74. COOPERATION IS GREATER THAN COMPETITION: Lessons in Anarchism and Mutual Aid from Professional Wrestling

I guess the first thing needed here is a confession. Following my previous post about the ethics of being a wrestling fan I was pretty down on professional wrestling and it seemed like I was tapping out on at least some aspects of what had been a passion of mine for nearly three decades following a summer of unseemly allegations and revelations. However, “the problem with ethical reasoning in the abstract”, I admitted, “is that the rubber meets the road when it comes to applying those conclusions to real life.“ Although I tried cutting WWE out of my diet and watching only AEW and NJPW, a documentary on the career of The Undertaker had me missing some of my favourites from the WWE ring. The New Day, specifically, had me longing to watch an episode of Raw or Smackdown again and so, soon enough, I did. There is no defensible moral argument for why, and I still think the company is pretty morally bankrupt, with my continuing patronage of their business clear evidence of my own moral failing, but addicts often struggle going cold turkey. Maybe one day I’ll do better?

As a philosopher who can’t shake his passion for even the worst aspects of this ludicrous pseudo-sport then, I may as well make intellectual use of that moral failing. One of the main reasons I have long-loved professional wrestling is its potential for illustrating the beauty of anarchism. In its purest form, professional wrestling shows us that cooperation is always more beneficial than competition. After all, the entire genesis of the spectacle of such simulated combat is the admission that a real fight - a real competition - is dull and often unpleasing, not simply in terms of the sheer brutality of watching people actually beating each other up, but in the disappointment of potential theatre sabotaged by the brute facts of reality. A real fight might boringly mean the stronger person wins, or that a single unexpected blow can end a potentially brilliant battle in an instant, whether or not the match has reached an emotional crescendo or not. And then there’s the rationale behind the fight - people being paid to beat each other up so they can collect the greater share of the winner’s purse is pure economic exploitation, no better than the indentured servitude of Roman gladiators. The possibility of a genuine grudge between fighters might add emotional frisson, but that added element of real danger makes such a fight even more ethically suspect. And such a grudge, if real, cannot be manufactured and is never guaranteed. In essence, real fighting, as seen by disappointed buyers of expensive boxing and MMA pay-per-views, and those who protest their very existence, is a morally dubious and not always entertaining crapshoot. So professional wrestling was born: fake the fights that can guarantee their entertainment value. A genius idea. And with it, many of the moral problems of real fighting fell away. For one thing, the job of the professional wrestler is not to hurt their opponent but to help them. To simulate believable violence a level of mutual cooperation is required to create the spectacle. My fake punch is only as good as the drama of how my opponent “sells” it. My opponent may not have the physical strength to pick me up and throw me across the ring…but if I do some of the work too, push myself up their body as they lift and propel myself when they throw, then together we can make something that looks amazing. I have to protect the body of my partner and they have to protect mine; we are no good to each other injured. And we have to ensure that each of us in our company wins and loses in equal measure to ensure a believable roster of compelling figures an audience believes has the potential to win each match they are pitted in, so personal ego is thrown out the door to ensure the good of all. Even those “enhancement talents”, whose job is to simply make the bigger stars look good, are essential. Far from being permanent losers, without them our winners would have no shine. Theoretically, there is therefore no reason any performer should be paid more or less than another as all contribute to the show. Even the order of the card can be planned and organised to build a show that leaves the audience on the edge of their seats from start to finish. A technical submission match to open, a tag-team scrap to follow, some high-flying flips in the third match, some bloody weapons-based carnage in the fourth, a different kind of technical match to follow - one which ends in a pin instead of a submission, and in our main event our biggest stars taking the best bits of all worlds to give you something memorable. With nothing left to chance what we have is a performance piece of mutual aid, carefully scripted to give the best possible outcomes for everyone. An ensemble, working together selflessly for the good of all.

Now I am not naive enough to think that this actually happens. The corruptions and distortions of capitalism on this model mean that the reality is less beautiful. Companies incentivise talent with different pay-offs for different positions on the card, merchandise sales influence performer choices in the ring, and limited television time - tenuously dependent on continued high ratings and connected to how much a wrestler will get paid - means ego very much comes to the fore as these “independent contractors” with no benefits or guaranteed income compete against each other to ensure they keep their spot on the card and don’t end up losing their jobs. But in principle, a professional wrestling show demonstrates how a small group of individuals working together for the good of all, cooperating instead of competing, leads to far better outcomes for the many than can be found in the ugly competition of all-against-all seen in real forms of fighting. Indeed, it is precisely the attitude of competition leaking through from the “real world” (economic demands, job security, marketshare) which sours the wrestling ideal.

Nowhere is this souring seen more than in market-leaders, WWE. In fact WWE made an international name for themselves in the early 80s when they betrayed the previous cooperative business model of the old territory system (independent wrestling territories loosely federated together to ensure each territory thrived) by buying up the best performers from each territory to monopolise the business for themselves, then putting them on national television as the premiere wrestling promotion. The company’s name at the time - the World Wrestling Federation - was almost intentionally sticking two fingers up to the previous model. Far from a federation of independent entities working together, the WWF, as it then was, created a monopoly which killed off the independent territories by forcing them into a competition they were ill-equipped both financially and intellectually to compete fairly in. And this bullish model of global dominance has continued ever since under the leadership of Vince McMahon Jnr. When those broken territories tried to align through the diminished NWA and form rival organisation World Championship Wrestling, McMahon’s WWE fought tooth and nail to bring WCW down. Ultimately, WWE succeeded, and McMahon bought, and destroyed, the company. Likewise, when maverick promoter, Paul Heyman created a brash adult-themed alternative to the family friendly WWE and WCW models in his Extreme Championship Wrestling, McMahon eventually took the best ideas from ECW, kept it alive as long as it was useful to him, then snuffed the company out, even distorting its legacy with a briefly resurrected WWE-version of the product to kill off any lingering coolness the alternative once had.

WWE’s mission has always been not simply to be a good wrestling company with a strong fanbase, but to be the wrestling company; a monopolised monolith. And, as the only publicly traded wrestling company in existence, they actually are legally obliged to be exactly that. Their fiduciary obligation to increase their shareholders’ profits means WWE can’t simply allow competition to exist unchallenged. And, like all corporations concerned about their so-called “intellectual property” this even leads to levels of the ridiculous, such as copyrighting people’s performer names by re-spelling them (Taz becomes Tazz, Rhino becomes Rhyno, etc.) or taking a well-known name from another promotion (Cactus Jack, KENTA, Eli Drake) and repackaging them in a way that they can claim ownership (Mankind, Hideo Itami, LA Knight) even if it dissolves all their previous name-recognition. WWE’s quest for dominance and sense of competitiveness has meant branding and copyrighting everything they can. Despite being called World Wrestling Entertainment, their wrestlers are not called “wrestlers”, they are “superstars”, fans are not called “fans” they are called the “WWE Universe”, and wrestling itself is transformed from “wrestling” into “sports entertainment”. Likewise, the in-ring product itself is often closely produced to present wrestling in the the WWE “style” whoever the competitor, neutering individuality and individual creativity often in the process - seen most damningly in the in-ring “promos” designed to get characters across to audiences as they speak on the mic. Traditionally these segments were self-created by the wrestlers themselves, hitting the beats and information points they needed to but allowing a stamp of individuality and expression in how the information was presented. In WWE, however, many of the promos became cookie-cutter blather written by the same script-writers, with the performers themselves unable to personalise or make unique the bland and interchangeable words they were given.

A final absurdity of the WWE obsession with being market-leaders is their refusal to acknowledge the existence of other promotions they do not own or have financial involvement with. Accomplishments outside the WWE ring are belittled or ignored, with usually detrimental effect to the individual - ironically now called a “superstar” even though their former acclaim gets squashed out of them with a name change, a new look, and no mention of their prior successes anywhere in the world. In short, while I may have returned to watching WWE more regularly again, I do not really do so with much joy. Despite the occasional flash of greatness or a familiar face I have missed, the shows still feel “samey”, the commentary robotic, the jokes tired and the personalities muted. While it is a habit deeply ingrained in me that has proven hard to shake, I remain as a fan far more interested and invested in the work of rival company AEW. I am watching WWE these days out of a sense of obligation; I am watching AEW because I want to. And I want to watch AEW because there is a sense in this new company of doing things differently. Of course it is still a company operating in a capitalist economy and a far cry from the anarchist ideal - but there is within every aspect of the company far more of the co-operation so badly missing from WWE and a willingness to cast aside competition for the greater good.

Whether it is the company allowing the wrestlers (and they call them wrestlers) to cut their own promos, have more freedom in their matches, and be themselves in their presentation, or the fact they let the commentary team off the leash, allow referees and ring announcers to have personality too, and use established talents like Chris Jericho and Sting to put over young talent like Orange Cassidy and Darby Allin instead of elevating only themselves, a sense of mutual co-operation permeates through the entire organisation. Most recently this has been seen by AEW “kicking open the forbidden door” and not merely acknowledging rival companies but working with them. Whether it is the current AEW champion, Kenny Omega, appearing on IMPACT WRESTLING and teaming with IMPACT tag team champions, The Good Brothers, under the guidance of “Invisible Hand” and IMPACT executive vice president, Don Callis; or the former AEW champion, Jon Moxley, fighting NJPW’s KENTA for Moxley’s hitherto unacknowledged but now proudly worn IWGP United States Championship (with Moxley and Omega scheduled to battle themselves for the AEW title March 7th at AEW Revolution) - the intertwining of promotions, storylines, and wrestlers is a thrilling change in a business currently dominated by a company - WWE - so adverse to working with others.

I watch AEW genuinely excited because I don’t know who will show up each week…but I have also started keeping an eye on IMPACT too, and have renewed interest in New Japan Pro Wrestling because of the interactions and crossover. By working together instead of against each other, as anarchists since Kropotkin have argued, everybody wins and the seemingly zero sum game is exposed for the capitalist con it always has been.

The benefits of such cooperation should be obvious in a business which is entirely based on people working together for the greater good. That this lesson has not yet been learnt by the current market-leaders is indicative of their flawed booking philosophy too, where the same “good guy” always wins, no matter how dull and predictable it gets, only changing to replace the face of the good guy when the audience grows tired. Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, Bret Hart, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, Triple H, John Cena, Roman Reigns. The idea that the biggest winners are those who contribute to the success of all is hard to fathom for a company so used to crushing the competition and heralding only a single dominant champion. I have no idea if the current AEW “forbidden door” with other wrestling promotions will remain open forever, or if AEW themselves - and their collaborating partners in IMPACT and NJPW - recognise how radical their emphasis on co-operation over competition is (ironically, the company prides itself on having a more sports-oriented model of pro-wrestling, with weekly rankings and match statistics to increase the sense of competition they fabricate) but for this self-conflicted anarchist wrestling fan it is very pleasing to see their growing ratings and the increasing creativity stemming from this purer ideal of working together, rather than the traditional monopoly of the super-competitive dinosaur that is WWE. I believe if AEW and their partners hold their nerve, they will continue to grow through this use of mutual professional aid between performers and companies to ensure the most exciting and interesting product each week, whereas WWE’s continued commitment only to its own private “universe” could finally be its undoing. Then, maybe one day, WWE will have no choice but to co-operate once again instead of compete and wrestling might return to the original anarchic federation it once stemmed from: equal winners and losers, winning and losing together in carefully scripted and well-balanced fashion for the greater good of all?

Author: DaN McKee

My book - AUTHENTIC DEMOCRACY: An Ethical Justification of Anarchism - is available HERE  and from all good booksellers.