A-Infos (en) Aotearoa (New Zealand), Auckland, A Space Inside #1 - The Best Things in Life are Anarchistic By Tyler

Anarchy? You mean like throwing bricks and rioting? No, that's not at all what I 
mean. Anarchy is a concept that most people consider highly foreign. Unless you 
already identify with Anarchism, the only time you are likely to have come 
across it is when it is used as a distasteful, derrogatory, abstract noun to 
describe the violent and destructive actions of a group of people who have lost 
all "respect for the law." These situations are more often than not the 
unplanned outcome of the unpredictable mob mentality in response to immense 
frustration and have nothing to do with Anarchists. There is destruction that 
has a lot to do with Anarchy, but I'll leave that alone for now. Whether you 
were aware of it or not, you have been involved in Anarchistic events, struggles 
and processes. You were not aware of them at the time because they arose and 
developed in such a natural way. They were collectively organised, and took all 
opinions into acount. Unfortunately they probably happened more frequently when 
you were younger and you acted without the influence of modern society's 
enfatuation with strong leaders and clearly defined hierarchy. In my view, 
Anarchy is a desire for inherent and realistic freedom of thought and action to 
be realised and made widely available. I will use two examples to illustrate the 
point.

Have you ever been with a small group of hungry friends trying to decide
where to eat? Although you are all friends, you all have different appetites
and preferences and there are probably several different restaurants that each
of you would prefer. Initially someone will put forward a suggested location
and a light-hearted debate will develop over the merits of that establishment
in comparison to the quality, price and location of similar options. It may
take a little while, but eventually you will all agree on a restaurant.
Now, have you ever been part of a larger group of hungry individuals, all set
on eating something personally preferable? There is a good chance that in
this larger group a consensus will not be achieved. A significant portion will
agree to visit one place and other groups will form around the common
desire of their members to eat elsewhere.

I believe that these two situations, while very simplistic, provide helpful
evidence of the outworking of Anarchist principles in a life which until now
you probably thought had nothing to do with Anarchy. In the first case, it is
possible that the consensus arose from a relative majority, or maybe that
there was one person who maintained a strong desire to eat at this particular
place, in opposition to other weaker desires to eat elsewhere. The important
thing is that a consensus was formed and all involved ended up happily
enjoying a meal together. In the second case, due to size, a consensus could
not be reached and one or more divisions developed. In all likelyhood the
members of these groups initially proposed more dining options than they
finally decided upon, but were drawn to group decisions that they were all
happy with.

This organic process of decision making which allows for total freedom on
the part of all participants is a key concept of Anarchy. In both examples
everyone had the right to present their point of view and no one could make
them do anything until they were happy to do it. If someone felt strongly
enough they had every right to decline all the options provided by the others
and go somewhere alone. This process is ideal and so often used
unknowingly, but is seldom if ever considered in relation to bigger issues.
Our current notion of democracy is that the majority has the right to force its
desires upon the minority and therefore our societies are composed of
numerous reppressed and disenchanted minorities.

It may not be hard for you, but pretend for a second that you are a meat-
eater. What if you were part of a group of hungry individuals in which the
majority of people decided to eat at a restaurant serving only tofu-based
meals and were therefore forced to forego your juicy beast-flesh, in favour
of little blocks of solidified bean curd? While I realise that right now
Anarchists and non-Anarchists alike, will be pointing out the major
oversimplifications and inherent rediculousness in comparing every decision
in a complex society to that of where to eat dinner, hopefully it will
stimulate some curiousity in the minds of those who recognise our society is
less than perfect.

Now back to the harder to explain topic of anarchist violence. Anarchy is in
contrast to Chaos, which is usually the word reporters are searching for
when they desribe a situation as having the qualities of anarchy. As I
mentioned above, there is destruction that has a lot to do with Anarchy. This
is the most difficult aspect of Anarchist thought for anyone to come to terms
with, even after spending many hours in discussion and thought.

In our current society, violence in any form is portrayed as
counterproductive and as a misguided direction of energies that can have no
positive effect. Any citizen employing violence is therefore seen to be
irrational and unjustified no matter what their excuse may be. If this was a
principle that was adhered to by the institutions proclaiming it, then it might 
make a little more sense, but we constantly see states going to war with each
other; religions supporting various forms of sectarian violence; and courts
exacting retributive vengance against in offenders. I will now
attempt to explain how this apparently justified hipocracy gives Anarchists
room to justify their own violence.

The aggressive action of Anarchists is used as a last resort, when all
peaceable means have been exhausted and ignored. Unfortunately the
peaceable avenues are less spectacular and an issue seldom gains media
attention until this last ditch, aggressive effort to affect change. It is
therefore seen as totally uncalled for and unreasonable.

The use of violence is an activist response to a world view that sees the
practices of capitalism as being necessarily exploitative and violent.

Violence is only ever intentionally directed against the largest and most
harmfully unsustainable practitioners of capitalism and the state that
supports them. Those practitioners are usually large multinational
corporations that justify their exploitation of poorer countries, the
environment and their own emplyees with the "need" for cheaper
production, or deal in the lucrative and devastating business of weapons
manufacture. Their top executives (the ones with whom the resposibility
should lie) and their property is most commonly targeted (never directly the
employees.) The state that supports and legitimises this system of
exploitation is our government and many others like it. Unresponsive
politicians; the property of the state; and when unnavoidable, repressive
state apparatus (police, military, etc) are most commonly targeted. It is
reasoned that any direct, violent action against these establishments is of
minimal consequence when compared to the degradation of humanity and
environment that their existence depends upon.

Not all Anarchists agree with all the violent actions of other Anarchists,
indeed, some are complete pacifists. When you see violent activism, you
should first observe exactly who or what it is directed against and then find
out what history of ignored effort sparked that action. What is important to
remember is the means of collective organisation that the dinner decisions
illustrated.

Anarchy is a desire for peaceful and equitable cooperation between all people, 
and that desire drives every action of an Anarchist. Simplistically worded and 
with insufficient explanation, no majority can tell you what to think and no
majority should be able to tell any of us what to do.
ASI
_______________________________________________
A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
http://ainfos.ca/en