I was speaking to a friend of ours (although rare and constantly under heavy scorn and unrelenting criticism, yes we do indeed have friends) the other day and he was asking me about anarchy, specifically as to whether it can work as a form of government.
I understand that some analyses of the word, particularly from an American or idealist position, return that it refers to a system of government that is without an immoral state, or without a state of any kind. Historical examples are often cited as successful realisations of an anarchic society.
The problem arises when you ask a supporter of such a view how their perfect, anarchy-based society would function; their answers are, invariably, unnecessarily complicated and nonsensical but it boils down to something like this: “In a system of anarchy, we would have no uppers and lowers, no oppressive law enforcement or equally oppressive immoral state, instead we would have people functioning together without the need for violence; every would serve their purpose to society depending on their skill set”
First off, I think the continuation of that sentiment that is not often said is “and the lands will be paved with gold and jelly beans shall rain from the sky onto gumdrop fields of gold that glimmer in the morning sun, children will hop and skip in the jelly dunes and all will be perfect.” I don’t know which part is more idealistic and which more unrealistic. The absurd idea that we rely on violence for no real reason and could just purge ourselves of it painlessly is beaten only by the contradiction of there being no discernible state or set political or sociological system and yet everyone is expected to know their place.
Violence is used, regrettably, because violence is a natural solution to aggression. When someone feels angry and vengeful, they will commit violence; this is not state-registered or approved, it is an inherent difficulty with human life; we are all bound to our meaningless emotions and petty selfish desires and no matter how logically and thoroughly we work out a perfect system of life, we cannot fight our intrinsic obstacles. Not only do we passively fail at this but even actively; destruction and self-destruction are urges felt by us all and you can’t suppress that, for if you do, you are trying to suppress the human element in us all.
To remove that which drives our conduct is to remove that which makes us human.
Impossibilities aside, I notice another, perhaps simpler problem. This isn’t describing anarchy at all, it is describing Marxism, or to call it by its proper name: Communism (before Stalin and the Bolsheviks ruined it). Communism is the system that tries to promote ultimate equality via the lack of a bourgeoisie state.
Basically, people who don’t understand political terms (like the fools who use communism, fascism and even socialism interchangeably) put their own clumsy spin on a term intended for wholly different purposes (anarchy) and have, once again, tried to off-balance things for the rest of us.
Good job you fingerpointing proles.
Blip (signature placeholder)