antigovernment1
13th March 2002, 03:19
article i wrote addressing some of the criticisms brought towards anarchism.
First off, one of the main criticisms brought against Anarchism is that it will fail due to the fact that it opposes law. Because people such as rapists, murders and gangs can run around and basically "dominate" society. I feel this is a weak criticism. Primarily because in today's society, there is an overwhelming force of law and order, and yet we still have tons of murderers, there are tons of rapists. There are gangs, and there is war. Law's do not stop these problems, nor do they limit these problems, because these problems are the symptoms of society. They are the symptoms which come from the indoctrination of fear, manipulation, and repression. That's what laws are for. To repress. That's the purpose of establishing a law. To repress in order to sustain control.
Law's do not solve problems. They simply create more. Need an example? Look at today's society. Because of law, we have more prisons, we have pigs running around with shot guns, we have the federal government busting into peoples homes with machine guns, we have more people locked up in prisons in this country than ANY other country in the world. Once you establish a bureaucratic system of laws, then society will attach it's self to that system of bureaucracy and developed a dependency to that system. And that's where corruption sets in. Because that very system of bureaucracy engenders corruption. Therefore it becomes corrupt, and therefore society becomes corrupt. The top down structural hierarchy manipulates. It creates an intangible tool for control, which is referred to as "power", which is nothing more than an illusion. And this begins to corrupt society, as society is no longer able to sustain a social equilibrium as this "illusion of power" has degraded the free thinking and free will of the individual. They no longer live open indeed, but close minded due to a system of protocols that literally manufacture the morals, and belief systems of each individual. Need an example? The average american will automatically assume another person has done something wrong if they're arrested. Without knowing any specifications, without thinking nor questioning the actions of the system, the individual will automatically assume the person has done something wrong. It's this mentality which indicates the symptoms of repression. It's this same mentality often used to create mass hysteria, like Nazi Germany. Or keep extreme fundamentalist laws intact, (for example: One law say's, "you can't walk down the street with long hair, if you do, you will be shot". So one day a person walks down the street with long hair. He is shot and killed. No one complains, no one questions the authority of this law, because they've already accepted the repression as part of the "norm". People begin to reply with things like, "well, you shouldn't have broken the law"... "you break the law, prepare to face the consequences" ... "you're irresponsible" .. etc.) .. Once society has developed this type of mentality, you're in big trouble. Because it shows that law has degraded free thinking. It shows that law has degraded the individuals ability to question authority. It shows that the law has degraded the individuals ability to challenge authority. And when you have this, you have slavery, because people no longer have the ability to change society. And just like today, society becomes driven by fear. When fear is indicted into society, then society becomes corrupt. Either society self-destructs and collapses within it's self, or the people begin to revolt, because they're not living in the society they wish to be living in.
This is why you cannot point out a single government in history, not a single one, that has lasted more than a few hundred years. Every single government, every single hierarchical form of power has collapsed. Every single one has failed. Societies governed by these top-down structures have always downfalled, or been torn down by the people through rebellion. The only type of societies to last longer than any hierarchical driven society were anarcho-commune societies which had NO government. However, unfortunately, they were unable to defend themselves against imperialism because it was the first time imperialism had never been experienced.
That brings me to my next argument .. Some people say that there is no security within an anarchist society. That anyone could come along and decide to take over the society, and basically screw everyone else over. This is not true. Because first of all, an anarchist society cannot be established without the disciplinary independence of each individual, one that is dedicated towards the ideology, and theory backed by anarchism. This basically means that an anarchist society cannot become established unless that society is educated. Unlike today's society, the priorities of an anarchist society sees to further educate people, to make decisions by utilizing a direct democracy. If you have a society where the priorities exist of things like education, then if someone were to come along and try to take over that society, everyone from that society would respond to them. You'd have the entire community approaching a small handful of people. Who do you think is going to win? The community who's educated about imperialism, knows the effects of authoritarian dominance, and is willing to stamp it out by any means, or the small handful of people. Because an anarchist society sees to exercise a direct democracy, and chooses priorities such as education, the people within that society are conscious enough to approach such a serious problem if it were to arise. A complacent society like we have today simply would not exist.
Some other arguments I hear from people is that Anarchists are trying to make a "perfect society" .. A "utopia". This is simply not true. There is no such thing as a "utopia". There is no such thing as perfection because perfection differs between each individuals opinion. What may seem perfect to me, can seem terrible to you. Or vise-versa. There is no such thing as a "perfect" society, and there will always be SOME level of social confliction within society. Always. Human beings are social creatures, and often, we need social confliction in order to problem-solve and express emotions.
Some people try to say that anarchist societies never work. Well, all we've seen throughout the history of society were governments. Many of them. And every single one of them fell. Every single one of them failed. I believe that in it's self is a good enough reasoning to believe that we as human beings cannot - no matter what - socially equip ourselves with the stability under a system of top-down centralization. That only naturally, we oppose these hierarchies, for they represent control.
I often get confronted with the argument telling me that "anarchists cannot organize". This again is simply not true. For I myself have witnessed organization amongst anarchists, and must I say it's been some of the best organization I've ever seen.
First off, one of the main criticisms brought against Anarchism is that it will fail due to the fact that it opposes law. Because people such as rapists, murders and gangs can run around and basically "dominate" society. I feel this is a weak criticism. Primarily because in today's society, there is an overwhelming force of law and order, and yet we still have tons of murderers, there are tons of rapists. There are gangs, and there is war. Law's do not stop these problems, nor do they limit these problems, because these problems are the symptoms of society. They are the symptoms which come from the indoctrination of fear, manipulation, and repression. That's what laws are for. To repress. That's the purpose of establishing a law. To repress in order to sustain control.
Law's do not solve problems. They simply create more. Need an example? Look at today's society. Because of law, we have more prisons, we have pigs running around with shot guns, we have the federal government busting into peoples homes with machine guns, we have more people locked up in prisons in this country than ANY other country in the world. Once you establish a bureaucratic system of laws, then society will attach it's self to that system of bureaucracy and developed a dependency to that system. And that's where corruption sets in. Because that very system of bureaucracy engenders corruption. Therefore it becomes corrupt, and therefore society becomes corrupt. The top down structural hierarchy manipulates. It creates an intangible tool for control, which is referred to as "power", which is nothing more than an illusion. And this begins to corrupt society, as society is no longer able to sustain a social equilibrium as this "illusion of power" has degraded the free thinking and free will of the individual. They no longer live open indeed, but close minded due to a system of protocols that literally manufacture the morals, and belief systems of each individual. Need an example? The average american will automatically assume another person has done something wrong if they're arrested. Without knowing any specifications, without thinking nor questioning the actions of the system, the individual will automatically assume the person has done something wrong. It's this mentality which indicates the symptoms of repression. It's this same mentality often used to create mass hysteria, like Nazi Germany. Or keep extreme fundamentalist laws intact, (for example: One law say's, "you can't walk down the street with long hair, if you do, you will be shot". So one day a person walks down the street with long hair. He is shot and killed. No one complains, no one questions the authority of this law, because they've already accepted the repression as part of the "norm". People begin to reply with things like, "well, you shouldn't have broken the law"... "you break the law, prepare to face the consequences" ... "you're irresponsible" .. etc.) .. Once society has developed this type of mentality, you're in big trouble. Because it shows that law has degraded free thinking. It shows that law has degraded the individuals ability to question authority. It shows that the law has degraded the individuals ability to challenge authority. And when you have this, you have slavery, because people no longer have the ability to change society. And just like today, society becomes driven by fear. When fear is indicted into society, then society becomes corrupt. Either society self-destructs and collapses within it's self, or the people begin to revolt, because they're not living in the society they wish to be living in.
This is why you cannot point out a single government in history, not a single one, that has lasted more than a few hundred years. Every single government, every single hierarchical form of power has collapsed. Every single one has failed. Societies governed by these top-down structures have always downfalled, or been torn down by the people through rebellion. The only type of societies to last longer than any hierarchical driven society were anarcho-commune societies which had NO government. However, unfortunately, they were unable to defend themselves against imperialism because it was the first time imperialism had never been experienced.
That brings me to my next argument .. Some people say that there is no security within an anarchist society. That anyone could come along and decide to take over the society, and basically screw everyone else over. This is not true. Because first of all, an anarchist society cannot be established without the disciplinary independence of each individual, one that is dedicated towards the ideology, and theory backed by anarchism. This basically means that an anarchist society cannot become established unless that society is educated. Unlike today's society, the priorities of an anarchist society sees to further educate people, to make decisions by utilizing a direct democracy. If you have a society where the priorities exist of things like education, then if someone were to come along and try to take over that society, everyone from that society would respond to them. You'd have the entire community approaching a small handful of people. Who do you think is going to win? The community who's educated about imperialism, knows the effects of authoritarian dominance, and is willing to stamp it out by any means, or the small handful of people. Because an anarchist society sees to exercise a direct democracy, and chooses priorities such as education, the people within that society are conscious enough to approach such a serious problem if it were to arise. A complacent society like we have today simply would not exist.
Some other arguments I hear from people is that Anarchists are trying to make a "perfect society" .. A "utopia". This is simply not true. There is no such thing as a "utopia". There is no such thing as perfection because perfection differs between each individuals opinion. What may seem perfect to me, can seem terrible to you. Or vise-versa. There is no such thing as a "perfect" society, and there will always be SOME level of social confliction within society. Always. Human beings are social creatures, and often, we need social confliction in order to problem-solve and express emotions.
Some people try to say that anarchist societies never work. Well, all we've seen throughout the history of society were governments. Many of them. And every single one of them fell. Every single one of them failed. I believe that in it's self is a good enough reasoning to believe that we as human beings cannot - no matter what - socially equip ourselves with the stability under a system of top-down centralization. That only naturally, we oppose these hierarchies, for they represent control.
I often get confronted with the argument telling me that "anarchists cannot organize". This again is simply not true. For I myself have witnessed organization amongst anarchists, and must I say it's been some of the best organization I've ever seen.