The inevitable post-Christmas rant…

31 12 2008

Ah Christmas.  A holiday we all must suffer, and suffer we all generally do.  At least those of us who value and appreciate a little solitude. Whether it is dealing with the family on during Christmas itself, or the inevitable celebrations with friends or those we haven’t caught up with, in the days preceding New Years, it can be difficult.  And for me, it was no different.  In between celebrations, catching up with friends and whatnot, I had to suffer uninvited commentary from unimaginative racists (though I shan’t go into this and even bother giving it an explanation here) and the zealous praise of government or government servants by statists.  Yes, that’s right.  I did the unthinkable and snuck in Anarchist politics into casual discussion with friends and family over the last few days, though I avoided the explicitly Anarchist jargon.  It resulted in a least to violent, knee-jerk reactions.

The most common argument I was presented with was that one that all statists fall back on when presented with the idea of no government, no police and no military was the one of imagination.  That is to say, the, “Imagine if there was no x,” with x being one of the previous three labels.  And if you’ll allow me, I’d like to get on my soap box for a while and pontificate a little.  Now, to provide further context, this argument went something along the lines of, “Imagine if there were no police.  People would be killing each other in the streets, breaking down doors, raping women and chaos would ensure…” and so on and so forth.  While to many reading this blog, this may seem something trivial and easily corrected.  However, the problem was receiving the same argument from two separate individuals within the space of 72 hours, who are both relatively close to you and each taking a good 20 minutes to make their basic point while their voice steadily increased in volume.  It certainly had the effect of pissing me off.  Though I made sure to avoid dropping the “A” word and so avoided blowing my cover.  The problem was, that there was no way I could effectively take a stand on these arguments.  They were irrational.  I could have, for example, pointed out that such a line of argument is equivalent to me urging someone to “imagine an octopus, wearing stockings, a monocle and performing handstands,” so as to disprove evolution.  Sadly, I did not.  But, in my defence, I was quick witted enough to ask at least one of the individuals, “if there were no cops, who would you kill first?”  Which deserves a hat tip to Per Bylund.  But sadly the recipient was too drunk to appreciate my wit or the logic of my argument and so there was no effect.

The second time around, there was an audience and even when I could provide a counter argument, the pleas that almost appealed for a police state were directed to the audience and not to me. It was this second time that particularly boiled my blood.  Not only the arrogance of the second individual in their appeals to the audience, but their arguments were essentially circular logic.  The individual not only pointed out that corruption existed amongst the police force that he understood from first hand experience, then immediately sought to praise the police because, “could you imagine what it would be like without police?”  But he didn’t stop there.  The same individual continued on to argue that its the judicial system to blame for the failures of the law, in that the police put the “assholes” in jail, and the judge’s let them go.  Clearly he’d never been arrested or, alternatively, read of those many thousands of reports where a police committs some horrible act and only recieves a slap on the wrist because of both the court’s and the cop’s affiliation with the same criminal organisation.  Continuing, he then expanded on the obvious idea that, “innocent until proven guilty is a joke, because if the police actually treated the person as innocent, all they’d do is talk to them and nothing would happen.”  In which he concluded that it was useless and we should “abolish” it, but keep the rest of the government.  After this he cited Greece and America and, thanked God that we lived in Australia as our police force don’t run around committing atrocities.  I argued the possibility that we don’t have the population numbers for their to be incidents of police brutality that would equal the rate at which they occur over in America, and that when they do happen, it’s just never caught on camera and no one ever reports it.  But, again, he ignored me.  He then concluded on an appeal with, “could you imagine what things would be like without police?”

“On a daily basis,” I thought.

I shan’t go into responding to all these arguments, as I will likely look at them later on in another post down the track.  I should mention, however, that the two individuals mentioned above are quite intelligent people, in all honesty.  In fact not only are they relatively close to me, but in some circumstances I have quite a respect for them.  Yet they stand as clear examples into what we must deal with if we are to bring Anarchism into existence, their irrationality is clear and shared by thousands of others.  At times I wonder whether it is possible to break through this irrationality in so many people and whether we are destined to watch as politicians and their often well-intentioned employees bomb, steal, enslave and destroy the planet.  And so concludes the post-Christmas rant.





Bailouts for Santa

25 12 2008





I ain’t the only one…

23 12 2008

As much as I hate to do this, another has compiled a fairly comprehensive account of the events in Greece, going back on the history of Exarchia, the student movement that helped establish the current Greek Democracy and following through the events of the last week or so.  There is a great comparison with the events in Athens now, and those in the past, accompanied by photographs while the author is eloquent and fair.  It is well worth a read as well as the article quoted at length in the comments list.

