From Peter Kropotkin to Leo TolÂstoy to Noam ChomÂsky, some of the most revered anarÂchist thinkers have exhaustÂed page after page explainÂing why powÂer over othÂers is unjusÂtiÂfied, no matÂter how it jusÂtiÂfies itself. To those who say the wealthy and powÂerÂful benÂeÂfit sociÂety with charÂiÂtaÂble works and occaÂsionÂalÂly humane polÂiÂcy, TolÂstoy might reply with the folÂlowÂing illusÂtraÂtion, which opens Time ediÂtor Anand GiridÂharadas’ talk above, “WinÂner Take All,” as aniÂmatÂed by the RSA:
I sit on a man’s back, chokÂing him and makÂing him carÂry me, and yet assure myself and othÂers that I am sorÂry for him and wish to lightÂen his load by all means posÂsiÂble… except by getÂting off his back.
The author of WinÂners Take All: The Elite ChaÂrade of ChangÂing the World, GiridÂharadas doesn’t make the case for anarÂchism here, except perÂhaps by the slightÂest impliÂcaÂtion in his choice of epiÂgraph. But he does call out the “winÂners of our age,” no matÂter how much they deterÂmine to make a difÂferÂence with humanÂiÂtarÂiÂan aid, for being “unwillÂing to get off the man’s back.” UnwillÂing to pay taxÂes, close loopÂholes and tax shelÂters, pay highÂer wages, or stop lobÂbyÂing to slash pubÂlic serÂvices. UnwillÂing to reinÂvest in the comÂmuÂniÂties that made them.
“What does it look like to imagÂine the kind of change,” GiridÂharadas asks, “that would involve the winÂners of our age stepÂping off that guy’s back? Or being made to step off that guy’s back?” Here, he leaves us with an ellipses and moves to criÂtique the idea of the “win-win” as a means of makÂing change, rather than just exchange.
The marÂket econÂoÂmy has importÂed the criÂteÂria of exchange into polÂiÂtics and social action. EveryÂthing is transÂacÂtionÂal. But in order to address the gross inequities that result in peoÂple figÂuÂraÂtiveÂly sitÂting on the backs of othÂers, some must gain more powÂer and othÂers must have less. The parÂties do not meet in a state of ceteris paribus.
One might take issue with the very terms used in “win-win” thinkÂing. Rather than winÂners, some would call powÂerÂful capÂiÂtalÂists opporÂtunists, profÂiÂteers, and worse. (The term “robÂber baron” was once in comÂmon cirÂcuÂlaÂtion.) To claim that good works and good intenÂtions obviÂate masÂsive powÂer imbalÂances is to preÂsume that such imbalÂances are jusÂtiÂfiÂable in the first place. AnswerÂing this theÂoÂretÂiÂcal quesÂtion doesn’t, howÂevÂer, address the pracÂtiÂcal probÂlem.
In the curÂrent sysÂtem of corÂpoÂrate misÂrule, says GiridÂharadas, “when everyÂthing is couched as a win-win, what you are realÂly sayÂing… is that the best kinds of soluÂtions don’t ask anyÂone to get off anyone’s back.” UnfetÂtered capÂiÂtalÂism has brought us the “priÂvaÂtiÂzaÂtion of pubÂlic probÂlems.” That is to say, comÂpaÂnies profÂit from the same issues they help creÂate through polÂluÂtion, predaÂtoÂry schemes, and undue politÂiÂcal influÂence.
You don’t have to be an anarÂchist to see a seriÂous probÂlem with that. But if you see the probÂlem, you should want to imagÂine how things could be othÂerÂwise.
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
Saul Alinsky’s 13 Tried-and-True Rules for CreÂatÂing MeanÂingÂful Social Change
TeachÂing TolÂerÂance to Activists: A Free Course SylÂlabus & AntholÂoÂgy
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in Durham, NC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness




