Many would like to call Anarchism an “extreme” and “far left” political ideology.
I’m very accustomed to the professional gas lighters of the Alt-Right describing their political views as the most “rational” “logical”. The most based in “reality.
For this philosophical musing I utilize their tactic and arrogantly describe my thoughts as common sense. As “logical.” This is the MOST logical, except with out hierarchy- because, you know, anarchy.
Since I am writing about Anarchy it makes more sense to ask questions rather than dictate theory. That is just common sense: to let others come up with their own ideas around my questions. I will admit many of these are leading.
Can we even define Anarchism? Isn’t it the purest of freedoms? Are we all equal if we have the same freedoms? Is a “right” something you’re given? Do we need to have groups bestow us with freedoms? Is it insulting to humans ability to assume they must be granted basic freedoms by bureaucracy? Are we capable of functioning without the patriarchal babysitting of the state? Could we effectively manage our resources as individuals within collectives?
There seems to be this assumption that humans cannot function without authority and directions. Has capitalism and singular leadership of the workers created laziness? People claim that people are too lazy and need incentives to work. How about the incentive to work is survival? Wouldn’t people learn to work the land? Didn’t we all used to know how to do this? And then wouldn’t they likely figure out that working the land collectively will produce more varied yields? To assume one needs to directions- does this dumb one down? Does it make it that one is too lazy to take personal responsibility for their resources? If we did not have the state managing welfare would people come together and form collectives that would serve the same purpose as tax funds? Would we be dealing with actual resources rather than monetary bullshit? Can we figure out how to come together without the authority of the state?
Is it truly “logical” to assume that its “human nature” to want to dominate? To want to compete? Can this not be fulfilled with a game of monopoly?
Imagine a Monopoly game where you can’t buy any property.. that would be no fun at all! Right? Do we need life to always be so “fun” at the expense of our freedoms?
Is it actually “logical” to assume we can truly observe our own nature? Does another species understand its own nature? I’d say a lot of other animals certainly know how to sustain better than we do. That I won’t even ask a question about. It is clear to me that we were given a paradise where we could literally recycle our shit to make food, but we instead we’ve allowed ourselves to poison ourselves in the giant game of Monopoly.
Is THAT logical? Is THAT human nature? If so, why do people of the “far right’ praise such extremist individualism? To believe that humans are naturally so cold-hearted..do they even have faith in humanity? What is weakness? Is weakness the inability to lift a chair or a tendency to cry? Or is weakness the failure to treat others with compassion?
Isn’t the basic concept of the Capitalistic myth that if one works hard enough they can have whatever they want? If one truly believes this why would they not work towards a world that allows humans freedoms? A world built on compassion? Even if human nature is greed and lack of compassion, could we not evolve to be more compassionate? Do you believe if we work hard enough we can reach this? Is that common sense? Is that logical?
— Took Edalow