Carrol Cox:
> Yup, I was rather extravagant. But I did say "one of the" not "the." And
> I continue to see in most anarchism (including often yours) that
> expectation of the petty producer that of course there would be a
> use/utility for her act (product, service, skill) if only some malign
> force blocking that realization were destroyed. The fear of _all_
> "institutions" expressed by a fringe of (self-declared) anarchists is an
> extreme manifestation of this. And in that extreme form it seems merely
> a mystified affirmation of Smith's "Invisible Hand." In that case Milton
> was perhaps the first anarchist:
>
> So spake th' Omnipotent, and with his words
> All seemd well pleas'd, all seem'd, but were not all.
> That day, as other solemn dayes, they spent
> In song and dance about the sacred Hill,
> Mystical dance, which yonder starrie Spheare
> Of Planets and of fixt in all her Wheeles
> Resembles nearest, mazes intricate,
> Eccentric, intervolv'd, yet regular
> Then most, when most irregular they seem,
> And in thir motions harmonie Divine
> So smooths her charming tones, that Gods own ear
> Listens delighted.
> (PL, V, 616-27)
>
> This is anarchic heaven (literally!) Each angel dances a pattern
> internally consulted, but the result is a harmony as though they were
> following a divine conductor. They have divinity within, and when freed
> from all external restraint, freely obey that invisible order.
>
> Milton recognized a glitch, however. This dance immediately follows the
> Father's announcement of the sovereignty of the Son, which triggers
> Satan's rebellion ("All SEEMD well pleas'd"). It was necessary in the
> end to call out the cops (the Son who drove the rascals into hell by his
> very appearance).
>
> Proudhon lives!
Milton would seem to be violating fundamental Christian theology if the sovereignty of the Son has to be _announced_ to the angels. The Son pre-exists all that is created, including the angels, according to John 1:3. One would think the angels would have been already informed of this rather fundamental fact. Maybe some of them were supposed to be a bit slow? Not Satan, though! So there's something of a problem there.
Anyway, what you have above is not the anarchic heaven but the world-as-one-machine, Milton in bed with Newton and Locke, as opposed to the world-as-one-organism favored by classical conservatives. It is the watch that demands a divine if invisible-handed watchmaker because it's got to _work_. I doubt if this vision should be identified with anarchism although certainly liberals look over their shoulders at anarchism and Milton was (sometimes) of the Devil's party without knowing it.
The liberal vision centers on the efficiency of the social machine; therefore, while liberty is good in its place (so that the wheels can turn) it must be liberty under Law. When necessary to the well-being of the Great Machine, that Law may order war, slavery and imperialism -- that is, call out the cops -- so that the Machine can go forward. This is the very coercion whose specifics I have been asking about and which we see all around us.
The anarchist, interested (I would think) in Minute Particulars rather than the greatness of the Great Machine, might suggest that if we need to shoot people to get airplanes, maybe we don't really want airplanes. After all, there are things more important (to this anarchist) than the Great Machine's maximal performance. (Of course, there's also the possibility that we don't have to shoot people to get airplanes, but nobody's interested in it.)
Naturally, as if imbued with a profound religious belief, liberals and those who accept the liberal world-view (see above) will find any suggestion that shooting seriously taints the desirability of airplanes risible or, if taken seriously, as heretical, blasphemous, contrary to the most fundamental accepted values. Often, dark allusions to Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and rural idiocy will follow.
"I want my _airplane_!!!!"
-- Gordon