Christian Anarchism

[Crixus]

Having been asked to discuss my beliefs as an anarchist and a Christian, I think it most prudent to begin this topic by first establishing what anarchism is.

Most people think of anarchists as a group of bomb-throwing hooligans who just want to destroy all constructs of order and bring society to a crashing halt. That, however, is not an anarchist, people could easily be forgiven this belief however, because that is what most statists would like them to believe, and thus have furthered the idea that anarchism is wholly for the unintellectual looking to stir-up mischief. Anarchism, however, is very much a tradition of intellectuals, it's rather uncertain how the notion came to be, however most point to Bakunin as the Anarchist parallel to Marx. In the later portions of the 19th century and early 20th century anarchism was wide-spread, even so much as to build international institutions such as the anarchist black cross, an organization to support political prisoners, and the anarchist international. However, anarchists became an easy scapegoat in many instances for those wishing to discredit them, and anytime a bomb was put to ill-use, or any action was seen that might serve to undermine the word of the industrialist bosses a cry of "anarchists!" could be heard, much as communists would be later blamed for any disruption in the divine capitalist order.

It would be far to exhaustive to explain anarchism, here, in its entirety, in brief however it would be easiest to say that anarchism is a belief in community and equality amongst men and the end of hierarchical statism. Anarchy is witnessed everyday between friends, family, and neighbors. When one helps his neighbor it is not because of governmental compulsion, but his own volition. Anarchism is often wrongly portrayed as desiring no rules, which is not what anarchism is about; anarchists understand that a community has potential for bad elements and thus must be policed, but those rules would not be imposed upon the community by some patriarchal overlord or a few oligarchs in a senate building half-way across the world. Anarchism is about the people truly governing themselves.

Christian anarchism is derived from the notion that because man is fallible, and because his laws can often contradict the word of god, no government of man can be right for a Christian. While one king maybe good the next will likely not be. As I interpret the bible there is a clear message to the faithful that they should be beholden to no lord but God. Christ said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." Matthew 6:24

As I said that many anarchists look to Bakunin as their progenitor he, like Marx, maintained a dogma of atheism, which is why many Christians despise anarchists and communists. However it is his contemporary Tolstoy who many Christian anarchists feel to have been a major influence in their politics. Though never using the term anarchism himself his ideas were certainly parallel, however they were inclusive of God. Many non-Christian anarchists feel his works are of great value to their cause as well. You would probably be surprised to find that the history of anarchism is actually populated with quite a few Christians.

For my part, since I understand my views, I would like to understand why any Christian would be pro-state, since this is a forum for debate, if anyone holds such views I think it would make for an enriching discourse if they would care to post about them.

[przemeknowicki]

Crixus,

First thanks a lot for the link. It is everything I was hoping for. I took a glance at it and I will certainly explore it more later.

In continuing this discussion I would like to explore a bit more the reasons why I feel the state is the necessary component of any social order now and in the future. I agree with the Anarchists that states are created in exactly the same process as the crime organizations. And this is precisely why you cannot discard the state. You don't want to create a vacuum where inevitably war lords and gangsters will rise. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and some African countries in the past decade. Why would anybody think that a particular society of Christians or other faiths would be immune to the ugly realities creeping in when the old political powers collapse?

I think that the road to a better society is through improving the state and not through destroying it. Yes, some attributes of the better state I borrow from the socialists states of the Western Europe but nevertheless they are still far from the ideal I seek. My major problem with those states is the concept of democracy as the foundation of the social order. In my opinion, contemporary democracies provide a convenient framework and excuse for those in power to do the business as usual. It is silly to think that elected politicians are competent to perform some very important functions of the government and state that can only be handled properly by competent professionals. The prominent example of such function described in my website is managing the science. Science, the good science that is, can only managed itself and is certainly capable of doing so. How would you apply the democratic process into managing the science? It is an absurd idea. Now, what does it have to do with running the government and fulfilling the requirement I propose that such government is financially self supporting? Let us take a look at Libya. Few people now that in Libya the nationalized oil industry is capable of supporting the entire nation. Every Libyan citizen (except for those who crossed the path of the dictator Qaddafi) has free housing and free education. Similarly, in the pre-war Poland (1919-1939) the government was quite self-sufficient by creating the government monopolies in the alcohol and matches production and sales. The government services such as the railroad system and coal mining industry were examples of efficiency and it was everybody's ambition to get a government job. You may start silly debate nit picking on abstract disadvantages of such solutions but I am sure everybody will agree that it is better to pay inflated price for the alcohol products than to pay your taxes.

