?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Anarchy? Problem Or Solution.


Aristotle, a conservative i suppose, felt that society, especially a democracy, cannot exist among people who were not equals.  A society cannot exist, he might have said, "half upper class and half lower class." Or more realistically in his day, three percent upper class, five percent middle class, and ninety-two percent lower class.  The lower class could  not lead, he thought, and the upper class could not follow.  He defined upper class as those  who possessed an overabundance of resources; and be resources, he not  only meant property, power, and privilege, but also talent, friends, good looks, etc., etc.  The idea of creating an egalitarian society brings forth images of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron."  This is the intention, i think, of those who define "government" , at least when the "right" party is in power, in the most positive way possible and anarchy in the most negative way possible. (Such as is done by Robert Kaplan in Why So Much Anarchy? | Stratfor.)
The upper class is often thought of as godlike, while the lower class is thought of as brutelike.. To "bend the bow" so as to aim for a better life for  all should be the task of planners.  Those who fear anarchy are not opposed to equality or justice. they just feel that good order is a prerequisite for those things and they are able  to put up with a great deal of inequality and injustice while waiting  for things to come to order.  Anarchists are not opposed to order, they feel that order must emerge organically out  of  justice and equality, which are its prerequisites.

In a society, each should care for the welfare of all; all should care for the welfare of each.  Vast difference in power, property, and prestige make this mutuality impossible.  We need to learn materially what Rumi learned spiritually from the tale of "Moses and the Shepherd.."

Why so much anarchy?  I ask, why so little?

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
matrixmann
Aug. 19th, 2014 07:40 am (UTC)
If anarchy means in terms "live and let live" for the civil life of citizens among each other and for the relationship of the state to its citizens, then this would be correct.
Societies with lots of laws and rules and a lot of bureaucracy are like wearing a corset - you can't move and you don't know what you can do and what not (without getting into trouble).
In the end you end up depressed, confused and anxious. (Or in short words: You end up as a German, living like in his homeland.)
amaebi
Aug. 20th, 2014 02:53 am (UTC)
Well, you know,I think humans have pretty well sucked for all the time for which we have information. I think anarchy may be possible when we are more acculturated to more thoughtful, kinder, better behaviour.

I'm aware that your perspective is one in which the move from hunter-gatherer to the labour divisions of tribalism, herding, and agriculture was a non felix culpa, of course!
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

bobby1933
bobby1933

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow