Not only but also……
I guess that I am mostly ‘known’ on this Blog as being what could be called a hard-line atheist. Whilst true it’s not the only thing that defines me. My atheism, though a core component of what makes me… me, doesn’t inform many other aspects of my life. It has little to say regarding my taste in music, art, literature or movies. It probably influences my take on moral issues but it doesn’t determine them and I don’t regard it as having much of any influence on my politics.
I’ve recently been mulling over just exactly what my politics are. This have been prompted by a few Blogs I’ve been reading and contributing to as well as thinking of an upcoming University course which has a heavy political content. This has necessitated me buying (lots of) books to try and get up to speed on the philosophical side of all things political.
I most certainly consider myself to be of the Left politically though I’m not sure where that comes from. My roots are definitely in the Working Class North but by most definitions I am now firmly in the Middle Class (if those terms have much meaning any more). My education up to the age of 18 was as unremarkable as the State schools I attended. Unlike France (and I suspect much of the rest of Continental Europe) English State schools don’t teach much in the way of politics so I didn’t pick it up there. I suppose my first real introduction to political ideology – apart from reading 1984 when I was 14 or so – was during college when one of the subjects I studied was Sociology. The two year course consisted of analysing various aspects of society such as Education and the Family from various perspectives, one of which was Marxism. Thinking about it later I couldn’t help wondering if the tutor was a child of the radical 60’s but whatever his intention he certainly sold me on Marx. When the course ended I could dissect just about any subject from a Marxist perspective. This continued at University where I studied Social Ethics (and Educational Studies). So much so that my Ed Studs tutor began jokingly calling me ‘Comrade’.
But no matter how much I internalised Marxist thinking I never considered myself to be a Marxist nor a Communist. Such ideas, despite or maybe because of their power, never appeared to work in the ‘Real World’ with the Soviet State version of Communism being a case in point. I am more than aware that Soviet Communism is an extremely bastardised version of Communist theory but it still never really caught my political imagination to the extent that I would be happy to adopt the label. What did appeal though was Anarchism.
Anarchism and Communism are kissing cousins politically, sharing some of the same parents, grandparents and a host of other relations. Literally meaning without leaders, anarchism appealed to my deep distrust of authority and hierarchy (which also, of course, translates over into my Atheism) and after reading several good books on the subject I was sold. Unfortunately Anarchism is even more theoretical than Communism. Several attempts at anarchist type communities have been tried but have normally been quickly crushed by the various authorities they ‘rebelled’ against. On top of this I am not totally convinced that an anarchist society could even function. Can people really cope without some form of leadership? Would mutual aid between disparate groups emerge in a usable form before people starved in their homes? What would an anarchist society even look like?
Which leaves me kind of stuck in a political no-mans land. Though I was frankly ecstatic when New Labour won the General Election back in the 90’s I have over the years grown to loath them. I think what actually disgusted me most – even more than their clear move to the Right (to gain the Centre ground) – was their wholesale jettisoning of Socialist Ideology. I know intellectually why they did this – simply to make themselves electable. But it really bothered me. Maybe then I’m actually a Socialist after all? Thinking about it I don’t wholly reject this label. It does bother me that when I think of Socialism I think of badly run State owned monopolies. I think of Government interference, 5 Year plans and gross incompetence. Maybe I’ve just been indoctrinated against Socialism by a Capitalist run Press – though I don’t think that I have.
I think that I am just deeply distrustful of Politics. I feel too individualistic to be happy with my life being impacted by a groups political ideology – whether from the Left or the Right. Yet my sympathies are most definitely with the Left. Confusing isn’t it? I think that I need to think on this a bit more and (rather inevitably) do some more reading on the subject. I’ll let you know what I come up with – if anything.
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
10 comments:
Interesting. What would an anarchist society look like if it were allowed to follow it's course? I'd be pretty pessimistic about the path it would take, but I think I have a good idea about the outcome: a return to law by overwhelming consensus.
I also wonder about the underlying motives of anarchy. It seems tied strongly to one demographic, young people preparing for or having just begun life on their own determinded to not repeat their parent's "mistakes". If this is true, then anarchism in any form (and in any degree) is a step along the path of development; something that should properly fade with further progress.
Anarchism and Communism are kissing cousins politically
Really? I mean isn't communism pretty Statist in nature? Certainly according to Marx and Engels it is. I know they are not the only communist thinkers, but Engels claimed that "anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about."
I should say though that I don't consider anarchy to be anti-authoritarian, it's just anti FORCED authoritarian. There's a difference, like the difference between the State and the Church. (the modern church in America anyway, I don't know about Europe because it seems the Church has more power there than it does here) Where as with the Church if you don't like their policies you don't have to pay or even partake in their services, with the State if you don't like their policies they shoot or imprison you.
