For years, since being a young man, having sprung from a fairly ignorant political worldview, which was really no political worldview at all, I have strove to locate a theoretical and practical political framework which seems to resonate most closely with my own unique perspective on things. I realized early on that the current, mainstream division between "right" and "left," between "conservative" and "liberal," at least as spoken of within American political discourse, was a false division, and could never serve my needs as a seeker of solidity in these rocky tempests. I realized that, in many instances, those labeling themselves as conservatives were anything but, as well as for those calling themselves liberals. The terms themselves seem to be very poorly understood in the first place. Both have become loaded and confused by poor communication, and decades of exposure and submission to an opportunistic media which caters to the lowest common denominator, and discourages constructive, healthy discourse.
I realized, after continued and impassioned perusal of my public library, that in many respects, I consider myself what is commonly thought of as a conservative, and in other respects, a liberal. I also consider myself an anarchist, as well as a libertarian, as well as in some respects, a fascist, and in others, a socialist. So, suffice it to say, I could never, with any heart and soul, consider myself a Republican, or Democrat. The spectrum that these so-called political ideologies attempt to encompass is far too narrow for me, and the boundary between them is far too transitory, besides.
Politics and political theory are murky waters to swim about in, when looking for answers that achieve satisfaction for the needs of the intellect or the soul. Many thorns wait to ensnare. For instance, I consider myself, most simply, to be an anarchist, in that I believe, and know, that homo sapiens sapiens is a species that is perfectly able to achieve its vocational, societal, cultural, and spiritual needs without an external, imposed, coercive, hierarchy of control mechanized by a separate class of persons, politicians, within a cumbersome and exceedingly costly infrastructure called "government." I believe that our needs can and should be met locally, cooperatively, and towards the highest good of all involved in the society.
Naturally, but unfortunately, we all inherited the set of systems that we live in, and it is hard sometimes to "think outside the box," and imagine how things could be fundamentally different. In other words, it should be easy for Americans of most political persuasions to imagine having a democratic, or republican, president, but how much more difficult is it for most of us to imagine having no president at all, as the founding fathers of America imagined the then-distant possibility of having no king? Fairly difficult, it seems, as anarchism is still considered by the observable maintsream to be a fringe position, a utopian dream, impossible and naive.
However, all anarchistic ideals aside (and, as a side note, please do yourself a favor, and read one of the classics on Anarchism, such as No Gods, No Masters by Daniel Guerin, or Nationalism and Culture by Rudolph Rocker, if you have no familiarity with the idea-set contained within classical Anarchism), there are also times when I feel myself curiously resonating with a semi or even full-on fascist ideology. Now, by fascism, I do not mean racism or xenophobia, as we have been raised to believe are necessary implements of fascism. They are frequently a part of fascist movements, but are not part and parcel of fascism, but are merely forces which have bound people together in many social and cultural milieus since time immemorial. One only needs to cite the colonial and nineteenth century United States, where racism and genocide, against the Indians and Africans, were rampant, and integral, to our democracy, at the time.
No, by fascism, I mean the marriage of state and corporate interests, and the absolute control of all of our movements, dealings, possessions, and means of living in any way. A system of complete control, from the top to the bottom, where one singular ideology is decided appropriate, and impugned onto the masses.
For fascism is the logical antithesis of anarchism: the former advocates "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism," while the latter advocates "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty." One is black and the other white, for all intents and purposes, as opposite as any two ideologies can be from one another. And, it is curious how the two play over and almost into each other in my brain, as potential solutions to our current global straits of mass warfare, lack of means of survival, embrace of meaning, and collective direction.
The difference between the two is that anarchism rests on and necessitates an optimistic outlook of the potential course of the interrelationship of the human species, whereas fascism depends on a pessimistic one. And, an optimistic view of such is increasingly difficult for me, if even it is one that I, perhaps unrealistically but naturally and passionately, cling to.
The reality is that, the way things are going, with all these horrible and inhuman wars us Americans are perpetuating, this global economic crisis, exponentially rising levels of population, and increasing control over our means of survival, it is becoming difficult to be optimistic. I surely could not be optimistic if I had watched my country being bombed to literal death over the past six years, or my house reduced to rubble, my family buried in shallow graves because of the whims of a handful of greedy, power hungry men. Sometimes, I have to admit, it might just be better if we had a one world authority, a one person in charge, a perhaps global solution to all of humanity's ill-conceived and immoral, as well as developmental and constructive, actions.
Fascism and Anarchism stem from two fundamentally different philosophic worldviews: that of the efficacy and necessity of the one idea, and that of the efficacy and necessity of a multiplicity of ideas. It is hard to decide which is really correct for the healthy advancement of human development. For instance, if we were all living in self-built houses, in an economy unfettered by regulation or externally approved currency value, then anarchism would be the spot on ideology for ordering society, as far I was concerned. However, living as we do on a globe of six billion, of several hundred countries, many of us already dependent upon governmental infrastructure, sometimes it seems that fascism would be the only solution to our problems.
It is a thorny issue. But this is only entry one on this subject.
I have to let my fingers rest a bit, mix up another gin and grapefruit juice, pacing around the apartment rubbing my face, scratching my ass, and attending to all of my unfortunate emotional issues, like dearly missing a woman far, far away and so much further away emotionally than I would ever wish.
There is no nice happy handbook for dealing with these issues, as I always hoped, as a child.
Stay tuned!
Happy Trails!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment