Am I an Anarchist?
By David Forrest
For a few years now I have been giving much thought to living “off-grid” and asking any family and friends who would want to join me to do so. I have felt that this would further separate me from the world I am growing to dislike. Coupled with that idea, I have very recently been coming to question many things around me from beliefs, to material things, to science and government. I would imagine that those who founded this country had a much different vision than where we find ourselves today. Not that they were perfect and infallible, but the Constitution indicates that they were on to something important. I feel we are at a point where the state is no longer serving its intended purpose. To be completely honest, as I study the scriptures more, I have begun to ask myself if the state serves any purpose other than ensuring its own survival. When Christ returns, what type of government will He put in place? The scriptures say that He will be our King and rule over the whole earth; but will it really be a government in the sense of what we see in the world today? Hardly. Christ having had all things made subject to Him does not force us to submit. With that being so, why on earth would he change that? The state rules by force and coercion through fear. Christ operates on a much different frequency. It brings to mind a statement made by Joseph Smith, that we all are familiar with, that he made when questioned about how he can govern such a great number of people:
“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”
With that being said, do we human beings have the capacity to govern ourselves without intervention on the part of the state? Does necessity really breed invention in the case of the state? Are the current ills of society merely a product of government rule and the state’s ability to convince us of the necessity of its survival? I recall speaking with a friend once on the subject of communism. He spoke highly of it and even remarked that the intellectuals should rule because they know what’s best since they are smarter than those they rule. I can understand why my friend and others think communism is a good idea. Everyone has a job, food, clothes, shelter, etc. However, nearly all aspects of your life are controlled or owned by the state. There is little to no room for free will and what is a man without his agency? It is the total embodiment of Lucifer’s plan. How can people progress or prosper under such a system? Where can we find true liberty and the total embodiment of the Father’s plan?
During the course of these thoughts, and in no way by accident, I had been introduced to a new idea. I maintain a blog and a fellow member of the church and blogger left me a comment concerning one of my posts. Upon visiting his site, something struck a chord in me. I had found the answer to the question I hadn’t realized I was asking myself. The answer was Anarchy. Growing up in a system of state funded and state controlled ”education”, I had been given the impression that anarchy was somehow a bad thing for it was lawlessness and chaos. Maybe at one point in time, or even from someone else’s perspective, that was true. However anarchy, as what I have come to find out for myself, is merely the absence of the state. It is the epitome of free agency, but that does not mean it must be free agency without consequence. Law and order can still exist, just in a different and more natural way than what we are used to. If the state exists, it should only exist to protect the liberty of its people and I think that was the original vision of this country. The question to ponder though is: “What is the state doing for/to us?” Is the state protecting our liberty? Or, is it just finding new and craftier ways of taking it from us without us knowing? If you wanted to steal something from me, the easiest way would be to distract my attention away from that which you are trying to take. Could we be a prosperous people in this age of existence without the state?
Even though our beliefs might differ, we can still find common ground as human beings who both acknowledge the other’s free will. How is it that we can send satellites into the far reaches of space, but we still rely on those who are equal to us, not greater, to rule us? Even if I were to believe that a person lives in sin, it is not God’s way, or will for that matter, for me to try and force that person, through legislation or other “legal” means, to live as I believe. Now I can however share my beliefs in a loving manner and I might even call that person to repentance, but nowhere in the scriptures am I commanded to become that person’s ruler because of their views or way of life. When it comes down to it I alone will be held responsible for my behavior. It says the following in D&C 101:78-79:
“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.”
Now to the original question: “Am I an Anarchist?” The more I study and ponder the subject I can comfortably say, “Yes”. While I do feel order is necessary, I do not feel an ever increasingly intrusive form of government is synonymous with order. Ruling people through fear is not order. Order is peaceful, but people ruled by fear is a volatile situation just waiting for the catalyst that will surely erupt into chaos. If anarchy were to prevail, then it is not to say that corruption shall be put to rest. However, if all men are free then one man’s corruption will not have the impact it has today. I do not believe that everyone in a position of power is corrupt, but I do believe the corruption present, warrants a change in the way things are done. I would say that many people don’t want things to change because they are afraid of how they will be affected and that change might require more than we are readily willing to sacrifice. Affluence makes humans lazy, but we have the capacity to make dramatic changes and create history. History is often the best promoter in the creating of itself. Humans have the power to change their environment if they so desire. Although much like everything else in the gospel, it requires action. Affluence and ease of life has created too many distractions to keep our focus on things that are not important. Anarchy might not be the medicine to cure the sickness of the world, but I feel it is a step in the right direction.
I find your article very thought provoking. I think that anarchy would work as
long as all participants have good moral intentions. But in a system of
anarchy what would happen with those whose intentions are not so just but
selfish? Can you really eliminate those human weaknesses?
