Anarchism = Freedom
I received many letters, as did at least one of my under appreciated webmasters, due to an article I wrote entitled "Democracy = Death." Most of these letters agreed with my summation of democracy; that democracy is the most insidious institution; and, that it seems to be the best so far. What form of government would be better? I am a member of the Libertarian Party, and supporter of Presidential Candidate and now civil dissident Michael Badnarik. Ultimately, though, complete freedom could be anarchy.
Let me say that my version of anarchy is different than the accepted form. I will describe why later. Essentially, though, anarchy means "without rule, but containing the essence of rule." Anarchism is the exact opposite of tyranny. Anarchy is anti-authoritarianism. Anarchists are not against structure; they are against hierarchical structure. The pyramid exists in anarchy. Conversely, the base rules, chooses its family and community leaders, and on up to the top. The wealth is distributed to the top last, and in the fashion the bottom sees fit. Anarchy is freedom. On this definition of anarchy, I agree. That is why it is my most favored mode of living.
Anarchy Watch is a site dedicated to the total compilation of anarchismís themes and works. I received quite an education just wading through the voluminous, anonymously authored FAQ section. From the introduction: "Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you." This statement leads one to assume that my theory of anarchy is not, nor can it be proven, wrong (until tried.) But, my theory of anarchism is a theory. If anarchists say my theory is not anarchy, they themselves are imposing limits on me, thus rebuking their own theory. And, in fact, the last sentence of the introduction says just that. More credibility to Anarchy Watch. The central idea of the statement leads one to affirm that theories are more correct, less dominating, than ideologies. Thus, "conspiracy theory" is a high compliment.
My first and greatest split with the accepted form of anarchism is that it must abolish private property ownership. If I want to own property, and anarchists donít let me, they go against my desire, which hurts no one. Now, if I want to buy the state of Texas, and horde the oil, and build my own hierarchical system, anarchists have every right to "come and take it." Second, anarchists are opposed to Communism. It was the direct-actionaries of Soviet Russia that have the respect of all anarchists. Yet, communism means the abolition of private property. What else can I say about that? Third, the reason "anarchists" say that they are against private ownership is that they oppose capitalism. It is difficult for me to say, but I am now against capitalism, which leads to my trend into anarchism. However, never and nowhere does it say that the definition of capitalism is real property ownership. The Websterís American Dictionary defines capitalism as "an economic system in which investment and ownership of production, distribution, and exchange of the wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private owners or corporations. Just because individuals own land, does not mean that they will be allowed to control the production, distribution, and exchange of the wealth. Either anarchists have been infiltrated by Communists (a distinct possibility,) or liberal freedom-lovers canít disassociate private ownership of land and goods from corporate ownership of labor. Finally, an anarchist society will allow for the most diverse range of individuals. A difference between anarchic property ownership and Americaís present one is this: in the former, there would be no taxes, regulations, rules, codes, districting. You work hard, you produce, you gain wealth, you buy land, you own it. Period. That is true freedom.
Anarchists are socialists in that they seek to put the processes and fruits of production into the hands of the laborer. We are against any form of economic system that subjugates anyone. Therefore, all anarchists are anti-capitalists. So, anarchists are narrowly socialist, by desiring the workers to own the work. It must be said that socialismís accepted definition is where the workers or the government own production. The latter, government ownership, is unacceptable. Only a person should be able to own real estate. Elites knew this, and therefore made corporations and government individuals. Libertarian-socialism is one accepted definition of anarchism.
Real anarchism spawned in Russian, in direct opposition to the two worst forms of tyranny revealed to mankind - tsarism and communism. It did not spring from a world of capitalists. Capitalists and Communists were both funded by an unspeakably vile institution - worse that tsarism or communism - Illuminism. The Illuminists are the eye of the pyramid, and the formidable opponents of the producers at the bottom.
Anarchists have three basic tenets. These are liberty, equality, and solidarity. Liberty is the only way one can develop individuality. Liberty is self-explanatory, and it is the only way for individuality to fully flower. Equality means that all people are equal in the eyes of the law. It must be noted that there is no reality to equality. The differences in people equal the number of fingerprints on Earth. In our hierarchical society, equality is only given to the elite. In anarchy, this extends to all. We believe that solidarity is a necessity for civilization and society. Many think that anarchy would bring chaos. It is hierarchy and domination that bring chaos. From a world in which liberty is given to all, solidarity would naturally flow. Solidarity is the final piece to the anarchist puzzle. It is the bridge between individuals and societies. "For anarchists, real wealth are other people, and the planet we live on."
Anarchism is the rejection of all forms of government. It would be society based upon free associations and mutual agreements. Freedom leads to the blossoming of individuality, the evolution of the society. One person or entity must never coerce or dominate another. Anarchists need no laws to enforce liberty, equality, or brotherhood.
Direct action is the method used by the movement to effect change. Tactics used include boycotts, strikes, sabotage, and in dire situations, armed resistance. The primary, perhaps only, recipient of direct action should be hierarchies.
It sounds strange, but we are in favor of society and organization. We are against hierarchical society and organization. True individualism is best developed by associations with other free individuals. Here is a truth from Anarchy Watch. "There is no doubt that society needs to be better organized, because presently most of its wealth - which is produced by the majority - gets distributed to a small, elite minority." The key to a new society should be based around free-agreements.
It must be said that anarchists love liberty, but not complete liberty. Liberty only extends as far as the next personís begins. In fact, we are non-violent, except when fighting domination or hierarchy. Thus, a rapist, murderer, or thief are utilizing coercion and domination, and would not be tolerated.
Another point: the slave master rarely frees the slave. That is why anarchists have wielded direct action, or self-liberation. Every evolution in government has been a devolution. From despots, to Man-god-priests, to kings, to chancellors and presidents, government is slowly dying. Anarchism will be the end result. Some prefer to wait for this slow, agonizing death. Others feel that it might be better to put the horse out of its misery. All anarchists have different opinions on the proper amount of self-liberation to perpetrate. "Challenging institutions which challenge oneís freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion the process of questioning authoritarian relationships in general." Until we all "self-emancipate," we will not be completely free, equal, or united.
Some say that we have no choice but to have a world body, therefore we must reform it. I do not concur. We do not need any government. We should never allow for any hierarchy. We all can, and must, freely associate, to create a society based on liberty, individuality, and voluntary communal achievements. Most people think this is impossible. You may not want to be completely free. However, if you oppose anarchy, you are simply saying, "I do not want full responsibility of myself, my family, my community, my country, my planet." That is fine: you donít want slavery, but you donít want freedom, either. You want some sort of warm fuzzy in-between. This is an impossibility, as has been proven time and time again. You are trying to build a society based on domination, influence, hierarchy. Thus, your very framework is flawed.
Anarchy is the only theory that will lead to the complete enlightenment of the individual and society. It is the only way to overcome racism and global suicide. A thousand letters I have quoted Thoreau. None say it better.
"I heartily accept the motto, - "That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, - "That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.