It’s Here Sometime Maybe
[posted by Leonard]
Since Belle mentioned the weird concept of “actually existing anarchy”, I thought I might help a bit by giving her something to chew on.
The concept here is simple enough: according to this article by Alfred Cuzan, we’re never really out of anarchy. Obviously, a counterintuitive idea; what does he mean by that? First, Cuzan defines “government” as a third party to every relationship:
Wherever earthly “governments” are established or exist, anarchy is officially prohibited for all members of society, usually referred to as subjects or citizens. They can no longer relate to each other on their own terms… Rather, all members of society must accept an external “third party” - a government - into their relationships, a third party with the coercive powers to enforce its judgments and punish detractors.
Then he observes that there is no “higher” third-party controlling the actions of the men who form the government:
However, such a “third party” arrangement … is non-existent among those who exercise the power of government themselves. In other words, there is no “third party” to make and enforce judgments among the individual members who make up the third party itself. The rulers still remain in a state of anarchy vis-a-vis each other. They settle disputes among themselves, without regard for a Government (an entity outside themselves). Anarchy still exists. Only whereas without government it was market or natural anarchy, it is now a political anarchy, an anarchy inside power.
Obviously, it is possible to have multiple levels of government, with higher levels governing lower ones; but ultimately one still finds a group of people who are unruled.
Now, it certainly may be protested that there is a government, of sorts, of top elected officials. They have to face voters, eventually. On the other hand, even in a relatively nice state like the USA, we have numerous examples of government agents getting away with all sorts of crimes, simply because there was nobody to stop them. For example, the famous (though apparently maybe apocryphal) saying of Andrew Jackson, re: ethnic cleansing: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Or, Abe Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus and imprisoning his opponents, including the peaceniks of his time. Or President Bush interpreting away our ban on torture and aggressively expanding the idea of adding “signing statements” onto laws that he signs, specifying that he’s not bound by them.
Is this anarchy? Certainly not for us, the subjects. So it won’t satisfy me. But arguably it is for them, the rulers. One thing that jumps out immediately, if you’re still with me, is how little violence they use among themselves to settle their disputes. If it is possible for them, can it be possible for us? Or are ruling classes superior to their subjects in their ability to settle disputes peaceably?
Trackback by 692180 Blog Verification —
June 7, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
692180 Blog Verification
692180
Comment by colin roald —
June 7, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
One thing that jumps out immediately, if you’re still with me, is how little violence they use among themselves to settle their disputes.
You mean disputes like the one between George Bush and Saddam Hussein?
If you point is that Bush and Stephen Harper of Canada don’t need to resort to violence, well, okay, fine. I don’t need a gun or a police force or much of anything to settle disagreements with my friends, either.
If your point is that Bush and say Hu Jintao generally have settled their disagreements without violence — well, for one, the threat is always there. And they both wield such enormous power that everyone understands that actually coming to blows would be catastrophic. And they both have very big, very smart, very dedicated diplomatic corps in their service dedicated to finding ways to avoid full-on conflict. I don’t think any of these conditions scales down well to the individual level.
Comment by Leonard —
June 7, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
No, I mean disputes internal to the state apparatus, as for example between George Bush and Hillary Clinton, or George Bush and Chief Justice Roberts, or between Alberto Gonzales and William Jefferson.
Comment by VAMark —
June 7, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
I’m not sure this works. Even the top members of the USG work within a set of rules. Your example of agents spying and getting away with it exists, but we can all get away with some things sometime - speed limits, tax evasion, etc. Lack of perfect enforcement of the law doesn’t prove anarchy.
Even granting that such relationships can be described as anarchy, the much smaller number of players in that group than in society at large is a significant explanation for ”if them, why not us?”
Comment by Ray —
June 7, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
I see. So the fact that Tony Blair and David Cameron aren’t having fistfights every day in parliament is evidence that anarchy works. Oh no, I forgot - they’re both subject to a higher power over in Buck House.
Comment by Barry —
June 7, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
Leonard: ”No, I mean disputes internal to the state apparatus, as for example between George Bush and Hillary Clinton, or George Bush and Chief Justice Roberts, or between Alberto Gonzales and William Jefferson. ”
Aside from the fact that the last example isn’t very good (anybody who obstructed those FBI agents would have been immediately attacked and imprisoned), what would happen if violence were to be used in those disputes?
Comment by washerdreyer —
June 7, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
but ultimately one still finds a group of people who are unruled.
These people who are de facto unruled, can any one them gun me down tomorrow as I happen to walk by them on the street, in broad daylight, on video, said video being simulcast on all cable news channel and avoid punishment from the state apparatus? If your answer is no, I don’t think noting that murder is likely to be punished in anarchy is sufficient.
Comment by Ray —
June 7, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
No, you’ve misunderstood. George Bush can’t kill _you_ in broad daylight in front of thousands of witnesses _but_ he can off as many Supreme Court judges as he likes, and there ain’t no-one can stop him.
Comment by Leonard —
June 7, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Ray, try to be serious. Washerdreyer, of course the answer is ”no”. They cannot do all sorts of things. I ask: why? Because they if they do, they do face consequential action - action from the state. What does that mean? It means some other members of the apparat would arrest them, and try them, and imprison them.
But the fact remains that this action is not originating from some higher government, a ”meta government” above the US government. It is internal to the apparat. There is no third party.
They, the apparat as a collective group, are in anarchy in that there is no higher judge of their actions. I was just being cute, using ”unruled” as a synonym for ”in anarchy”. They judge each other’s actions; and this may or may not result in malfeasance being punished. You can see that clearly in some of the actions I mentioned, and which you seem to have ignored, where presidents did get away with some seriously bad actions.
There most certainly is structure — law, if you will — within this anarchy. That is my point.
As an anarchist, I expect law to arise in anarchy. Thus seeing law among the anarchic ruling class of a state is not a surprise to me. It should be a bit of a conundrum for non-anarchists, not anarchists. You see order in anarchy. Why? Or perhaps, how?
Comment by Leonard —
June 7, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
VAMark, as subjects, we get away with things that we do outside of observation of the state. And yes, part of the malfeasance of the state’s apparat is of this pattern - they take some of their bribes on the sly, for example. But part of their malfeasance is not hidden. I.e. when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and ordered the arrest of thousands of political opponents including public officials and newspaper publishers, it wasn’t a secret. It was right out there. It was not a matter that he sneaked it by. It was that none of the state apparat was willing to take him on, and in the absence of any action, he did what he wanted. Similarly with President Bush and torture. There’s a lot of things elected officials could do about that.
As for the size of the apparat, I think the smaller the group, the more violent it is. Not the reverse. But I’d be curious to see you argue the point.
Comment by Katherine —
June 7, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
”. One thing that jumps out immediately, if you’re still with me, is how little violence they use among themselves to settle their disputes.”
Well, sure, if you pick a ”relatively nice” and stable government like the United States, with some democratic accountability and a set of rules that have become pretty well ingrained for all that they are sometimes violated.
Ever done any reading on the Ottoman Empire’s succession system?
Comment by Katherine —
June 7, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
link
”Historians simply can’t agree on how the Sultanate was passed from generation to generation among the Ottomans. In the early history of the Empire, the Sultanate clearly passes from father to eldest son; in 1603, at the death of Ahmed I (1603-1617), the Sultanate passed to the brother of the Sultan. Still, the Ottomans did not seem to have a hereditary system based on primogeniture (crown passes to the eldest son) or seniority (crown passes to the next oldest brother). In both Turkish and Mongol monarchical systems, the passing of the crown is a haphazard affair. Both the Turkish and Mongol peoples believed that the crown fell to the most worthy inheritor. Each individual in the hereditary line, brothers and sons, were equally entitled to the crown. This meant that successions were almost always major struggles among contending parties. The Ottomans seem to have operated in a similar system. When a Sultan passed away, the crown, it was believed, fell to the most worthy successor (almost always the eldest son). Selim I had to fight for the Sultanate, but Suleyman was the only son of Selim and so inherited the crown without a struggle. Once a Sultan had assumed the throne, all his brothers were executed as well as all their sons—had Selim I lost his bid for the crown, Suleyman would have been killed. These executions guaranteed that there would be no future wars or struggles between claimants to the throne since all the contenders but one were out of the picture.
In the seventeenth century, Ottoman Sultans began to revise this practice and simply imprisoned their brothers—this is what permitted Ahmed I to be succeeded by his brother. Western historians point to this practice as one of the central reasons why the Sultanic government failed. Since the crown was falling to individuals that had been imprisoned much if not most of their lives, the Ottoman state saw a succession of mad Sultans and the corresponding increase in power of a corrupt bureaucracy.”
Comment by washerdreyer —
June 8, 2006 @ 12:26 am
t should be a bit of a conundrum for non-anarchists, not anarchists. You see order in anarchy. Why? Or perhaps, how?
The above would certainly be right, if I agreed with you that the situation we’re talking about is anarchy is what exists between different people at the top level of the governmen. But I don’t. Why wouldn’t you call it separation/diffusion of power, with each person being ruled by the others? And I failed to mention the lack of enforcement against some illegal things publicly done by presidents and other top members of the government to make basically that point, that some laws being underenforced against them for bad reasons either doesn’t constitute anarchy at all or constitutes only a very partial anarchy, and one that sometimes applies to the regular citizenryas well.
Comment by Ray —
June 8, 2006 @ 2:23 am
Leonard, to be serious, the obvious conclusion is to draw is not that the ruling class exist in a state of anarchy, but that the definition of government as ”a third party to every relationship” has a flaw bigger than the Grand Canyon.
Comment by colin roald —
June 8, 2006 @ 9:21 am
The other problem is that the group of people at the top Leonard identifies as ”unruled”, are small enough to all know each other and are all psychologically clear that they are on the same team. Thus their interactions can be structured by basic human tribal dynamics. I think anthropology understands tribes pretty well, and I think it’s pretty unsurprising that they don’t threaten actual violence against each other that often. Their relationship is much deeper and more complex than that, with lots of mutual knowledge and favours owed.
What I’m saying is, a tribal arrangement where the soldiers obey Chief George and the cops obey Subchief Mueller — I don’t buy that that has much to tell us about how to live together with a couple million strangers in Manhattan.
Comment by colin roald —
June 8, 2006 @ 9:26 am
Or to put it another way, are you *sure* George Bush is not an implicit third party to every interaction between, say, Gonzales and William Jefferson? Because if it’s only Bush who gets to have relationships without implicit third parties, then your anarchy starts looking awfully small.