Anarchism and the Tyrannical Will to Rule

“In Heaven’s name, Hollingsworth,” cried I, getting angry, and glad to be angry, because so only was it possible to oppose his tremendous concentrativeness and indomitable will, “cannot you conceive that a man may wish well to the world, and struggle for its good, on some other plan than precisely that which you have laid down? And will you cast off a friend, for no unworthiness, but merely because he stands upon his right, as an individual being, and looks at matters through his own optics, instead of yours?”
“Be with me,” said Hollingsworth, “or be against me! There is no third choice for you.”
—Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Blithedale Romance (1852)

MansonI was born in a hippie commune. What’s more, as a scholar, I have, for years now, studied utopian communities that have flirted with anarchism. And I can tell you that they all more or less suck. Why? Because they all, sooner or later, default to charismatic authority. This is a problem, I hasten to add, faced not only by utopian communes. Jo Freeman and others have demonstrated that many radical feminist organizations that tried to get rid of hierarchy and structure altogether eventually came under the sway of one person (a bully who was especially charismatic and/or machiavellian). Ironically, it’s the liberal (and more moderate) women’s groups that, on average, had more widespread member participation. Why? Because (a) the structure actually made it MORE (not less) likely that introverted and/or shy people would participate; and (b) leadership and authority are, in these more moderate organizations, to some extent forced to be transparent and accountable.

Of course none of this would surprise the great sociologist Max Weber. He saw charismatic authority as a kind of human default. When traditional forms of authority breakdown (think: Lord of the Flies), we default to another form of authority: charismatic authority (which is, trust me, I know from personal experience, rarely a good thing). Whatever, to my mind, it all comes down to this: we are intensely social creatures, and, as such, we’re going to organize ourselves according to rules somehow. So the question isn’t Rules vs. No Rules; it’s These Rules vs. Those Rules.

The dream of a world without rules is as adolescent as it is implausible. Besides, look at the people on Facebook who most loudly proclaim anarchism: the vast majority of these anarchist activists are (quite obviously to everyone but themselves) wannabe tyrants. These people want to rule! And they want you to shut the fuck up and obey. If you doubt me, look at how these people behave as soon as they get even a little bit of power in any organization and you’ll see. Do they look for broad consensus? Nope. Do they listen to people who disagree with them? Nope. All to the contrary.

I have a deep suspicion of people who promise freedom from society’s rules. They all more or less remind me of my father.

—John Faithful Hamer, From Here (2016)

About John Faithful Hamer

John Faithful Hamer is a college professor who still can't swim, drive, or pay his bills on time. His sense of direction is notoriously unreliable, yet he'd love to tell you where to go. His lack of practical skills is astounding, and his inability to fix things is renowned, yet he'd love to tell you what to do. His mismanagement of time is legendary, as is his inability to remember appointments, yet he fancies himself a philosopher and would love to tell you how to live. He wouldn't survive in a state of nature, of that we can be sure; but he's doing quite well in the big city, which has always been a refuge for the ridiculous, a haven for the helpless, and a friend to the frivolous.

3 thoughts on “Anarchism and the Tyrannical Will to Rule

  1. The problem of some proposed alternative systems such as Anarchism, Free Market, Communism, is that their wonderful theories at practice has Always so far been other different things.

    Which raises the question whether the problem is really the systems, and not the being responsible for materialize them, who should use what each has better to offer, and not be used clinging dogmatically only to one or another idea (which include people who despite claiming to work for the reduction of inequality and better balance, only use it to stay at power circles or to enter on them, as niche’s leaders).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s