I know that it's not a complete or even professional diagnosis, but today I will be taking a speculative look at the dominant psychology behind political movements in general. For reference, we will examine the /r/Anarchism sub-reddit on reddit as a prime example. This diagnosis may be extended to apply to the wider anarchist movement as well, keeping in mind the effects of the structural restraints that reddit's moderation and voting system has on determining which view-points get promoted and those which do not. That's to say, in short, that uninformed users may leave with false impressions about anarchist goals. If you have been around /r/Anarchism for a while, you start to notice that several commentators adopt a holier-than-thou attitude when speaking to other users. In /r/anarchism's case, it takes the form of the phrase "You are not an anarchist" or some variant thereof.
This condemnation is of course an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Even though it's erroneous, such a line of reasoning serves a useful purpose in the formation and preservation of any political movement. This is for the simple reason that it helps to preserve a uniform sense of identity that transcends the individual. It appears to be invoked whenever someone feels that his/her core identity is under attack and needs to respond defensively. Even so, it's an understandable if divisive phenomenon. Similar philosophies such as Marxist-Leninism (similar in the sense that both anarchism and Marxist-Leninism are socialist) seem to enjoy a more widespread presence in the political arena than does anarchism, and this is probably largely due to the fact that Marxist-Leninism itself has enjoyed an active existence in statecraft in the form of Soviet "communism", a bastardized form of socialism which collapsed back into state-capitalism.
The anarchist internalizes the difference in scale between the followings of anarchism and Marxist communism, and leaves with the need to self-preserve, to protect his/her identity against intrusive Marxist communists, "anarcho"-capitalists and other right-"libertarians", and the general population who harbor false ideas about what anarchism and socialism are about. To the anarchist, it's as if there's almost no space to diffuse anarchist ideas, since the existing political space is largely filled by hostile Trostykists, Leninists, "anarcho"-capitalists who co-opted the 'anarchist' label for their own purposes, naive Conservatives and Liberals who rationalize the existence of the State and capitalism.
Then there are the other "libertarians"--the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson types--who have the pretense of being "anti-establishment" and "forward-thinking", who--according to themselves--exist outside the left-right dichotomy of the political spectrum, but merely end up being the default third-positionists who feel swayed by right-libertarianism because of its favorable attitude toward pot legislation. On top of that, right-libertarians naturally have an ahistorical conception of the nature and origin of capitalism and its mechanisms, and hence cannot understand the implications of the positions they hold on issues relating to it.
But the point here is that every political movement engages in this process of self-preservation. Every given political movement denounces a competing philosophy/movement/ideology as illogical and as an epiphenomenon of itself. Modern liberalism reacts to trends within Western conservatism, anarchism reacts to Marxism and vice-versa, and this continues until each movement reaches a comfortable equilibrium where a given movement can define itself in relation to another concept --such as capitalism, freedom, property rights, the state--without sacrificing the values that comprise its core identity. The perceived needs of each movement are in fact concrete as they relate to abstract concepts which themselves, in turn, concern concrete concepts such as the fulfillment of individual need--in fact, I would argue that this is what all competing philosophies boil down to.
Political movements will continue to emerge, self-evaluate, develop and shift along the political spectrum in tandem with developments in the concrete, material conditions of the real world. Anarchism could not logically exist as a concept and praxis without defining itself in relation to capitalism and the state. Keynesian policies would not have gained as much traction if the devastations of the Great Depression and World War II had never occurred. This is self-evident, but it's a process worth bearing in mind. The question to each is-- will my philosophy survive long enough to serve its purpose?
This condemnation is of course an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Even though it's erroneous, such a line of reasoning serves a useful purpose in the formation and preservation of any political movement. This is for the simple reason that it helps to preserve a uniform sense of identity that transcends the individual. It appears to be invoked whenever someone feels that his/her core identity is under attack and needs to respond defensively. Even so, it's an understandable if divisive phenomenon. Similar philosophies such as Marxist-Leninism (similar in the sense that both anarchism and Marxist-Leninism are socialist) seem to enjoy a more widespread presence in the political arena than does anarchism, and this is probably largely due to the fact that Marxist-Leninism itself has enjoyed an active existence in statecraft in the form of Soviet "communism", a bastardized form of socialism which collapsed back into state-capitalism.
The anarchist internalizes the difference in scale between the followings of anarchism and Marxist communism, and leaves with the need to self-preserve, to protect his/her identity against intrusive Marxist communists, "anarcho"-capitalists and other right-"libertarians", and the general population who harbor false ideas about what anarchism and socialism are about. To the anarchist, it's as if there's almost no space to diffuse anarchist ideas, since the existing political space is largely filled by hostile Trostykists, Leninists, "anarcho"-capitalists who co-opted the 'anarchist' label for their own purposes, naive Conservatives and Liberals who rationalize the existence of the State and capitalism.
Then there are the other "libertarians"--the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson types--who have the pretense of being "anti-establishment" and "forward-thinking", who--according to themselves--exist outside the left-right dichotomy of the political spectrum, but merely end up being the default third-positionists who feel swayed by right-libertarianism because of its favorable attitude toward pot legislation. On top of that, right-libertarians naturally have an ahistorical conception of the nature and origin of capitalism and its mechanisms, and hence cannot understand the implications of the positions they hold on issues relating to it.
But the point here is that every political movement engages in this process of self-preservation. Every given political movement denounces a competing philosophy/movement/ideology as illogical and as an epiphenomenon of itself. Modern liberalism reacts to trends within Western conservatism, anarchism reacts to Marxism and vice-versa, and this continues until each movement reaches a comfortable equilibrium where a given movement can define itself in relation to another concept --such as capitalism, freedom, property rights, the state--without sacrificing the values that comprise its core identity. The perceived needs of each movement are in fact concrete as they relate to abstract concepts which themselves, in turn, concern concrete concepts such as the fulfillment of individual need--in fact, I would argue that this is what all competing philosophies boil down to.
Political movements will continue to emerge, self-evaluate, develop and shift along the political spectrum in tandem with developments in the concrete, material conditions of the real world. Anarchism could not logically exist as a concept and praxis without defining itself in relation to capitalism and the state. Keynesian policies would not have gained as much traction if the devastations of the Great Depression and World War II had never occurred. This is self-evident, but it's a process worth bearing in mind. The question to each is-- will my philosophy survive long enough to serve its purpose?
0 comments:
Post a Comment