The Anarchists
The DIY Society
Humans have been anarchists for more millennia than they have been politically organized. I refer to the original definition of the word anarchy: without rule. Not some bomb throwing, knife wheeling sociopath. Indeed, when the word was created, there was no such thing as the chaos creating sort we think of today. Those bullies with their pee brains give anarchy a bad name.
Some of my most interesting friends are anarchists. They may refer to themselves by using fancy terms like, anarcho-capitalist, to differentiate themselves from the sociopath. Personally, methinks it is time to cut the tongue twisters and get back to basics.
Authentic anarchists are not interested in replacing government with a different type of government. Anarchists are the original do it yourselfers. What they want is a traditional, and ancient form of anarchy: the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government.
Easier said than done. Because, in the West, people lean more towards the lefties version, which is, formulating chaos and disorder due to the inherent contradictions of the progressive philosophy. They love disorder because what they want is an excuse to take over your life, and your children’s lives.
However, many people on the one side of the spectrum fail to understand that their polar opposites also can win.The other side being the “far” right or conservatives. The progressives think the conservatives are all Nazis. But the conservatives just say to the progressives, “Back at ya, you goose stepping Stalinists.”
Ah yes, America. You are so disjointed these days. Is it because we can think only in monochromes? Shades of gray politics may be interesting to the extremes, but for the middle? However, the extremes have gotten to be so predictable that they are now rendered a big bore.
My political motto is a quote taken from Shakespeare: “A Plague on both your houses.” In case you are wondering where that came from, those are the words of a dying man. His name is Mercutio, a friend of Romeo in the play, Romeo and Juliet. Mercutio is dying because he took up a fight Romeo refused. Romeo does not want anyone to fight Tybalt, so when Mercutio draws his sword, Romeo steps in between the two. It is this interference that causes Mercutio’s death as he cannot defend himself from Tybalt’s thrust.
That scene illustrates how people who interfere in the fights of others become enablers. Romeo wasn’t smart enough to just walk away, and say, “Not my fight anymore.” I use this story in the book I currently write, titled, Leadership in Literature. Romeo and Juliet is about the failure of the leaders of Verona. Love is the plot line Shakespeare uses. But make no mistake about it. Governments hinder more than help. They enable the rich to act like children, and intimidate others to keep quiet. The prince, the parents and the priest fail because they are ineffective leaders. Put another way, they are fakes. They have the titles, but no courage to do what is right.
The results of these phony leaders is that the city delves into disorder every time the Capulet gang takes on the Montague gang. So why do people pay taxes in this city that allows this chaos onto the streets? Before we judge them, as in well, it’s old Italy, why not look at the chaos on our modern streets, what with gangs invading stores and stealing thousands of dollars worth of merchandise in minutes, or those Hamas kids calling for the destruction of Israel. Do the “authorities” come out and tell these folks to get off the street. Do the police show up, and put a stop to these riot thefts?
No, I haven’t seen that happen either.
In Los Angeles, the mayor, Karen Bass, finally begins to address the chaos on the underground trains with the homeless stabbing riders on their way to work. She has to clean up the act in the city because she has the Olympics coming to town in 2028. She has promised to make it a “car free” Olympics, which means the trains have to be cleaned up, and violence free.
The right question to ask is why does it take a big event to get a politician off her butt? Are the citizens who pay the taxes, not a good reason to go after those who create chaos through violence? Racism cannot be blamed, as Ms. Bass is a black woman. The city council, 15 members total, is quite diverse: 5 are Latinos, 5 are white, 3 are black and 2 are Asians. Of the 15, 14 are Democrats and 1 is an Indie. It is the highest paid city council in the nation: $218,000 per year. No wonder they want to sit in those seats. And perhaps, no wonder the city has a rising crime rate, and a homeless issue that never stops. In L.A. incompetents get a high salary.
In an authentic anarchist society, no one will make money sitting on a council. Because professional politicians would, probably, be strung up.
Going back to what I said at the top of this essay, anarchy is not a newfangled idea.
Our Hunter-gatherer ancestors were nomadic, moving with the weather and the food. Just like those Hunter-gatherers still do, in Africa and Brazil. I don’t suggest that these modern anarchists turn into Hunter-gatherers, though there is a movement out there of moderns who are living the life. The point is, not every person is enamored of governments, nor do they think we need them. There is also dissatisfaction with democracies. Especially those that are duopolies. Some of my friends are monarchists, which means one rule. Which is to say, the progressives versus the conservatives MO is getting old. Know what I mean?
The question is asked, if this doesn’t work, what do we replace it with?
The answer is, it depends on what happens next. Revolution, or do we get hit by a space rock? Maybe those super volcanoes go off. Or there could be the fear of all fears, a nuclear war. The survivors would be forced to return to a nomad's life, hunting and gathering for food and clothing. The good thing is people would be cooperating, voluntarily, if they want to survive. The narcissists and the psychos could find some people to pray upon, they would be the first to begin “governments” again. But if there was something truly overwhelming to overcome, the survivors will make it through because they had two things: an effective leader and people who pulled together. Those anarchists would come in handy.
I imagine that strong men would put together their own group of warriors to protect their families. This scenario has also been seen before. It was the beginning of feudalism.
Feudalism got its start in Europe when the Roman empire moved the government to Anatolia in the 4th century AD. Rome also had a border problem with “illegals” invading regularly. These invaders were Germanic tribes from the north, the Mongols from the northeast, and Muslims from the near east. The people of the towns, the merchants and the farmers had a tough time with all these invaders. Their towns were destroyed, the women and children kidnapped. Feudalism was the answer as the warrior class needed food, clothing and a way to trade with others. So the great alliance was made. Eventually, once the constant invasions slowed down, towns were reestablished, near the feudal lords manor house.
The feudal system wasn’t just good for the unprotected. It was good for the land owners. Their soldiers were freed from growing crops and butchering meat. It didn’t take long for the general to become a land baron, and the farmers to be his managers and workers and tenants. So everyone got something out of the deal. And in the times of chaos, feudalism is a good way to go.
Our Western culture and way of life is destabilizing. America is breaking up with red states and blue states. There is no one to vote for who is a unifier. Quite frankly, I don’t think a politician can do it. Because politicians are tainted with the sewage of government. We don’t need a savior, we need a guide. Someone to speak to the people at large, to bring us together. That brings us to the monarchists among us.
A monarch, meaning, rule of one, is probably not the best word to use since today’s monarchist wants his monarch to rule by a constitution. Like the anarchists, there is no plan or idea on how to bring this about. Going back to the destruction of the civilizations, in the ancient days, this is how kings came into being. They were men who could organize others, and they were effective leaders. They obviously inspired others to build a kingdom, and beyond that, an empire.
There is, in the grand scheme of things, a short distance between empires and anarchies. The one distinction is that in empires people suffer a great deal because empires feed the lust for wars. And other violence, like we find in crime, punishment for misdeeds, and the eternal slavery they produce. Christianity is supposed to help, but in truth, Christians produced their own set of psychos that brought suffering to others.
As much as I want my anarchist friends to succeed, the study of the past tells me it won’t last. Anarchies can be a bit of heaven, and yet, there is always the devil to contend with. How long will paradise last before a new set of invaders comes over the hill? If you have something good, others will want it. And the cycle begins all over again.