It's not uncommon to see anarchists angrier with the left than with the right. That's probably because the uselessness of the right is taken for granted, while the left's errors, as anarchists see them, are frustrating because anarchists presumably expect better from people who supposedly share their desire for a world free from exploitation. It's easy to disappoint dreamers of impossible dreams. Anarchists long for a world without "power," "control" or "domination," perhaps believing in a non-capitalist version of the libertarians' spontaneous order, to the extent that they idealize "order" at all. I googled "Campaign to Play for Keeps" and found a transcription of an earlier document, possibly from the same author, that takes a pessimistic view of the future, insofar as the author anticipates that "Life becomes perpetual struggle, becomes perpetual war for perpetual freedom." In effect, the author argues that (individual) freedom is a state of perpetual conflict against all the forces that might curtail or compromise it, so that "civil war becomes the definition of a free society."
Here's another broadside from the Campaign, broken into two parts to make the text legible.
Since this looks more like a typical piece of anarchist art than a programmatic statement, I'll let it stand without comment.
4 comments:
"Life becomes perpetual struggle..."
That is, always has been and always will be the case. The universe wants us dead. The universe is a very uncaring and dangerous place. The universe seeks entropy and life gets in the way of entropy. There is a reason why, despite the probabilities and statistics spouted out by the likes of Sagan, deGrasse-Tyson, Hawking, et. al., we have discovered no other life in the universe so far. Because the universe is not a friendly place.
All of these people need to stop spouting idiotologies and understand that their various political/social/economic leanings are meaningless to the universe. Even if that weren't the case, WE (the human species) haven't been able to come up with a workable society that everyone can agree on in the 10,000 years (or so) of civilization. Which means it is highly unlikely that we ever will. All sides are wrong. All sides are too stupid to understand that they are wrong and why they are wrong. They all assume an understanding of human nature that is incorrect. Thus, their premise is flawed.
Meanwhile, the Dude abides.
The universe apparently can't help spawning life despite its bias against it and seems pretty meaningless in its own right, so perhaps we should be indifferent to its indifference.
As far as we know, life arose on this one insignificant planet. And only on this planet. My point being that most of these people are theists. Theists posit that this universe was created for the one purpose of housing mankind. The fact that the universe is so hostile to life should be proof enough that their beliefs are completely wrong. As there is no god, then reality will never act the way they keep expecting it to act and so they will grow only more frustrated and angry because, quite simply, they are either too stupid to realize how wrong they are, or too stubborn to admit they are wrong.
Insofar as anarchists go, again, the same problem. They have a mistaken view of human nature. They believe that, deep inside, all humans are basically good and able to get along with one another in a fair, impartial manner. I think they are even more stupid than theists, because history has proven them wrong, again and again and again.
No government equals no order. No government equals a society of bandits, thieves, cut-throats, rapists and murderers.
Stupidity is dangerous and, given the ever-growing population, will soon reach a point where it *will* cause the extinction of humanity. It should NOT be tolerated.
And to be clear, part of my definition of "stupid" is an unwillingness to accept facts, if those facts cast doubt on your current world view.
Post a Comment