Since when has anarchism been about following other peoples' points of view?
What happened to thinking for yourself and the pursuit of self-determination?
After leaving the established UK anarchist movement, it became clear that it was and still is another ideologically blinkered political group that requires adopting an agenda comes before individual thought.
By following the out-dated rantings of the aristocratic Bakunin and Prince Peter Kropotkin, or by thinking that communism will lead to some sort of socio-political anarchism (despite the only result to date being totalitarianism) those who consider themselves anarchists are continually missing the point by out-sourcing their ideologies. It doesn't dawn on them that these revered anarchist thinkers have come from the middle-classes, or higher, who, from their ivory towers, thought they had the right to determine the organisation of the working-classes. Whether or not they are traditionally labelled as such, they are still leaders.
Anarchists need to break free from such one-dimensional restrictions and develop their individual theories from their individual experiences. Even though, despite his social status, Chomsky does a decent job at promoting individualism without promoting himself as a leader, many of his, probably unwanted, sycophants see him as such. People, even anarchists, it seems, still want to be led. Chomsky's experiences hold many valuable lessons for anarchists, particularly with regards to free-speech which the contemporary left, including anarchists, feel the need to stifle.
The early anarchist punk bands (first and foremost, Crass) did well to push this idea with their claim that 'There is no authority but yourself'. But as the anarcho-punk movement evolved, so this message faded with strict anarchist 'rules' such as adherence to vegetarianism, for example, coming to the fore.
My perspective of anarchism is coherent with the self-authoritative ideal, not necessarily because I listen to or agree with Crass, but because that seems the only logical end result of anarchism. In an analogy to atheism, anarchism should be without ideological allegiance to a higher authority while recognising free-speech as given.
The Apostles - Hello, Black Flag!
Noam Chomsky and Freedom of Speech
What happened to thinking for yourself and the pursuit of self-determination?
After leaving the established UK anarchist movement, it became clear that it was and still is another ideologically blinkered political group that requires adopting an agenda comes before individual thought.
By following the out-dated rantings of the aristocratic Bakunin and Prince Peter Kropotkin, or by thinking that communism will lead to some sort of socio-political anarchism (despite the only result to date being totalitarianism) those who consider themselves anarchists are continually missing the point by out-sourcing their ideologies. It doesn't dawn on them that these revered anarchist thinkers have come from the middle-classes, or higher, who, from their ivory towers, thought they had the right to determine the organisation of the working-classes. Whether or not they are traditionally labelled as such, they are still leaders.
Anarchists need to break free from such one-dimensional restrictions and develop their individual theories from their individual experiences. Even though, despite his social status, Chomsky does a decent job at promoting individualism without promoting himself as a leader, many of his, probably unwanted, sycophants see him as such. People, even anarchists, it seems, still want to be led. Chomsky's experiences hold many valuable lessons for anarchists, particularly with regards to free-speech which the contemporary left, including anarchists, feel the need to stifle.
The early anarchist punk bands (first and foremost, Crass) did well to push this idea with their claim that 'There is no authority but yourself'. But as the anarcho-punk movement evolved, so this message faded with strict anarchist 'rules' such as adherence to vegetarianism, for example, coming to the fore.
My perspective of anarchism is coherent with the self-authoritative ideal, not necessarily because I listen to or agree with Crass, but because that seems the only logical end result of anarchism. In an analogy to atheism, anarchism should be without ideological allegiance to a higher authority while recognising free-speech as given.
The Apostles - Hello, Black Flag!
Noam Chomsky and Freedom of Speech
No comments:
Post a Comment