So I got called 'Full of shit' when tweeting with an 'anarchist' on education in Canada. He had an issue with University's teaching anything but pre-approved state propaganda. I am not going to venture into Google and privacy again, no need to go there.
I looked up the definition of Anarchy on the net, used Google and it took me to the Wikipedia page. Now to the conspiracy guys out there, I could be faulted for using Google as it takes me to pre-approved places and using wikipedia, well, there is a whole other issue. The definitions could be 'state approved' as they could have been place there by state employees, in their spare time.
But that's where I am. Wikipedia has a lot of preabmble before it even gets to the definition, they include 'Schools of Thought', Theory - practice, People, Issues, History, Culture, Economics, Region, Lists...who knew they were so orgainized!
In the Region section it gives a person a perspective on Anarchy at work in your country. Canada has some stuff going on.
Anyway, back to the definition.
'Anarchy is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful, or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as anarchists, advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.'
That is pretty much what I learned in University. Pretty simple eh? Well like vegetarianism, it is not that simple.
The next paragraph says there are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.
So when speaking to one of these guys, you have to find out what kind of anarchist they are.
I am totally confused by the concept of positive and negative liberty, Isaiah Berlin says: "It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter or argument =, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as to never obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others."
So far I have not seen anything to show me that my Political Science 101 definition of Anarchy is wrong. From what I do know I have some questions on how the modern day Anarchist subsists.
The internet is free, but you need some mechanism to get onto it. A computer, most computers are built by large companies which assemble parts from other companies and put them in a package such as a Personal Computer, Laptop, iPad, iPhone etc. These devices can be built by a person if the were to scavenge the parts. I know some people who can do this, I would not consider them anarchists. This is a system.
Once you have the device, you have to connect to the internet. A lot of people pay a provider to supply them with internet in their homes, you can also pay a provider for a 3G or 4G connection for a mobile device. You can of course taken your device to a coffee shop like Starbucks, and connect to the net for free. This may involve buying something...from a system....although Starbucks would probably give you the benefit of doubt that you will buy something there. Being there multiple hours a day with your device plugged in (for the electricity - another system) to the internet may draw attention to yourself - especially if you never buy anything.
I am only speaking of the internet which some people don't really care about being on after they leave work. But apply the anarchists independence to everything.
A person need food and water to subsist. Not everyone can live beside the river with arable land. And in some case you wouldn't want to live beside the river on arable land - Mississippi for example (spring flooding).
Camping is fun, for some people. A lot of people are glad to get back to their home after a couple of weeks in a tent, or motorhome. But un Anarchyland, this would be your home. The motorhome may not move as it would rely on systems to help it relocate, fuel, roads, rules of the road. Of course after you relocated, you'd have to have a place to park it. If you like to use the electricity, there'd have to be a system to supply it. I guess you could have someone use a bicycle generator.
So basically in order for any anarchist system to work, you have to have a system established and then obliterate it. Of course there would have to be some system set up to maintain what was already created. I cannot see 6 billion people waking up to a new day with no systems.
Think of what it would be like on Day One. First off the day would have started at 00:01, so anyone that worked at that time could elect not to go to work. People that work at that time provide basic necessary services, police, fire, water, ambulance, power generation, oil refining, monitoring pipelines and gas distribution. So 1/3 of them decide to embrace their new found freedom from a system. That would impact a lot of people who may decide to wake up to go to their employment. Yes there would be people that would want to as they feel secure in a system.
So they get to work and there is no electricity, no work (burnt down, robbed), no heat, no water. Then they are sent home, maybe not immediately as they probably would want to cooperatively create a system of leader and fixers to work back up and running and then to notify the workers when to come back.
Things would get progressively worse until almost everything stopped working. Then people would become scared, hungry, cold etc
This is the part the state has keyed in on. This part makes people afraid of anarchism. And rightly so. Anarchism like communism is a complete change in the way society operates. I would think that in order to adopt it, there would have to be more than a majority of 50% + 1 of the people as the other 49% could prevent it from happening - and they would be motivated.
The only time I can see that an anarchy exists is right after the government is overthrown, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya being recent examples. But there can be be no power vacuum for very long and the people quickly adopted another system. I don't recall a big hew and cry from any group of disassociated individuals saying 'why do we need a government?' Well there was the Northern Anarchist Network with regards to Libya, NATO and the rebels.
http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2011/11/27/the-northern-anarchist-network-nato-libya-and-utter-confusion/
You have to start from established systems for two reasons: almost all of the planet is governed by established systems and second, in order to get any buy in from people you'd have to assure them that there would be no impact on their standard of living (deflection of the truth to the max).
Personally speaking I am happy with the current system with it's checks and balances. I am not happy that so many people chose not to vote, as they feel their voice means nothing. Normally this is young people who are buying into the anarchist's logic. They talk about a pile of 'what if's' but they don't want to hear your questions. Why, because they have no answers, it's just an idea. One that is in no way practical.
Once upon a time there were no systems. Man lived as the anarchists would have you live. We evolved from those days. We have had various groups try the anarchist way, their system didn't last, nor did they.
No comments:
Post a Comment