Sedition and Treason are Patriotic

GlobalAware

Socrates was brought to trial in 399BC in Athens on charges of corrupting the youth(!) and denying the traditional gods of the Athenians.
These were charges of sedition – subversion of the state – and carried the death penalty[1].
By most accounts[2] he didn’t do a very good job of defending himself and was found guilty and sentenced to death by forced suicide by drinking hemlock[3].

Socrates was by no means an anarchist. He opposed democracy, favouring autocratic rule by philosopher kings and fearing mob rule.
But he did make two important contributions (especially in his death) to anarchist tradition.

The Death of Socrates

Socrates’ first contribution is self evident and by no means limited to, or the preserve of anarchism – it is dialectics, the Socratic method.
In simple terms (and it’s not a complicated concept) it is an approach to critical thinking which involves the exchange of ideas or propositions and counter-propositions with the aim of convincing a counterpart or an audience of your thesis.
In the Socratic method this involves questioning your counterpart to expose weaknesses in their argument – classic critical theory – question everything.
This approach is present in many thought traditions and while it is an important part of anarchism it is not a surprise.

Socrates’ second contribution is more nuanced and in many ways more interesting.
It involves his response to being found guilty.
While his supporters wanted to help him avoid death by escaping Athens, Socrates refused for the following reasons
(and here I’m quoting an excellent take on this directly).

1. He believed that such a flight would indicate a fear of death, which he believed no true philosopher has.
2. Even if he did leave, he, and his teaching, would fare no better in another country.
3. Having knowingly agreed to live under the city’s laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury. To do otherwise would have caused him to break his ‘contract’ with the state, and by so doing harming it, an act contrary to Socratic principle.

It’s the third reasons given above that I am interested in.
As mentioned before, the anarchist tradition is split into a profusion of camps along a variety of lines of arguments about the requirements for and implementation of an anarchist society.

The most commonly known form of anarchism (social revolutionary) is very much opposed to personal subjugation to a state that one disagrees with. This is where the tradition of squatting, refusal to pay for services (and taxes) etc. comes from.
The approach is basically one of ‘I don’t want to be part of this state, but it imprisons me and therefore I have the right to break its laws and disown any responsibility that I have towards it.’

Now let me state clearly that I am very much in favour of breaking laws of the state – especially ones that limit personal freedom for the purposes of ‘social good’ or some asshole’s idea of ‘morals’.

But individualist evolutionary anarchism (which is the kind that I am most interested in) places significant emphasis on the importance of contracts (whether social or commercial).
This is exactly what Socrates is about.
Even though he broke the laws of the society that he lived in and refused to repent his actions he retained the contract that he had with the society that had tried him.

In my opinion it is this detail that makes the death of Socrates, in as much as we know the details of it, noble.
Socrates knew that by choosing to live in a particular society he established a contract with it. And though he chose to break the laws of that society (believing them to suck), he retained that contract with its consequences.

You heard of honest Socrates
The man who never lied:
They weren’t so grateful as you’d think
Instead the rulers fixed to have him tried
And handed him the poisoned drink.
How honest was the people’s noble son.
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It’s honesty that brought him to that state.
How fortunate the man with none.

Dead Can Dance – How Fortunate the Man with None

[1] though, for all I know, in ancient Athens a charge of playing your Lyre after midnite also carried the death penalty.
[2] i.e. Plato’s – the only real account that we have.
[3] a complicated business

Some time ago I wrote what I thought would be the first in a series of posts on the relationship between Taoism and anarchism. It turns out that I did a really terrible job of it.

I’ve started getting my thoughts together for the second part of this, but upon re-reading the first part I feel that I have to revisit it to get some sort of coherent idea from it.

So, to recap; Taoism is an Eastern philosophical and religious tradition based on the writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.
Taoist history and concepts are interpreted in vastly divergent ways and the meaning of particular passages often bear little resemblance from one interpretation to the next.
This is partly due to the vague/cryptic/ambiguous/subtle wording and the ancient history[1] of the founding texts. But it is also related to the spirit in which these texts are presented.

A defining feature of Taoist thought is the rejection of the idea that the Tao as a concept can be strictly defined or understood.
The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are commonly translated as follows:

The way which can be uttered, is not the eternal Way.
The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name.

Tao Te Ching

Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu

In addition to the vast room to manuva that the texts allow, the variations in defining Taoism are also due to a logical result of the above two lines.
Each person’s interpretation of and relation to the Tao is different and trying to limit any understanding or wording of Taoist ideas is futile and counter-productive.

That said, Taoism has few central concepts that are taught as foundations to a life that is in harmony with the Tao.
These include the principle of Wu-Wei and the pursuit of a simple and natural life in which a balanced acceptance of continual change[2] is prized.

Taoist statue to Lao Tzu

*

Anarchism is a much younger tradition which really only gained traction at the turn of the 19th century with the writings of William Godwin and Joseph Proudhon.
In much the same way as Taoism, anarchism is also a disputed term and its many traditions and schools are often aggressively at odds with one another[3] over the interpretation of aspects of the concept.

Traditional Anarchist Flag

Despite the overwhelming diversity/chaos[4] of the anarchist movement it is still possible to give a central concept shared by all forms of anarchist thought.
This might not be the primary idea of every tradition/school – but it is(as far as I can tell) central to all.

Anarchism rejects all forms of institutionalised authority.

A Romanticised Anarchist Standard

Beyond this basic principle the anarchist world explodes into a million fragments and (often warring) factions.
I suppose that it is the natural result of the first principle: ‘Are you telling me that I cannot be a Jew and still an Anarchist? Well, fuck you!’

Activism/Revolt/Journalism

*

The connection between Taoism and anarchism exists (in its most basic form) within these aspects of the two traditions.

But first, apart from the view that early Taoism (especially the ideas of Lao Tzu) is possibly the most ancient expression of the anarchist imperative, Taoist and anarchist ideas seem contradictory.
Taoism is about harmony, balance and acceptance; anarchism is about revolution, struggle and radical change.
A significant portion of Taoism promotes seclusion, non-discourse and non-action; the largest anarchist schools promote vibrant socialism, debate, protest and (often violent) activism.
So how can they relate when they have such fundamentally different personalities?

Two crucial concerns link the two.
The first is the goal of both Taoism and anarchism. In simplest terms, both Taoism and anarchism are concerned with achieving a state[5] in which each person can live freely, unhindered by the pressure or morality or interference of any other person.
The second is the view that the current[6] social system does a terrible job of allowing such a state.
These are very powerful agreements which cut so deeply that the implementation details of these (where the two diverge in many instances) are of secondary concern.

The first agreement (freedom/liberty/natural harmony) is common to many philosophical and religious traditions[7], but Taoism and anarchism place an special emphasis on this.
In both these traditions freedom is non-negotiable – a fundamental requirement for a healthy life.
Furthermore, both traditions hold that there is nothing – nothing – that merits giving up the first principle. In Taoist thought not even the Tao itself disrupts the natural harmony – the Tao itself exists only within what is natural.

Human abides by earth
Earth abides by heaven
Heaven abides by Way(Tao)
Way abides by occurrence appearing of itself

Tao Te Ching

and

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man’s subordination.

Emma Goldman

The second agreement is a more practical one, aimed at a tangible problem: government.
Much of the Tao Te Ching is in fact a manual for governing in a just manner – often addressing the emperor directly and instructing the ruler on matters of state.
In that sense the Tao Te Ching does not promote the abolition of state, simply that the state should be run in accordance with the Tao – this is where the principle of Wu-Wei comes to prominence; action through non-action, ruling a kingdom in such a way that the people are unaware of[8] their government.

The Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone.
If kings and lords observed this,
The ten thousand things would develop naturally.
If they still desired to act,
They would return to the simplicity of formless substance.
Without form there is no desire.
Without desire there is tranquility.
In this way all things would be at peace.

Tao Te Ching

and

The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that ‘the best government is that which governs least,’ and that which governs least is no government at all.

Benjamin Tucker

*

In this way Taoism and anarchism stand together against society as it has existed for thousands of years[9].
The next question is what these two traditions propose to do about society – what path of transformation they pursue. Until part two, I will leave this question with the Taoist and anarchist traditions themselves.

Let nations grow smaller
and people fewer and fewer,

let weapons become rare
and superfluous,
let people feel death’s gravity again
and never wander far from home.
The boat and carriage will sit unused
and the sword and shield lie unnoticed.

Let people tie knot ropes for notation again
and never need anything more,

let them find pleasure in their food
and beauty in their clothes,
peace in their homes
and joys in their ancestral ways.

Then people in neighbouring nations will look across to each other,
their chickens and dogs calling back and forth,

and yet they’ll grow old and die
without bothering to exchange visits.

Tao Te Ching

and

Burn the fucker down!

anarchist

[1] Some 300 years passed between the lifetimes of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu alone.
[2] As often associated with the concept of Yin and Yang
[3] Have a look at the Wikipedia anarchism talk page for some real bun fights.
[4] Which in anarchist terms _must_ be seen as a strength rather than a weakness
[5] uhm, state, not State
[6] Current in the 6th century BC and today
[7] Many feel that Jesus was a textbook anarchist [8] And therefore unhindered by
[9] Which surely has its origins in the natural reality of humanity’s origin and development along with the other animal species on the planet. But that is a different story.