Mutual voluntary authoritarianism is fine, State (even democratic state) authoritarianism is bad.
Personally, I see most things Leftist as the absolute opposite of anarchy, as they are usually more than happy to use coercion to force their values on anyone else in the name of the so-called "common good", which is usually neither common or all that good. :)
Anarchy now, plz.
laughing boy said: What would an anarchist society look like if it were allowed to follow it's course? I'd be pretty pessimistic about the path it would take, but I think I have a good idea about the outcome: a return to law by overwhelming consensus.
I have no idea what an anarchist society would look like in practice. None have survived long enough to give us very much data to go on. Maybe the very idea of living without the State is simply utopian. It's a seductive idea though.
The Ancient Greks had an idea that politics is cyclical. You have oligarchy followed by dictatorship followed by revolution and democracry followed by oligarchy again. I think they might have been onto something [grin].
laughing boy said: I also wonder about the underlying motives of anarchy. It seems tied strongly to one demographic, young people preparing for or having just begun life on their own determinded to not repeat their parent's "mistakes".
I think that the underlying motivation behind the anarchist ideal is a deep distrust (even abhorence) of the State. It is a rare government indeed that rules purely for the good of the people - often despite their best intentions. I don't know if any kind of advanced human society can function without the State. Recognisably anarchistic societies may have existed before the State (and yes, there was a time *before* the State) but could an anarchist 'state' exist in today's world? Good question.
scott said: Really? I mean isn't communism pretty Statist in nature? Certainly according to Marx and Engels it is.
As far as I can recall (and its been a while since I read any of the literature) the early 19th century anarchists and communists shared a common goal - the overthrow of the State. They just had different methodologies to get there. The communists were split between those who wanted to dismantle the State *now* and those who wanted to use the power of the State to bring communism to itself. That was never going to work, was it - as we saw in 'communist' Russia. State Socialism was, according to Marx I think, a transitory stage on the way to communism - where the State becomes redundant and fades away. Unfortunately for those living in the 'workers paradise' it got stuck there until it collapsed.
scott confused me with: I should say though that I don't consider anarchy to be anti-authoritarian, it's just anti FORCED authoritarian.
You're going to have to explain that to me.... [grin].
scott said: There's a difference, like the difference between the State and the Church. (the modern church in America anyway, I don't know about Europe because it seems the Church has more power there than it does here)
You're kidding right? You think that the Church has more power in Europe than America? You're having a laugh aren't you? The Church has almost no power in the UK (for example) and what power it does have is vanishing by the day.... Whereas in the States... you have the religious Right electing your President!
scott said: Where as with the Church if you don't like their policies you don't have to pay or even partake in their services, with the State if you don't like their policies they shoot or imprison you.
In days gone by if you didn't like the Church they'd nail you to the nearest wall. Luckily they no longer have that kind of power & hopefully never will again. As for 'open' societies, if you don't like the State you're living in then you're free to leave (or try and change it from within). Of course in less forgiving regimes all bets tend to be off.
scott confused me again by saying: Mutual voluntary authoritarianism is fine, State (even democratic state) authoritarianism is bad.
What exactly is: Mutual voluntary authoritarianism...?
How can you logically have voluntary authoritarianism?
scott said: Personally, I see most things Leftist as the absolute opposite of anarchy, as they are usually more than happy to use coercion to force their values on anyone else in the name of the so-called "common good", which is usually neither common or all that good. :)
Unlike the Right that would *never* impose their ideology on anyone! I like you scott, you're funny...!
Is "anarchist society" an oxymoron? Regardless it has a zero seductive factor for me.
In days gone by if you didn't like the Church they'd nail you to the nearest wall. Luckily they no longer have that kind of power.
And the musty, old banner is raised once more. Do any but the most hopelessly biased still salute it?
Whereas in the States... you have the religious Right electing your President!
How's that? Did members of the RR get 2 votes each?
Unlike the Right that would *never* impose their ideology on anyone!
Seems to me Left and Right both seek to impose their ideology on everyone. Anarchy would not solve the problem but increase it exponentially.
laughing boy said: Is "anarchist society" an oxymoron?
No. Why should it be? Is is possible to have a society without a leadership structure? Sure, why not.
laughing boy said: And the musty, old banner is raised once more. Do any but the most hopelessly biased still salute it?
I don't think that the 'activities' of the Catholic church in Europe in the name of their loving God should ever be forgotten. Why should it be 'biased' to remember the numbers of deaths and the amount of misery caused when a religious (or indeed political) organisation gets to be that powerful? It is a lesson of history that we should never let it happen again.
laughing boy said: How's that? Did members of the RR get 2 votes each?
Hopefully not. But they certainly used their massive influence to get Bush Jr elected. I doubt very much if any Church in Europe could do anything remotely like that.
laughing boy said: Seems to me Left and Right both seek to impose their ideology on everyone. Anarchy would not solve the problem but increase it exponentially.
It's certainly true that as you get to the extremes of both ends of the spectrum things can get... rather unpalatable - but how would an anarchist system increase such unpalatable aspects 'exponentially'?
Oh, one more comment.
The Church is too weak to nail it's critics to walls, but strong enough to decide who runs the world's most powerful country?
laughing boy said: The Church is too weak to nail it's critics to walls, but strong enough to decide who runs the world's most powerful country?
Basically yes.
Firstly the various US churches have few real enemies to speak of. Second, the 'crime' of heresy is no longer politically correct. Lastly, the State is still stong enough that liberties cannot be put to one side on the say so of a powerful theocracy. However, it is easy to imagine what things could be like if the Church became the State. We've been there before and it wasn't pretty.
Also, as I said in my previous comment the religious right most certainly *influenced* the vote enough to get Bush Mk2 elected. You could say that they were instrumental in that sad fact.
Sure, why not.
That's easy to say, difficult, if not impossible to imagine. People innately form hierarchical structures, especially when there is work to be done.
but how would an anarchist system increase such unpalatable aspects 'exponentially'?
Because what was Left and Right (2) is, under anarchy, split into innumerable tiny factions.
In a system with large numbers of people and a small number of parties (and a codes to which its members adhere), the extreme elements within each party are inevitably moderated by the middle.
What moderates anarchy? An objective moral law?
laughing boy said: That's easy to say, difficult, if not impossible to imagine.
Actually anarchist societies have been imagined many times, both in political tracts and in literature showing both how they could work and how they would fail. My particular favourite is 'The Disposessed' by Ursula K LeGuin.
laughing boy said: People innately form hierarchical structures, especially when there is work to be done.
I neither think that hierarchy is inevitable nor innate in human nature. If we are anything we are pretty much infinitely maliable. I do not find a society of equals impossible to imagine.
laughing boy said: Because what was Left and Right (2) is, under anarchy, split into innumerable tiny factions.
That's certainly not my understanding of an ararchistic society. It would indeed consist of grouping of various types, anarachists, communists, syndicalists even libertarians but I doubt if there would be many hardline state communists or fascists..
laughing boy asked: What moderates anarchy? An objective moral law?
An anarchist culture and belief system I suggest. Certainly not an 'objective' moral law as I do not believe one exists.
scott confused me with: I should say though that I don't consider anarchy to be anti-authoritarian, it's just anti FORCED authoritarian.
You're going to have to explain that to me.... [grin].
Well…. I thought I did. Maybe I should give another example, say the one Engels used; work. You are under the authority of you employer, but only by your own consent. You can take yourself out from under that authority without having to move to whole different culture. Unlike our relationship to State authority, which is based simply on where you’re born and not your expressed consent. And to get out from under that authority without being shot or imprisoned you have to move to a different place with a different language and culture. Not exactly freedom.
scott said: There's a difference, like the difference between the State and the Church. (the modern church in America anyway, I don't know about Europe because it seems the Church has more power there than it does here)
You're kidding right? You think that the Church has more power in Europe than America? You're having a laugh aren't you? The Church has almost no power in the UK (for example) and what power it does have is vanishing by the day.... Whereas in the States... you have the religious Right electing your President!
Well no, I’m not kidding at all. Isn’t there no true separation of church and state in the UK? Doesn’t the church run schools through taxpayer money? I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong I just thought that was the way it was. The “Church” has no power here. There is no all-encompassing organization that passes it’s will or receives tax money. What you are describing in stating the religious right (which is not an actual organization, but a vague group of citizens) gets presidents elected is called democracy. It’s not a form of government that I like very much, but they don’t come to me for advice on running the empire.
scott confused me again by saying: Mutual voluntary authoritarianism is fine, State (even democratic state) authoritarianism is bad.
What exactly is: Mutual voluntary authoritarianism...?
How can you logically have voluntary authoritarianism?
Easy, by making an agreement with another person that they will have authority over you.
scott said: Personally, I see most things Leftist as the absolute opposite of anarchy, as they are usually more than happy to use coercion to force their values on anyone else in the name of the so-called "common good", which is usually neither common or all that good. :)
Unlike the Right that would *never* impose their ideology on anyone! I like you scott, you're funny...!
Well the political right certainly makes a habit of it, but that wasn’t my point.
Post a Comment