One of the long running[1] threads that I hope runs through thecages is the ideas promoted by Anarchism and Taoism, their intersection and divergence. To be honest, thecages is not an anarchist blog and nor am I a traditional activist anarchist. And I certainly am not a taoist. Anarchism and Taoism are also only two of the ideas that interest me and, in all fairness, can make for some heavy reading. Therefore they’re not exactly the most active topics on this blog but they have been central to what thecages has become about: individual freedom.

In this first post of 2008, I want to come back to Anarchism and Taoism, and to Taoism for the last time. Returning readers will notice that I have removed the Taijitu from the headmast of this blog. It has served its purpose and it is time to move on from it.

I first became interested in Taoism after reading a book that I bought for some bucks at the Greenpoint flea market before it was swallowed entirely by african curios and World Cup construction. The book is The Elements of Taoism by Martin Palmer and it is one of the most inviting introductions to a social tradition/philosophy/religion that I’ve read. It also manages to be balanced and realistic while remaining sympathetic to a religion that includes some really crazy ideas.
Taoism is founded on a fascinating and simple idea and what makes it unusual is that it immediately states that what it is about to try to do (explain how the universe works) is not only impossible, but unwise. Whereas the Torah/Bible starts by stating that ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ Taoism starts by saying ‘The way which can be uttered, is not the eternal Way. The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name’. And even more importantly it emerges that not only is it not possible to explain the taoist origin, it is not important to do so. This subtlety and simplicity appealed to me. But, as is always the case with teachers, there comes a time to kill the Buddha and to be honest that time has already passed, both for thecages and for me.

The traditional taoist sage

I want to wrap up Taoism’s time in thecages with a last look at the relationship between Taoism and Anarchism[2]. Previously I made two attempts at describing the relationship between these two political/social[3] ideas, focusing mainly on the areas where they are complimentary.
By way of a short recap, Taoism and Anarchism are schools of thought that hold personal freedom and equality among individuals as fundamental requirements for a healthy society. Herein lies the first agreement between these two, the need to remove of all hurdles to a naturally harmonious relationship between individuals.

The second agreement between Taoism and Anarchism is their concern with government as part of achieving a free society. Both propose to remove government entirely from the human landscape because government in any form is a hindrance to natural harmony among people.

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

and

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

The conclusion is that both Taoism and Anarchism promote freedom and equality and reject government. Where they differ is in how they propose to go about achieving their desired societies.
Taoism’s approach to the end of government is top-down, by educating the ruling class. It wants to awaken the emperor to the Tao and the principle of Wu-wei (action through non-action). And by addressing the rulers Taoism wants government to disappear of its own accord, not through a peasant revolt or the development of socialist systems, but simply because the world works better where there is no government.

In contrast to the taoist approach (disappearance from within) Anarchism wants to actively remove government, to act to bring about its end. Anarchist groups differ on the details of how to do this, but they all want to actively remove it.

Anarchism…stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral.
Emma Goldman

So here the two traditions diverge; where Anarchism wants action, active involvement in the process of dismantling every form of government and social or moral order, Taoism wants non-action. The taoist philosophy is for each person (the ruler and the common person) to abide themselves by what is natural, to withdraw into private contemplation of natural harmony and to live in tranquility. Anarchism wants you to stand on your chair and shout.

Shout ‘Me for President’!

So why has the time come for thecages to part ways with taoism? Firstly because I am not a taoist. Whether I am anything other than a jibber-jabber anarchist is another matter, but for now; I am not a taoist. But that is only a personal reason and not really relevant to this blog.
What is relevant is that the world is fucked up beyond measure. It’s been fucked up for thousands of years and it’s illness is accelerating. The world is accelerating and its fuckedness with it. To think that we can stop or slow down this deadly fireball is naive. The only thing that the last 6000 years prove is that humanity excels at consuming itself. And the way to escape this deadly explosion is to accelerate with it, kind of like Captain Ace Owens in Dr Strangelove.
It isn’t viable to think that you can withdraw from society or to try and restore it to some imagined simpler state. To really develop their ideas anarchists must immerse themselves in society and its absurdity. Watch more ridiculous television, inhale Britney Spears. Thecages is about looking into the monster, not running away from it.

So goodnight sweet Tao, you never really existed did you?

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

[1] though often neglected
[2] I can’t really claim to have given the subject any serious coverage, but hopefully enough to bring out the central issues of their intersection and departures.
[3] Seeing as I am not interested in the religious aspects of Taoism I have ignored these.

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