Fascism’s Trojan Horse: A Rebuttal of “Anarcho-Authoritarianism”
On the strange platform known as hoppean.org, many articles posted by self proclaimed hoppeans and paleo-libertarians can be found, varying in quality and ideological worth. One such article , written by an individual called Unorthodox Outcast, outlines an ideology called Anarcho-Authoritarianism, which at the outset is oxymoronic.
The article is, in essence, an attempt to add on to the political theorist Hans Hermann Hoppe’s ideas on libertarian economics, leading to some strange and frankly worrying results. While it is not the first attempt to reconcile conservative social values with anarchism, Anarcho-Authoritarianism is possibly the most dangerous attempt, reminiscent of Jonas Nilsson’s Anarcho-Fascism. Employing the tactic of entryism, they are trying to reconcile rather reactionary ideology with libertarianism. Such a reconciliation with anarchism and conservative authoritarianism, or the more likely case of subversion and infiltration of anarchism by conservative authoritarianism, could only spell disaster for libertarianism.
Before we look at the terrible faults, we must admit that the article, and the political view, gets some ideas correct. Mainly, his identifications of hoppean covenant communities being sound, as well his critiques against centralization, in banking and political order, and against war are intrinsically anarchistic, and his definition of Rothbardian libertarianism is also correct. His explanation of “natural politics”, while disingenuously named, does reflect the order usually created in politics, all reflecting off the family, as other political theorists, such as Proudhon, had already explained.
Besides this small collection of facts, the premises and conclusion are terribly flawed. There are, of course, the many flaws from relatively small points that do not need much rebuttal (bigotry against homosexuals, comments against “degeneracy” , dog whistling for the far-right, etc.), but it is the main points that must be more urgently critiqued.
Extreme Conservative Social Ideology
From reading the article, one can clearly see what social views the author holds. As he had stated in the section “A Brief Socio-Political Analysis”: “The anarcho-authoritarian believes that both the reactionaries and the libertarians are correct — leftism and the State are both diseases causing the decay of society.” While he does admit to it being libertarian, it seems to be at odds with the more conservative ideals. Libertarianism, and especially Anarchism, are usually at odds with reactionary forces, either from differing social values, or disagreements on enforcement.
Anarcho-Authoritarianism seems to side both ways with reactionaries, in values and enforcement. The distaste for homosexuality, abortion, immigration, and atheism (specifically a great favor for Christianity) are pronounced later on in the same section. And the ways to enforce such ideas fall in line with the authoritarian part of Anarcho-Authoritarianism.
Christianity
There is, first off, the more benign promotion of Christianity. The argument to promote Christianity as “the… means to a proper and beautiful relationship with the loving Creator,” and “a force for good” is, at first, reasonable. It is the goal of every religion to promote itself, for all people to convert.
However, the language of it is suspect. Unorthodox Outcast exclaims that, “It must be seen as a force for good…it must be seen as the only means to proper…relationship with the…Creator.” The forcefulness of such demands leans to the idea it should be forced upon people as the only right belief. Add with it the statement, “…that atheism must be stamped out…”, it can be noted that the author wishes to impose a sort of theocratic rule on the people. And though he mentions that such actions are “…the unfulfilled role of the Church, not the State (or the civil authorities, more broadly speaking),” the use of force for certain ends does not hold him back in other matters. What makes him, or any anarcho-authoritarian for that matter, trustworthy to hold back now?
On a further note, it should be explained that the actions that the Anarcho-Authoritarian partakes in enforcing his will on others are against the Christian attitude that he believes should be defended. We need only look to the Christian Anarchists for proof of such. In “The Kingdom Of Heaven Is Within You”, the prominent Christian Anarchist Leo Tolstoy lays out the principle of non-resistance to evil as commanded by Christ (Matthew 5:39), and the rejection of all forms of government and state in accordance with the teachings of God. He cited a few articles made by other Christians who, though not calling themselves anarchists, expound the core rejection of the State and governance by any mortal man as anarchism had expressed.
