Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
"Good evening, London..." (for anyone not planning on reading 'VFV', or who's already read it...) 
Posted: 02:15 Dec 15 2003
Anarchism
Okay, I've not put a certain member's name in the title, but no doubt he'll show up soon enough. 
So what's the deal? For years I've associated the philosophy with angry spikey-heads taking a slash against the Cenotaph, or more charitably, with theoretical treatises that make Das Kapital look like an airport novel. I nailed down the basic tenets, or what I perceive as the basic tenets, of people living in communities without the control of a top-down government. But I never understood how on earth it was supposed to work, and honestly thought it all a bit naïve and not a little dangerous.
But then I go and read Mr Alan Moore's glorious and disturbing V for Vendetta, and in between getting more emotional than any book has a right to make me, I got a whole new perspective on it. V (the ultimate anarcho) speaks of Anarchism not as being anarchy as it's commonly perceived -- chaos -- he describes it as order, but delivered from within, instead of imposed from without. An order that requires the individual to take the ultimate responsibility for themselves; instead of relying on a government or robber baron (I make it sound like there's a difference!) to do it for them. Not a regression of society away from government and order, but its final evolution towards providing those things for itself. There's a scene where V confronts Justice atop the Old Bailey, and turns his back on her, because she's just an pale imitation of genuine freedom, a fraud, crumbs handed out that can be taken back at will by the state. Potent imagery, which also made a lot of sense.
Now I'm looking at Anarchism not as some dastardly plot to stop the trains running on time while entertaining the vain hope that there won't be riots on every street corner; I see it as an ideal to strive for. Maybe not one that can be practically achieved in anything approaching foreseeable generations, let alone my lifetime, but something that might one day become possible if, collectively, we grow up enough to allow it. And irrespective of that, something that anyone can achieve for themselves. The ultimate responsibility as the price for the ultimate freedom, and that's an idea I have to admit I find achingly appealing. Not practical now or maybe ever perhaps, but tantalising none the less.
So, am I any closer? Or are these undoubtedly drunken ramblings still way off the beam?
So what's the deal? For years I've associated the philosophy with angry spikey-heads taking a slash against the Cenotaph, or more charitably, with theoretical treatises that make Das Kapital look like an airport novel. I nailed down the basic tenets, or what I perceive as the basic tenets, of people living in communities without the control of a top-down government. But I never understood how on earth it was supposed to work, and honestly thought it all a bit naïve and not a little dangerous.
But then I go and read Mr Alan Moore's glorious and disturbing V for Vendetta, and in between getting more emotional than any book has a right to make me, I got a whole new perspective on it. V (the ultimate anarcho) speaks of Anarchism not as being anarchy as it's commonly perceived -- chaos -- he describes it as order, but delivered from within, instead of imposed from without. An order that requires the individual to take the ultimate responsibility for themselves; instead of relying on a government or robber baron (I make it sound like there's a difference!) to do it for them. Not a regression of society away from government and order, but its final evolution towards providing those things for itself. There's a scene where V confronts Justice atop the Old Bailey, and turns his back on her, because she's just an pale imitation of genuine freedom, a fraud, crumbs handed out that can be taken back at will by the state. Potent imagery, which also made a lot of sense.
Now I'm looking at Anarchism not as some dastardly plot to stop the trains running on time while entertaining the vain hope that there won't be riots on every street corner; I see it as an ideal to strive for. Maybe not one that can be practically achieved in anything approaching foreseeable generations, let alone my lifetime, but something that might one day become possible if, collectively, we grow up enough to allow it. And irrespective of that, something that anyone can achieve for themselves. The ultimate responsibility as the price for the ultimate freedom, and that's an idea I have to admit I find achingly appealing. Not practical now or maybe ever perhaps, but tantalising none the less.
So, am I any closer? Or are these undoubtedly drunken ramblings still way off the beam?
3 Replies and 792 Views in Total.
Posted: 02:15 Dec 15 2003 
You called?
Haven't we had this discussion before? I can dig up the thread if anyone wants a reminder. Anyway, let's start with the name...
Anarchy, according to the dictionary means, basically, chaos.
However, what is interesting is the source of the word given by Dictionay.com:
New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.
See that? Without + Ruler. Fundamentally, Anarchism means a flat structure, not pyramidal (ie - no hierarchy). This does not mean Without Rules. It does not mean Without Structure. It does not mean Without Order. Just Without Ruler. Nothing more, nothing less.
Or as V put it (apologies for any inaccuracies, I'm at work and I don't have my copy to hand) - it is not the land of Take What You Want, but the land of Do As You Please.
Thing is, there isn't just one Anarchism. It has taken many forms. Many of the original theorists were attracted to a movement at the time that was popular amongst those opposed to the capitalist status quo. To recidivism. To Luditism. Quotes abound about not needing the police when walking in the fields (I'm sure a recently released farmer might disagree) and other simplistic concepts based on an idealised view of the past and of rural life. But that doesn't mean that all forms of Anarchy subscribe to this, anymore than it is true to say that all Communists are Stalinists. The truth, as usual, is much more complex.
Anyway, as a side note, people should read V for Vendetta. It's an exceptional piece of comic/graphic novel art, with a fantastic story (especially the later two books). As well as being a great introduction to the ideas and motives behind Anarchism. And it's written by Alan Moore, who, in my opinion, can do no wrong.
[edit] Wow. Over a year ago was that thread... where has the time gone? Anyway, you'll find the November '02 version of Anarchy here.
England Prevails
(Edited by Jayjay 15/12/2003 04:17)
Haven't we had this discussion before? I can dig up the thread if anyone wants a reminder. Anyway, let's start with the name...
Anarchy, according to the dictionary means, basically, chaos.
