Politics Part II: Government

I am indeed an anarchist. Through the intense events of the years since Malta this has remained true, but what may have changed since then is that the identity as an anarchist has gotten more to do with my existential views than what politics may concern. In a way anarchy in politics is a dead end, it doesn't mean too much. If there are no rulers, no primary groups, organisations or individuals that are given the right to lead, act as arbiters in conflicts or punish when so is necessary there isn't much of a society at all. Of course there are suggestions for systems that would be in place of the NAP-assaulting form of ruler we have today within anarcho-capitalism but in a world of chimpanzees the suggestions of orangutangs doesn't carry too much weight. There is a mentality in humanity that makes any form of political anarchism either a hellscape or an eternal abstraction. 

*

In this text I would like to talk about the main reason, the main aspect of the human mind, that makes this so. It isn't because humanity at large is weak, that she would be non-sufficient to self-govern, neither is it because she is lazy and wouldn't ever be bothered to commit to it. That may be partly true today, when most of us are suffering through the steep manipulations of modernity but in general, the human conditions could absolutely let us live in a context where NAP is respected by our central institutions. That's not where my doubt lies, even if I am vary of the chimpanzees among us. 

Instead it's something else that I suspect exists in all parts of the Samsaric universe we find ourselves in. Simply put it's the process of eat or be eaten and this isn't too complicated for us to spot. In a world with plants, animals and predators these dynamics are everywhere in nature. Civilized humanity find itself in a perhaps rather awkward position because we have found a way to dominate nature so utterly that we simply have no organic enemies outside ourselves. Yet we produce a lot of resources and value so if the mentioned principle is true across the universe the consumers of humanity need to arise within our own midst. 

And this is exactly what happens and I dare to say that this phenomena has little to do with classic morality. The choice of becoming a consumer instead of a producer is as voluntary on a human scale as it would be for a wolf to consider a vegetarian diet or for a rabbit to try the art of photosynthesizing - the human predators with human victims will arise as surely as the producing humans will produce if they have the opportunity to do so. With a Wattsian view one could say they are the one and the same phenomenon, as intertwined and truly nondual as any other polarized pair found in existence. 

The human predators have then two ways of operating. Either it can plunder, pillage and murder its victims as hard as they can muster. This may yield enormous gains but only immediately, in the short-term. Afterwards, of course, the plundered regions will stay barren for as long as it's needed for it to regain proper strength again and during that time the plundering predators need to find other lands or face that their gains are done for. 

Another way of operating for the human predators is then the route of tribute, an alternative with many advantages. First of all, the predators may not need to use any actual violence in the end, it may be enough to just show that the violence at hand can always be imminent and near. Physical strength as a currency as you might be aware of. Another advantage is of course that the victims don't get erased or even substantially weakened by this method as when one perform plunder on them. The tribute one demands can then be rather high and steady for as long as the predator can display its strength in a properly discouraging manner. The only disadvantage of the tribute route may be that it comes with a cost for the predators. Since it otherwise is such an effective method most predators will try it and the supply of victims may run short. Then the predator needs to protect its victim from other predators and if successfully protected, the victims have simply become subjects to a governmental ruler. We have states, more or less. 

*

I now consider this process a natural law. It will always take place as long as we have humans in a scarce environment. The thing is too that there is always a bigger fish, and us anarchists can talk ourselves blue about the importance of self-defense (it is important) and we can dream about anarchistic enclaves like Liberland and Cospaia as much as we like but there will always be a risk that a bigger fish, a badder wolf suddenly is standing on your door-step fully capable of huffing down even your castle made out of stone. Cospaia ended, Liberland will never be allowed to be a success and a region imagining itself to be enjoying an eternal peace will sooner or later see a Putin arise ready to do the unimaginable. The predators will always predate and as pure plundering often is too costly they will happily resort to tributing, but they will tribute their prey one way or another.

I think we understand this on a deep intuitional level and in the same way a prey animal doesn't have to learn to fear potential predators, humans don't have to cognitively understand all of this to fear a state of anarchy. Anarchy means that you are much more susceptible for plunder to occur and to be a subject of tribute at least allow you to live and to act as you wish as long as you don't annoy the predators too much.

*
So, this is why I think political, practical anarchy is impossible or maybe even not desirable. It is in a sense the wish for a producing human to be a predator-human, to play their game and liv their way of life, which is a desire as any other I suppose, but not the point of anarchy as I see it. Nay, if we are going to talk about practical politics, as this series tries to do, then I have to abandon this view, even if it pains me rather much. 

