"everyday anarchy" review
I first heard of Stefan Molyneux sometime circa 2016, back in my Trump Derangement Syndrome days. He was just another name in a long list of men I was informed were alt-right, far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, and so on. In those days, just hearing this sort of claim was more than enough for me to develop an unearned certainty that someone was a Bad Guy.
These days, I don’t make a habit of developing or espousing unearned certainties. I next heard Molyneux’s name when we were expecting our son, as I was investigating peaceful parenting. Apparently Molyneux has spoken/written extensively on that subject, although I haven’t heard/read any of it as of yet. But at the same time I saw it mentioned that he also wrote quite a bit about anarchism. Having recently at the time begun to identify as an anarchist myself, I took some note of that but hadn’t yet read any of his works.
The following is as close to a disclaimer as you’ll get out of me. I don’t know what Molyneux’s other views are. He is widely described as a racist, white supremacist, and so forth. This could or could not be true, but I would have no idea. In general I have great suspicion of such labels, having seen how easily and freely they’re applied when they often shouldn’t be. I’m also someone with no real aversion to difficult or controversial ideas, so have myself run into some unpleasant, and unwarranted, accusations from time to time. Suffice it to say I don’t believe, in the slightest, that considering the merits of an idea, work of writing, etc. implies any sort of endorsement of its author or their other views. Neither do I denounce him. If that’s not enough for you, this is simply not the blog for you.
I’ve also seen some implication that Molyneux is no longer an anarchist, which also may or may not be the case. Regardless, in Everyday Anarchy he has written one of the stronger short primers on the subject that I’ve so far encountered.
Molyneux reiterates several times throughout this work that his goal isn’t to persuade anyone of the rightness or practicality of anarchism (though I haven’t read it, his other work Practical Anarchy seems more likely to have this aim). Rather, he intends to point out and ruminate on a whole slew of logical contradictions in the standard worldview of the average American liberal (broadly speaking, not in the common liberal-conservative sense).
This he does to great success. Although it contained no radical revelations for me as a reader, this is the sort of thing I suspect would have blown a hole in the back of my cranium if I had read it at the right time, much as Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State did for me.
He does run down a few topics in ways I hadn’t seen elsewhere. In the same way that many other anarchist writers have pointed out that in a system of representative government, the public cannot actually delegate duties to the government which they themselves don’t have the legal or moral right to do, so can they not delegate intelligence they don’t have. So if a man cannot legally or morally compel his neighbor to give up a percentage of his income for his own good, where does the authority (in a democracy, supposedly delegated and empowered by the public) to compel taxation originate from? Similarly, if a group is not intelligent enough to order society for themselves, why would they be intelligent enough to evaluate representatives to do so for him?
He presents a strong critique of democracy, with which I fully agree and which I feel I would have found compelling if I did not already. He notes that democratic government rests on three assumptions:
That the majority are wise enough to seriously consider proposals and representatives before them
That the majority is wise and gracious enough to only impose their will so far, and to respect ideological guardrails in place to protect the minority
That the minority is tame enough to accept the will of the majority without resistance
The final point is, in my view, quite a fatal flaw in the system. If one were a mainstream blue-pilled democratic thinker, the events of recent elections and capitol riots might be seen to represent the fruition of that flaw. Of course, the idea that such dissent can/should simply be quashed is common, but it seems self-evident that eventually a minority group will arise unhappy enough and violent enough to refuse to be ruled over. Again, even if one views this as a bad thing, it certainly seems an inevitable failure point in the system.
Molyneux also observes something I’ve noted many times, which is the deep-seeded hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance displayed by defenders of democracy in debate. Namely, at the start of such a debate the defender of the system will almost invariably open with very lofty defenses of these ideals. Yet the moment a critique of the system is made, the defender again almost invariably completely flips their perspective, now insisting that democratic government is a necessary structure to keep vicious and unruly mankind in a state of order.
As a specific example, our current system provides many forms of welfare. In the traditional conception of democratic governance, the people elect representatives who represent their values. The libertarian or anarchist might argue that the very existence of these welfare programs is evidence that people have an interest in making sure the needy are provided for to some extent. Therefore, in the absence of such a bureaucracy, people would still ensure some level of charity is provided. The Democracy Fan then will instantly flip, now insisting that without government, men are brutes and would not provide for one another at all.
Of course, one can certainly hold the view that men are selfish, violent creatures who will not provide for each other without the framework of a government. But this is not exactly a democratic position, is it?
Molyneux addresses many other spheres. His critique of academics and academia is scathing, and likely deservedly so.
Of course, the book is narrowly addressed, and acknowledges this itself. It would take a peculiarly curious and open-minded person to be receptive to seriously asking themselves any of the questions in this book. Of course, this is true of any work on anarchism.
Molyneux gives perhaps my favorite definition of anarchism I’ve ever encountered:
“Anarchy is the simple recognition that no man, woman, or group thereof is ever wise enough to come up with the best possible way to run other people’s lives.”
Molyneux points out toward the end that the ingrained gadfly some of us have which drives us to pursue the truth despite its consequences is not without its downsides. As an anarchist I myself have struggled to own that viewpoint in mixed company. The very label carries such baggage that it can perturb even people who otherwise respect one’s knowledge and intelligence.
It would certainly be easier to just accept the system as it is and move on. Of course, in a practical sense most of us have no choice but to do so, but we need not do so blindly.