Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth

Welcome to Infoshop News
Tuesday, February 09 2010 @ 09:59 PM UTC

Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again

CapitalismIt might look like just another violent sci-fi film from the ads, but "V for Vendetta," opening in theaters across the country today, is the first superhero movie that's explicitly anarchist. Larry and Andy Wachowski, the producers, also brought us "The Matrix" -- which ended, as you'll recall, with Neo's memorable anarchic warning to humanity's captors that he was going to "show them...a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries" and spark a revolution. The Wachowskis are now apparently trying something even more radical in adapting this comic-book story. Wall Street Journal

'A' Is for Anarchy
By TODD SEAVEY
March 17, 2006; Page W17

It might look like just another violent sci-fi film from the ads, but "V for Vendetta," opening in theaters across the country today, is the first superhero movie that's explicitly anarchist. Larry and Andy Wachowski, the producers, also brought us "The Matrix" -- which ended, as you'll recall, with Neo's memorable anarchic warning to humanity's captors that he was going to "show them...a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries" and spark a revolution. The Wachowskis are now apparently trying something even more radical in adapting this comic-book story.

The "V" film features some delightfully topsy-turvy casting. The man who played the enslaved Winston Smith in "1984" (John Hurt) now plays the fascistic leader of a future London. The man who played authoritarian Agent Smith in "The Matrix" (Hugo Weaving) now portrays a deranged freedom-fighter/terrorist wearing a Guy Fawkes mask (Fawkes being the real-life terrorist who tried to blow up the British Parliament 400 years ago). And the actress who was an elected queen in recent "Star Wars" films (Natalie Portman) now plays an oppressed journalist.
[V]
The anarchist hero in 'V for Vendetta.'



But the greatest turnabout, if it actually occurs, will be audiences cheering for the hero of the film, who is a terrorist. Where did the ideas behind this movie come from, and why would we have any sympathy for them? London audiences may be particularly wary, recalling not only last year's jihadist bombings there but also, from the history books, anarchist bomb attacks on the London Underground in 1883 and 1896. The attacks were part of a campaign across Europe near the turn of the century, the inspiration for anarchist villains in novels by G.K. Chesteron, Joseph Conrad and others.

America's own collective cultural memory of anarchism generally begins with the killing of eight Chicago police officers by anarchists in the 1886 Haymarket Riot, the assassination of President McKinley by an anarchist in 1901 and the murders committed by immigrant Italian anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti in 1920 (they were indeed guilty, as their own lawyer admitted to a sympathetic Upton Sinclair, who kept the knowledge hidden for years).

Anarchism, the idea that society would be better off without the constraints of government, has a long and often sordid history. What is arguably the first book urging the complete abolition of government, "A Vindication of Natural Society," was written 250 years ago by the man usually credited with founding conservatism, Edmund Burke. The British philosopher and politician, who served in the very Parliament building that Fawkes tried to destroy, argued that the same sort of anti-authoritarian reasoning that was being used in the 18th century to dispel religious belief could be used to undermine earthly political leaders.

Scholars long accepted Burke's assurances later in life -- when he had become a conservative member of the (generally liberal) Whig Party -- that "Vindication" was merely satire. But 20th-century "anarcho-capitalist" economist Murray Rothbard argued that Burke's views had simply evolved over time and that Burke was embarrassed by his youthful ideological excesses. Indeed, anarchism has often been an attractive notion for young people. Paul Avrich, a historian of anarchism who died a few weeks ago in New York, suggested that James Joyce, Bernard Shaw and Eugene O'Neill were all anarchists early on in their intellectual development.

Regardless of whether Burke's book was a satire, it was an inspiration to the man who first developed a full anarchist philosophy, William Godwin. He combined conservative religious sensibilities with Whig-inspired political arguments and communist-anarchist solutions to conclude that God-given goodness and the rational nature of human beings meant that the best outcomes would occur in the absence of force, thereby alleviating the need for both government and property. The utopian oddness of this view, whatever the sophistication of its argument, is a hallmark of anarchist reasoning.

In the 19th century, anarchist radicals who, from our perspective, seem to have diametrically opposed views often thought of themselves as a united front, aligned against the political establishment. Many anarchists believed, then as now, that government and the free market should both wither away and allied themselves with Marxists. But there were also ardently capitalist anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner, who started his own profit-making postal service to compete with the U.S. government's lazy monopoly.

Marxists found more in common with French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who famously declared that "property is theft!" Russian anarchists and communists found figures they could both admire in Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, who praised "mutual aid" as an alternative to top-down government. (One sees hints of Kropotkin's thought in things like the medical center quickly set up in New Orleans by the anarchist group Common Ground while the government floundered in the wake of Katrina.)

Russia's most famous anarchist, though, was Leo Tolstoy, who said: "There are no crimes so revolting that they would not readily be committed by men who form part of a government." But Tolstoy, in stark contrast to the likes of the Haymarket murderers, appealed in the name of Christianity for an end to violence by soldiers and anarchists alike. (His countryman Dostoevsky was unconvinced and depicted anarchists as both dangerous and self-destructive in "The Devils.")