Which has nothing to do with the political theory that is Anarchism, but the twist put on it by its opponents. See Atheism and Pacifism for other examples of this.
by Dictionary.com
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
However, what is interesting is the source of the word given by Dictionay.com:
New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.
See that? Without + Ruler. Fundamentally, Anarchism means a flat structure, not pyramidal (ie - no hierarchy). This does not mean Without Rules. It does not mean Without Structure. It does not mean Without Order. Just Without Ruler. Nothing more, nothing less.
Or as V put it (apologies for any inaccuracies, I'm at work and I don't have my copy to hand) - it is not the land of Take What You Want, but the land of Do As You Please.
Thing is, there isn't just one Anarchism. It has taken many forms. Many of the original theorists were attracted to a movement at the time that was popular amongst those opposed to the capitalist status quo. To recidivism. To Luditism. Quotes abound about not needing the police when walking in the fields (I'm sure a recently released farmer might disagree) and other simplistic concepts based on an idealised view of the past and of rural life. But that doesn't mean that all forms of Anarchy subscribe to this, anymore than it is true to say that all Communists are Stalinists. The truth, as usual, is much more complex.
Anyway, as a side note, people should read V for Vendetta. It's an exceptional piece of comic/graphic novel art, with a fantastic story (especially the later two books). As well as being a great introduction to the ideas and motives behind Anarchism. And it's written by Alan Moore, who, in my opinion, can do no wrong.
[edit] Wow. Over a year ago was that thread... where has the time gone? Anyway, you'll find the November '02 version of Anarchy here.
England Prevails
(Edited by Jayjay 15/12/2003 04:17)
Posted: 03:18 Dec 15 2003 
*Returns to the thread the evening after the night before*
In honesty, I'd completely forgotten about the previous debate.
It's fascinating to read back over my comments there and see that, essentially, they obsess with the practicalities of Anarchism, while barely touching on the ideas that inspire it. These are what's really fired my imagination since reading over Mr Moore's dastardly well-hidden gem.
I think what you quoted, "it is not the land of Take What You Want, but the land of Do As You Please", gets to the heart of it. This shares much in common with JS Mill's dictum "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others", but with a major divergence over the role of coercion. Mill treasured liberty but saw it as the job of a state to impose it where necessary, whereas V views it as something every person has to find from within themselves, not have coerced from them by a higher authority, for surely freedom won through coercion is the ultimate paradox, and in truth no freedom at all? A slightly less melodramatic variation on "Obedience is Freedom". Is it really in our natures to need law and order as it currently stands, or is it because we've been brought up from day one to define right and wrong as something we adhere to on pain of punishment -- something we have to do, not want to do -- and thereby let ourselves off the hook from having to form the self-discipline to provide for ourselves a soceity of "do as thy will, but harm none".
That's what I'd always dismissed as impossible, but the book got me questioning the most basic presuppositions behind that assumption. Or to put it another way, is much of what makes our current form of government "essential" wholly artificial, in fact created and sustained by the very system that purports to be defending us against it? We say "the people" govern, but they don't, they drop a cross in a box every five years then let someone else govern for them, and direct their lives accordingly. It's called "representative democracy", but often the only thing it represents is the whims and self-preservation of those with the power. Apparently it's there to protect us from ourselves, but maybe all it does is maintain order by imposing the mistakes of a small clique on the lives of everyone below them. If we did away with it, stuff up as we might, it would at least be by our own hand instead of another's, and we would have the chance to correct it for ourselves. Is that system protecting us, or stifling our true potential? Might not ultimate power, in the right form, breed ultimate responsibility and not absolute corruption?
And disturbingly, right now I'm stone cold sober ...
(Edited by Byron 15/12/2003 18:54)
In honesty, I'd completely forgotten about the previous debate.
It's fascinating to read back over my comments there and see that, essentially, they obsess with the practicalities of Anarchism, while barely touching on the ideas that inspire it. These are what's really fired my imagination since reading over Mr Moore's dastardly well-hidden gem. I think what you quoted, "it is not the land of Take What You Want, but the land of Do As You Please", gets to the heart of it. This shares much in common with JS Mill's dictum "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others", but with a major divergence over the role of coercion. Mill treasured liberty but saw it as the job of a state to impose it where necessary, whereas V views it as something every person has to find from within themselves, not have coerced from them by a higher authority, for surely freedom won through coercion is the ultimate paradox, and in truth no freedom at all? A slightly less melodramatic variation on "Obedience is Freedom". Is it really in our natures to need law and order as it currently stands, or is it because we've been brought up from day one to define right and wrong as something we adhere to on pain of punishment -- something we have to do, not want to do -- and thereby let ourselves off the hook from having to form the self-discipline to provide for ourselves a soceity of "do as thy will, but harm none".
That's what I'd always dismissed as impossible, but the book got me questioning the most basic presuppositions behind that assumption. Or to put it another way, is much of what makes our current form of government "essential" wholly artificial, in fact created and sustained by the very system that purports to be defending us against it? We say "the people" govern, but they don't, they drop a cross in a box every five years then let someone else govern for them, and direct their lives accordingly. It's called "representative democracy", but often the only thing it represents is the whims and self-preservation of those with the power. Apparently it's there to protect us from ourselves, but maybe all it does is maintain order by imposing the mistakes of a small clique on the lives of everyone below them. If we did away with it, stuff up as we might, it would at least be by our own hand instead of another's, and we would have the chance to correct it for ourselves. Is that system protecting us, or stifling our true potential? Might not ultimate power, in the right form, breed ultimate responsibility and not absolute corruption?
And disturbingly, right now I'm stone cold sober ...
(Edited by Byron 15/12/2003 18:54)
Posted: 18:53 Dec 15 2003