.
.
Subject: Re: Anarchy as an Alternative?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...

Anarchists have corrupted the ideal of anarchy. FWIK anarchy is a Greek
word meaning 'no hierarchy.' The anarchists have corrupted that to mean
'no Government,' making 'anarchism' a "movement" that is beyond repair.

It is possible to make up a Government that isn't a hierarchy, a
Government that is a service to the people that fully control it.
Take the Government of middle American Indians (Mexico), who sent
representatives of their villages to conduct negotiations, however
the village retained complete control over both the representative,
the extend of the negotiation, what was agreeable.

Hierarchy is: one person is the soldier, the other is the corporal,
then the Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captian and so on, where the lower
rank must obey even on a whim the higher rank. All the decisions are
made by the higher ranks.

A Government flowing from groups of people who sent in a representative
while retaining full control over the representative and negotiations
is not such a hierarchy. It would be an anarchic form of Government,
a Government without hierarchy.

But 'the anarchists' not only skewed the meaning of 'anarchism,' they
also pulled it into a charicature of itself, which is typically what
white people do when they are 'thinking.' They pull everything into the
idiosyncratic and absurd extreme, maybe this is because only then can
they become consious of what they are thinking (it is also a logical
technique, pulling something into the extreme to isolate it). Because
the white people are extremists and simpletons (almost all of them),
they do not connect their ideas with common sense intervening. Therefore
the anarchist might object to said example of a non-hierarchical
government: but it still makes decisions, what about the few that don't
agree ? There are perfectly good 'anarchist' answers for that too, but
that's not what the anarchist cares about to hear. The anarchist purpose
was to protect his cult like ideas, hit and run and be done with it. By
the time you've started to answer the issue the anarchist is long gone.

The correct answer is by the way: everyone can split off, form their own
sovereignty, and the type of decisions made by the Governments are all
for the common good and general. A separation into a police, judiciary,
and a strong constitution to protect individual freedom complete the
non-hierarchical (litterally anarchist) system.

But don't tell the anarchists how easy anarchism could work, they don't
care one way or the other. As a cult like any other the anarchists don't
care about rational argument anymore, the days they did care are long dead.

Like the socialists and communists and perhaps even the liberals, they
all make the fundamental mistake of seeing law as an enemy. Because of
that decision all hope for these movements seems to have evaporated.
Without law you can not make up any culture or system that would work.
That is why the bourgeoisie is still here, they do understand laws and
they do like them. Simply put, the bourgiosie is a whole lot more
intelligent and competent in the areas of Governance and setting up
society then the other groups. The other groups need the bourgeoisie to
show them how you do that.

Of course many socialists, communists liberals do care about law, but
this never reaches the strategic or principles essence of their
movements. It remains a common sense and reality inspired fringe around
cult like slogans that remain at the heart of these movements.
-- 
http://www.socialism.nl