I had an interesting talk today with a self-titled anarchist. There seemed to be some confusion when challenged, as to what the definition was. I took the line that throwing red wine all over someone's £2,000 cashmere coat was a pointless act, resulting in nothing, as well as being a personal attack, and not a political one. The reply to this was that he had no business wearing such an expensive coat.
We discussed this point at length with my line being that one cannot judge a person by his appearances, but by his actions. Assumptions often later turn out to be incorrect.
This seems to me to be more of an imagined 'class war' in which people with chips on their shoulders resent the success of others. In defence of my argument I had to use myself as an example, always a bit of a weak move, to demonstrate that, having been seriously impoverished in childhood, I now like to have nice things. Anyone meeting me now would assume I had had a reasonable upbringing, which is very far from the case.
I was jerked emotionally into this debate because of my horror that I could be attacked by the unthinking, ignorant, if I was wearing something that looked decent, because of a shallow misconception. The man in the cashmere coat was implicated in the gun trade - an odious way to make money - but a separate issue and, quite rightly, one for which he can be held to account, morally and legally. It's not what he wears but what he does, girly.
Anarchic responses are passionate, and are often catalytic in provoking the complacent into action. What Greenpeace started with their shock tactics, Friends of the Earth carried through with reason, law and dialogue.
It is always fair to assert your rights, to say what you believe, and to adhere to principles that are self-defining, but one must always allow the same rights to others. Freedom of speech and though is sacroscant. We cannot attack everyone who does not agree with us. Attacks on burger chains and the like are brief, colourful, destructive, and, I believe, self-defeating. My argument that it's better to lobby for change, using rhetoric and research, was not accepted.
Although I recognize that democracy seems undemocratic at times, and there are many things wrong with our system, one has to work within it. Only since Sinn Fein came to the table for talks did the long running Irish problem begin to resolve. Kneecapping, tarring and feathering, murders and bombs did nothing to promote peace in Ireland, and the removal of British troops. All that mess destroyed the economy and the people suffered terribly throughout. At last, using dialogue and the political process, order begins to be restored, and the economy is booming, too fast for social adjustment perhaps, but that's a different subject.
It occurred to me as I was on my way home that, surely, to be a true anarchist means to reject all that our society has to offer. Anarchism is surely a luxury in such an ordered and civilized society as Britain. The state provides healthcare, legal aid, education, and more. Therefore, to be defined as a true anarchist would mean going without all these things. We join in or we opt out, no half-measures. When this young woman gets ill, she will get treatment from her doctor, likewise hospital services. When her children reach school age, she will send them to school. If she is attacked she may call for police protection. She should also try to do without public transport; without using the road system or the railways, and dispose of her own rubbish somehow. What about a state pension?
Anarchists will accept all these services, whilst vociferously opposing the structure that put them in place. I'd rather they chose to be part of the solution. We can all make things better, using existing channels of communication and legislation. The naive belief that societies can exist by collaboration not hierarchical rule is sweet, but a collaboration is a discussion, which never reaches a decision. Round and round committees go, discussing the same topics without one person saying, okay we'll do this. Leadership is essential. Bad leaders have to go. So, hurray for the democrats in the US today, they have the majority of seats, and Dubbya's remaining two years in office will, hopefully, be two years of better co-operation with the rest of the world and, fingers crossed for a more globally-minded leader next election - and one who is committed to diminishing the arms trade.
We discussed this point at length with my line being that one cannot judge a person by his appearances, but by his actions. Assumptions often later turn out to be incorrect.
This seems to me to be more of an imagined 'class war' in which people with chips on their shoulders resent the success of others. In defence of my argument I had to use myself as an example, always a bit of a weak move, to demonstrate that, having been seriously impoverished in childhood, I now like to have nice things. Anyone meeting me now would assume I had had a reasonable upbringing, which is very far from the case.
I was jerked emotionally into this debate because of my horror that I could be attacked by the unthinking, ignorant, if I was wearing something that looked decent, because of a shallow misconception. The man in the cashmere coat was implicated in the gun trade - an odious way to make money - but a separate issue and, quite rightly, one for which he can be held to account, morally and legally. It's not what he wears but what he does, girly.
Anarchic responses are passionate, and are often catalytic in provoking the complacent into action. What Greenpeace started with their shock tactics, Friends of the Earth carried through with reason, law and dialogue.
It is always fair to assert your rights, to say what you believe, and to adhere to principles that are self-defining, but one must always allow the same rights to others. Freedom of speech and though is sacroscant. We cannot attack everyone who does not agree with us. Attacks on burger chains and the like are brief, colourful, destructive, and, I believe, self-defeating. My argument that it's better to lobby for change, using rhetoric and research, was not accepted.
Although I recognize that democracy seems undemocratic at times, and there are many things wrong with our system, one has to work within it. Only since Sinn Fein came to the table for talks did the long running Irish problem begin to resolve. Kneecapping, tarring and feathering, murders and bombs did nothing to promote peace in Ireland, and the removal of British troops. All that mess destroyed the economy and the people suffered terribly throughout. At last, using dialogue and the political process, order begins to be restored, and the economy is booming, too fast for social adjustment perhaps, but that's a different subject.
It occurred to me as I was on my way home that, surely, to be a true anarchist means to reject all that our society has to offer. Anarchism is surely a luxury in such an ordered and civilized society as Britain. The state provides healthcare, legal aid, education, and more. Therefore, to be defined as a true anarchist would mean going without all these things. We join in or we opt out, no half-measures. When this young woman gets ill, she will get treatment from her doctor, likewise hospital services. When her children reach school age, she will send them to school. If she is attacked she may call for police protection. She should also try to do without public transport; without using the road system or the railways, and dispose of her own rubbish somehow. What about a state pension?
Anarchists will accept all these services, whilst vociferously opposing the structure that put them in place. I'd rather they chose to be part of the solution. We can all make things better, using existing channels of communication and legislation. The naive belief that societies can exist by collaboration not hierarchical rule is sweet, but a collaboration is a discussion, which never reaches a decision. Round and round committees go, discussing the same topics without one person saying, okay we'll do this. Leadership is essential. Bad leaders have to go. So, hurray for the democrats in the US today, they have the majority of seats, and Dubbya's remaining two years in office will, hopefully, be two years of better co-operation with the rest of the world and, fingers crossed for a more globally-minded leader next election - and one who is committed to diminishing the arms trade.
Comments