|
· Home · Resume · Religion · Language · Children · Rainbow · Books · Contact |
Paradoxes of
Anarchism © Edip Yuksel, 2004 www.yuksel.org Like a cleverly mutated potent virus, anarchism is challenging
the immune system of every human organization and institution such as bureaucracies,
governments, democracies, capitalism, socialism, corporations, religions, clubs,
cults, orders, and even family structure. By putting the individual's presumptive
freedom in the center of universe, by declaring jihad against all forms of
authorities and hierarchies, anarchism is providing a new utopia for those
who have been disillusioned by capitalism and its alternative socialism. Capitalism did not deliver happiness and freedom for majority of
its subjects; rather it gave birth to a modern slavery and neo-colonialism as
byproduct of its greedy, exploitive and alienating class system. Capitalism
corrupted the democracy so the so-called democratic governments were transformed
to the "governments of corporations by corporations and for corporations."
Using both the power of big government and big media, big corporations
established their hegemony in every facet of people's lives; dictating them
everything big or small, such as what to eat, what to wear, what to drive,
what to watch, what and how to think, and who to vote… People had two
choice; either big government or big corporations; which were ultimately the
same. Millions of people who were doomed to work long hours found themselves
in deep debt to banks and big corporations; they would work their tails off
just to keep their chin above water. One of the collateral damages of this
neo slavery was family and children, and interestingly, those who would roll
the words "family values" more frequently on their tongues were the
real destroyers of that institution. The fear of losing their jobs and
credits, and the fear of falling to the hellish ranks of underclass, a class
that is not only let to rot in slums and prisons but almost utterly ignored
by the propaganda machine, yes this fear prevented the middle class from even
contemplating an alternative system besides the official white and black ones.
With the hope of one day joining the ranks of the few fat cats, they became
ardent defenders of those cats; lazy and skinny mice deserved to be eaten by
heard working cats. They just needed to get little fatter in the middle and
serve fat cats better, thereby avoid being eaten by these deserving cats who
somehow had developed appetite for skinnier mice. Complaining about the
tragedy of sacrificial mice and the fears of middle class mice was an act of waging
class warfare and it was a very bad idea. Politicized churches and their
priests repeated their historical pattern and they too joined the chorus of
praising fat cats and their economic system; they were the class who would
enter the paradise first. Once a while, the propaganda machine would
celebrate the mutation of a middle-class mouse into a fat cat. He or she was
a hard-working mouse and deserved to join the upper class. This would suffice
to rekindle the hopes of millions of other mice and strengthen their faith
that the system was indeed rewarding the hard-working people. Communism and its preparatory station socialism too did not
deliver the promised paradise on earth in which people would get according to
their needs and would give according to their capacities. The proletariat,
according to the masters, had nothing to lose except its shackles, but under
the socialistic systems they were shackled to factories and on top of that
they lost their freedom for the sake of fulfilling the promised utopia. The dictatorship
of proletariat had to be established by the communist party and bureaucracy.
The party soon became a class controlling not only the politics but also
economy and military. The communist oligarchy soon became corrupt, and it oppressed
and occasionally massacred working people in the name of working people.
Glorification of work and production was meant forced labor as a sacrificial
ritual for new gods called ideology and communist party. Competition between these two diabolic systems ended up with the
victory of capitalism; albeit not forever. Capitalists needed an evil
distraction to continue their exploitation of masses. So, after the demise of
communism, or more accurately socialism, they found it with the attack of 9/11.
The new evil was terrorism, or more specifically radical Islam. This new
enemy would buy decades of distraction and schemes for the ruling class. It
would also justify their hegemony and implementation of imperialistic
ambitions. They had used drug prohibition to meddle with the domestic affairs
of banana republics of All of these events led many independent thinkers to search for
another tool to fight against capitalism and its global ambitions. They
discovered themselves. Even sensitive and averse to a particular definition,
anarchism adheres to the ideology of rejecting absoluteness of ideologies,
taboos, or dogmas, and considers its fuzzy ideology perpetually open to
revisions and mutations; an anarchist is not supposed to be ashamed or
reluctant of discarding or betraying a falsified position. It has no
allegiance to flags, rules, moral laws, gods, temples, teachings, comrades,
or leaders; reminiscent of "everything changes except change itself"
it has no allegiance except allegiance to freely and unpredictably destroying
allegiances… Inconsistency is a merit for an anarchist, not a weakness.
There is something attractive in this highly liberating paradigm.
I see the color of anarchism not black but neon orange! I like the rebellious
youth in anarchism, its courage to challenge established traditions, laws,
and cultures; its determination to choose for self and take responsibility
for own actions. It reminds me the proverb "whatever I like the most is
either illegal, or immoral, or fattening!" I have not read academic books or journal articles on anarchism;
I am expressing the following points as my reaction to one and a half popular
books, and two and a half articles I have read on the subject. If I am wrong,
I will act like an anarchist considering consistency between the past,
present and future not a value; and thus I will correct my misconceptions
immediately. What was I saying? Yes, though an anarchist resembles the clever
brother-in-law of hedonism who seeks prestige by expressing his selfishness
in political terms, or resembles the aunt of stoicism who lost her mind, yes
despite these similarities I have sympathy for anarchism; perhaps mostly
because its emphasis on individual freedom. After age thirty, I left
everything behind
Anarchism contains philosophical paradoxes. For instance, reflect
on the following hypothetical discussion: A ― I am a monotheist anarchist who
has devoted his religion to God alone. B ― Believers in one God or multiple
gods cannot be anarchists. A ― Why? B ― You cannot be an anarchist.
Period. Because, according to this expert or that master, according to this
book or that constitution anarchism is defined as such and such! A ― Are you trying to dictate me your
own ideology by telling me what anarchism is and is not? Do you want to
establish authority on me in the name of anarchism? B ― You are not an anarchist, because
I say so! A ― Ditto! And bye-bye! Now who is an anarchist? A, B, or Both? Let's continue this
discussion with another round: A ― My God has many attributes one of
his attributes is the Truth. I accept the Truth and all truth with my own
mind and free choice. B ―There cannot be "the
truth" or "absolute" truth. Everything is relative. Today's
"truth" may not be "true" tomorrow. A ― Is your statement "there cannot
be absolute truth" is the only absolute truth? Furthermore: There are practical paradoxes regarding attaining the goals of
anarchism, whatever they may be. For instance, anarchists will not be able to
obtain a substantial victory against the well-organized governments and multinational
corporations just because they cannot mobilize against them as a well
organized movement. When they attempt to organize they will reach to
anarchism inversely proportional to their victory. In other words, the more
they fight against authorities in organized fashion the more they will betray
their dream. In the end, either they will organize in a hierarchical
structure and get alienated from themselves or they will annihilate
themselves by continuously dividing into atoms and subatomic particles
through chaos and fission. Can the anarchists establish and run an internet forum
reflecting their ideals? Why anarchist
forums have nice ADMINISTRATORS who blow ash in the fireplace of anarchism (a
Turkish proverb!)? What if all those like me who got loose from their shackles
and cages visit an anarchist forum, and what if some of those anarchists
happen to be idiots? What if the idiot anarchists post child pornography or volumes
of their life stories; in short, what if they turn the forum to a circus or
Dingo's Corral? Could in such situation an anarchist ask "Where is the
authority? Where is the apartment manager?" Would it be against the
tenets of anarchism if some cry out, or whisper, think, or at least fancy
such demand for intervention? Would the decision of the most senior or
veteran anarchist or the tyranny of majority be the ultimate authority regarding
the etiquette and rules of using a common forum? Is there a
black or orange anarchist out there who would slay these paradoxes? |