A Brief Defence of Anarchism

I must begin this post by making it quite clear that I have never, do not and never will defend the policies and actions of the National Socialist (Nazi) party of Germany of the mid-20th century. This clarification must be quite perterbing to my readers. What could he possibly be writing that could possibly linked to lending support to the infamous Adolf Hitler? Quite to the contrary I shall be writing in defence of Anarchism. This may insight many people to the same degree of trepidation as a defence of German fascism. Aren't Anarchists those people who throw pipe bombs into baby carriages and eat the flesh of invalids? Such have been the numerous false accusations of Anarchists throughout history. These accusations are for the most part false. I do admit that, as I call them, maligned Anarchists have been responcible for some attrocious acts of murder. I call any Anarchist who cannot get beyond the logical step of nihilistic destruction a maligned anarchist. I deliberately do not call them "bad" or "dark" anarchists because their actions are in many ways reasonable. However; I am not here today defending such actions. I would like to begin with a description of governmental force and violence.

To explain my previous comments on German fascism I would like to examine the Nazi Swaztika. Why is it that people get so terribly offended when they see someone wearing a Nazi Swaztika? Is it because of the 6 million Jewish and 6 million other(Poles, Slavs and Romas as well as political, sexual and mental "abnormals") death camp victims? It most certainly and fittingly is! We should abhorr it for that because the end of a strong government is always murderous totalitarianism. My objection is to the unthoughtful and anachronistic (unhistorical) criticism of the Swaztika based on the isolated incident of the Holocaust. The first irony I noticed in denouncing the emblem of the Swaztika was the numerous siccal and hammer shirts I see people wear. I don't care if you are a communist, I disagree with you, but I accept it as a political and economic system. I resent the use of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin's emblem which represents the grim deaths of 600 million Russians in Gulags. You may think that people disappearing into the dark night to die in the snow is trendy, but it makes me sick.

Now, before I am accused of being an anti-communist Capitalist Swine, I must tell of the progression of my thought. The victims of capitalist "liberal democracies" such as the US, Britain, Canada, France and Beligium(yes even Belgium, just go to the Congo) are also many and varied. One need not look to Vietnam or Africa to see massacres. The native populations of the Americas and even the very citizens of these countries have all been subjected to starvation and murder at the hands of their respective governments. If even the Canadian mapleleaf stands for genocide and injustice, why do we not feel the same indignance when it is raised on the flag pole? Why do we not remember the slaughter of the Philipinnes and Guam when we hear the star spangled banner? Why do we not see the dead faces of the Vietnamese at the sound of the Marseilles? Why not the armless children of the Congo when Belgium is mentioned? This is enough of the empirical evidence, however vague and scant it may be.

Now for a rational explanation of my argument. Since all government is based on the deferral of authority from the individual to a ruling body, there is no capacity for any system of government to operate without destroying freedom. Even if the government gives freedom to the individual it is still freedom that has been given, like a leash to a dog. There can be no freedom under any form of government. It is when people are especially conned into the idea that they need a sovereign to protect them from "anarchy and chaos" that they are suseptable to radically obsene governments such as Hitler's Germany.

Perhaps then it is only fitting that people should feel especially revolted at the sight of the Nazi Swaztika. Perhaps it subconsciously reminds people that they too give their government, their falsely imagined authority, the power to do what they fear the most. It is often said of Anarchism that it advocated a system in which people would be free to kill and steal at will. This could not be further from the truth. If people were perfectly free, the violence of those few deranged and psychopathic individuals could never compare with the total sum of violence perpetrated by the governments of the world. For, in the case of a psychopath, he/she must act alone, whereas Hitler, by legally aquiring politcal authority was able to wield the full strength of the entire nation of Germany. (and...to make everyone happy, George Bush can invade Iraq even though many Americans oppose the war, I am not even going to get into the issue of "forcing people to be free.) We give out governments the power to destroy! We are all guilty! By our capitulation we become a part of the sovereign which crushes the individual!

Anarchism is not about destruction, although frustrated and maligned anarchists have been driven to acts of violence. Anarchism is about allowing the future to unfold freely. To allow for open dialogue between people so as to peacefully order our political organisations. We must not fetter the future with our traditions and institutions! Marx's dialectic moves on ad infinitum, it does not end in a glorious communist revolution, although that could be a step! You are the only thing holding you back from achieving anarchism! I am the only thing stopping myself! We must get over this notion that we need a sovereign to dictate our actions! People, seek freedom, you have nothing to lose but yourself, and thereby find yourself...