C.S. Lewis on Anarchy

I am an anarchist because I believe in the depravity of the elite (Hello, NSA! Welcome to my Gemlog. :3). I think a lot of people are proponents of democracy for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that it misses the point. Whenever their weakness is exposed, elites who prefer tyranny profit from the exposure. I find that this is true by looking no further than myself. I don't deserve a share in governing a henroost, much less a nation. Nor do most people: those who believe in advertisements, and think in catchwords and spread rumors. The reason for anarchism stems from this very issue: humankind cannot be trusted with power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. But I reject slavery because I see no humans fit to be masters.

The above is modified from the first paragraph of C.S. Lewis's article called "Equality". In the original, C.S. Lewis argues that he believes democracy is preferable to hierarchical arrangements of society because humans are inherently evil. I disagree with that assertion, but if we consider its applications, we come to understand that power of any kind is inconsistent with his reasoning. I think C.S. Lewis would have more consistently been an anarchist, like his contemporary, Tolkien.

Tolkien's Anarchism

J.R.R Tolkien needs no introduction. He was fascinated by languages and cultures, even inventing many for the stories he wrote. He was a student of society, and developed interesting philosophies because of it.

The claim that J.R.R. Tolkien was an anarchist derives from a letter he wrote to his son in 1943.

> My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good.

In isolation, one can use this to make a strong case for his sympathy to anarchy. I cannot tell if he supported the contemporary anarchist movement, but he surely understood the philosophical critique of power as distinguished from "whiskered men with bombs".

C.S. Lewis' Politics

C.S. Lewis was fairly liberal in his interpretation of society and religion. He was a self-proclaimed humanist and a student of human nature. Because of this, he developed a keen understanding of humanity. As a Christian, he valued authority and submission and believed that humans are depraved due to the fall. The ideal form of human society would be a Christian one, which he described as "socialistic" and "would be what we now call Leftist". He opposed theocracy.

Lewis's support of equality rests on the claim that power can easily turn tyrannical due to human nature. Upon a closer examination of his ideas, we can see that, unlike Tolkien, his reasoning stops abruptly. He does not continue the critique to the state itself, despite it's vulnerability to the same criticisms.

> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

The above quotation is from Lewis's "God in the Dock: Essays on Theology". According the Lewis, the worst kind of tyranny is the kind that claims it works for your good. But is that not all compulsory government? Every government claims to be working for its people, even democratic ones. This reveals a flaw in liberal philosophy. Its critiques of power carefully avoid questioning the state, preferring to criticize "unchecked power" rather than power itself.

If humans are inherently evil, any form of organization that puts one human in charge of another will lead to tyranny. No humans are worthy to be masters, even if all are worthy to be slaves. Democracy is not exempt from this criticism. By its nature democracy puts someone in charge of everyone else, whether it be a representative or a popular majority.

But surely checked power is better than unchecked chaos, I hear some readers retort. That may be true, but the objection misrepresents anarchism. As Tolkien understood, anarchism is not an aesthetic of terrorism. It is a critique of power: a belief that a non-hierarchical society would be fairer, freer, and more functional. Anarchy means no rulers, but not no (consensual) rules. It might be better described as checked horizontality.

This analysis leaves out many details, including a discussion of rule of law, absolute morality, and human nature. I'll leave those topics to future posts.

~ Josias, 2022-09-25 (CC-BY-SA 4.0)