For most of the 20th century, it must be acknowledged, anarchism functioned as little more than an adjunct to other, more popular, political movements: labor in the case of "anarcho-syndicalists" and left-anarchists such as Emma Goldman; capitalism in the case of anarchist libertarians like Rothbard; and hippie culture in the case of prankster chaos-worshippers like authors Robert Anton Wilson and Hakim Bey.

As anarchism has aged and largely eschewed violence (fantasies like "V for Vendetta" notwithstanding), its members seem to have gone one of two routes, either becoming fringe figures who produce manifestoes and performance art of no great political impact or, ironically, choosing to replace the chaotic violence of old with allegiance to the more predictable, systematic coercion of laws and government. The ideal of the ending of all political control has gradually, perhaps inevitably, been pushed aside by the more familiar one of shaping political control to suit one's own agenda.

In fact, modern so-called anarchists are usually working to increase government power. They form an important faction of the antiglobalization movement, agitating for stricter regulations on international trade. To judge by the sometimes violent protests at World Trade Organization conferences, the latest anarchists are usually grungy kids with strange hair and piercings; it is hard to say for certain, but they have probably spent more time listening to Rage Against the Machine and the Clash than reading Godwin or Proudhon.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that there is little intellectual heft left in the anarchist movement is the occasional protests in Albany, N.Y., where self-proclaimed anarchists turn up to protest budget cuts at state-run schools. It's a satire Burke never could have dreamed of.

Mr. Seavey edits HealthFactsAndFears.com1 (now part of the OpinionJournal Federation of sites).

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://news.infoshop.org/trackback.php?id=2006wsj_anarchy

No trackback comments for this entry.
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again | 20 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 12:45 PM UTC
I wrote this in reply on my blog
So, the Wall Street Journal had an article on anarchism today. Although it was laughable, it was an entertaining read.
They must have written this article in conjunction with the release of that movie V for Vendetta, which as someone who enjoyed the comic, I must say looks like trash and I have no interest in seeing (plus there's that whole thing about recuperation and the spectacle, the bastards), but this article was entitled "A for Anarchy" by Todd Seavey.
The article begins with a brief reprisal of the movie/comic, Guy Fawkes, and of course decrying "terrorism". It goes on

America's own collective memory of anarchism generally begins with the killing of eight police officers by anarchists in the 1886 Haymarket Riot, the assassination of President McKinley by an anarchist in 1901 and the murders committed by immigrant Italian anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti in 1920 (they were indeed guilty, as their own lawyer admitted to a sympathetic Upton Sinclair, who kept the knowledge hidden for years).

What we see here is a bunch of clich
anarchanalysis
Authored by: scats on Saturday, March 18 2006 @ 12:11 PM UTC
Anonymous,

you wrote:

"I am currently not so interested in defending anarchism from attacks (I'd like to make some big criticism of my own and am increasingly hesitant to identify with it"

I'm very curious to hear your criticisms since an informed critique of anarchism is so rare. Could you elaborate?

anarchanalysis
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 19 2006 @ 01:39 AM UTC
Here is not the place for such a sustained discourse. But if you spend enough time reading good anti-state communist literature, the critique should be fairly obvious.
anarchanalysis
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 19 2006 @ 05:52 PM UTC
any suggestions? feel free to email me if you wan to take it off the thread.
anarchanalysis
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 19 2006 @ 09:13 PM UTC
There are few, if any, very good sustained critiques of anarchism as such. The critique that can and should be made of it, however, can be arrived at once a general familiarity with its history as a real movement and other radical tendencies is acquired. So, its best to learn as much as possible about anarchism's history in practice.
Anyway, if you go to the frontpage of this website (infoshop.org), and then look in the "libertarian marxism" section (a poor term, but not thats not all that important), there are a number of excellent websites linked to.
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 19 2006 @ 08:11 PM UTC
I actually haven't read any of Spooner, but I think calling fellow traveller Benjamin Tucker 'pro-capitalist' is off the mark. He wasn't exactly anti-capitalist, but he wasn't pro-capitalist either, and he called himself a socialist, and recognized that Marx had some good ideas (although he thought Marx had a lot more bad ideas). I think Tucker (and the American individualist anarchists, if Tucker is any example) are misunderstood as pro-capitalist.

In fact, I'm not sure there HAVE been any pro-capitalist anarchists until the past few decades.
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 10 2006 @ 09:04 AM UTC
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Admin on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 01:07 PM UTC
Jesus Christ, where does one start with this ignorant-half-baked piece of garbage published by the Wall Street Journal? I'm going to ignore minor stupidity such as call Rothbard an "anarcho-capitalist" for meatier mistakes.

The author of this piece ignorantly argues that anarchists are fighting for more state power when we organize against globalization. He is confusing anarchists with liberals, which is surprising given that the Wall Street Journal has a history of more nuanced coverage of globalization. Anarchists do not oppose globalization and seek to regulate corporations with more state power. Anarchists seek to get RID OF corporations and capitalism. That's why we also call ourselves ANTI-CAPITALISTS. We seek to destroy capitalism and replace it with a system where average people have control over their lives, be it in the workplace or in their community.

