I was recently asked by two separate, presumably non-anarchist, entities
if and how theoretical or high-energy physics would exist in an
anarchist society. There are several implicit underlying questions in
this basic question, and I will attempt to answer each in turn. I have
been asked this question by other anarchists before, and my usual
response is that nothing would change in my personal situation. I work
odd jobs, find strange ways to pay for things when needed, garden and
sometimes forage for food, and try to never spend money, so that I can
devote most of my time to research. While I believe that what I and
other physicists are doing is for the ultimate good of humanity —
trying to understand the seemingly chaotic patterns of our universe,
which is fundamental to any correct understanding of anything else —
we’re not exactly putting food in hungry mouths, ensuring shelters for
the houseless, providing medical aid to the sick and old, or doing any
of the number of things which are generally considered socially
beneficial. As an anarchist, I do not believe it is society’s
responsibility to support me in my research unless my research is
directly assisting others in need. To believe contrary would be entirely
selfish, not to mention entirely ignorant of context: the context here
being that, while, yes, I am a unique individual with my own sets of
needs and desires (namely, to sit around staring at sheets of equations
all day, with a break to mix a heaping of vegan gluten-free protein
powder into a glass of water), there is no such thing as a system in
total isolation. Individualist anarchist as I may be, if I have learned
anything from physics I know that one for a fact. Thus, I must take into
account that if I am not contributing to the rest of society, then the
rest of society owes nothing to me. And as much as I would like to
discount the rest of human society, I still have to share air and soil
and a few other things with them while I’m stuck on this stupid cosmic
shitpile. Anyway, what this all boils down to is that there is very
little opportunity for a physicist to only work on physics in an
anarchist society.
But this time the question is different. Non-anarchists have begun to
ask the question, and now the answer must take a different form. As I
mentioned, it entails other implicit underlying questions: What will the
anarchist revolution look like? Will it be a series of bloody and
dramatic confrontations with authorities in the streets? Will it be a
gradualist or reformist shift in sociocultural perspectives? Will it be
a total collapse of modern civilization and requisite technologies? Will
“rogue” AIs or the emergence of trans-/post- humans enable us to
cooperate efficiently en masse without ingrained hierarchies? Will
someone finally hack the gibson and ‘;shutdown —? What will the nascent
anarchist society look like, and what type of economic system will it implement?
So best case scenario, in my opinion, is that most of the 6.775 x 10^9^
humans on this planet aren’t killed, maimed, wounded, incapacitated,
starved, or in any other way made incapable of functioning. Being a
theoretical physicist…well, let’s just say we’re a little bit of a
niche. We’re highly specialized, and we require data from experimental
physicists to assist the creation and prove the validity of our claims,
which requires even more specialization and fancy equipment, and when
things get that fancy and specialized it requires a much larger societal
support structure. So, for utilitarian purposes, I don’t want everybody
dead. Also, and this is a point of controversy among anarchists,
economics: it’s a problem. My friends who are proponents of gift
economics somehow think that post-(A)-revolution is going to be magical
happy anarcholand where everybody’s transformed into sparkly rainbow
sharebears. I will not place myself within the diaphanous caricature so
often drafted for Kropotkin and Godwin, that humans are essentially kind
and selfless creatures. I think that game theory shows us the
possibility of a fully functional anarchist society, and it even shows
us that this is the most rational and rewarding scenario; however, this
assumes that all players are predominantly rational, which is not the
case. Some of us may be noble, kind, and good-hearted creatures, and
most of us have fleeting moments of nobility, but for many humans the
prime motivation is selfishness and greed. That is not to say that this
is of necessity the case, nor that they cannot be taught otherwise, but
in the meantime I see no problems with taking advantage of baser desires
in the less noble members of the human species and redirecting their
motivation for the common good.
After having a conversation with my friend Will, who is also a
theoretical physicist, I’ve decided to somewhat revise my statements.
Will pointed out that everyone is rational, it’s just that their
operational and observational contexts are limited. Which, in my
opinion, is no excuse. It’s laziness. It’s a lack of vigilance. If you
can’t go out and seek broader context than that which is handed to you,
then you’re lazy. And thus, still ignoble. And I’m getting off track.
So physics after the anarchist revolution. My guess is that not much
will change, unless the primmies are actually the apocalyptic harbingers
of doom which they romanticize themselves as. People tend to work best
in small cells, and many bleeding edge tech research firms tend to
follow this model. Even larger companies, e.g. Google, are actually a
conglomeration of small cells. The difference would be the person at the
top, cutting themself a 7+ digit paycheck, just for “owning” the rest of
the company. That probably isn’t going to stick around. In fact, I would
argue, for it to truly be an anarchist society, that person can’t stick around.
I probably skipped a few things in my explanation. I guess I just mean
to say that technological and theoretical development will be faster and
more effective in a free society, and also that not as much will change
as some might think, given my version of the revolution. Feel free to
ask more question if you feel I haven’t thought things through, or
glossed over points.
