by Ryder Wes Hardin
The fear of statelessness, randomness, and unpredictability.
Classical fascism and classical anarchism are philosophical
brothers with a lengthy history of fighting each other. Both were composed of
former Marxists equipped with militancy and syndicalism interlaced with visions
of a natural order. The primary difference between the fascists and the
anarchists is the question of the state. The former views the state as
paramount to a decent order, the latter views the state as problematic.
In contrast to the anarchists, the fascists are far more
fearful of the Black Swan. The “Black Swan” theory is an attempt to explain
rare and unexpected high profile events driven by chance and randomness that
immediately falsify inductive logic. The Black Swan is more or less a metaphor
to show the ways in which humans rely on “the experts” or “the intellectuals”
to predict a calculated future based on historical information—when in reality
the experts and intellectuals are clueless as to what will come. The Black Swan
event is entirely unpredictable yet seems explainable in retrospect —
everything is always obvious after the fact. Examples of Black Swans include
the birth of religions, the rise of new political powers, stock markets
crashing, large scale terrorist attacks, things like the computer being
invented, governments collapsing, and so on. Contrary to fascist belief, the
history of the world has been driven by a small handful of random,
unpredictable, and devastating Black Swans. It should be noted that the Black
Swan can be seen as positive as well as negative, depending on your
circumstances.
Now to be fair, most of the contemporary anarchist movements
fear the Black Swan, as well. Anarchists believe they are following rational,
truthful and factual calculations when in actuality they are following a belief
of certainty based on hindsight and dubious predictors. In other words, most
anarchists are planning a future of white swans. The various anarchist
intellectuals allude to a truth of a conclusion which offers a vision of what
their particular form of anarchy might “look like.” And yet this conclusion is
so fragile. It only takes a single black bird to come along and bring it all
down. The Black Swan character of anarchy is too shocking, too surprising, and
too non-systematic — even for anarchists. If anything, to ‘be an anarchist’ is
to recognize that anarchy is so disorderly, so unpredictable, and so original
as to disrupt itself by creating a massive feeding ground for more Black Swans
to join in. Of course anarchists can not possibly predict the future activity
of anarchy. It would seem to me that to ‘be an anarchist’ means that we must
allow ourselves to think in a way that allows anarchy to surprise us, and
strangely so.
The fascist, however, struggles with the randomness of the
world. He takes himself to extreme lengths to prevent the inevitable and
unstoppable Black Swan from entering in. He is overly conservative toward the
negative Black Swan and thus remains hostile to the positive Black Swan. For
instance, the fascist clings to “state power” as a necessary tool to survival —
even as the failed nation-state hollows out and allows for new systems of
governance to emerge.
When one studies the history of the modern state one will
find a centralization of top-down decision-making by self-serving leaders whose
decisions are incredibly fragile because those who control the state are
working within a particular framework to maintain power. The state is
inherently weak due to it’s inability to allow for its parts to be regularly
destroyed and reconstructed, as seen in nature’s strongest systems (biological
evolution, the human body, etc.). Internal destruction is a necessary component
to the development of a strong, ever changing natural system that functions
beyond the constraints of a conventional state. Just as anarchy generates new
modes of human creative ability, so does it too carry the less fashionable but
equally important process of eliminating weakness.
In fear of the negative Black Swan, the fascists prefer to
disband weakness by attempting to use the state to starve society of
volatility, randomness, and unpredictability, thereby constructing a monstrous
parent state in opposition to harm, and annihilating the self-organization and
spontaneous healing of human nature through systematic self domination. Humans
who attempt to hide from nature’s chaos will only be harmed by nature more than
they will benefit from nature. One can not respond robustly to nature’s
bombshells without recognizing and honoring the volatility and randomness of
human nature while remaining free to tinker and experiment with individual and
tribal fitness.
Those who are truly capable of revolutionizing power from
within are free to become self reliant, self repairable, and more powerful than
ever. But the idea that a group of individuals can setup a state to “secure”
themselves in an ever-changing environment kills off the human ability to
evolve variants that may eventually become remarkable systems. The state is a
type of institutional power that lives cosmetically, queering the acquisition
for real power. Moreover, the state is a large, structural system that
guarantees protection to large groups of sheep, and in doing so, encourages
great weakness. Put simply, the establishment of the State is a fear-driven,
back-biting political strategy best described by Hans-Hermann Hoppe as a
“scandalous deviation from the natural order.”
History shows that the fascist state has always been
composed of larger disinfected structures which in many cases are connected to
other fragile structures. The disinfected fascist sees everything as a
potential poison, and in his attempt to systematically guard himself from all
poisons, the fascist falls ill when the poison finally reaches him. Despite the
fascist’s obsession with physical culture, the people of the fascist state are
so fragile and fearful — that if we remove the state, the order is overthrown.
The anarchist on the other hand is less interested in state systems and more
interested in building immune systems. The anarchist drinks a few drops of
poison and recognizes that decadence is not something that can be eradicated.
As an anarchist I’ve grown to reject all preconceived
notions of “tribe,” “society,” or “world,” although I hold to my own principles
— everything remains subject to discourse. For the conservative, liberal, or
fascist – this is a frightening position. For the anarchist, it’s a very
liberating one. Most human groups have two things in common: 1) they adhere to
a single view of the world that stands above all other views, ideas, systems
and cultures, and 2) they seek a social order that is planned, large, safe,
swan-free, and based upon the general idea of security. Naturally, the element
of self admiration prevents these groups from recognizing the flexibility that
any individual might take. Most fascists are do-gooders with less power, less
thought, less flexibility and less robustness, because they lack a radical
approach to risk. The anarchist who soaks in danger remains flexible to the
point of knowing the tides, spotting the best ideas, evaluating the greatest
individuals, and potentially running with them. The anarchist view of the world
is loose, not-so-serious, and pregnant with possibilities — enough to make room
for anarchy’s activity, and to allow the chaos, chance and randomness into one’s
life.
(Source)
-----------------------------------------------
* Facebook: National-AnarchistMovement (N-AM)