|
Author
|
Topic: Anarchy - Liberating Society from the State
|
NativelyJoan
Knowflake Posts: 526
From: Boston
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted December 15, 2011 01:58 PM
  
Liberating Society from the State and Other Writings: A Political Reader (By Gabriel Kuhn)Kuhn is a prominent cultural studies researcher and political writer based in Sweden. (Ph.D Philosophy and Postructuralism) Excerpt on Anarchy:
"Anarchy means freedom from domination. Those for whom it means nothing but chaos have the sensory perception of a horse. Anarchy is freedom from coercion, violence, servitude, law, centralization, and the state. An anarchic society rests on voluntarism, communication, contract, agreement, alliance, and people. Humans demand to be controlled, because they cannot control themselves. They kiss the robes of priests and the boots of princes, because they lack the self respect and must find an object of adoration outside of themselves. They call for the police, because they cannot protect themselves against the bestiality of their own instincts. In making decisions, they trust others to represent them because they lack the courage necessary to trust their own opinions. To continue with the horse analogy: the political life of the civilized peoples remains limited to conceiving ever more perfect reins, saddles, shafts, curbs, and whips. The working human being only distinguishes himself from the working horse by helping the master to develop ever better tools of bondage and by adjusting to them voluntarily. Both share the trust in iron mountings and accept blinders to prevent these from being used properly...As an excuse for their lack of action, they have developed the theory that history follows materialistic necessity: time changes things automatically. Meanwhile, the working people wait, repair and wash their dishes, complain and vote. These provisional activities have become their habit, their need, their purpose in life."(P. 84) I thought I'd share this insightful political piece written by Gabriel Kuhn. Thoughts, opinions, criticisms, all are welcome. Critical thinking is the hope in regards to discussing anarchy as just a social and political conceptual theory. In our day and age it would be very improbable to implement such a societal practice. And please share other societal and political concepts and theories, not just limited to leaderless societies. IP: Logged |
PixieJane
Knowflake Posts: 144
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted December 19, 2011 02:28 AM
Technically, functioning anarchist societies retain elements of domination. It may be social agreement, but those who don't go along with the crowd are shunned at best, and attacked at worst. Even the individualist anarchist traditions depend on things like contract ratings, so like, as just one example, a polluting company and those whose lands or water are polluted go to a contract agency then an arbitrator is assigned (who must be trusted by all sides which means being vetted somehow) who would likely get opposing sides to agree to the final decision or get their credit/reputation ruined (which would effectively ruin their ability to do biz unless they went along with the ruling). I'm not saying this is bad, mind you, but it smacks to me as being similar to the domination of the state. Granted, it would be much, MUCH harder for big biz to just buy off a handful of politicians, thus preventing the corruption we just take as a given. 'Course you could go with a nihilistic society instead. (The difference is a functioning anarchy has rules, it just doesn't have a set of rulers above everyone else, whereas a nihilistic society doesn't even have rules.) But then you're looking at what most people think of when they think of anarchy (what I call "road warrior anarchy") and seems likely to be rife with domination by the ruthless which can be much worse (OTOH, if you beat the bad guys you don't have to worry about an APB put out on you...) Though btw, Somalia, after the initial violence, actually improved under their decentralized system (that many call anarchy). This is not to say it's good, only not as bad as it was under a government. Business has improved, they opened a new university, and life spans improved. Of course if you're not connected to one of the clans there then gods help you, and I believe none of the clans accept things like homosexuality. IOW, they may be free of a state, and it may even be an improvement of what life was like under a brutal, corrupt, and potentially genocidal government, but they're still not what I'd call free. IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 7304
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 19, 2011 01:26 PM
anarchy is an attractive idea, but can only work in a society where each person will take responsibility for themselves.government is perhaps the original protection racket. the bare-bones constitutional government wanted by some would be lovely...if only most people didn't want to have to work hard enough to make a life - or don't trust themselves to make the right choices - and others weren't so obsessed with "expansion" that they felt the need to take from others... i don't know what the solution is. IP: Logged |
NativelyJoan
Knowflake Posts: 526
From: Boston
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted December 19, 2011 04:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by katatonic:
anarchy is an attractive idea, but can only work in a society where each person will take responsibility for themselves.
This is very true. Of what we know today, there are no solutions for establishing effective and efficient human societies that do not limit or restrict the individuals within them and allow humanity as a whole to thrive. Our subjective understanding limits us and our history proves how problematic many of these societal systems in practice really are. It's tough, we'll have to continue to expand our minds. As the human race evolves we will surely develop societies that involve alternative ways of living. Systems unfathomable to us today. IP: Logged |
NativelyJoan
Knowflake Posts: 526
From: Boston
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted December 19, 2011 04:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by PixieJane:
Technically, functioning anarchist societies retain elements of domination. It may be social agreement, but those who don't go along with the crowd are shunned at best, and attacked at worst.
It's really a matter of interpretation based on how these societies have been established in human history. We can't speak of a Utopian anarchist society because we haven't lived to see one effectively in practice. I don't think as a civilization we've yet discovered or even bare witness to the successful establishment of many of these societal systems including anarchy. Maybe they weren't even meant to be put into practice because conceptually they seem to be beneficial however in practice they prove to be very problematic. It's hard to implement new societal structures or systems without them happening organically, as the civilization evolves. There always seems to be an imbalance. IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
