Dodger Logic: #47: A Beautiful Chaos

In all of my notes, I have a fear of someone reading the title or the first couple of lines and making immediate judgements and decisions - closing their minds and just thinking, "Well, this girl must be crazy" without reading everything I have to say. Just because I start out seeming like I'm on one side of an issue, doesn't mean I am. A lot of times I first offer one side of an argument, and then I offer refutes against it. Sometimes I start out explaining one side of an issue, and then I offer the other side, and then I offer a middle ground suggestion. Sometimes I completely whip around and say something that makes you realize I don't believe what I'm writing, and that I just think it's interesting to think about. Most times, though, I'm writing with an unbiased opinion, because I'm stuck in the middle and just want opinions on the topic. Why do I have this fear of people dismissing my ideas from an initial judgement and just assuming what I'm going to say? Because I've caught someone doing it. As it turned out, this person probably just read the title, or maybe the first few sentences, and she assumed what I was going to say. Then she told someone very important to me that I ranted on the internet about how stupid and bad marriage is, and that caused a huge misunderstanding and kind of an argument, actually. For those of you who have read my note on the institution of marriage know that I said no such thing. In fact, I kind of said the exact opposite. Anyway, my point is, hear me out. Open your minds, and just read the note in its entirety. These topics are interesting and enjoyable, and even if you disagree, it may be an interesting read. And you may even find yourself questioning what you thought you knew about the topic. I feel like my discussions are great conversation starters for people who thirst for knowledge and intelligent conversation.

Ok, now that that's over with, I want you guys to take some pliers, and crank your minds open as wide as you can. Use a car jack if you have to. Because we're going to discuss anarchism. Emma Goldman defines anarchism as "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." I'm going to pull a lot of things from Goldman's article, "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For." Now, keep in mind, Goldman is an anarchist. And she poses some really interesting ideas that favor anarchy, including some common misconceptions of anarchy. I'm not saying she's right, or that anarchy would work for the United States, but I think her thought process is very interesting and fun to think about. I also have some questions that I would ask her about her article, if given the opportunity, so I'll ask those questions here.

Now, Goldman says there are two reasons for why people don't favor anarchism: 1. It is impractical and 2. It is violent and destructive (chaotic.) Goldman says people who have not read up on anarchism have gotten the wrong idea about it. People, generally speaking, view anarchism as simply a state of no government. To set the stage, I imagine people thinking about situations in which people are running around with no authority figures enforcing anything, and people just being able to do whatever they want to do. They view anarchism as a state in which people can murder and have no repercussions, the people in poverty will not survive due to lack of governmental aid, and war will run rampant due to lack of any kind of social organization. Let me be perfectly clear when I say that this is a complete misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what anarchy really is. The idea of anarchy is that, yes, there is no government, but there is a kind of social order and organization going on in the form of social groups. In "Noam Chomsky: Anarchism, Council Communism, and Life After Capitalism," Noam Chomsky calls these social groups "worker councils." He says that "worker councils would be ONE component of a freely organized society, but they'd have to interact with others. So an institution, say a factory, whatever it is, is in a community, and the community should have a comparable form of self-organization and self-management, and then they have to interact. And those are complex interactions, because many people are part of a lot of them." So the idea is to organize people in social groups, among other social groups, among communities, among larger communities, etc. So the idea anarchists are posing is that we organize ourselves in such a way that we resemble the way Native Americans used to handle organization back before the Europeans took over. They did not have a government. Instead, they were organized into social groups in which everyone relied on everyone else. No one was ever lonely. The entirety of one social group was like a big family. Between groups, they traded and shared and backed each other up. But no one took control. No one said "you did something wrong, and therefore, this is what I think your punishment should be, and I'm going to enforce it." No one said "You're gay, so you can't get married, because the majority of the population of our group thinks it's wrong for you to do so." No one said "You can't smoke pot, because a bunch of head-hanchos decided they don't like it when people smoke pot." And no one enforced those silly laws. Yes, people were kept in check by the chief. If someone did something really, really wrong, like raping someone, they had their ways of dealing with that person. Maybe they banished them. I really don't know what they did in those sorts of cases. Everything that I've heard about Native Americans is that they were a peaceful people. But the point is, there was a social organization, even though there wasn't a government. And things seemed to go well for them, from what I've heard. They were peaceful, and they had great social relationships, and they lived in harmony. They all shared what they had and took care of each other, so there were no homeless Native Americans, and there were no Native Americans in extreme poverty, while some lived like kings. That is the state we're in today with our current government - a state of inequality, a state in which some people live like kings, while others die in poverty and misery. That is the problem that anarchism tries to solve - the problem of inequality, as well as the problem of unjust law.