One such article is the “Declaration of Non-Resistance”, written by the famous abolitionist and Quaker William Lloyd Garrison. The article professed, in one of its paragraphs, “As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its laws are enforced… at the point of the bayonet, we cannot hold any office which imposes upon its incumbent the obligation to compel men to do right, on pain of imprisonment or death… neither can we elect others to act as our substitutes in any such capacity.” Another Christian, Adin Ballou, also exclaims such a sentiment, saying in his “Catechism of Non-Resistance”, “A Christian has under no condition the right to deprive of life or to subject to insult him who does evil to his neighbor.” Thus, in enforcing or supporting any command enforced by any mortal power (as the Anarcho-Authoritarian does), he must go against the teaching of Christ as laid out both in the Gospel and in the reflections of Christian thinkers.
The irony in such professions to be defending and promoting the teachings of Christ while, in their actions, denying such teachings, is nothing unique to this one subject. Indeed, as further laid out, the Anarcho-Authoritarian goes further against the ideals of libertarians and anarchists, siding more with the farther and more violent reaches of the right. However, in continuing with a facade of being libertarian, they further go to subvert and infiltrate anarchism and libertarianism, polluting it with reactionary ideas and sentiments, and the idea that such sentiments must be enforced.
Abortion and Sexuality
His thoughts on homosexuality have already been mentioned earlier, but it must be reviewed again, as part of his reaction plan to it and to abortion. Quick to mention is his wanting to, “…insistently promote heterosexual monogomy (ideally stigmatizing even heterosexual, monogamous sex if it occurs outside the bounds of marriage)…” Such actions are, of course, at conflicts with anarchistic ideas on autonomy, which are insistent that people should live however they want as long as no one is being harmed. However, they are just in line with reactionary opinions, and their willingness to force others to conform to their standard and ideas of living.
Such is also the case with abortion (an action that I myself am morally against). The Anarcho-Authoritarian’s wish for the abolition of abortion is a wish known amongst most Christians, including Christian Anarchists. However, unlike the Christian Anarchist, who does not believe in forcing others to his beliefs (as stated earlier), and follows God’s will to his own best attempt, the Anarcho- Authoritarian wishes to push such standards unto others, to fully ban abortion. And he will do so gladly with even the use of the State, an institution he supposedly is against! He tries to explain it away, saying, “…one of the prime concerns of the anarcho-authoritarian is praising instances of good governance, even if the overall governing institution is wicked and illegitimate…” Whatever way he tries to legitimize it, an anarchist cannot be supportive of the State, and certainly not support any acts it takes upon itself to grow its power.
Immigration
Just as they wish to control how a person may live, they also wish to control where a person may go. To combat what the author calls “multiculturalism”, he calls for, “…the advocacy of cultural homogeneity and assimilation. Immigration, if it is to occur at all, must occur only alongside cultural assimilation.” The argument for “cultural homogeneity” is a very familiar one made by the right, and the distaste for immigration as shown is not foreign to them, either.
However, it is a completely foreign concept to anarchists. The free movement of individuals is one of the defining characteristics of anarchist philosophy, and the defining of immigration itself in the way he does would be against such an idea. The limiting of immigration to a certain location is also, in essence, advocating for, if not a full-out state, a proto-state. This is all in the name of preserving this “cultural homogeneity”, with all immigrants going into the Anarcho-Authoritarian’s proto-state needing to forsake their own identity and beliefs in favor of the culture defined by the proto-state. Again, the Anarcho-Authoritarian wishes to control the individual and have them forsake their autonomy for the “social good”. And though he tries, again, to legitimize his ideas with libertarian principles, such as saying that it goes along with, “…restoring the right to free association,” the freedom of association does not give an excuse to forsake other freedoms, such as the freedom of movement.
In arguing for these measures, he seems to ostracize himself from libertarian thought. No matter what ideas he may share with libertarians, such arguments as he has made are more aligned with an authoritarian view on social policy and ethics. That is, of course, the point. It is his belief that it would be better to align with authoritarians than with libertarians, a sentiment helping to further the subversion of the movement by the authoritarian right.
Pandering To The Far Right
In his section “Strategy”, he lines out the alliances that the Anarcho-Authoritarian will make. Simply put, he would rather align with the authoritarian right than with the libertarian left. Instead of aligning with fellow anarchists or libertarians with differing social values, he would rather align with fascists who have different principles and values of freedom. How strange for a supposed “anarchist”.
