|
|
|
|
Unfortunately,
that’s a common stereotype of anarchists. And if that’s what
anarchists do, then Anarchism must be pretty scary, right?
It’s time to uhh… explode the stereotype.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Anarchism as: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. Nothing about violence, chaos, etc. in that. But, look at the definitions of anarchy: 1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government. That second definition sure plays to the stereotype. As with many stereotypes, there is some historical basis for associating violence with Anarchism. In the early twentieth century, there was one school of Anarchism that believed in using violence to bring about the end of government. Anarchists of that school committed (or attempted) bombings and assassinations. That gets more press than pedantic philosophical debates. And so the anarchist stereotype was born. That second definition of anarchy equates the absence of government with lawlessness. But when the State is the source of order, then if there is no State of course there is lawlessness. Duuuh! Just as when gasoline is the source of your vehicle’s energy, then when there is no gasoline, your vehicle is immobilized. If we follow that logic, when the State is not the source of order, then the lack of a State does not result disorder. Anarchism is another form of social organization, just as representative democracy is the current form of social organization but it has not been the only form. Before that, monarchism was the common form, at least in Europe. And before monarchism there were other forms. How did representative democracy come about? Interestingly, a revolution in 13 English colonies brought about the first form of representative democracy. However, in England the Magna Charta of 1215 had begun an evolutionary process which probably would have resulted in representative democracy there had the 13 colonies not been so impatient. This is how Anarchism will arrive - by evolution, not revolution. Anarchism is the highest form of social organization and towards which we have been evolving. Each form of organization was appropriate in its time but gave way to another form better suited for the historical conditions. Marx believed that communism would be the last and highest form of social organization. Lenin said that with communism the State (defined as the capitalist State) would “wither away.” But a communist State is still a government. So they were wrong. With Anarchism, the State will wither away... literally. Bit by bit, government will give way to private, voluntary associations. The specific forms of Anarchism’s social organization cannot be defined now since those specifics are so far in the future. Just because centuries ago someone could not provide the specifics of how a man would travel to and walk on the moon did not “prove” the feat was impossible. This is true of Anarchism also. Anarchism is not about lack of services. It is about how those service might be provided, if a group voluntarily decides they are desirable and organizes to provide them. Many rural areas have volunteer fire departments and that is in the anarchist tradition. User fees, not taxes, will be the predominant method of funding services. If you do not want a service, you do not pay for it. Since government is still the basis of organization, my interest is in nudging government towards the next step. For me, that next step is government along Libertarian lines. The smallest government possible, with the least taxes possible and user fees whenever possible. Once we have the smallest government possible, we can begin the transformation from small government to no government - Anarchism. No bombings or assassinations necessary. Just thinking outside the box of government. |
After quoting Lenin in my blog, now I have to quote Lennon :
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Peace!
I guess you could say I'm for "big" government, not wastefully so, but a government with teeth. We see how well it works to let corporations and Wall Street regulate themselves (see: Enron, Bear-Stearns).
I also don't mind taxes. It's the price we pay for living in a civilized society, where my needs are not the only ones that have to be met. Having said that, I continue to carp about how my taxes are spent.
And finally, good quote Anarchist! Dreamers are good.