Why I'm not an anarchist

58
rate or flag this page

By thecounterpunch



“...the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.”

Emma Goldman notorious anarchist leader - ANARCHISM: WHAT IT REALLY STANDS FOR

I'm someone who cherish the concept of Individual "Freedom" but not to the extreme. Sometimes I encounter people who classify themselves as anarchist and after discussing with them, they tell me that I deserve to be an anarchist.

Then I have to convince them that I'm not. I'm not for chaos, no government, no church, absolute freedom etc. I do not consider that Anarchists individually are nuts, in fact I do think that Anarchism do contain many intelligent people above average - that's why I like to talk with them - but as such they are dangerous for the Elites. So Anarchism can and must be manipulated as subversive forces when needed like Feminism had had been at the very head (see "Gloria Steinem American feminist icon was confronted to a group of Feminists for her CIA connexion" or Aaron Russo Interview - towards the end).

Last but not least, my conviction is that Revolutions - anarchist or any other - are the most stupid form of counterculture, that it is a trap in which hundred of millions of people have falled into causing terrible human sufferings of innocents through wars and wars are exactly what the super elites want because after a dozen years of studying history and facts I'm now indeed convinced that George Orwell was right about the maintenance of continuous warfare (and Anarchism is a good destructive force in that purpose):

The primary aim of modern continuous warfare:

"The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare."

True knowledge - not the fake one - is the true mean for people to regain control over their life - so called "Freedom". Knowledge is what has been suppressed: we are overfloaded with useless or emotive informations which prevent us from really thinking. So turn off TV or even throw it like me, search by yourself but do not adhere to any idea just because it comes from a counterculture group: counterculture is not an end by itself.

So remember

"Look at the real situations which lie beneath the conceptual and verbal symbols."

-- Carroll Quigley, professor of Modern History and Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown

  —   Rate it:  up  down  [flag this hub]

Comments

RSS for comments on this Hub Small RSS Icon

Jam's Blast profile image

Jam's Blast  says:
15 months ago

Nice, I am with you on this one, point for point... But what do we call ourselves? Advise please.

thecounterpunch profile image

thecounterpunch  says:
15 months ago

Once you call yourself, you belong to a group, once you belong to a group you become prisoner of the group thoughts, so if you really want to think by yourself just don't call yourself :)

Look at young people who belong to some gangs. For me they do so more for some existentialism reason - ie when they are alone they feel like they don't exist - than for really some ideological reasons. Afterwards they are embrigaded in a collective thought process.

I don't want to be part of a political party not even any association of ideas. I do have some opinions not based on affinity with such or such group but based on what I studied about history and facts (sometimes it takes me years to gather part of the puzzle), because I have enquired and sometimes my opinions seem bizarre because the guy who reads me has never really looked behind the appearance of things.

For example for Anarchy the appearance is the "liberation" of humans whereas in truth it's the same design as any Religion: pretext the good ("all forms of government rest on violence") for establishing a new world order ("new social order") and so control people as usual.





Annonymous  says:
12 months ago

She makes a lot of assumptions about anarchism. It's not necessarily for violent revolution or even revolution, period. Many want a peaceful revolution, and some want gradual change by converting everyone into anarchists. If no one believes in government it can't boss people around, and therefore ceases to exist.

All anarchism believes is that there should be no government, except that it generally excludes theories like marxism that believe in a transitional state to prepare society for anarchism. A lot of people say no government will not work, but then you need to ask yourself "what is government?" and "what is it about it that we need?" then ask whether these things we need could be provided without a government. I've found that anarchists including myself tend to have a narrower definition than most people. When I describe my ideas to people they usually ask "is that a form of government?" Some people even say my ideas are not anarchy. OK, fine then I'm not an anarchist. I don't form my beliefs to fit a label. I choose labels to describe my beliefs.

thecounterpunch profile image

thecounterpunch  says:
12 months ago

OK Annonymous, I will have to write "Why I'm not an anarchist part II" just to answer you but not now I have to go to work :)

Submit a Comment

Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.


optional


  • No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked
  • Comments are not for promoting your hubs or other sites

working