Anarchism

Okay, now (as Helen observed) my ongoing rant on church culture is concluded I've decided to allow my precious thought times to divert to something else in the shower for blogulation.

I was trawling through the library the other day and found a book on Anarchism. (May the Lord bless and add onto libraries). I was intrigued as to the blurb which described Anarchism as `a practical political philosophy` so thought it would be worth a read.

Firstly, i'd urge y'all not to be detered by the bad reputation affiliated with the word `Anarchism` - it actually is a well thought through political manifesto and on paper it very nearly holds water.

I wouldn't say it's quite as insightful as the Communist Manifesto or as pragmatic as the Euston Manifesto, but certainly, for the points of view Nicholas Walter poses, it's worth a read. Here's a very brief account of some of the beliefs of Anarchists:

1- If man *needs* governing, then it's paradoxial for man to govern man.
2- Just as the society of old beleived birth, marriage, burial etc had to be sanctified by religious act and people discovered that these acts could be just as well be enacted without the need for religiuos intervention, the same could be said for government. In other words, the aspects of life we associate to government can be easily emmancipated with a change of mindset.
3- The tendency to govern is a human trait or a phase, like aggression. Institutionalising this is merely perpetuating the ideal.
4- Just as anarchists beleive in the abolition of government - all institutions affiliated (eg, the police, laws, courts - even benevolent welfare institutions) should likewise be abolished as they ultimately serve towards the same ends as the folley of the government.
5- Anarchism is neither the extreme of liberalism (freedom) or socialism (equality). nor does it say it's the balence of both as that's welfare capitolism - but instead it's the realisation that liberalism and socialism are fundimentaly the same thing.

A lot is said not said about human nature, so I think it's important to read between the lines at parts. Take point one for example - it works only on the truth that all men are entirely equal have the same strengths and most importantly, that the desire for liberty is precident over the individual's desire for tangeable social order. I don't think this is the case. Even Marx (the sugar daddy of equality) said that any society boasts the governing and governable.

I think the rest of what the essay has to say is a mere juggling around of those aspects which don't fit happily into the above five points. For example, ownership of property or the occasional times when government is required.

At points, it's unclear as to when Walter is imagining a commune and when he's just some guy with a problem with authority. That's a frustrating aspect to the writing. I think the guy's coming from the perspective of someone who thinks ``I'm sensible enough to take care of myself government gets in the way`` and (as i just said) negates any aspect of human nature. A friend of mine once said `the law is for the guidence of the wise and the obedience of the fools` I think this is a terrible philosophy.

Perhaps Anarchism may work for the citizens of Dogville (the small mountain village with too few people for crime, too remote for commercialism/industrialism, too close-knit for domestic authority) and to an extent any group of friends could be considered Anarchistic, but Walter didn't look into a wider sphere.

I was too boneidle to do any proper further research for this blog but from what I know of Sierra Leone - the civil war of nintees dismantled the government and the only order was bought to pass by UN `peace keepers`. In not too long, there were regions and territories marked by organised crime syndicates and war lords which actually did a good job of keeping order and some looked after their `people` in a respectable way (for fascists anyway). As a country sized ant farm, I think that's rather insightful to human and society nature.

So why doens't anarchy work? Well for a start, just like every mid to far left political ideal (bar Marxism) it completely ignores human nature or diversity of people. But also, a moneyless, lawless, posesionless society is in itself : pointless. There's no reason for being in a society that isn't governed. People want/need to have ambition, have limits, have discipline. Leave a plate of water in the wind and it ripples. Leave a field fallow and a hundred species will grow in every direction. I think it's human nature to exploit the tiny aspects of life and make the most of their position in it - just like the war lords in Sierra Leone, so no massive society could possibly sustain a perfectly placid state when it comes down to people accepting their own equality.