On natural hierarchies and material conditions

I was disputing whether or not right wing “anarchism” is legitimately anarchism or not. The devil’s advocate in the discussion told me that right wing “anarchists” reject “constructed hierarchy,” while still believing in so-called “natural hierarchies,” I rejected that therefore right wing individualism is true anarchism, because anarchists reject all hierarchies.

The discussion eventually lead to one about solipsism, natural law, the great man theory of history, so on and so forth, and it lead me to write this little entry about that conversation and where it lead me. So, here we are.

Right wingers believe in natural hierarchy, it’s an essentialist viewpoint, but as we shall see there all natural hierarchies are spooks, there’s no such thing as a “natural order of things,” as per Hume’s guillotine, “an ought cannot be derived from an is.” The world isn’t static and immutable, it is constantly changing. My opponent brought up the right wing belief of the “cycle of history,” summed up like this: “Strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times, hard times create strong men ad nauseam.

This is way too much of an overgeneralizing statement, and ignores material conditions. I pointed out the exact conditions of the Cold War couldn’t have occurred without the invention of nukes, even if there are rough analogues to Cold War esque situations in the past (which there are, but that’s a discussion for another time). My point being that the invention of nukes is what lead to the Cold War, and the Cold War wouldn’t have occurred without them.

Material conditions are important, natural orders don’t exist, the world is not static, and tomorrow will be different from today, as the actors of history are always changing, as is the setting itself.

On Anarchy

You can only get so much done writing a 900 page thesis on the nature of revolution inside your ivory towers. All talk and no action these ideologues are, such folly! Turn away your old dogmas and realize how they have failed, the revolutions of the 20th century have failed to bring about communism, as they have always fallen prey to capitalist subversion of the revolution, of the reintroduction of class struggle and capitalist hegemony.

Under the state, capitalism always wins. Attempting to overthrow the unjust system by co-opting the state, or replacing it with a so-called “worker’s state,” a term that is itself inherently oxymoronic, will only lead to the corruption of the revolutionary force trying to force change via the state.

If you want true change, genuine change, that changes the very fabric of society itself, abolish the state. Only when you abolish the state do you abolish capitalism, for they go hand in hand. Marxism has failed; it’s time to try a new tactic.

Capitalism requires the state to enforce its hegemony, its inherently unequal distribution of control over resources. Police and armies protect capital, not you. Reject the state, and reject the police, for they are not your friends.

For the Leninists in my audience realize this, why has almost every so-called “socialist state” failed to implement communism, and have always fallen prey to capitalist forces? Let’s examine the “mass line” tenet of Maoism for an example, even with the Cultural Revolution and popular struggle against corrupt bureaucrats to hold the party accountable, China still fell to revisionist capitalists.

They didn’t accomplish shit in the end, it was merely meaningless chaos that ultimately failed to accomplish its goals. Deng Xiaoping reintroduced capitalism into China, and today China is even more stratified socially than even the US is.

Let’s look at another example, the Soviet Union itself. The USSR ended up becoming another imperialist force, crushing genuine worker’s revolutions in Hungary, the Prague, and elsewhere, and functioned as just another colonialist power in Siberia, oppressing its indigenous peoples so Russian settlers could move in. The Soviet Union ultimately fell itself, and Tsarism has come back to haunt modern day Russia once again.

It should be noted that many Russians today are nostalgic for the “good old days” of the Soviet Union, and I will acknowledge that the economic policies of the USSR were far more worker-friendly than they are today, you weren’t liable to become poor for instance because the Soviet Union provided for everyone, being strapped for cash wasn’t a thing back then as it is now in modern Russia.

But even with that prosperity came the price of liberty, the USSR was hella authoritarian, and still was subject to market forces. It was state capitalist, not socialist. Socialism cannot be meaningfully achieved under a state, no matter the intentions of the state’s founders. States are inherently corrupting forces, in order for the revolution to enact meaningful, long lasting change, ditch the state as a vector for revolution, it doesn’t work.