Now concerning your question. We can never change the heart of someone who is selfish. However, when governments are broken down into smaller units and humans are more responsible for themselves and the well being of those around them, I believe that the selfish intentions of one individual will not have the impact it does today. There are many things that a large group of people cannot do today because the power in the hands of a few. Whether or not someone lives in sin is between them and God. I am not that person's judge or ruler just because I believe my way of thinking, feeling, being or practicing of religion is correct. Governments today try to dictate morality but that is not there place. Of course things such as murder, molestation, rape, etc. are without question damaging and immoral. However, what one chooses to do to oneself, is between him and the Almighty, It is selfish of me to try to change someone through "legislation" or any other way other than unconditional love and patience. Even still there is no guarantee that they will change and that should have no bearing on my love of them. The only thing that will ever change a person's selfish behavior is humility and the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The gospel is the only, and I repeat ONLY, thing in this world that has the power the change the individual inside out. I am living proof. The world tries to change the individual from the outside in. Taking people who are poor and reliant upon government assistance and placing them in nicer housing probably isn't going to change the way they view anything. It is just another in a history of handouts and when the new one is run down, they just be shipped to another. This does not change people, it does more damage than good. Make people responsible for themselves and share the product of laborers equally and I am certain that many will be less selfish. We will never eliminate the weaknesses of humans. We can overcome them, but never eliminate them.
Holly writes:
But in a system of
anarchy what would happen with those whose intentions are not so just but
selfish? Can you really eliminate those human weaknesses?
I think part of the problem we have is the natural difficulty to see outside of our own constructions. When one experiences a first-world capitalist society from birth, s/he comes to see the world in a certain way. As a result, it is understandable that after a lifetime of witnessing constant examples of greed, injustice and inequality in our environment, we would assume that these are natural human qualities.
People (many of whom are much brainier than I) have argued that the narcissistic behavior which seems so endemic to modern society is a product of capital, and not an inherent quality of humanity. Human beings are stuck in a permanently altered state of consciousness, which serves the interest of the system as a whole. They imagine this to be the only possible system, simply because they have never experienced any other.
If you're interested in this side of the argument, you can google Herbert Marcuse , Louis Althusser, or Antonio Gramsci (my own personal favorite, who described the unconscious acceptance of bondage as _Hegemony_).
Aside from reading the experts, a study of history also suggests that people haven't always behaved in the ways they behave today. There was a time (not as long ago as we might imagine) when honor and helping one's neighbor trumped a big salary, and when reputation was gained as a result of a lifetime of generosity, and that reputation was much more important than a fat wallet or a tricked out Hummer in the eyes of society. Walter Benjamin touched on this in some of his letters, and the idea has been resurrected in pop culture recently, as the subject of fantasy stories. (That's how far removed we are from our own natural state, it's now sci-fi). Theorists call it a "gift economy".
Best,
Gregory
I conclude that the best respond to a increasingly corrupt and power hungry government is not to "separate ourselves from the world" but rather to engage. To care enough to make a difference. To be involved in our communities and the world. Our natural state is to work together to build the Kingdom of God. Our humanity depends upon our willingness to speak for those who have no voice.
1) You state that I assume that all governments take freedom away.
2) You state that I claim anarchy will lead to a utopian society.
There are many different types of anarchy. Many people, I dare to even say that the majority of people, think of chaos and lawlessness when they hear the word anarchy. That is not what I, and probably most of the people who read and participate in this publication, view it as. From your post I think it is safe to assume you are familiar with LDS scripture. If that is true then you will find more than one instance where the people had no kings or rulers and they lived in a state of peace. I find it incomplete that you take the instance in Darfur to say that anarchy cannot work. I would definitely be interested in learning what countries suffer under anarchist rule. I certainly won't deny that they exist.
I agree that we should be involved in our communities and work together and I said nothing to the contrary. In fact I was trying to promote that very thing, but I guess I just didn't make that point very well. Thank you for the comments.
of anarchism.
Anarchists (also known as libertarians or libertarian
socialists, in the original sense of socialism as worker-
ownership-and-contro l of the means of production)
oppose illegitimate authority and hierarchy, and therefore
oppose capitalism and the state; anarchists do not oppose
all organization: anarchists favor voluntary, non-
hierarchical, self-organization. Anarchists do not oppose
all rules and laws; anarchists oppose rules and laws
imposed involuntarily by illegitimate authorities, such
as the state, and favor voluntarily-agreed upon rules and
laws.
"Anarchy 101", an excellent introduction to anarchism,
can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/2fq4d2
"An Anarchist FAQ", giving an in-depth treatment of
anarchism, can be found here:
http://www.anarchistfaq.org/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/
“Is Socialism the United Order?”