If not a democracy than what at the foundation of the state? Constitution, of course. And individual freedom or civil liberties if you prefer at the heart of the Constitution. In the state I propose the concept of self-governing community fits very well. In what I propose the communities are primarily engaged in land management and are sovereign entities enjoying the status similar to that of sovereign Indian tribes. By the way, I would be happy to see the Indians, or Native Americans, managing again the entire prairie lands (Mid West) as they did 200 years ago.

The prominency I give to communities in my proposal does not mean a slow disintegration of the state. State still has a very important functions to fulfill: sponsoring arts and science, the army and military services, communication and transportation, education just to name the few. Plus, the state is needed to ensure that the individual freedoms are not threatened by communities running amok and engaging in power trips.

I will come back to discuss the spiritual message of the Bible in a separate post.

- Przemek

[Crixus]

In continuing this discussion I would like to explore a bit more the reasons why I feel the state is the necessary component of any social order now and in the future. I agree with the Anarchists that states are created in exactly the same process as the crime organizations. And this is precisely why you cannot discard the state. You don't want to create a vacuum where inevitably war lords and gangsters will rise. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and some African countries in the past decade. Why would anybody think that a particular society of Christians or other faiths would be immune to the ugly realities creeping in when the old political powers collapse?

It is true that when a capitalist or hierarchical socialist economy, or government deflates that you have a rise of crime syndicates attempting to fill those spaces left open by the previous power. However it must be understood that anarchist societies would appear much different than what is commonplace today. First you have to consider the purpose for crime syndicates, which is typically the accumulation of property through illicit means. It hasn't, to my knowledge, been the case that a criminal organization arises simply to commit criminal acts, so we must assume that their motive is wealth, be it material, political or social. In an anarchist society material wealth is almost non-existent, and in some cases entirely communal, so that motive will over time begin to look foolish, and few would be willing to commit acts of malice in order to acquire something that is readily available.

Political power is something that an anarchist society would be wary of from the very beginning, doing everything in its power to avoid one person having more influence than anyone else. It is my assumption that an anarchist culture would hold the acquisition of political influence, and the submission to a political influence, as major faux pas, so likely something that would result in ostracism if the community is going to maintain its anarchist integrity. It would not be deluded to assume that people would make attempts at gaining power within this society, however because of their nature anarchists, and the societies which conform to their beliefs, would be very sensitive to these attempts and would take necessary measures to avoid them.

Since it is probable that every person within an anarchist community is equally trained as a stand-in policeman and militia fighter it would be difficult for a power to arise from within by use of force. Today we have crime syndicates because the law allows them to operate and protects them from the people. By which I mean that in modern societies we have police, and legal officials who are suppose to deal with these issues and people are taught that if there is a crime to avoid the area and tell the police, which puts all of the responsibility for dealing with criminals on the shoulders of the few. This creates an obvious problem when these supposed executors of the law become corrupt, as seems common when speaking of criminal organizations, and then the people are left with nothing to do but submit to the will of the new criminal overlords. However if people were taught to take care of crimes by organizing the community, as would be necessary for an anarchist society, then criminal organizations would have a difficult time taking root.

The true threat in an anarchist society is social influence, and the charismatic demagogue. Of course this threat exists in every other society as well, however in many he is thought of as a hero and his existence is not considered a threat. In an anarchist society people will have to be taught to resist such seductions and think for themselves.

I think that the road to a better society is through improving the state and not through destroying it. Yes, some attributes of the better state I borrow from the socialists states of the Western Europe but nevertheless they are still far from the ideal I seek. My major problem with those states is the concept of democracy as the foundation of the social order. In my opinion, contemporary democracies provide a convenient framework and excuse for those in power to do the business as usual. It is silly to think that elected politicians are competent to perform some very important functions of the government and state that can only be handled properly by competent professionals. The prominent example of such function described in my website is managing the science. Science, the good science that is, can only managed itself and is certainly capable of doing so. How would you apply the democratic process into managing the science? It is an absurd idea. Now, what does it have to do with running the government and fulfilling the requirement I propose that such government is financially self supporting? Let us take a look at Libya. Few people now that in Libya the nationalized oil industry is capable of supporting the entire nation. Every Libyan citizen (except for those who crossed the path of the dictator Qaddafi) has free housing and free education. Similarly, in the pre-war Poland (1919-1939) the government was quite self-sufficient by creating the government monopolies in the alcohol and matches production and sales. The government services such as the railroad system and coal mining industry were examples of efficiency and it was everybody's ambition to get a government job. You may start silly debate nit picking on abstract disadvantages of such solutions but I am sure everybody will agree that it is better to pay inflated price for the alcohol products than to pay your taxes.

