the same idea in mind. Assassination is still something the establishment, or anyone else, knows to properly answer. It's the got the potential to cause significant destabilization among certain milieus and networks, especially when the perpetrators aren't recognizable/traceable. The matter of protesting tech corporations like Fedbook or Amazon has become pointless... this ain't a republic anymore, but techno-feudalist regime, and there's just one commonplace solution for fucking dealing with monarchs, one that works in every situation.

But the problem, you see, is that many of the "anarchists" in NA, or even the West as a whole, aren't the types to pursue vendettas or fragging. Some do send a lot of energy on efforts like these, tho...

https://anarchistnews.org/content/re-wildeing-anarchism
https://anarchistnews.org/content/nietzsche-manteion-pocket-oracle

(sadly)

don't just tell us about it cool guy, show us the mighty propaganda of the deed ;)

My violent dithyramb ----, FUCK THIS I'M GONNA GO FOR A LONG DRIVE AND FUCK ANYTHING THAT MOVES!! -- Frank Booth

How can you say My," thing ",,,"Will eliminate all governments, taxes, militaries, wars, nuclear bombs, etc,"
You have an anarcho-mystic crystal ball High Priest of Killing The Fuck Out Of Politicians. There's always another power hungry megalomaniac ready to fill the void, what do you think the history of humanity has been but a game of Empire and conquest and a club of psychopaths.
If you said something like collective enmasse brainscan and electric therapy you have a chance of attaining you utopianistic final solution to your "Hardon Problem "

"...There's always another power hungry megalomaniac ready to fill the void,..."

I think you should have said, "In the past, there has always been another power-hungry megalomaniac ready to fill the void..."
But that is because assassination, the likelihood of assassination, has always remained quite rare in many societies. When it does occur, it tends to not occur again. So, a politician likely feels that it is safe for him to fill the void made by the previous assassination.

If, instead, it becomes almost certain that the new, replacement politician will ALSO be killed, the line of volunteer politicians willing to sign up should be far shorter.

I am proposing a system which will make the second assassination just as likely as the first one, in fact virtually certain. This is DIFFERENT.

It won't work, the Machiavellian methodology has been tried before, eventually they install a pacifist megalomaniac like Ganghi who begs to be slaughtered, and the assassins dissolve, they realise their methods do not work, it only makes authoritaritarian rule by deception the norm, the legislation based on fundamental fallacy becomes history and then liberals move in, mealy mouthed euphamisms for sugarcoated slaughter, plastic smiles covering the canker of power and murder by starvation and alienation. The assassin has become the bureaucrat stabbing pure thought with pen, the heroic savior becomes a meth addict on valium drooling at reruns of superman and jerking off to Chris Kyle posters.

Ganghi? Is that gangnam style Gandhi or hoodlum gang gandhi? Or maybe read a history book sometime!

As a standard when the libertarian tactician above is proposing some crypto based assassin system that is somehow compatible with nobody abusing power?

Anarchists kill people themselves when they do! Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

"It also works in my best interest to use whatever means I have available to make my social environment safe for me; if this involves applying pressure to people who don’t respect peoples’ pronouns or claim that “gender is determined by biology,” that’s entirely consistent with anarchism. Hensley has a much different view on this than I do: “Anarchism is about building a society in which no one forces their beliefs on others. As long as you respect the views and lives of others, your personal views don’t matter.”

…no, it’s not. Depending on the specific definition of “forcing one’s beliefs onto others,” there’s plenty of ways one could fit “forcing their beliefs on others” into a consistent, principled anarchism. If someone accuses me of forcing my belief that trans women are women onto them, I don’t see that as anti-anarchist unless I suggest using hate crime legislation to put transphobes in prison. In any ideal safe space, incentives exist to keep bad actors out and encourage positive behaviors. “Force” is arguably used when we kick someone out of a space for using slurs or when we make fun of Trump supporters, yet I wouldn’t expect many anarchists to be against such actions."

I definitely think that people should NOT humiliate and fuck with trans people based on their identities, but overall the frame of mind expressed in the essay is also very consistent with a stringent and very punitive thinking that's not any different from normal society and how it treats criminals...sans the prisons. Enforcing "safe-spaces" definetly implies an authoritarian erasure of everything that doesn't accommodate it, or at least a generalized in-group sense of fear in terms of stepping out of line with the popular beliefs and opinions. I definitely am willing to sacrifice personal safety for living more sensually and impulsively, and i look very suspiciously at people who are willing to throw impulsivity under the bus in favor of sacred ideals/ideas.

However, i do fully agree that Hensley's essay is pretty stupid, this idea that anarchism is about "converting people", or engaging in some sort of demographic recruiting exercise. I'm from appalachia, and even though it's overwhelmingly right-wing and conservative, the way that people express their points of view relating to that is pretty diverse. The most unfortunate thing is that people overall out here are still fairly racist, homophobic, transphobic, and xenophobic, yet i fully believe a lot of that would disappear if the news media didn't invest so much time, energy, and money into keeping people afraid of crime and the unknown. To try to turn these gullible folk into anarchists means just playing antagonism to their normal saviors, and yes their mentality is often so shrouded in fear that they will figure it out. I'd rather just play devils advocate when it suites me than center my identity around some sort of principled and STATIC anarchist praxis.

good point calvin! I agree.

Having watched "safe(r) spaces" efforts be cringey and heavy handed countless times, I've ended up defaulting to a place pretty far away from trying to cater to people's comfort levels over every little comment. Assault or sustained harassment is different of course, shouldn't be tolerated and folks should be fierce enough to kick really toxic shitbags to the curb.

But when it's less cut and dry, I use good faith and bad faith assessments instead. It takes awhile to establish a person's intentions and that's almost worthwhile in my opinion, no matter how shitty the things they're saying are.

holy dogmatic linguist, batman!

trying to impose language is a half step removed from trying to impose thought. anyone that considers that shit anarchistic is nobody i would ever consider an ally. gtfo with that pathetic bullpuckey.

which is not to say that one can't ask another to respectfully use pronoun x. and if they refuse, then don't fucking listen to them. grow a pair of tit-balls and stop expecting others to do what YOU want. you may not be able to leave a community, but you can damn sure leave the fucking room. and grab a bat or a machete just in case.

Add new comment