Alex Touchet
The character V from the book V for Vendetta, written by Alan Moore, has become more than just a graphic novel character. He has grown to be a symbol for freedom; he is the face of rebellion against tyranny. The “hacktivist” group Anonymous has even adopted the Guy Fawkes mask as their icon. The visage of the fictional terrorist has evolved beyond a mere picture; Moore’s creation has transcended the world of fiction and become an internationally recognized metaphor for individual rights, activism, and anarchy. Sadly, many people wrongly associate the word “anarchy” with a mental picture that looks like a scene out of movies such as The Purge or Lord of the Flies. These people visualize a nation ruled by lawlessness, disorder, and chaos. This is a fairly shallow interpretation of the goals V intended to achieve in Moore’s dystopian England; in fact, those cinematic examples are not in any way an accurate representation of true anarchy. What does anarchy really mean? Does V qualify as an anarchist? Are his actions in accordance with anarchist values? Does V intend to institute an anarchist society after the fall of England’s totalitarian government? This paper will evaluate all of these questions and attempt to provide an objective viewpoint through which the reader can effectively evaluate anarchy as presented in Moore’s novel.
The word “anarchy” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the “absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.” The word’s roots come from the Greek word “anarkhia.” The word stems from “anarkhos,” which effectively means “without a ruler.” It is important to note this explicitly says without a ruler; it does not imply terms like “chaos” or “disorder.” This correctly contradicts a common view of anarchism, which interprets the political view as promoting a land of “Do whatever you want.” This should not be defined as anarchy; instead, it is an example of something called “omniarchy.” An example of this view can be found in the movie The Dark Knight. The Joker is often called an anarchist. This is completely incorrect. “Whereas anarchists want to do away with the coercive hierarchy of any person over any person, the Joker wishes to impose upon all a coercive hierarchy of each person over each person. In a very literal sense, the Joker wants what Hobbes called the war of all against all, the entire breakdown of society, the reign of chaos” (Peak).
In reality, anarchy’s vendetta is to create a land of “Do whatever you want as long as it does not interfere with the natural rights of other individuals.” A person who imposes himself as a hierarchical authority over another person is in violation of this basic concept. The main goal of true anarchists is to create a society in which no individual is imposing himself over another. Therefore, all anarchists must follow the rule of the nonaggression axiom.
This term essentially means any initiatory violence or violation of another human’s natural rights is prohibited. However, except in the case of some anarchopacifists such as Leo Tolstoy, most anarchists do not prohibit retaliatory violence. In the case of person A attempting to rape person B, if person B were to pull a gun on person A, he/she (the victim) would not be in violation of the nonaggression axiom. It is important to note the retaliatory aggression must be equal to the initiatory aggression, because otherwise, the original victim would be imposing himself or herself upon the aggressor as a hierarchical authority and therefore be in violation of basic anarchist ideology.
Now that the exact meaning of true anarchy has been adequately defined, the next step in understanding it in context of Moore’s novel is to decide whether or not V is a true anarchist, or if he is just attempting to impose an anarchist society upon England. For V to fit the anarchist prototype, he must meet the previously outlined qualifications. The most important of these qualifications is his actions in relation to the nonaggression axiom.
For V to be a real anarchist, he must act without initiating a violation of other individuals’ rights. Remember this does not include retaliatory action, just initiatory action. It would be easy to claim since V is a terrorist, he immediately violates this precept. The buildings or locations he destroys, in order, are the Larkhill Resettlement Camp, Parliament, Jordan Tower, and the Post Office Tower. He generally destroys these buildings during times when he was unaware of any human occupation: for instance, the Parliament building has been unused for years, and most likely unoccupied at the hour at which it was blown up. When he blows up the Resettlement Camp, it is not specified whether or not anyone is killed or injured, other than in the instance with the mustard gas.
The author of an article appropriately titled “Is V an Anarchist?” claims this terrorism in itself is not in violation of the nonaggression axiom because it does not qualify as theft. “While the state claims ownership of [the buildings], we must remember that the state acquires all of its property through expropriation, through usurpation, through theft. The state’s so-called ‘ownership’ over these buildings is, according to the theory of property we posit above, completely illegitimate. The buildings are actually in a Lockean ‘state of nature,’ and since they are not properly owned by anyone, V’s destruction of them cannot properly be considered theft” (Peak).
