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.

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.