For a while, it seemed I had found just the perfect philosophy for me to support: anarchism. But you take a bit of this and a bit of that and it all comes back to square one. Of course anarchism is a naïve proposition; it is impossible for a society to exist without proper governance and a body to impose law and order. Despite that, I thought it could be rather an idealistic school of thought because a society where everyone was guided by a moral conscience (albeit a utopian vision) could exist in anarchy. But then I realized that this concept was flawed because everything is not black and white (and I’m not a child anymore). As a result of the fact that right and wrong are totally relative concepts (and my realization of this fact is a downfall for me because it suspends judgment in most cases and leaves me suspended between decisions, neither here nor there), anarchism cannot be sustained because any people will not be in absolute agreement over every single thing in life, even if they were following their individual conscience. Thus this is not just naïve and too idealistic, it is practically impossible. :/

I am disappointed, but…oh well.

P.S. I believe I have stumbled upon something extremely controversial. I’ve barely just started reading about it. Comments and arguments and opinions are most welcome. If anyone is reading, that is. P:


One thought on “Anarchism

  1. But isn’t anarchisms seeming flaw its inherent strength? It actually encourages people to move beyond the passive alienation and to work on their life and participate in the organisations that make society possible.

    Society as it is, has set institutions and heirarchys controlling these institutions. As such, we are not able to fully express our free will through these institutions. Even if you don’t want to participate you are forced to participate.

    by starting with free association as a premise, you cooperate and so you start viewing the world beyond black and white, instead looking at how you can make it work through cooperation with others. In order to get anything done, in order to even survive, you start looking at how you can carry out actions by working with other people. Ultimately, the way you want to express yourself will be free, but will also be defined by your actions. You will control these, but if you want to get any complex task done you will have to freely co-operate with others. It does not have to invovle absolute agreement, just enough agreement and mutual task to be able to get tasks done.

    Anarchism does not necessarily involve rejecting initiative of individuals or leadership. It just means that no one individuals idea dominate and everyone has a chance to speak and express themselves before an important decision is made. An individual can seize the initiative, suggest things and try to persuade others to do things in a certain way. What is needed is the dismantleing of formal and informal hierarchys. So that it is not the smae people makeing decisions, those who speak the loudest who get listened to and so on. It is basically a form of society based on mutual respect.

    The need for everyone to agree is also reduced if you reduce the number of people involved. For example, you could never get everyone in London to agree with each other. But if you had a number of self governing units who are all autonomous and serve the needs of the relevant community as required, you bypass the need to have everyone agree. The units would only neeed to agree with eahc other on a loose basis and when a relevant problem comes up. The units would form a society throught he mutual exchangve of goods and mutual aid as required. Basically a radical or council democracy.

    This has been tried and worked at times in history. The 1871 Paris Commune functioned until it was crushed. PArts of Russia and the Ukraine organised like this (and were crushed by the Bolsheviks). Catalonia in 1936 was the most famous and argueably the most succesful anarchist society. It even succeeded in beginning to win the war against the fascists before it was betrayed by the Stalinist communist party.

    But the central idea behind anarchism, even if pure anarchism can’t be achieved, is worth sticking to. The idea that it is not evryone out for themselves, but the driving force behind humans (and all animals in nature) is mutual co-operation. This results in the furhtering of our aims, rather than complete individualism.

    The problem is that we are taught, through school, work etc. not to think like this. You are taught to get things done ther must be the rulers and the ruled and since more often than not you end up in the category of the ruled, you should follow orders and do what you are told. If you want something done and your not the ruled then you are taught to give orders. To coerce people into doing task (normally by offering somekind of incentive, something they need. But often through hidden and open threats of violence). What you should do is try and organise to do something non-hierarchically with a few people. Let everyone have some say and try to reach group decisions. This will reveal that it can be doen and also reveal problems with this kind of organisation. THe more you do it, the more natural non-hierarchical organisation will seem, with the hierarchys you face at work and in social situations seeming, basically, un-natural.

    Anyway, those were just a few thougths on why you shouldn’t right off anarchism as a liberating philosophy.
    Anarchy and Peace, NGC:)

    “True social harmony grows naturally out of solidarity of interests. In a society where those who always work never have anything, while those who never work enjoy everything, solidarity of interests is non-exsistent; hence social harmony is but a myth… thus the entire arsenal of government- laws, police, soldiers, the courts, legislatures, prisons- is strenuously engaged in “harmonizing” the most antagonistic elements of society.” Emmma Goldman

    “Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing a realm social wealth; an order that will guarentee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.” Emma Goldman too 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s