We had this discussion in the sociology class I'm currently taking, and one concern many of my classmates had was that, without the threat of punishment, and without an authority figure in high power, people will run around doing whatever they want - killing, raping, causing war, etc. But one of my classmates offered the idea that people who are not under the stress of a hierarchy will have no reason to commit such crimes. She said that she believes people who turn into criminals are made that way by their society and government, and that they, generally speaking, start out really low in the hierarchy, in poverty, and this prepares them for a life of crime. So her suggestions is that, if we got rid of these hierarchies, and everyone was equal, that people would get alone and not have any reason to commit crimes. True, eliminating inequality would definitely relieve tons of stress off of people. What is the main stress in America today? Anyone who has studied it will tell you it's money. Financial problems are the main reason for divorces in America these days. So if everyone was equal, and we didn't have the stresses of having to "make it in this world" and compete for survival, then would everyone get along and work together? It seems like the Native Americans did that. It seems like they all lived in harmony together. They gave, and they took, and they worked together. Sociologists even say that, in times of severe distress, people, in general, are more likely to help those in need, rather than trample them in order to survive. For the life of me, I can't remember which study this was, but I watched a documentary on an instance in which people were dying, and instead of stealing food from each other, they found food and divided it amongst themselves. The dying were given the most food. They took care of each other. Apparently, that is more of a human instinct than destroying other people for one's own survival. I know that may seem like it goes against Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest," but if you think about it, it is actually more evidence to prove that this theory is true. True, I'm saying that people will not destroy other people for the sake of their own survival, but what they ARE doing is helping and sharing with everyone in their social group, so as to ensure the survival of the GROUP - not necessarily that person in particular, but that group of people, or that species. THAT, in truth, is "survival of the fittest."

My question about anarchy would be: Isn't government innate? If we revert to a system in which a government does not exist, won't someone come along sometime and turn that back around and establish a government or take over? Because it seems like government is what everyone ends up turning to in the end. We see it everywhere. I can't think of one anarchical society left in this world. And I know it's a work of fiction, but just as an example, Lord of the Flies showed exactly my point here. If you've never read the book, it's really good, so I'd definitely recommend it. In the novel, these little boys are involved in a plane crash. The survivors end up trapped on a deserted island, and decide to form a sort of government, and then due to the government, chaos ensues, and some of the boys are murdered. The point is that, yes, chaos can come from government and social groups potentially. There's no way to ensure that chaos will not come of something, especially something we have never tried before. But also, the point is that government seems to end up happening among groups of people. It seems to be innate. It seems to be what everyone eventually turns to. So it seems like, no matter how good our intentions are, someone will come along and ruin it for everyone. Or someone will come around and decide they don't like the way things are going, and they'll end up reverting back to a governmental system. Or worse. It seems like, with no huge head authority, an anarchist society could be easily overtaken. Power would be easy to seize. It would be super easy for someone to come in and say, "I'm going to be your leader now. Bow down, and do as I say." We saw THAT with the Native Americans, didn't we? Some people came along and thought they were better than the Native Americans, so they overtook them, tortured them, murdered them, enslaved them, etc. Would that happen to us if we lived in an anarchical society?

But lots of people say that we'll never know what the outcome of something will be unless we try it. We have never tried anarchy, so how do we know if it will work or not? People seem to be afraid of the idea, because we've never experienced it. It is so far away from what is normal to us that we can't even imagine a world with no government, and therefore, that scares us. But what we do know is that our government is already corrupt. It is already violent and chaotic. And many people would argue that it is impractical. These are all the reasons people seem to think anarchy is a bad idea, but we already have these problems, so some people might say it couldn't hurt to try something new and different if we already have the problems we think MIGHT come from the new strategy.

I feel like what anarchists say makes anarchy great is that there is less control over people. People hate being controlled. I certainly hate that I feel very controlled, in all kinds of ways, by my government. So anarchists say that, if we become an anarchical society, we can finally truly be free. But I think that, in essence, isn't that the same as having a government that has much less control than our government does? If we still had a government, rather than an anarchy, but that government had very limited power and control over its citizens, then we would have the authority we need, but maybe we wouldn't be highly susceptible to seizure by some crazy tyrant. Isn't that what anarchists are trying to make happen? But then again, that doesn't get rid of the use of currency to get things we need, and in turn, that doesn't get rid of competition for money and jobs, which doesn't get rid of poverty. So I can see where anarchists would find flaws in the idea of a government that simply doesn't have as much control over its people.

And then there's the simple question of how people will take care of themselves, and if they will do what is necessary to take care of themselves without government forcing it on them. Governments force us to pay social security so that, when we retire, we will continue to have a paycheck come in every month, so that our needs are taken care of. If people didn't have a government forcing us to save money for our retirement, would people do what is necessary to ensure their survival for the long run? Absolutely not. I don't believe that one bit. However, if we lived in an anarchical society and stopped using currency, maybe that wouldn't be necessary. Because we would live in social groups in which everyone takes care of everyone. Who knows how this organization would work. I don't even think anyone has the slightest clue as to how an anarchical society would end up organizing itself and ensuring that everyone is taken care of, especially if there is no currency in circulation. I don't even think anarchists know exactly how it would work out. Maybe it's just something we'd have to try and figure out along the way.

And here's one more question before I end this seemingly never-ending note. What about the transition stage? How in the world would we go from a governmental society straight into an anarchical society? One of my classmates suggested that everyone just decide to stop following governmental power. Maybe everyone would get together and say, "You know what, we're not going to follow the rules anymore." Because you know our government would not willingly abolish itself in favor of anarchy. So it would take something huge to make this happen. And, at least for the transition stage, I'm sure chaos would ensue - riots, murders, wars, etc. That's what always happens when a group of people decides to rebel against its government. Maybe it would be for the greater good, and things would work out in the end. But, at least, the transition stage would likely be chaotic. And what about making it work during the transition stage? How in the world would we, all of a sudden, switch around the rules that we have known and followed our entire lives?

None of this even calls into question who would be game for this. I think most people are against anarchy and think this idea is crazy and wouldn't even be open to talking about it, much less trying it. I definitely think most people are reluctant to the idea, whether they're ignorant of what the concept actually is or they simply don't agree with its practicality or morality. And if not enough people are on board, it will never work. I'm going to leave you guys with this one last thought that my professor of this sociology class left me with. He said that we have to look whether or not our government is working for the good for the good of the whole, or at least the majority. Who is benefiting from it? If the answer is not most people, then the government is corrupt, and something needs to be done. If the answer is the wealthy, or the powerful, or only the government officials, then there's a problem.

The symbol for anarchy.

With anarchy, you can smoke as much pot as you want, because petty "crimes" are not crimes in an anarchy. Let's see how many potheads are on board with the idea of anarchy now!

Anarchists are not going for chaos - quite the contrary. They're going for peace and freedom. Whether or not the reality of anarchy would bring peace and freedom, there's no way to know unless we try it and see what happens. But the theory of anarchy is based on peace and freedom, not chaos, which I think most people misunderstand.