Elder Marion G. Romney
Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
April Conference 1966
http://members.tripod.com/~runwin/socialis m.html
Socialism is NOT the United Order!!!
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/wo rks/1917/staterev/
Practical political anarchy is not a scenario in which people run wild and prey upon one another (as in Darfur). There are still institutions existing in an anarchist society. The institutions are depoliticized and decentralized to the extent that they represent the interests of the average working man and woman, rather than capital; and (at least in theory) they are resistant to takeover from oligarchs.
Brother Clore also gave some first rate references. Lenin doesn\'t refute them, he enhances them.
Please read the references (mine and others). If you still disagree it\'s fine, but at least the critics will know the position Mr. Forrest is taking and be able to make valid points against it.
I have many questions (mainly about order in anarchy), and am wondering if you know of of a place where people like me can discuss our thoughts on the subject. This is my first glance at the publication so I apologize if I've overlooked the answer to my question somewhere else on this site.
much,
KNJ
Dan Clore has it right: An Anarchist FAQ is a great place to start.
It's also worth mentioning that the anthropological record shows many societies and cultures, even ones existing today, that have no coercive entity at all - everything that needs to be decided on is decided by consensus, and the product of all is shared by all. I long for the day when people finally see the answer to "is anarchism possible?" and start working on the more crucial question, "how do we get there?"
beliefs? Yeah Jesus believes in giving us free agency but they also say to
follow the laws of the land; just look at the 12th article of faith. I know
you're trying to think outside the box but stop trying to force a connection
where there isn't one!
Socialism is NOT the United Order!!!
Socialism is not limited to the expression found in the Mormon social experiments of the 19th and 20th centuries, but what we commonly refer to as The United Order was indeed a valid expression of both socialism and communism. The colony at Orderville is probably the best documented example of saints who abolished the concept of private property and simply worked together as a large extended family. My own relatives on my mother's side of my family documented similar movements in their own hometowns (in places as diverse as Chihuahua, Mexico; Alberta, Canada; and St. George, Utah). This wasn't anything that was limited to Orderville, but was a very popular sentiment in the early church motivated by solving serious social problems (poverty, homelessness, unemployment, etc.)
I've always thought that Socialists (and aside from being a Mormon, I'm a Socialist too) could learn a lot from the Mormon experience.
Matt writes:
I know you're trying to think outside the box but stop trying to force a connection where there isn't one!
There are two issues in your response which I'd like to address from the perspective of a fellow reader. I can't speak for the fine folks who started the publication, and I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm mistaken when I speculate about their motives.
I think it's a mistake to see the founding and distribution of The Mormon Worker as an attempt to change the underlying doctrine of Mormonism. The people who put the paper out are all practicing members of the LDS church who are expressing a certain political viewpoint. We all have opinions about politics and economics, and these are generally kept separate from religion.
The term Mormon in the title of the newspaper might be seen as a religious term, but I'd like to think that it can be used as an ethnic one also. Mormons are not simply members of a religious body. They also include descendants of this religious body who may have converted or reverted to another faith or none at all. I am an unbeliever who doesn't take religion seriously, but I was born a Mormon and consider myself a Mormon nonetheless. If you look at words like Catholic or Jew you can draw a parallel.
With these things in mind, I think that the paper's title and content might be a little bit less threatening to the religious readers. Religion and politics are two separate issues. This seems to be a primarily political and social work, which draws upon the Mormon experience. I don't see it as an attempt to found a new theology or alter any existing religion.
Best,
Gregory
You all are so stupid! How does the Mormon faith coincide with anarchist
beliefs? Yeah Jesus believes in giving us free agency but they also say to
follow the laws of the land; just look at the 12th article of faith.
I admit I may be stupid. Not sure about everyone else. However, the purpose of the article was, as I understand, to show how principles embedded in the Mormon faith do coincide with anarchist beliefs. David is not encouraging violence or even civil disobedience. At least, I didn't read that in the article. He is merely stating a widely-held belief that anarchy is an ideal to move towards.
Anarchy may be the rejection of private property and therefore capitalism and the free market, but it may not be. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs. There are many anarchists (i.e. Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard) who support both exchange and private property as a fundamental aspect of humanity and non-intervention from the state. Rothbard called it "anarcho-capitalism." These type of anarchists see spontaneous order throughout human interaction, and wonder why any intervention is necessary at all. This type of anarchy is vastly different from the Marxist perspective.
My point is not necessarily to support one branch over another (or even anarchy), but I think it is valid to examine the questions that are generated from this line of thinking: What is the role of the modern state, its roots, powers, assumptions, etc. What is the state good for? What should its scope entail? What should its purpose be? These are all relevant questions that few dare to ask.
Great article, I feel inspired to maybe submit some of my own essays.