Anarchy is Not a Solution

Time Magazine is justly known for its quixotic selections for its “Person of the Year” magazine covers, but their most recent selection of “Protestors” really stretches the envelope.

To be sure, protestors around the world have been instrumental in gaining some success against dictators and other forms of suppressive government, but to lump all protestors into the category of positive achievement strains credulity to its limits.  Take the recent sacking of the British Embassy in Tehran, for example, or the riots in London and other parts of England.

And, of course, our own homegrown “Occupy” movements.  Admittedly these theatrics have won the adulation of prominent Democrats such as the president and Nancy Pelosi (certainly reason enough to skyrocket the level of skepticism), but in reality these gatherings of disaffected, perennial adolescents owe their longevity in large part to both a doting and Leftist media and the machinations of manipulative movements such as Communism, labor unions and the anarchist community – all adherents to the policies of “mob rule”, not democracy.

“Protestors”, by the way, don’t have to win their spurs by being arrested (note the paucity of arrests, not to mention the absence of filth, violence, crime and general antisocial behavior, following huge crowds at Tea Party rallies).  There are many forms of effective protest that result in changes to “the system” that are nonviolent in nature and in conformance with the rule of law.

The utopian longings of the “Occupy” protests betray their anarchistic lineage.  “Wall Street greed” is a favorite sophomoric appellation of the mobs, who apparently are all to eager to ignore their own greed – guaranteed “subsistence wages” whether employed or not, forgiveness of education loans, mortgages, etc. - which seems to flower from the envy fueled by the ancient pogrom of class warfare (a staple of the communist manifesto).

Economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, Thomas Sowell, suggests that “If the government has been sending too much of the taxpayers’ money to people in Wall Street – or anywhere else – then the corruption of politicians is the problem.  ‘Occupy Wall Street’ hooligans should be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington”.

But logic and clear thinking runs far back in the pack compared to the heady rhetoric and mindless emotions of both mob and media.

In an article by Matthew Continetti in the November 28 edition of The Weekly Standard titled, “Anarchy in the USA – The roots of American Disorder” (available online at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/anarchy-usa609222.html), Mr. Continetti remarks that “Never in living memory has a movement been so widely scrutinized and yet so deeply misunderstood”.  In this timely and well-researched article, Mr. Continetti lays bare the motivations of the movement’s theorists and prime movers, while questioning “whether the sympathizers or the critics really understand the idea and the method of the movement”.

“The idea”, he contends, “is utopian socialism.  The method is revolutionary anarchism”.

He traces the influences of socialism in America back to the addressing of a joint session of Congress by Robert Owen, a successful Welsh businessman and socialist, who in the speech shared his dream of cooperative villages where workers would see their poverty alleviated and their spirits transformed.  The site of this American utopia would be New Harmony, on the Wabash River in southwest Indiana.  Owen welcomed converts to his new colony in April of that year, boasting that, “I am come to this country to introduce an entire new state of society, to change it from the ignorant, selfish system, to an enlightened social system which shall gradually unite all interests into one, and remove all cause for contests between individuals”.

The results were hardly idyllic, with rational structure being in short supply.  A crippling lack of skilled laborers, significant laziness and commonplace shortages due to central planning all contributed to the formation of factions that split off from the main group.  Adding to the discontent was the close monitoring by the community “leaders” of the activities and beliefs of every member, the banning of alcohol and the separation of children from their parents.  This “new empire of peace and good will to man” dissolved within four years.

It is not difficult to draw parallels between New Harmony and the confusion that characterizes the “Occupy” sites.

The utopian has a long history of antagonism toward two of the building blocks that characterize the evolution of a free society: private property and the middle class, or “bourgeois” culture, says Continetti.  “The utopian is repelled by two things in particular.  One is private property.  The other is bourgeois culture.  Monogamy, monotheism, self-control, prudence, cleanliness, fortitude, self-interested labor – these are the utopian’s enemies”.

In other words, the utopian would happily see western civilization divorced from the advancement pioneered by The Renaissance and returned to the centuries containing the Dark Ages and before.  And we can, through perusal of history, form a clear picture of how beneficial those times were.

“Anarchism”, says Continetti, “has a theory and even a canon: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and others” and its modern proponents, such as Noam Chomsky, who writes that “Any consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership by the means of production and the wage-slavery which is a component of this system as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely taken and under the control of the producer.”

Today we are faced with what Continetti lables a “new anarchism” that has risen from the antiglobalization movement and which is characterized by David Graeber as a “rejection of the old-fashioned guerilla strategy of seizing state control through armed struggle, with their call instead for the creation of autonomous, democratic, self-governing communities, in alliance with a global network of like-minded democratic revolutionaries”.

As usual, political movements of any stripe are all about gaining power.  The antics of the “Occupy” groups are encouraged by any number of factions whose goal is to destroy our nation that has previously flourished under the guiding principle of freedom of choice to ensure freedom of opportunity and remake it into a country ruled by technocrats and dedicated to a Marxist-oriented cronyism economy.

I highly recommend a thorough reading of Mr. Continetti’s article, particularly before nest fall’s major election.