Ideological romanticism is something to get nostalgic about. When thinking of the perfect foundation for society an ideologist, who in this case is an ideological theorist, uses a fairy tale approach which does everything in its power to advocate for the best possible form of civilization. Anarchism is no exception to that rule because similar to most socio-political ideologies of the far left they have the tendency of recreating the same class enemy once the ideological platform in question comes to pass. Throughout history we have seen such events occur under the auspicious of “Revolutionary Marxism” in addition to the application of anarchistic theories of disestablishmentarianism. It becomes evident that a great distinction must be made between real world applications of ideological theory and their romanticized interpretations correspondingly.
On the same token rhetorical pundits that advocate on behalf of these socio-political ideologies will insist that each real world attempt to replicate each one throughout history has continuously deviated from the orthodox principles in which the ideology of question within the far left was originally established. Liberty and emancipation are compelling qualities that provides anarchism with an objective appeal to an outside observer which explains how the idea of socio-political anarchy is sold to young and emphatic minds; however, anarchism doesn’t escape the conceptually experimental realm because on a large scale it just DOES NOT WORK. For example, is it possible to deliver sustaining electrical currents through an urban power grid without procedural guidelines which otherwise qualifies as an overarching rule?
At its quintessential core, can an anarchist derive a fundamental distinction between a standardized guideline and principle? Doesn’t the convergence of both produce an overarching rule which makes the fruition of an incremental process possible? Civilization is made possible because there are rules which protect common interest and that boils down to social survivability. It isn’t possible to achieve a civilization if each individual in society wants to run their own show; once that happens a population is subjected to a depraved scenario of dog-eat-dog survival which theoretically accelerates ideas of Social Darwinism, but inconveniently highlights the deranged disparity of the developing world to date. Based on what we can empirically observe of the Central African Republic to date, the phenomenon of statelessness has already transformed into a living and breathing reality which explains why mass murderers are able to operate within the same nation with relative impunity.
An absence of law and order produces a pseudo sociological system that reveres no accountability whatsoever and the masses that fall beneath this societal paradigm are left to the devices of their own whimsical inclinations of justice to assure that some level of good witnesses the light of day. Lawlessness and statelessness isn’t doing the developing world any favors and even in a world without rules or laws people are capable of unprecedented acts when there is no overhanging accountability of any kind. Each person has the potential to stand as their own independent sovereign within society, but how is it possible to take an affirmative stand when there is no foundation to protect or stand on simultaneously? Can an anarchist truly acknowledge pieces of international legislation such as the Geneva Conventions when technically they can be interpreted as authoritative rules and standards?
Law and order is guided by socio-political designs of transparency which goes into systems of checks and balances which is then audited by overhanging standards of accountability; that produces a palate of civilization in itself. Communes can thrive in an anarchistic manner because those affiliated with then are already pre-mobilized for a cause that is clearly defined, but there are still codes of conduct which governs the functionality of the commune; that was largely the case during the Spanish Civil War. The solution mustn’t succumb to institutional hegemonies which go on to regard the human individual as an expendable commodity; that explains the standard of the world as we know it.
However, institutional standards and the rules thereof must allow individual people to benignly empower themselves without surrendering their individuality in the process; that is the problem with authoritatively totalitarian institutional power systems (think of academia) and why there will always be an abstract case for some sort of application of anarchism.
Should Anarchistic Movements Pursue Different Publicities?
It would be rather productive to discover and adopt a new platform that achieves a distinguishable label on its own accord. Anarchism on its own is too abstract to stand sufficiently because there is no directive that sends a clearly defined disposition which channels the primary cause behind it. A caused precondition is preoccupied with some sort of paradigm that highlights the needs and conditions of a standing population. The human condition is entirely situational which is why causes, ideologies, and movements are constantly amending their ways so that they can remain relevant. If specifics are ignored and not taken into consideration at some point, causes for anarchism will inevitably transform into Occupy Wall Street Movements.
Advocates of these causes become good at highlighting the faults of society and civilization, but fall tremendously short when faced with the overarching proposition of casting out solutions toward the same area of interest. Why? Such advocates are constantly retorting to ambiguous analogues of anarchism which lack the situational specifics. A creative approach will use anarchistic inspiration to create a movement about it while carrying a new connotative pitch, thus creating a situational prompt, while remaining true to its ideological roots keeping it anarchistic.
Why is Anarchism so Attractive?
Anarchism is largely attractive to disenfranchised people that live throughout the Western mainstream; however, that is not to suggest that major anarchistic movements are all Western in origin. Once authoritatively totalitarian governments are put out to permanent pasture the masses are overly eager to express themselves politically. The idea of a world without rules or laws becomes rather attractive because in a nation that has just thrown off the chains of authoritative totalitarianism both terms are almost instantly associated with oppression; it is for that reason why prominent anarchistic groups/organizations have emerged out of South America.
Individuals and groups that speak loudly on behalf of anarchism have never truly lived or experienced a world of anarchism. The developing world contains some of the most anarchistic nations on the planet yet there have been no major mobilizations to demand anarchy among standing populations that are already living in anarchy. It is often because of the lawless anarchy why depraved populations in the underdeveloped world suffer from a sharp lack of resources because distribution is entirely distorted. Those that desire to preserve such a status quo derive massive profits from the anarchistic disarray which keeps the underdeveloped and depraved nation in question within a dysfunctional state.
Let’s face it; those masked protesters that destroy and vandalize urban city centers in the name of anarchy haven’t known a life without rules, laws, or standards in which they derive their survival entirely. Instead of proposing solutions that employ cunning angels of media coverage many anarchists prefer to turnover cars while smashing storefront windows only to yell through megaphones about the common faults of the “system”. Most would agree that the same display is quite hypocritical in nature which eliminates chances for civil displays of assembled protestation.
Once each group of three (rules, laws, and standards) are taken away they, the advocates of anarchy, are quick to attack the incumbent establishment for failing to provide for their survival while refuting it only to fall entirely short of devising objective alternative solutions to it.
-Image is Courtesy of Wikipedia-