Anarchism, 21st Century-Style

If you’re unfamiliar with the history of anarchy, then Abe Greenwald’s article in the latest issue of Commentary is a great way to get up to speed. And while there have been libertarian-oriented anarchists, note the paradoxical nature of the term, as it’s been historically understood by most:

Originally a part of the socialist left in 19th-century Europe and Russia, anarchism arose in response to an undeniably unjust social, political, and imperial order. Anarchists railed against regimes in countries in which genuine monopolies were sanctioned and the poor were punished by all manner of law and taxation. The Industrial Revolution had taken hold, and modernization had created wealth among capitalists but had done little to distribute that wealth equitably. Working conditions were often unspeakable, and as farm workers made the uneasy transition to industrial labor, emperors, kings, and czars took one another’s measure and conspired to expand their empires.

In France, revolutions and coups shape-shifted the country repeatedly from a monarchy to a republic to a dictatorship and back again. When settled, at last, as a republic, France allied with Czarist Russia after 1870 to stave off the threat of a rising industrialist Germany. In Russia, where industrialization was lagging, social unrest following the liberation of the slave class in 1861 was greater than anywhere else in Europe.

Into this turbulent mix came socialists of various stripes, offering hope to peasants and laborers who found no regime worthy of their allegiance. It is among these socialists that anarchists first appeared. Strangely enough, anarchists do not believe in anarchy in the literal sense, a state of utter bedlam. Rather, they are proponents of “anarchism,” a political philosophy defined by seminal Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin in 1910 as “a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government.” In such a society, he said, harmony would be achieved “not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.”

This pacific ideal notwithstanding, anarchism did not actually express itself in a peaceable manner. Indeed, anarchism was the source of a new kind of violent pandemonium without precedent in Western history. Dynamite-throwing, bombing, stabbing, and shooting—these were the tools with which anarchists sought to bring about their earthly paradise under a doctrine they called “propaganda of the deed.” Thus was the conduct we call “terrorism” born.

Or as Rob Crawford, an Insta-reader notes, “The modern anarchists are just the far-left’s muscle. Look at when and where they show up, who they march with and for, and how carefully the press ignores them and their acts.”

And note how anarchy came into existence concurrently in the mid to late 19th century along with the rest of the forces that make up Liberal Fascism.

Which brings us to Michael Walsh’s latest article in the New York Post on why the riot this weekend in London could easily spread to the US:

We’ve already seen it, on a smaller scale, in Wisconsin, during the recent battle over Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to rein in the public-employee unions. In Madison, the capitol was occupied by hordes of protesters and the lives of some Republican state legislators were threatened.

This is no way to run a democracy. Peaceful protests are one thing, but massed force and ominous warnings about dire consequences are another. Throw into the mix the free-floating anarchists who routinely show up at such events — most recently at the G-20 summit last year in Toronto — and you have a prescription for serious trouble.

Yet, all too often, any attempt to open a civil discussion about the future is met with the same dreary charges that “hateful” conservatives want to kill old people and steal candy from babies.

For some on the left, too much is never enough — because, by definition, it can’t be. They operate on a modified version of the old Brezhnev Doctrine, which stated that once a country went communist, it could never go back: Once a government program is in place, it can never be cut or rescinded, only fattened. It doesn’t even matter whether it’s effective. The self-interested and the self-deluded have too much to lose to give up the fantasy of the perfect nanny state.

The problem is, we no longer have that luxury. “Progress” need not be the exclusive province of the so-called “progressives” — and thuggery should have no place in our political system.

People of good will on both sides need to stand strong against intimidation and violence and insist that such questions be settled at the ballot box — and that the results be respected. In any contest, there gets to be two teams on the field, not just one, and the game can only be played if both sides follow the rules.

When one doesn’t — well, just take a look at Trafalgar Square, then brace yourselves.

Of course, there’s less need for both sides to follow the rules, when one team knows it can always work the refs.

Finally, Hot Air spots a writer from England’s Guardian comparing Saturday’s riots in England with the protests in Egypt.

Setting aside what CBS’s Lara Logan would think about that comparison, as Kate at the Small Dead Animals blog like to quip about Egypt, “What We Really Need Is Democracy — With a totalitarian party to vote for.” Amazing how easy it is to modify that headline for England.