Portrait of an Idealist[1] There are two distinct types of anarchists: Idealists and fanatics. The idealist rarely considers himself an anarchist and often confuses his philosophy with other ideologies. He is, in essence, an anarchist by default; his anarchism is revealed only when his arguments are followed to their logical end, although he frequently does his best to obfuscate the political implications of his ideas along the way. Those openly professing their anarchism are much more likely to be fanatics. [2] Who is the idealist? He is often an impractical genius, who projects his own inner virtue onto humanity at large. He regards all human beings as essentially the same, with the same values, goals, beliefs, and dreams. He is a master of the imagination, capable of achieving extraordinary things to which the rest of us can only aspire. [3] Pragmatism is anathema to the idealist, and he is unwilling to compromise his principles even to save himself, his loved ones, or his country. Ultimately, he is a man with one foot in this world and one foot in the ether, and it is precisely this mastery of the metaphysical that precludes him from mastering the political realm. [4] Great thinkers, artists, and spiritual teachers are all likely to flirt with anarchism, and it is rare that some element of the idealist's personality is wholly absent from their own. Examples of idealists include Mahatma Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau, and Leo Tolstoy, as well as humanity's two brightest lights, the Buddha and Jesus. In the latter two cases particularly, anarchy is never explicitly advocated. And yet, if all humanity were to live by either the teachings of the Dhamma or those of the Gospels, the end result would be a utopian form of anarchy. [5] Of course, everyone will not live by the noble principles of the idealist, and without any form of authority to protect the innocent, those who follow their consciences will always be at the mercy of those who do not. While anarchy for the idealist is nothing less than heaven on earth, the reality of anarchy is much closer to Orwell's vision of totalitarianism in 1984 when a member of the Inner Party declares, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."1 [6] Like socialism, the political philosophy behind the idealist's anarchism is wildly impractical, so much so that the idealist frequently proclaims himself to be a proud socialist. It is not by accident that the ideals of socialism are inevitably traded for the horrors of communism: For anarchy must inevitably devolve into tyranny, and socialists, so long on promises and short on details, share with their anarchist brethren the same fatalistic philosophies of co-operation and pacifism which offer no practical solutions for confronting evil. [7] Indeed, co-operation and pacifism are at the heart of anarchy's ideals, though these philosophies are never thought out to their logical end. This failure of logic is true even of the greatest idealists. The Canadian critic, Northrop Frye, who was an ordained minister, shrewdly observes in Fearful Symmetry that if we want wise and temperate advice on living we shall find it in Caesar sooner than in Christ; there is more of it in Marcus Aurelius than there is in the Gospels. Sensible people will tell us that it is foolish to throw everything to the winds, to give all one's goods to the poor and live entirely without caution or prudence. But they will not tell us the one thing we need most to know: that we are all born into a world of liquid chaos as a man falls into the sea, and that we must either sink or swim to land because we are not fish.2 [8] This is the Catch-22 of idealism: Although the rigid principles of the idealist are indispensable to the political discourse, those same principles must be compromised if any semblance of them is to be achieved. If, for example, we all give up our possessions to live the ascetic lives of Christ and the Buddha, no one will work and we will be left with nothing to eat and nowhere to live. To be virtuous, we first must be, but to be is not to be virtuous since living inevitably requires the exertion of evils, however small. [9] We should, every one of us, aspire to the virtue of Jesus or the Buddha. But we must also recognize our aspirations for what they are: The shadows of an impregnable cave. The idealist has seen things we cannot see, and been places we dare not go. He has become, as Nietzsche writes, "a cave bear" whose concepts are "something incommunicable and recalcitrant that blows at every passerby like a chill."3 [10] To take too literally the anarchism behind the principles of the idealist is an invitation to untold evil. [11] Consider, for example, the idealistic socialism of Albert Einstein, who, though not considered an anarchist, certainly sympathized in his pacifist ideals with much of what anarchists hope to bring about. Prior to World War II, Einstein's view of government was very much the anarchist's ideal of non-government; Einstein envisioned creating one world government to put an end to war through peaceful means, which is really just a vision of universal co-operation through a different lens. [12] The end result of Einstein's political influence was as destructive as any anarchist; just as the Gospels were twisted to produce the Dark Ages and the Inquisition, so too did the ideas and ideals of Einstein contribute to the threat of a nuclear holocaust and turmoil in the Middle East. [13] For Einstein, despite his genius, was perhaps the least qualified person to be involved in politics. At heart, what he wanted most was to be left alone to think. Ironically, he had one foot in the very ether whose existence he had disproved. It is hardly surprising then that when Einstein sought to turn his ideals into reality "he was surprised that miracles were not worked overnight and shocked that when human beings began to manage great affairs of state they still behaved like human beings."4 [14] But how could such a gentle, kindly genius wreak such political havoc upon the world? The answer, surprisingly consists in nothing more than this little anecdote, recounted by Ronald W. Clark in his biography of Einstein: [Felix] Ehrenhaft recalls how on one occasion he and his wife arrived at the Habers together with Einstein and Elsa, both men properly dinner-jacketed. As they sat down in the drawing room Elsa exclaimed: "But Albert, you haven't put your socks on." "Yes, yes," he replied unblinkingly. "I have already disclosed the secret to Frau Ehrenhaft."5 [15] Clark goes on to dissect this story wonderfully: All those buttons; all those tails; all that putting on and taking off, wasting valuable minutes and hours while in the distance he could hear, with Marvell, "time's wingèd chariot hurrying near." What a waste it all was. And so with shoes, which could be replaced by sandals, and socks that could be dispensed with altogether. How he would have sympathized with his near-contemporary J.B.S. Haldane, who rejoiced on his emigration to India that he would now be able to go foot-free, and added: "Sixty years in socks is more than enough." Einstein, for his part, was delighted that he could turn to a companion at a formal dinner where his own merits were being lauded and whisper: "But the man doesn't wear socks!"6 [16] Politics is the realm of the practical. It is the boring world of socks and shoes, formalities and details. The idealist's mastery over abstract realms prohibits him from contributing anything great to the political realm, for when he tries to apply his abstractions to the lives of ordinary people, he inevitably scorches the earth. A great politician, by contrast, is a lightning rod for ideas; he easily conducts their electricity harmlessly into the ground. 2006
|