The reasons for not aligning with the libertarian left is twofold: cultural views and property views. As we have already looked over, the cultural values of the Anarcho-Authoritarian are aligned with the right, values that can be defined as conservative and reactionary. Left-libertarians, on the other hand, believe that people should be free to live as they wish, to believe in whatever they want to believe, to love whoever they want to love, to do as they will as long as they aren’t hurting anyone.
Of course, the Anarcho-Authoritarian cannot have that, saying, “…most left-libertarians are culturally leftist and advocate for a plethora of degenerate behaviors that would destroy the healthy traditionalist culture necessary for an anarcho-authoritarian society… to survive.” The Anarcho- Authoritarian wishes for everyone to have the same views as him, the same beliefs, following again in suit with the authoritarian part of his name. Anything against his conservative values must thus be shunned and destroyed, as was outlined earlier, in order for his utopian society to survive (thus having him reject not only left-libertarianism, but also most right-libertarians, who align with the social values of left-libertarians).
Property is also a value that creates conflict. “Left-libertarians do not adhere to the same property norms as right-libertarians. They do not, for the most part, believe in unconditional property ownership as the right-libertarian does.” It is no secret that the left- and right-libertarians differ on property, but it is childish to forfeit an alliance with other freedom-minded people over this disagreement. And it’s all the more foolish when one takes into account that libertarians and anarchists do not believe in forcing others unto their system! The left-libertarians may disagree with right-libertarians on the best system, but they will not force them to go with their views. And the right-libertarians, in accordance with their belief in property rights, would allow left-libertarians to do as they please with their property. Any self proclaimed “anarchist” who does not adhere to and reject such principles and premises is at best ignorant, at worse a fauxnarchist or fake anarchist.
Over these foolish decisions, the Anarcho-Authoritarian decides to align himself with the authoritarian right. Unorthodox Outcast proclaims that, “The authoritarian right… is redeemable… there are those on the authoritarian right who share many of values espoused by the anarcho- authoritarian, such as traditional social values, social hierarchy, and property rights. While they may err on certain issues… they share a lot of the anarcho-authoritarian’s own beliefs.” Nevermind that the authoritarian right is willing to do away with property rights in order to enforce those traditional values. Nevermind that the authoritarian right would put the demands of the State above the rights of the individual, in order to protect and serve “the social good”.
In fact, the Anarcho-Authoritarian would be in line with such ideas, whatever they may claim otherwise. We have seen already how he is willing to do away with others’ freedom in order to promote and enforce his social values, just as the authoritarian right will. What is to keep him from becoming straight out authoritarian instead of an “anarcho-authoritarian”? What is to keep him from bending his commitment to private property rights in order to satisfy the demand of protecting reactionary values?
Though maybe the Anarcho-Authoritarian view on property is different than the usual view, and thus somehow not contradictory. Earlier, it was mentioned how he shares the value of “social hierarchy” with the authoritarian right. This “social hierarchy” is not a strange idea to those who have studied Hoppe’s work. However, the formulation of such an idea, along with what we have previously discussed, come to reveal the true face of this fauxnarchist ideology, and the subversive technique of entryism used is put into the light for all to see.
The “Natural Order”
In the section “A Brief Note Regarding Legitimacy”, he begins with a critique of Democracy. The critique is reminiscent of Plato’s critique in The Republic and Gorgias, arguing, “Democracy is a disastrous form of governance… The masses are fickle and easily led astray. Those in “governing institutions” should be wise, qualified, and virtuous. Democracy… does not lead to wise, qualified, and virtuous elites. It leads to conniving, mediocre, and vicious tyrants… the masses, easily led astray as they are, are swayed by loud demagogues rather than quiet and wise civil servants. They flock to the bombastic, to the vicious, to the foolish, to the wheedling, to the economically illiterate, to those of high time preference, to the indulgent, and so on. They thrust their support behind dangerously idiotic leaders because they themselves are dangerously idiotic in matters of politics and society…” It is as if he is wording (in less poetic words) Socrates’s parable of the physician and the cook, though it is a bit strange that, as an anarchist, he thinks that there should be “virtuous” elites in the first place.
How he rectifies and replaces such a fault is of more importance to us. Proclaiming that “Authority must arise from private property,” he advocates for a “natural aristocracy” defined by Thomas Jefferson. “ This aristocracy includes the aforementioned wise, qualified, and virtuous elites — those whose rulership is suppressed by democracy.” He believes that, “Through the mechanisms of competition and inheritance, a truly qualified aristocracy will arise. The wise, qualified, and virtuous will find themselves in charge of much property, and through webs of mutual obligation not dissimilar to those observed in the feudalist system, a natural political structure will emerge.”
Plato used another word for such a system: Oligarchy. It is the advocacy of a system in which those who are wealthiest will also be the most powerful. His system may start with a meritocracy, but it will become an oligarchy.
The argument for the defense of such a system is majorly flawed. It is flawed in the simple fact that it assumes those who are greatly skilled in acquiring wealth are also “wise, qualified, and virtuous”, when the opposite is usually true. There is wisdom in the saying “…for the love of money is the root of all evil”(1 Timothy, 6:10). A ruling elite that devotes itself to the acquisition of wealth, and in which the acquisition of wealth leads to an acquisition of power, will substitute any “just rule” with exploitation of those who have less wealth than they have. And the system seems to extrapolate that flaw by adding the mechanism of inheritance of wealth. How will the supposed “virtuous” become qualified by inheriting past wealth? Flaw adds on to flaw, and the whole premise behind such a system unravels.
There shall also be other conflicts in this system. One must ask how this feudalistic order and rule can mix with the ruling of the covenant made by the communities, especially of these purist conservative communities. Those with great wealth fancy to pleasure themselves with vices that would seem contradictory to the Puritan prudence advocated by the reactionary right. And the reactionary right, wary of such power held by the elite, may grow envious and revolt against the “natural order” in order to cement the reign of his ideology. The reaction will not be in support of this feudalistic order unless they know for certain that their rules shall be followed by all, including the powerful.
How, then, can they be reconciled, if they are at such odds? Simple: the matrimony of the aristocracy with the dictatorship of the reactionary covenant communities. The aristocracy will promise to support and help enforce the commands of the right and all its laws, and the right protects the aristocracy from being killed and overthrown. This matrimony has already been named: It is that wicked devil, Fascism.
Conclusion
Anarcho-Authoritarianism, claiming to take the best out of the authoritarian right and the libertarian right, is merely a copy of fascism wrapped in pleasurable words and ideas. Unorthodox Outcast has, unknowingly, spoken a truth in saying that it, “… is not a new ideology, it is merely a new designation…” And it is revealed to be all the more dangerous and pervasive, as it supposedly, “…encompasses what many non-statists, such as paleolibertarians, localists, and anti-centralization traditionalists already believe.” Already fascism has taken some roots among them, if only like a baby weed. Seeds have been planted already, by fascists infiltrating right-libertarian circles to spread their ideals, adopting for themselves the titles “paleo-libertarian” and “hoppean”, guising themselves in false pretenses of legitimacy.
The pandering to the far right, the advocacy of oligarchy, and the willingness to use the State and further its power as long as it is in support of conservative values have made it at great odds against anarchism. He admits himself that, “…the hierarchical structure [of the natural order] previously mentioned… is indeed authoritarian as… anarchists argue it is,” and in trying to defend it, he fallaciously argues that it is good because, “It emerges naturally.” (Sickness also emerges naturally. Does that make it good?)
It is a prime example of the threat the libertarian right faces, that of the libertarian to fascist pipeline. In trying to push libertarianism further to the right socially, it runs the risk of becoming (and usually does become) another facet of conservative authoritarianism. It shows the greatest flaw in unity among the right: the authoritarian right will not align with libertarians as allies unless the libertarian right fully assimilate the views of the authoritarian right (just as the anarcho-authoritarian commands that all newcomers to their society must fully assimilate his views). Otherwise, they are merely tools to use and to then throw away when they become no longer useful to the authoritarians.
I end with a warning to my siblings in arms on the libertarian right to clean house. A pestilence is growing among your ranks, the pestilence of Fascism. It must be stamped out with all of our force, and our values of liberty must be preserved against all ideological enemies. Stay on your guard, keep true to Anarchism. May you not be swayed by the rhetoric of this modern Callicles, and that you keep to the truth of freedom.