Athens: We are the Image of the Future

The anarchist movement in Greece is world-renowned, especially now. Anarchist neighborhoods throughout Europe – such as Copenhagen’s Christiania neighborhood or Athen’s Exarcheia district – have battled with governments to maintain autonomy. Each time agents of government suppression target the neighborhoods, the anarchists strike back. But this time, all over the world.

The bullets that killed Athenian boy Alexis Grigoropoulos this week “may have hit one person, but it was meant for us all,” a German anarchist banner read early in the week. The “birthplace of democracy,” some people are saying, “has descended into anarchy.”

Read the complete account at hyperborea





Laugh, Love, Live

23 12 2008

There are two sides to Anarchism, the political and the humanistic.  The political targets the mind, and you’ll find examples of it anywhere where two Anarchists have come together only to argue in infinite detail every aspect of organisation, economic theory, and interpretation of the world. The second involves giving a damn about humanity, your fellow men and women, music, art, poetry, giving the two fingers to big brother — it’s the stuff that has romanticised Anarchism as a movement for centuries.

So let’s fess up and admit it now.  Just stand tall and accept it.  The political side to Anarchism can sometimes feel as boring as a discussion about the optimal size for a felt elbow patch.  People can only read so many Anarchist tomes before their head becomes over-encumbered with words, phrases, concepts as it all works itself into a steady blur.  Many are unable to cope and so feel it’s not worth the time.  We’re already able to politicise people who are willing to enter the debate, argue with us and do our damned best to win them over.  But then what of the others who aren’t just interested in that?  They may feel something’s wrong, but to them it’s a case of, “You can’t fight city hall,” while they go on about their daily routine.

The answer to reaching these people, is to bring back the romantic side to Anarchism.  What do I mean by this?  Basically that we spend so much time bickering between one another, or alternatively, analysing to infinite detail often the most tedious details of political theory, that we forget the essential essence of Anarchism; the humanistic part that promises the individualist dream.  We have so many working in such a calculated, precise manner that we have this tendency to ignore the fiery, human mannerisms that have made Anarchists famous.  You know, that whole “living life,” deal.  We have one.  This one.  Go out occaisionally and damn well enjoy yourself.  Go be an Anarchist; eat, drink and be merry.  Dance, laugh with your friends and family, work hard at whatever you do.  Love your partner and love them to the fullest of your ability.  Live for the moment.  Get angry and rage.  Be all you can be or some similar cliché.  Bring back the larger than life, romantic vision of Anarchists and we’ll no doubt attract more people to our ideas, for what is more attractive than a movement that is both ethically sound and emphasises being yourself and living?  Even if you don’t care about that, do it for yourself.  Anarchism is rebellious, subversive, and downright anti-authoritarian.  What can be more anti-authoritarian than actually enjoying yourself and living the best life possible?  Throughout history some of the most rigged, authoritarian regimes have been puritanical and obsessed with some absurd notion of purity and how people should act — regimented, subservient, conforming.  To that I will proudly, and unapologetically raise my middle finger.  Each of us should burn as bright a flame as we can.  It’s what makes us awesome.  As William Gillis wrote (November 11, 2008),

…Anarchism IS the individualist dream. You, you personally, can singlehandedly start the motherfucking revolution. You’re going to have to.

Anarchism is not some mechanical proletarian revolt, nor is it some impersonal mathematical reality of laissez-faire economics. And it’s certainly not throwing up your hands and saying to hell with it. Anarchism is a simple ethical and philosophical realization: to be a fully living, thinking human being you have to let go of your power over others. They must let go of their power over you.

The thing is, you already know this. (You’re awesome.) So why don’t you embrace it further. (And be more awesome.)

…So, and I’m just saying this, what have you done today to spread your awesomeness?

Now, I don’t mean to take shots at those that have both the ability and the capacity to expertly learn and discuss specific subjects of Anarchism and explore deep philosophical arguments.  No doubt they will join the ranks of the greats among our philosophy that have shed sweat, blood and tears in order to teach us the lessons we have today and so deserve our deepest respect for their commitment.  In fact thanks to them, our philosophy, as William Gillis pointed out, is the most ethical out there.  We unwaveringly oppose all injustice regardless of whether it comes in the form of systematic theft of the fruits of our labour, the parasitic existence of the state, war, slavery, racism, nationalism or outright authoritarianism.  Those thinkers, scholars and philosophers among us are always working their ass off to advance it even further and provide us with new ideas, arguments, theories and organisational models.  But we should always take care to never  neglect the other side of Anarchism either.  That is you.  Enjoy your life and live it with passion. Laugh, love, live and be human.