The only recorded death via bombing is of the man named Etheridge. It could be argued he is effectively a criminal because of his involvement with the state, but it is unknown whether or not any of his individual actions are immoral enough to merit death. Remember retaliatory action should, in violence and/or severity, never surpass the initiatory actions that preceded it. Since V could not have been aware of this specific man’s acts, his death is not justified in regard to the anarchist theory of retaliatory ethicality. Would V, still unaware of the man’s acts, have been justified in killing Etheridge if he had indeed committed acts worthy of execution? This is up for debate. It is my personal opinion V is indeed guilty of murder in this case, even if unknowingly so, and therefore violates the nonaggression axiom.
Another problem with claiming V is a true anarchist is his treatment of the individuals who were involved with his imprisonment. He systematically kills many of them in a form that resembles coldblooded murder. While it is arguable the execution of many of these people is justified retaliation for their actions involving the prisoners at the Larkhill Camp, the novel does not specifically mention their exact actions against specific individuals and so makes it difficult to determine if they meet the non-pacifist anarchist qualifications for execution.
A third example of V not upholding anarchist values can be seen in his treatment of Evey. He does not allow her to leave his base of operations, effectively imprisoning her against her will. This is an obvious violation of her individual rights. More importantly, V subjects Evey to extensive physical and psychological torture, which, even as an attempt to open her mind, still qualifies as torture. While V obviously believes his ends justify his means, his actions violate the nonaggression axiom and therefore remain unethical in nature. It is safe to say V does not personally meet the requirements for a truly anarchist individual; however, this is not to say his intentions for dystopian English society are not anarchistic.
One of V’s most relevant quotations in relation to his intentions for society come from his public announcement during the prologue of Book Three: “For three days, your movements will not be watched…. Your conversations will not be listened to … and ‘Do as thou wilt’ shall be the whole of the law. God bless you … and goodnight” (Moore 187). It would be easy to take from this V’s motives are in line with those of the Joker’s, since he apparently wishes to create a state of disorder, confusion, and chaos.
However, V’s endgame is not to create chaos merely for the sake of an omniarchy; instead, he believes it is “a stage … society must go through … before anarchism can be realised” (Peak). He specifically tells Evey on page 195, “This is not anarchy, Eve. This is chaos” (Moore). It is clear V understands the fundamentals of an anarchist society and is attempting to create such a society by teaching its citizens what happens without order. He believes through this process England will realize the only true path to freedom is through voluntary order, which is an important part of anarchistic values.
In conclusion, V has been shown to violate anarchistic values and therefore does not qualify as a true, purely anarchistic individual. While this is the case, it is still possible his intentions for a future England are really anarchistic. This has been shown by his treatment of the general public in England and by his logic he presents to Evey when she confronts him about how he sent English society spiraling into chaos. It is safe to say V does indeed intend to create a free anarchist society, even if he does not meet every qualification for such a society himself. This can be quantified as a result of his own personal vendetta against the people who imprisoned and experimented upon him; his violation of anarchist principles stems not from a disregard of anarchy but from V’s own individual motives and prerogatives. It would be appropriate to conclude V intends to create a truly anarchist society from the remains of the tyrannically-ruled English people; his real endgame is not only to have his vengeance but to free society from those who impose themselves upon it and its citizens.
Works Cited
“Anarchy.” Oxforddictionaries.com. Oxford English Dictionary. Web. 6 May 2011.
Moore, Alan, David Lloyd, Steve Whitaker, and Siobhan Dodds. V for Vendetta. New York: DC Comics, 2005.
Peak, Alex. “Is V an Anarchist?.” Alex Peak. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. <http://alexpeak.com/twr/vfv/anarchism/>.
—. “The Joker is Not an Anarchist.” Alex Peak. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://alexpeak.com/ww/2008/016.html>.
Redeeming Pandora 