|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
I emphatically agree with the above quote. It concisely summarises the problem I have with Futurism. A leap into the future for any untested doctrine will usually end in grief for all involved. History has made an example of attempts at putting Futurism into effect, i.e. Communism and Fascism. Most Anarchists are futurists. They preach either a violent or non-violent plunge into Anarchism, which they expound, would be the salvation of humanity. Either way they want a destruction of the present system and then an instigation of Anarchy. I think this is the wrong way to go about getting Anarchy. In this way the society which would be the reciprocate of anarchy would be severly disrupted and many would suffer from the unpoliced state. The sudden dissolution of the old ways would cause hardship and mayhem, too different degrees depending on the society, and eventually cause a backlash against Anarchy as people yearn for peace. The masses would look and find new leaders to turn back the tide and reinstitute the old ways, or more likely what would turn out to be a dictatorship. So the antithesis of Anarchy would be achieved. Some might say that sudden instigation of anarchy wouldn't be the right way at all, but a planed progression toward it. In a small, isolated community this way might well work, but very few places in the world are still like this and I think that Anarchy by it's very nature will cause havoc however it is installed in our civilisation today. A true Anarchy is simply not feasible these days. The biggest reason being that few want Anarchy and that unanimous support is one of the prerequisites of Anarchy, a revolution without unanimous support of the affected population would be non-anarchist. The second reason is criminals. I've read many Anarchists who say that most of today's criminals are only criminals because of the hateful, capitalist laws. Well most of you reading this will probably live in a capitalist society and capitalism can't work without capitalist laws. What's more it's a democracy, so the laws can be changed! Anyway there are criminals and they simply can't fit into Anarchy. A true Anarchy isn't compatible with the criminal element. In comparison to the past we are doing fairly well, in the Western world at least. We have far fewer problems than we have had in millennia and the problems we do have (to many to name), are not beyond our power to fix with the tools we have at hand. The tools being capitalism, the UN and the biggest one we've ever had; the US and other democratic Western countries. We may do a lot of procrastination and looking the other way but we do deal with world problems, I'd argue, on average at a faster rate than we ever have before. World affairs at the moment are not perfect or good, but we are growing, evolving and learning from our mistakes, which leads me to my last point. The road to Anarchy should be a long one. I think it can be an ideal that we should hold. A goal that we can evolve toward and keep close, realising that everything that we do, every system that we create is not the best answer for the problem, but the next step toward Anarchism and maybe beyond… |
|
|||||||||||
|
This page is vest viewed in 1024 by 768 with Netscape or Internet Explorer |
|||||||||||||
Comrade Robot:
