What is anarchy and anarchism? It’s a commonly misunderstood word usually ascribed to a hateful and licentious lawlessness. Anarchism is sort of a living embodiment of its own principles in that there is no one clearly held body of beliefs. There are more considered approaches of the concepts than a codified philosophy. Anarchy means no rule, no hierarchy. Most of the thinkers in this body of thought espouse freedom as a primary moral virtue, and hold that the state cannot serve that goal. There are many variations on this, from a socialist view of sharing without having an authority governing it, to total individual pursuits governed only by business dealings.
Even in Taoism there are references to the same thing the anarchist philosophers have observed, that never was a body of humanity governed properly without resistance. Our current views, nationalism, religious factionalism, run counter to any of the anarchist schools of thought, and they point to the social ills that have arisen. Some say that our society only has peace because of enforced rule of law. That without that there would be just social abuse and no ability to protect the people at large. Anarchist thinkers disagree with this, and point out that in any form of police state not only is there violence between the police and law breakers, but corruption in those who supposedly serve the state. They don’t believe a policed system is possible to maintain, or truly even moral.
There are various schools of thought in the loose body of beliefs that constitute anarchism. One of the main things they differ on is the place and degree that organizations should be allowed to be formed, and whether or not they should be allowed to endure for any great length of time. Sort of like business they see that a plan for the dissolution or free resturctuing of any organization to serve the people is not only good, but necessary. Sort of the freedom to downsize any “national” body. In a sense anarchism is the truest form of democracy, in that they only accept the influence of organization by the agreement of those influenced.
So in fact though the United States is described as a democracy, it’s truly not because it rejects anarchist views. It has adopted the notion that a strong nation/state is necessary for its safety and prosperity. So in fact, we are a republic.
What do you mean “it rejects” them? Though the country itself was founded on the idea of people being governed by their personal consent, it didn’t remain that way. In fact, the men involved in signing the declaration of independence were called anarchists by the royalists.
But people can certainly discuss anarchy. They can even live in anarchist communities and can form an anarchist party if they want. Indeed, they can.
Not having a ‘big picture’ view is fearful to those in power, and I expect that a big picture view is difficult to have in anarchy? Indeed. It would require public opinion polling, and a lot of it.
So government would be unstable, and they would resist that? Yes, the ideals associated with anarchism are not free to be engaged in in the USA. One would be consent to taxation, voluntary support or denial of support to governmental bodies. An anarchist living by this philosophy would be arrested and heavily penalized.
Our government is more based on GNP than freedom. You are free to produce and pay your property taxes. That is what you are free to do. Being an indigent dependant on the state, my personal freedoms are sharply curtailed, and with the patriot act there could in theory be complications from having this conversation.
Complications from whom? Oh, NSA, CIA. The laws governing their function have been changed, and because I am on American soil they might accuse me of fermenting domestic terrorism. We have had it. But this isn’t about my personal political philosophies. I do cringe when people praise the state, because I am one of the systematically disenfranchised, but I have no political agenda. I am accepting that I am a third class citizen.
People do praise the state, and it’s slowing down. The American financial crisis is changing much even socially. Right now China is more wealthy than we are, not to say wealth is a virtue, but people go where the trade is and even in anarchy trade is still a factor. It is even a must. The mutual consent principle requires it. Even the European commonwealth is doing quite well by comparison, and they aren’t even united under a federated government. It is just a trade agreement. If anything right now one of the biggest threats to the US, is not that Obama is supposedly the anti-Christ, though members of the religious right are saying that, it’s the rabid nationalism in the face of the global reality.
Where did they get anti Christ from? Oh, he’s a radical political change for the US, and I have heard some of our Bible Belters expressing he’s in danger of assassination. I hope not, or if there is a threat I hope they are prepared for it.
He’s in danger just because he’s a black in power. True. It isn’t just the Bible Belters that are racist.
After the way the “religious” right shut the blacks out of the Bush election? It was no election. True. In anarchist thinking there would be no election to corrupt. No body granted power beyond immediate agreement. If your city has a leader it’s because the city actually chose them, and likely wouldn’t have just one leader.
Would an anarchy by it’s nature form as smaller bodies of people? Yes, and agreements between those smaller bodies of people. Treaties so to speak and likely would be honoured, because they were really factually agreed to by the people.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.
Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~