Anarchist?
Today I found out (although not very reliably), that someone I had known last year at school had been arrested, possibly on terrorism charges. This person had been producing homemade bombs, and was apparently planning on trying to blow up the school. This person was an anarchist.
When the media, or the majority of people refer to anarchists, this is the type of person they are thinking of. Someone who is violent, is a threat to people’s life and property. And can you blame them? This person called themself an anarchist, and, in point of fact, was one. They believed in a society without government.
However, the propblem with the idea of anarchy, is that it is a negation – without government. I oppose a government, and therefore am technically an anarchist. Do I agree with this person’s actions? Not in the slightest.
The thing with anarchy is that it is a negation, of a broad, complex, and arguably misunderstood thing. By most people, the government is seen as an agent of order – thus anarchy is seen to be a society without order. In fact, from talking briefly with this particular anarchist, a society without order is exactly what he wants – and violence is a means which he will use to achieve it.
Why I so strongly disagree with his actions can be seen when you consider my view of government. Government is an agent of violence, of coercion. It is this violence I wish to be rid of – my anarchy is a society without instituionalised force, a voluntaryist society where people interact with each other peacefully and civilly. This is almost the opposite of what is wanted by this other person.
We need to focus on the positive. What we want not what we don’t. People might also presume that since we are against the state, we are against the “enslavement” of property; that we are anarcho-syndacists. We need to stop presenting ourseves as anti-state, although we are. We need to change ourselves from being anti-state to pro-freedom, pro-voluntary interaction and pro-individuality. And I know all this has been said by others before. But it is now that I realise the importance of it. I plan to stop using the word “anarchy” – I will say what I am, what I am not.
However, back to this person – I do sympathise to a degree. I think he may genuinely have caught a glimpse of what is wrong with modern society. But they have misidentified it, and are trying to correct it in a way that, will in fact make things worse. Violence is not the solution, it is the root cause of our problems. Attacks such as his just give the government a reason to be more oppresive.
So, although we should always be clear to distance ourselves from people such as this. But they’re part way to where we are. They know the state is bad, but don’t know way, don’t realise that violence is the problem. So, what I wonder now, is can we help them progress further. I knew this person, and knew of his beliefs. If I had managed to help him understand voluntaryism, might he never be where he is today. Could I have saved him risking time in jail, and converted him to a pro-freedom but anti-violence activist?
I don’t know. I think he may have been to far gone. But the point is, some people are straying towards traditional violent anarchism, and we need to stop them, show them the real problem, and the real alternative. Voluntary action, not chaos, is the real remedy to the state.