This piece also claims that anarchism is domianted by young people and that anarchism has been a marginal force in 20th century history. There are many young people in the anarchist movement, but there are also many older people too. Anarchism is drawing more young people because they have read up on history and politics and opted for the form of politics which will take the planet into the future.

Anarchism has been a marginal influence? Gimme a break! The history of the 20th century would have been much different if anarchism and anarchists had never existed. How about the early part of the 20th century, when anarchism was a growing movement in partnership with working people? Anarchism was so threatening to the ruling class that they had to demonize anarchists at every opportunity. They imprisoned, killed, and deported many of us. They broke up our organizations, killed the IWW, embraced the AFL-CIO and insitituted the New Deal to keep the U.S. from slipping into a revolution.

Anarchists had a significant influence on the 1960s, ranging from student politics to the counterculture. What would have hapened to personal computing if all those guys with anti-authoritarian attitudes weren't dodging the draft and creating shit in labs? What would the protests have been like without Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, the Yippies, and John Lennon? There is a significant anarchist influence running through that period, which affects us today. Like the conservatives and their obsession with the Vietnam syndrome.

Or take the influence of anarchists on the arts. Anarchism and anarchists were heavily involved in modern art movements throughout the 20th century, including such artists like Robert Henri and Mark Rothko. How about anarchist musicians such as Utah Phillips and John Cage? Poets like Ann Waldman and Allan Ginsberg? Writers such as William Burroughs? Playwrights such as Henry Miller? Ever heard of Noam Chomsky?

Anybody? Bueller?

Or take anarchist involvement in the women's rights, environmental, anti-nuke, queer rights, and other movements?

This Wall Street Journal is just mouthing the same old ignorant garbage about anarchists and anarchism.

Have at 'em anarchists!

Chuck0
Yeah, but ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 01:26 PM UTC
The WSJ is a major organ of corporate mercantilism. Any relationship they have with the truth is mostly coincidental. You didn't really expect them to be "fair and balanced" did you?
Actually, the fact that they deigned to even mention Anarchism is a sign that somebody's efforts are paying off. It would appear they're getting worried.
Yeah, but ...
Authored by: Admin on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 01:30 PM UTC
Of course I never expect the WSJ to be fair and balanced. My response is an effort to use this article as a "teachable moment" for people reading this website. It's like what anarchists are smartly doing in relation to the release of V for Vendetta. The film is a good chance for anarchists to talk to people about anarchism.

Chuck0
Yeah, but ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 01:33 PM UTC
It's not so much a matter of "efforts paying off", in fact to use the appearance of anarchism as a gauge for the effectiveness of anyone's efforts is very foolish, we don't really care what they say, but its still interesting and can be utilized for other purposes. This article was pretty much in today's paper only because of that movie coming out.
Yeah, but ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 02:27 PM UTC

ABANDON THE CREEPING MEATBALL!
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 04:37 PM UTC
Here, Here Chuck0. I would also like to point out the possiblities of this piece, that is, mainly that this particular article could be used as both cannon fodder for the State as well as a tool for Anarchists.
We could well use this as a de-bunker of inaccurate scholarship in the historical and intellectual realm as a whole.
Can I also just say that as a writer of both short stories and my own zine this guys article just sucks? I rest my case.
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:28 PM UTC
Uh, sorry, but--do you mean "Playwrights such as ARTHUR Miller"?

or "NOVELISTS such as Henry Miller"? The man wrote a lot of books, but very few
plays.
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 18 2006 @ 09:58 AM UTC
Just to rectify on one minor thing, although I fully endorse your post, Henry Miller was not anarchist for one bit. Look at the cynical answer he gave to George Orwell we he asked for his contribution in the Spanish Civil War, Giving him a jacket to wear in his battle FOR the Spanish Republic, claiming that he is God and that people who go to fight for democracy and social justice in Spain are a bunch of idiots.

One should not confuse egoism and hedonism with anarchism.
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Admin on Saturday, March 18 2006 @ 10:04 AM UTC
Henry Miller was an anarchist. We're considering some of his later works for inclusion in our anarchist anthology.

Sorry about calling him a playwright.

Chuck
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 04:44 PM UTC
wow, what a load of crap. Thanks for wanting to make me kill myself chucko.
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 07:07 PM UTC
the movie blows anyways.
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 18 2006 @ 10:06 PM UTC
Of course it blows. Would you honestly expect the machinery of capitalism to create something which is a criticism of, and call for revolution against, itself?
Wall Street Journal Gets Anarchism Wrong, Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 26 2006 @ 07:27 PM UTC
"Of course it blows. Would you honestly expect the machinery of capitalism to create something which is a criticism of, and call for revolution against, itself?"

Hollywood isn't capitalism itself. It's deeply IN BED with capitalism, but there is a vibrant segment of it that is VERY pro-populist. V for Vendetta is a pretty fine attempt at displaying to the world a large degree of what Anarchism is about. Don't try to demonize one particular story because of the sins of the larger environment surrounding it. Unfortunately for the power-elite, there are still some people in high positions who espouse REVOLUTIONARY views that threaten the very system it lies within. Perhaps some in Hollywood seek Liberation.