Anarchism = Freedom
- by Erik Fortman
(Posted here by
Wes Penre for Illuminati News,
October 12, 2004)
I
received many letters, as did at least one of my under appreciated
webmasters, due to an article I wrote entitled "Democracy
= Death." Most of these letters agreed with my summation of democracy;
that democracy is the most insidious institution; and, that it seems to be
the best so
far. What form of government would be better? I am a member of the
Libertarian Party, and supporter of Presidential Candidate and now civil
dissident Michael Badnarik. Ultimately, though, complete freedom could be
anarchy.
Let me say that my version of
anarchy is different than the accepted form. I will describe why later.
Essentially, though, anarchy means "without rule, but containing the essence
of rule." Anarchism is the exact opposite of tyranny. Anarchy is
anti-authoritarianism. Anarchists are not against structure; they are
against hierarchical structure. The pyramid exists in anarchy. Conversely,
the base rules, chooses its family and community leaders, and on up to the
top. The wealth is distributed to the top last, and in the fashion the
bottom sees fit. Anarchy is freedom. On this definition of anarchy, I agree.
That is why it is my most favored mode of living.
Anarchy Watch is
a site dedicated to the total compilation of anarchism's themes and works. I
received quite an education just wading through the voluminous, anonymously
authored FAQ section. From the introduction: "Anarchism is a socio-economic
and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important.
Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you."
This statement leads one to assume that my theory of anarchy is not, nor can
it be proven, wrong (until tried.) But, my theory of anarchism is a theory.
If anarchists say my theory is not anarchy, they themselves are imposing
limits on me, thus rebuking their own theory. And, in fact, the last
sentence of the introduction says just that. More credibility to
Anarchy Watch. The
central idea of the statement leads one to affirm that theories are more
correct, less dominating, than ideologies. Thus, 'conspiracy theory' is a
high compliment.
My first and greatest split
with the accepted form of anarchism is that it must abolish private property
ownership. If I want to own property, and anarchists don't let me, they go
against my desire, which hurts no one. Now, if I want to buy the state of
Texas, and horde the oil, and build my own hierarchical system, anarchists
have every right to 'come and take it.' Second, anarchists are opposed to
Communism. It was the direct-actionaries of Soviet Russia that have the
respect of all anarchists. Yet, communism means the abolition of private
property. What else can I say about that? Third, the reason "anarchists" say
that they are against private ownership is that they oppose capitalism. It
is difficult for me to say, but I am now against capitalism, which leads to
my trend into anarchism. However, never and nowhere does it say that the
definition of capitalism is real property ownership. The Webster's American
Dictionary defines capitalism as "an economic system in which investment and
ownership of production, distribution, and exchange of the wealth is
made and maintained chiefly by private owners or corporations." Just because
individuals own land, does not mean that they will be allowed to control the
production, distribution, and exchange of the wealth. Either
anarchists have been infiltrated by Communists (a distinct possibility,) or
liberal freedom-lovers can't disassociate private ownership of land and
goods from corporate ownership of labor. Finally, an anarchist society will
allow for the most diverse range of individuals. A difference between
anarchic property ownership and America's present one is this: in the
former, there would be no taxes, regulations, rules, codes, districting. You
work hard, you produce, you gain wealth, you buy land, you own it. Period.
That is true freedom.
Anarchists are socialists in
that they seek to put the processes and fruits of production into the hands
of the laborer. We are against any form of economic system that subjugates
anyone. Therefore, all anarchists are anti-capitalists. So, anarchists are
narrowly socialist, by desiring the workers to own the work. It must be said
that socialism's accepted definition is where the workers or the government
own production. The latter, government ownership, is unacceptable. Only a
person should be able to own real estate. Elites knew this, and therefore
made corporations and government individuals. Libertarian-socialism is one
accepted definition of anarchism.
