why do anarchists value chaos?
(why don't statists value much of anything?)
q: why do anarchists value chaos?
a: this is a question not of ideology, but of aesthetics—what broader values drive anarchists to organize, what values would be considered meaningful in a hypothetical anarchist society. however, before discussing that, i’d like to get one common myths out of the way…
whether anarchists value chaos or not, we do NOT value causing harm to living beings.
this certainly means that if a lack of organization causes harm, anarchists will have a problem with it (for example, we need our jail support and legal support networks to coordinate, regardless of whether the aesthetics of that are orderly, so that people have access to crucial resources). it also means that some oversimplified stereotypes of chaos, like the idea that it means indiscriminate violence that traumatizes people, don’t apply to anarchy. as an anarchist, i have been asked if i was at January 6th because “that was chaotic.” i was not. and, by definition, nor was any other anarchist. fascism, regardless of its tactics and vibes, is antithetical to anarchy.
is that cleared up? okay, moving on…anarchists value chaos because we consider a certain amount of entropy generative and necessary. from here i’ll do this q&a style based on the typical thoughts/feels about this.
q: but what about my jail support network? if that’s not orderly, we’ll all be in trouble. but that’s an anarchist project! i’m confused…
a: it certainly needs to be coordinated. this of course varies depending on what anarchist project one is talking about—some need more coordination, others need less. however, anarchists are necessarily opposed to the imposition of order, even when it makes projects more “efficient,” because that stamps out all creativity, fluidity, and vulnerable expression. the most orderly projects really struggle to be spontaneous, and that can cause problems in its own way. let’s suppose your jail support network tried to be extremely orderly—there was a strict schedule of when you’d be available to support people, everyone got an assigned role, and it was pretty consistent to minimize problems. this might work well for a while! until there was some kind of situation you didn’t expect—like a mass arrest at an action, requiring you to support many more people than usual. then, because your order would be tailored to your usual circumstances, people might have no idea what to do and subsequently freak out. a more decentralized group, however, would be more able to adapt, because that capacity would be built into its structure.
q: what do you mean by “generative and necessary entropy”?
a: according to the principia discordia, the following is a decent definition. (this monologue is uttered by a fictional chaos deity, and that part can be disregarded, but the point still stands.
I have come to tell you that you are free. Many ages ago, My consciousness left man, that he might develop himself. I return to find this development approaching completion, but hindered by fear and by misunderstanding. You have built for yourselves psychic suits of armor, and clad in them, your vision is restricted, your movements are clumsy and painful, your skin is bruised, and your spirit is broiled in the sun. I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are free. […] There is no tyranny in the State of Confusion.
anarchists view chaos in this sense too. it can (and should) mean negation of hierarchical power, but we also see it as the generative, live-affirming force behind creativity, community, and desire—all the things that can’t be easily defined and are so much more meaningful when one doesn’t attempt to. it isn’t just structurelessness; it’s a duality of creation and destruction within an unstructured and fluid way of relating.
q: why is this important?
because without this awareness, organizing groups start to resemble the (deeply orderly) institutions they originally were meant to combat. see: the many “libertarian socialist political parties” attempting to combat the statist ones by beating them at their own game. or the anarchist groups that do everything by committee (originally a COINTELPRO tactic by the way). or the way that most groups get bogged down in endless meetings, bylaws, and other administrative hassle rather than doing the work of anarchy. anarchy is order makes a lovely soundbite but not the best organizing practice—try to have an orderly, structured anarchist group, and then you may end up with an anarchist leader, anarchist governing bodies, and anarchist punitive justice. you might even realize that you’re not being very anarchist at all.
q: you gay bro?
a: yes. that’s so off-topic though.