But, I'm not giving up on one thing and that is to be rather anti all the human predators we are seeing among us. I may accept wolves and bears, but when in the wild I don't necessarily like to encounter them. In the same way I can accept that the parameters of our existence by necessity will turn humans into predators of their own kind but I'm also able to hold and cultivate views that aim to keep them out of my own life as much as possible. 

With all this in mind I must say that our current modern world and our modern society is hopelessly naive. I'm not sure how we could allow ourselves to be so dramatically twisted, but apparently it happened and today so many of us have seemingly been programmed to argue, fight and die for our predating overlords even if we are human producers to the very core of our existence. 

It's strange frankly. Our ideological system is built to welcome the predators in into every aspect of our society and we applaud it, we instinctively fear and hate any ideas that try to push the predators away from things they don't need to be involved in. Our modern welfare state has made everything and everyone a playground for the predators to do what they please in. The fact that this has happened baffles me honestly, I know the propaganda is strong and I can see how it has been used since the dawn of the modern era and I have sympathy for how much we fear the woes and struggles of poverty, but still - why did we collectively forget that the state by definition deals with the language of the sword alone and if you don't own a sword you are forced to obey anyone wielding it against you? I refuse to believe we as a modern humanity enjoys serfdom to this degree, but as a self-identifying orangutang I can't speak too much of the possibilities of the mind of Chimpanzees...

*

Listen, however. I call the process outlined above for Mafia. Mafia is simply put the act of threatening someone with violence if they are not paying up and in return the Mafia vows to protect you and whatever you are involved in. This is the only thing a state is able to do properly. As we discussed we need this to occur in this dimension and as such a Mafia successful enough should be given the rights to have the title of a state and should be given the responsibilities to protect its given borders both outwardly as inwardly. But, why, why for the love of God do we trust this violent organisation of criminals and thugs to do anything else? Why do we give them our children to teach or indoctrinate, why do we crave for them to be involved in health care or sponsor our culture activities? We don't do this error when thinking about smaller gangs and local mafias - those thugs we know we should stay away from, but successful ones? Apparently they are necessary to do anything, just anything in our modern world. This weird thinking is stupendous to me. 

Yeah, yeah, I hear you. We need a collective organisation that makes sure that everyone gets access to the necessities of life and ensures that everyone is able to play along in society with fair rules, but my dear mostly godless audience - these good and noble things is what the church is meant to do for us, or rather what we are meant to do through the means of the church. 

That is to say, I agree that we should make sure that a tonne of good things exist for everyone in a given community. The ideas and ideals of the socialliberal movement isn't evil by any means but again, there is no reason at all for us to organize these noble things through the ranks of thugs, criminals and wolves in human clothing. Can you understand this? I know I'm partial as a Christian and that there are valid reasons out there to fear anything that smells of churches and such but one of the main reason I try to stay put within the organised religion of Christianity is because this beast wasn't born in a desire to become dominant in a hierarchy of power struggles and win the societal games. Instead Christianity has in its DNA a vision of a different way of viewing the world and how to live within it. This ideal is also the reason it exists and every church, how corrupt it then may be, is forced to at least try to look as they are trying to realize these ideals. 

And these ideals is exactly the beloved universal goals of our modern political ideologies, the ethics of modernity is undeniably sourced straight from Christianity but again: Where the state is born out of a predatory operation seated at the core of Samsara, Christianity is born from a divine desire to escape from the necessity of dividing existence in prey and predator. It sees something else, it sees the kingdom of God and to bring it to be more visible and tangibly is truly a noble activity for all of us to do. Theological beliefs don't play in there just yet.

*

So. Ok. Practicality is the aim of these texts in the end. My political aim is no longer - sadly - to smash the state. Instead I wish it to stay put wielding its sword and only do that. I want us to see that whatever we love and value for everyone to be able to take part of we must find ways to do it outside the path of violence and aggression. Let Cesar be Cesar and let us aim to perform all other things somewhere else. This we can do, regardless if we are formally Christians, atheists or searching somewhere else and if you don't have a church you may have a secular association you enjoy. Try to make them do the things you want to see more of in the world. Seriously, start a filantropic hospital, start a school for immigrants, build a road, perform a Shakespeare-play. Do the things you love in the association that is fueled by the values and existential foundations that drives your life forward. That is how we create divinity in existence, when we do all the noble things through the blood-stained hands of the state we may create some wealth here and there, but the smell and blessings of divinity simply isn't there. It's borderline worthless, or at least corrupted to its core. 

So come on, people, pay the coin to Cesar, but let's start give everything else to God.