Real anarchism spawned in
Russian, in direct opposition to the two worst forms of tyranny revealed to
mankind - tsarism and communism. It did not spring from a world of
capitalists. Capitalists and Communists were both funded by an unspeakably
vile institution - worse that tsarism or communism - Illuminism. The
Illuminists are the eye of the pyramid, and the formidable opponents of the
producers at the bottom.
Anarchists have three basic
tenets. These are liberty, equality, and solidarity. Liberty is the only way
one can develop individuality. Liberty is self-explanatory, and it is the
only way for individuality to fully flower. Equality means that all people
are equal in the eyes of the law. It must be noted that there is no reality
to equality. The differences in people equal the number of fingerprints on
Earth. In our hierarchical society, equality is only given to the elite. In
anarchy, this extends to all. We believe that solidarity is a necessity for
civilization and society. Many think that anarchy would bring chaos. It is
hierarchy and domination that bring chaos. From a world in which liberty is
given to all, solidarity would naturally flow. Solidarity is the final piece
to the anarchist puzzle. It is the bridge between individuals and societies.
"For anarchists, real wealth are other people, and the planet we live on."
Anarchism is the rejection of
all forms of government. It would be society based upon free associations
and mutual agreements. Freedom leads to the blossoming of individuality, the
evolution of the society. One person or entity must never coerce or dominate
another. Anarchists need no laws to enforce liberty, equality, or
brotherhood.
Direct action is the method
used by the movement to effect change. Tactics used include boycotts,
strikes, sabotage, and in dire situations, armed resistance. The primary,
perhaps only, recipient of direct action should be hierarchies.
It sounds strange, but we are
in favor of society and organization. We are against hierarchical society
and organization. True individualism is best developed by associations with
other free individuals. Here is a truth from
Anarchy Watch. "There is
no doubt that society needs to be better organized, because presently most
of its wealth - which is produced by the majority - gets distributed to a
small, elite minority." The key to a new society should be based around
free-agreements.
It must be said that
anarchists love liberty, but not complete liberty. Liberty only extends as
far as the next person's begins. In fact, we are non-violent, except when
fighting domination or hierarchy. Thus, a rapist, murderer, or thief are
utilizing coercion and domination, and would not be tolerated..
Another point: the slave
master rarely frees the slave. That is why anarchists have wielded direct
action, or self-liberation. Every evolution in government has been a
devolution. From despots, to Man-god-priests, to kings, to chancellors and
presidents, government is slowly dying. Anarchism will be the end result.
Some prefer to wait for this slow, agonizing death. Others feel that it
might be better to put the horse out of its misery. All anarchists have
different opinions on the proper amount of self-liberation to perpetrate.
"Challenging institutions which challenge one's freedom is mentally
liberating, as it sets in motion the process of questioning authoritarian
relationships in general." Until we all 'self-emancipate,' we will not be
completely free, equal, or united.
Some say that we have no
choice but to have a world body, therefore we must reform it. I do not
concur. We do not need any government. We should never allow for any
hierarchy. We all can, and must, freely associate, to create a society based
on liberty, individuality, and voluntary communal achievements. Most people
think this is impossible. You may not want to be completely free. However,
if you oppose anarchy, you are simply saying, "I do not want full
responsibility of myself, my family, my community, my country, my planet."
That is fine: you don't want slavery, but you don't want freedom, either.
You want some sort of warm fuzzy in-between. This is an impossibility, as
has been proven time and time again. You are trying to build a society based
on domination, influence, hierarchy. Thus, your very framework is flawed.
Anarchy is the only theory
that will lead to the complete enlightenment of the individual and society.
It is the only way to overcome racism and global suicide. A thousand letters
I have quoted Thoreau. None say it better.
"I heartily accept the motto,
- 'That government is best which governs least;' and I should like to see it
acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts
to this, - 'That government is best which governs not at all;' and when men
are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will
have."
Erik Fortman is the
author of "Webs of Power." Comments welcomed at
erikfortman@yahoo.com
Disclaimer:
I am not subscribing to everything in this article, but I find the concept
pretty interesting. Wes Penre,
www.illuminati-news.com