I don't take much issue with higher alcohol prices in exchange for better living conditions, and as much as I agree that this outline is better than what we now have, my opinion still remains that any government is a danger to the people. I also would question why alcohol taxes are needed, if industries are properly socialized then what is the use of wealth amongst the people?

If not a democracy than what at the foundation of the state? Constitution, of course. And individual freedom or civil liberties if you prefer at the heart of the Constitution. In the state I propose the concept of self-governing community fits very well. In what I propose the communities are primarily engaged in land management and are sovereign entities enjoying the status similar to that of sovereign Indian tribes. By the way, I would be happy to see the Indians, or Native Americans, managing again the entire prairie lands (Mid West) as they did 200 years ago.

The prominency I give to communities in my proposal does not mean a slow disintegration of the state. State still has a very important functions to fulfill: sponsoring arts and science, the army and military services, communication and transportation, education just to name the few. Plus, the state is needed to ensure that the individual freedoms are not threatened by communities running amok and engaging in power trips.

I feel that democracy, in a truer sense that we have now, is necessary. Not a populist democracy, that is a 51% democracy, but a truer democracy, which would require an overwhelming majority or unanimity to make decisions. I can see how the sciences should be moderated by experts, just as agricultural methods should not be voted on by an uneducated populous. The answer however is to educate the people, I don't feel that the removal of democracy is the way to pursue a better society.

[przemeknowicki]

I feel that democracy, in a truer sense that we have now, is necessary. Not a populist democracy, that is a 51% democracy, but a truer democracy, which would require an overwhelming majority or unanimity to make decisions. I can see how the sciences should be moderated by experts, just as agricultural methods should not be voted on by an uneducated populous. The answer however is to educate the people, I don't feel that the removal of democracy is the way to pursue a better society.

Democracy as you understand it is the essence of self-governing communities, which in my vision of a better society engage in the land management. Switzerland comes close to this ideal but probably the best examples can be found in so called "primitive" societies and tribal councils. Unanimity rule can only work in relatively small communities where people really know each other and where the decisions are made regarding issues, which every community member understands and can relate to.

I feel that in day-to-day functioning of the state it is the professionalism and knowledge that matters and not democracy. What would you need to vote for regarding the business of running postal service or educational system? I've never seen in America any constructive democratic process when communities try to decide where to build a school or a road. Everybody cries "not in my backyard" and the most influential group wins. I am disgusted with this kind of democracy and I don't feel anything like this is needed.

Yes, communities may raise their voices and express concerns when something in the governments affairs is not right and there should be a due process of dealing with such concerns. I believe in human potential and in building a culture where every government institution is run like science. It is self disciplined and self regulating with the driving force in control being a pride in what an individual is doing, and the judgment of peers. Such culture will not grow overnight but getting there is a realistic goal.

Regarding spirituality I feel that Christians really don't know the meaning of the word with the exception of few mystics and saints. I don't think that rituals, sermons, reading scriptures or even the majority of the prayers do qualify. Spiritual in my opinion is to be in touch with the Spirit. It is to experience God. Only very few Saints, mystics and Yogis know the true meaning of spiritual. There is an interesting book "Why God won't go away", which tells us what science knows about mystic experience. The ecstasy described by Tibetan monks and Franciscan nuns engaging in deep meditation or fervent prayers was captured in those experiments as the very specific activity of the brain. The authors concluded that the human brain has been pre-wired to allow for such experience and if it is possible to "see" God this would be the only and true way of accomplishing that.

No religion has a monopoly regarding the spiritual and this is why all religions are equal in the spiritual arena. However, even if Christianity is one of the "worst" religion regarding the knowledge of the spiritual it is the greatest religion in the social sense and this is why I embrace Christianity in my quest for social harmony and justice.