h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What absolute claptrap! What disgusting, purulent rubbish!

Anarchism, my misinformed young friend, is the wave of the future. Anarchism is the natural endpoint of all human political thought, whereby _everyone_ gets to throw off his chains, not just the proletariat. Human "society" is nothing but the agglomeration of centuries of self-imposed political shackles, and the sooner we rid ourselves of them the better.

Et cetera.

Besides which, the A with a circle around it thing is a pretty cool symbol.

DvR

Anarchy has one huge problem, people want power. Heck, I want power. If there is no organized way to get power. There will be chaotic ways to gain power. And that means a lot of guns.

On second thought, more guns than that.

Anarchism, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government--Harmony in such a
society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various groups,
territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs
and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all fields of
human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven
network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international--temporary or
more or less permanent--for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education,
mutual protection, defence of a territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic,
literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary--as is seen in organic life at large--harmony would (it is contended) result
from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the
forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.

If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man would not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in productive work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by
the state; nor would he be limited in the exercise of his will by a fear of punishment, or by obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities, which both lead to depression of
initiative and servility of mind. He would be guided in his actions by his own understanding, which necessarily would bear the impression of a free action and reaction between his own
self and the ethical conceptions of his surroundings. Man would thus be enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties, intellectual, artistic and moral, without being
hampered by overwork for the monopolists, or by the servility and inertia of mind of the great number. He would thus be able to reach full individualization, which is not possible
either under the present system of individualism, or under any system of state-socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular state).

The Anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception is not a Utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few desiderata have been taken as postulates. It is
derived, they maintain, from an analysis of tendencies that are at work already, even though state socialism may find a temporary favour with the reformers. The progress of modern
technics, which wonderfully simplifies the production of all the necessaries of life; the growing spirit of independence, and the rapid spread of free initiative and free understanding in all
branches of activity--including those which were considered as the proper attribution of church and state--are steadily reinforcing the no-government tendency.

As to their economical conceptions, the Anarchists, in common with all Socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership
in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main
obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The Anarchists consider the wage-system
and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to
monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating
the present monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the Anarchists combat with the same energy the state, as the main support of that system. Not this or that special form,
but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum.

The state organization, having always been, both in ancient and modern history...the instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot be made to work
for the destruction of these monopolies. The Anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to the state all the main sources of economic life--the land, the mines, the railways,
banking, insurance, and so on--as also the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education,
state-supported religions, defence of the territory, &c.), would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and
capitalism. True progress lies in the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional, in the development of the spirit of local and personal intitiative, and of free federation
from the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the centre to the periphery.

In comon with most Socialists, the Anarchists recognize that, like all evolution in nature, the slow evolution of society is followed from time to time by periods of accelerated evolution
which are called revolutions; and they think that the era of revolutions is not yet closed. Periods of rapid changes will follow the periods of slow evolution, and these periods must be
taken advantage of--not for increasing and widening the powers of the state, but for reducing them, through the organization in every township or commune of the local groups of
producers and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually the international, federations of these groups.

In virtue of the above principles the Anarchists refuse to be party to the present state organization and to support it by infusing fresh blood into it. They do not seek to constitute, and
invite the working men not to constitute, political parties in the parliaments. Accordingly...they have endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organizations and
to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary legislation....

If anarchism is the wave of the future, it is so in a way totally unrelated to freedom. The only conceiveable Anarchy given current (and forseeable) modes of production involves Chomsky-esque domination of all political activity by corporations, who lacking the check of government, will be the sole entities with the means to control the populace. And, of course, nature abhors a vacuum.

Begone from my international, Bakunist scum!!!!!

-Nihil

You believe that corporations truly "control the populace"? You've been reading too many Adbusterses, my dear individual of indeterminate sex.

The deep flaw in the Chomsky thesis of social organization is its utter contempt for the capacities of the individual to mediate his or her own intake and processing of information. The attitude is deeply paternalistic, implying that those who read Adbusters and Mother Jones are in some way more advanced forms of life than those poor bastards who do not and are therefore mere pawns in the marketing strategies of Nike and the cigarette companies.

And what is it about the cigarette companies that irks the Adbusterites so intensely? Given your Chomskyite arguments, I suppose you're an anti-smoking fanatic, too.

This Marxian business about modes of production is ideological rubbish. Under a proper anarchism, the individual possesses sufficient faculties that he or she is able to resist the blandishments of corporate monoliths. In fact, under anarchism, the individual is _better_ able to mount a thorough resistance, not being bound by corporate-driven laws on the sanctity of property and so on. This sort of thing will be the responsibility of parents, training their children for responsible anarchist citizenship.

I'm happy to begone from your International, for I want no part of your collectivist approach, which is merely the flip-side of the coin against which you rage so fervently. But I'll stay just to irritate you, until you promise to stay out of my anarcho-libertarian utopia, when we finally build it. You can stay in your Trot-Chomskyite paradise of Birkenstocks, Ladas, no-smoking laws, and hardwired grammar.

I'd like to dedicate this post to my parents, God, and Ayn Rand.

DvR

P.S. Come on, Nihil--critique my analysis of Quebec politics!

Anarchism could never last. The second you abolished government, a few determined folks would sieze power.

The best you can do is do your own thing right now. Don't be part of an ism.