Edward Abbey on Anarchism and Violence

While looking for one of Abbey's aphorisms yesterday, I discovered instead his Master of Arts' thesis. Like a good MA thesis it has little original thought, which is more proper in a Ph.D. dissertation; instead, it is a chance to wrestle with the key texts of an area of study. In that regard it is useful reading for others interested in the history of 19th and 20th century anarchist thought. 

To my surprise, he concludes that anarchism -- not at all necessarily connected to violence, but with members of the school occasionally willing to embrace revolution and even terrorism -- had not successfully made a case the violence was either needed nor appropriate to its project. However, what struck me most was I found to be a very persuasive introduction:

Since  the  Second  World  War  the  idea  of  anarchism  has  enjoyed  a  certain  revival.... [Each of an impressive list of thinkers] has attempted  to  draw  attention  to  the  excesses  of  the  modern  nation-state  and  advocated,  in  one  way  or  another,  the  decentralization  of  the  state's  political,  economic  and  military  power. 

The  importance  of  anarchism  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  alone among  contemporary  political  doctrines  in  opposing  the  institution of  the  state,  stressing  the  danger  while  denying  the  necessity  of centralized  authority.  Socialism,  Communism,  and  what  is  at  present called  Democratic  Capitalism  (the  Welfare  State)  have,  on  the  other hand,  both  accommodated  themselves  to  and  actively  encouraged  the growth  of  the  national  state.  Thus  supported  from  within  and  without (through  international  rivalry)  the  state  has  become  the  paramount institution  of  modern  civilization,  and  exerts  an  increasing  degree of  control  over  the  lives  of  all  who  live  beneath  its  domination. 

[A]s  the  state  continues  to  grow,  assuming  to  itself  not  only  political and  military  power  but  also  more  and  more  direct  economic  and  social power,  the  average  man  of  today  finds  his  role  subtly  changed  from that  of  citizen  to  that  of  functionary  in  a  gigantic  and  fantastic  ally-complex  social  machine.  This  development  takes  place  no  matter  what the  official  ideology  of  the  state  may  be,  so  that  we  may  now  observe a  gradual  convergence  of  ends  and  means  In  the  historical  evolution of  such  [typically]  modern  states  as  the  U.  S,  A*  and  the  U.  S.  S,  R., which  tend  to  rese[m]ble  each  other  more  and  more  with  each  passing year  despite  the  fact  that  the  two  states  originated  under  greatly unlike  circumstances  and  attempted  to  guide  their  progress  by official  political  philosophies  which,  in  most  important  respects, are  sharply  opposed.  This  process  of  growth  and  convergence  cannot be  satisfactorily  explained  through  the  use  of  such  conventional concepts  as  Democracy  versus  Communism,  or  Capitalism  versus Socialism;  the  peculiar  relevance  and  appeal  of  anarchism  consists in  this,  that  it  offers  a  possible  theoretical  key  to  the  understanding  of  historical  developments  which  seem  to  have  little connection  with  their  customary  labels. 

Statement  of  the  Problem: 

The  idea  of  anarchism  is  embarrassed,  however,  by  its traditional  association  with  illegality  and  violence. 

Emphasis added. 

"Illegality" is not really a cause for concern, since the state itself sets the laws and naturally enough outlaws the questioning of its existence or necessity. Even the United States, in spite of the protections of the First Amendment -- protections greatly strengthened, as we know, by the effects of the anarchist movement in the early 20th century -- outright bans advocating or teaching the idea, at least if the abolition of the government (expressly to include any subset of government) is tied to an endorsement of violence. So really, as Abbey realizes quickly enough, it's just the violence that is the problem. 

The inquiry is worthy; the conclusion that violence has not been shown to be justified even by those who were most open to the idea of using violence is predicated on the fact that the idea that abolishing the state was a desirable end is something that anarchists haven't adequately persuaded enough people to believe yet (or hadn't, at least, in the 1950s). If it's not something that most people agree is desirable, no war to accomplish it is really possible; only terrorist acts and murders, rather than the spark of a genuine revolution. That's a fairly pragmatic, consequently characteristically American, and quite plausible conclusion.