My biggest problem with anarchism is its name. I fear it's doomed
by reputation / connotation, whether justified or not. Since most
associate it with its opposite (violence), it never gets off the
ground. I'd like to suggest a new word: "aservite"
("aservitist"?). It's similar in meaning but less likely to
connote violent revolution. Specifically defined as "non-slave",
it asserts a more positive pronouncement of/by the individual.
Even if it were defined as "against slavery", it would connote
less of a negative denouncement of others.
+++++++++++++++++
The Anarchist's Gift
by Marcel Votlucka
Exclusive to STR
February 7, 2007
I don't have just one reason to hate the State, I have over
180 million of them. That is a conservative estimate of the
number of people killed in the last century alone by governments,
whether through wars, genocides, pogroms, and miscellaneous acts
of murder and oppression.
All of these people died because some pig in a suit wanted
more land, wealth, power, privilege, or just wanted to settle a
grudge with his fellow rulers across the border. All this at
others' expense, no less. Ultimately, all states are based on
force, and politics is the tool by which people use that force to
achieve what they want - even if they have to violate everybody
else's rights in the process. And because the State must, by
necessity, be a monopoly on "legitimate" violence against others,
there's no escaping this uncomfortable fact: politics kills.
And from there we can only conclude: politics is a crime.
Yet if you dare question any aspect of statism, be prepared
to face a volley of snide remarks and head-shaking. Statists
have a hysterical answer for every objection; they've had plenty
of practice! You might hear this delicately constructed
argument: "You're crazy! We need government in order to
survive! Without it, everything would turn to chaos! The
wealthy and powerful would take advantage of the weak, there
would be nobody to prevent people from killing and robbing and
raping each other, we'd be without social services, and people
would die in the streets! The economy would collapse and we'd
all live in poverty! Terrorists would run amuck with no one to
stop them! What would we do?!"
They then conclude: "Argh! Stop being so,
so.unrealistic!"
Well, that's all very cute, but the fact of the matter is
we have all these kinds of problems now. And in some cases the
problems have only bred new ones. We have bigger wars,
indiscriminate terrorism, horrible weapons for mass murder, and
the potential for nuclear holocaust thanks to big bombs and
bigger egos. We have extremes of poverty and wealth, slavery,
and famine, bred and nurtured by socialist and corporate fascist
policies. We face Orwellian surveillance, social oppression, a
polluted planet, and so on.
If people justify statism on the basis of eliminating or
minimizing the problems aforementioned, they are sadly mistaken.
Indeed, would it be unfair to conclude that the State has
failed?
So why do so many view the State, "good government" and
constitutions with almost religious zeal? Why do people believe
in the State to begin with? Or rather, why don't people hold
politicians to the same moral standard as everyone else?
They have been taught to never consider the alternative.
Thus, most folks would tell you that you're wrong to be
anti-war and anti-State because it's not "realistic." That is
the extent of their intellectual arguments. Therefore, we
annoying curmudgeons need to accept it and shut the hell up.
Well, maybe they're right. There may always be
politicians, warmongers, tyrants, extortionists and con artists
who take advantage of others for their own gain. There will
always be murder, rape, theft, extortion, oppression and other
crimes. But does that mean we should close our eyes and blindly
accept it because, well, these things will always happen and it's
"unrealistic" to point out exactly why they are wrong? No! We
don't do that, do we? I doubt you know anyone who would. We
eagerly condemn murder or theft as evil, and we condemn the
people who commit such acts. Yet we refuse to apply the same
principle to those who do it on a grand scale . . . because it's
"unrealistic."
Henry Kissinger would be so proud.
"Unrealistic" is a slur that only muddles the issues at
hand. It is neither fair nor correct to compare so-called
"unrealistic" anarchist ideas and (I assume) "realistic" statist
ideas side by side as if they were a contest between Republicans
and Democrats; they're not just polar opposites but different
worlds altogether. Anarchism is a worldview based on concrete
morality and sound ethics, while statism is an anti-moral
worldview that relies on utilitarian ethics (in other words,
based on the "it works" concept . . . but "it works" for whom?).
Above all else, we should define anarchism as a moral and
ethical imperative. We likely won't see a stateless society,
universal acceptance of individual rights, or even any committed
libertarian governments develop in our lifetimes, but in no way
does that mean we should accept evil and make excuses for it in
the meantime. Right and wrong do indeed exist in the end -
civilization would crumble without such a moral compass. An
anarchist, at their best, should aim to show people the very real
and concrete differences between right and wrong, and then apply
these principles to everyone; kings, preachers, CEOs, presidents,
and members of Congress. No exceptions, no excuses.
In short, anarchism boils down to the study of right and
wrong. We may not have all the answers, but we ask the right
questions. That is the mark of intellectual honesty. Doing the
right thing and preaching the right way are rarely popular. But
then, most of the best things in life refuse to come with ease.
Freedom is not easy, but it is right, just, and good. To ask
people to ignore these moral imperatives and expect to truly
thrive . . . that's an unrealistic fantasy.
This is the anarchist's gift. Now go out there and be
generous.
Digg This
Discuss This
Marcel Votlucka is a writer and freelance journalist from
Queens, NY. He is a graduate of Stony Brook University, and is a
frequent contributor to the Stony Brook Press and the Stony Brook
Independent. He is currently finishing work a novella,
Neverland: Voices From the Muslim Holocaust.
Marcel Votlucka Archive
