James Leroy Wilson has put together a short and to-the-point essay that further solidifies my advocacy for the cultivation of an individualist identity as part and parcel of the struggle against authoritarian, false collectivism. In The Separation of Soul and State Wilson acknowledges arguments that the state could be seen as inevitable in the human experience. But he soundly and succinctly rejects the typical corrollary: "loyalty to one's government" is not necessary, even if the state is. This makes sense when one looks at past abuses by the state - in every case a large group of people surrendered their loyalty to their own conscience in favor of allegience to an institution:
Yes, we may prefer one set of laws to another. But behind them all is a history of massive criminality and naked violence. Loyalty to the present government should exist only as obedience and compliance, and only to the extent we are convinced it is better than any available alternative, but should not exist as an end in itself. By divorcing the soul from the State, we would become more resistant to the State's ridiculous claims and recognize its blatant hypocrisies and injustices. We would see that our country in no way resembles what it says it is, let alone what we would wish it to be. We would then see more clearly when it is time to secede, shoot the bastards, support a coup, or take some other "illegal" action.
Here's some conclusions I've drawn from the ideas in Wilson's essay:
Resistance to the state is the natural act of humans. Even if the state is never fully abolished, it can only become a monster with our consent. That means never substituting state interests for our own, even when they momentarily align. In other words, think for yourself. Just because people have historically acted a certain way within a cage of oppression and marginalization is no testament to the true nature of human beings.
You have to define who you are before you know your authentic interests. The state thrives on collectivist generalizations of people by nationality, race, ideology, etc. None of those are who you are: the real you, that spark of unique, irreplacable creativity. If the state is indeed necessary, how much more important that each individual identify and act from that spark!
Eternal vigilence may be the price of liberty - however, this vigilence should be exercised on the self as well. Not in any dogmatic sense, but simply as a function of finding out who you are. I am invoking this process in the same sense that mystics, philosophers, and truth seekers since time immemorial have sought the kernel of life's meaning.
Anarchism - the systematic rejection of the state as a legitimate institution (regardless of its usefulness) - would consequentially appear to be intimately involved in the two points above. Accordingly, would it be going too far to say that the conservation of individual conscience is the primary expression of anarchism?
If we want to achieve our shared goals of freedom, we need to give people more credit. It's always assumed - especially by libertarians - that most people are pretty stupid. However, if we have any hope of achieving personal liberty, we must stake everything on the notion that people are not hopeless. Kevin Carson recently criticized the libertarian penchant for snobbish derision towards the "common people". But the truth of the matter is that there is no alternative to promoting a people's movement.
We need our brothers and sisters in order to achieve our freedom. After all, if we're going to have to share this planet with others, the only way to get other not to oppress us is to reach out to them! I don't think we really want to "trick" the "stupid" masses into liberty. If we really believe at some level that the vast majority is best served by being free, shouldn't this be obvious to them once they've given it sufficient thought? Then isn't it all really less about pedagoguery and more about reflection and self-knowledge?
However, I can start working on better knowing myself - right now.
Read this article
