Wikipedia indicates that: "Anarchism has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term describes the political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy, while others have defined it as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organization."
This sounds an awful lot to me like deregulation in the economy and we've all see how that works out greed takes over. The trouble I see with this kind of theory is that people are intrinsically considered "good". The trouble with that is good or not, some people tend to take all they can get and more is never enough. There in lies problem.
Of course there are other views, that Anarchy has its many forms and we only recognize some, or only the obvious ones.
We may not like the State, the controls, but they are there for a reason. The issue I have is that with a State, we don't have enough smart people in control. Without a State we have NO people in control. We are a chaos based species. We are also social based but chaos seems to rule the day when we don't have rules in place.
Someone is always going to find the negative as a positive. Taking more than they need, hurting people, controlling people, these things are always going to be abused and we need to protect the weak and those who cannot or will not, protect themselves.
In the ninteenth century, Zhuangzi wrote, "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a Nation." This seems to true in many ways around the world. The issue is, if there is no State to rule and assign actions, people will be abused at will.
Then again, to err is human, to really foul things up takes a computer, could be applied to the State. To err is a human social group, to really foul things up takes a Sate. As the size of the group increases, the intellect decreases exponentially, also points out an issue.
You'll notice that even in a group who has Anarchy in their names, what they are saying is not that they want anarchy but that they don't want to pay respect to authority other than themselves. This is a common thread among Anarchists. Its problems therefore, are obvious and intrinsic.
I think what all these, especially young people, are pointing out by find this attractive, is a desire for more freedom than our government is allowing us. And by their realzing that our leaders are selling out for a stable job (elected officials); big business (basically, Big Oil, and the Military / Industrial complex); and insanity (mostly fundementalists and right wingers, from what I'm seeing anyway).
It seems to me we need to lighten up. Relax. Lose some of that Puritainism that is keeping us down and making a laughing stock of us in various more "enlightened" countires. Overall, I think we're doing pretty good (other than war, oil greed, fear mongering, partisanship, etc., stuff like that). We could use to listen to the Anarchists. We don't have to follow them like the proverbial Lemmings. But everyone has something useful to say if you listen long enough. In fact, I see a lot of the right wing crowd sounding a lot more nuts than the Anarchists. I've never agreed with the Nihilsts.
On the one hand we have the Anarchists and other such types. On the other side, we have the fearful right wing and those other such types. Which is right? What, is too extreme?
But the point of both of them really is that our control (government) has gotten lost and needs to find its way again as what is important? The People... as a whole, and not the greedy powerful few.
There is no reason we can't get our act together. We just have to do it. First we need to learn and act to be more responsible for ourselves. This may take a while people, but we can do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment