the ongoing distress of a non-violent anarchist in an unabashedly violent capitalist republic ...
not quite a year, but close. not that i give a fuck how much time passes between the bullshit i enter into this journal. i don't.
i have decided that, without debate, republicanism is second only to despotism in worst possible governments. of course, this is under the assumption that a monarchy can, at times, be called despotism. but outside of those times, it is a superior form of government to republicanism.
i don't really care to offer supporting evidence. so ... yeah, fuck off on that one. i can, though, ramble on about some of the natural faults of the republican system. the primary of said faults certainly being the illusion cast unto the citizens of the republic that they live in a democratic society, or even a society that aspires toward democracy.
think of it as such, votes in this nation are cast for one of two options, whether on measure or on public servant. there cannot be a democracy, by definition, if there are only two parties in power. such a notion stands as an assumption that all citizens fall within two groups. (other than by gender ... the separation by which would actually be far more democratic, for what it's worth. as if we simply voted by gender and not party, there would be a balance of power between the two and a far more representative diversity in each camp.)
i mean, if given only two choices, are you really fucking free?
not that i give a fuck about that shit either. i am not sure it is even wise to trust anyone who is not an anarchist, or a libertarian at least. that which stands between an intelligent man and anarchism is a general distrust of his fellow human beings. i make no attempt to see into the hearts and minds of women, but just note that i have noticed that trustable women are more often given to libertarianism than men of the same worth are.
this distrust of human beings, though, represents a profound and broad gap between our present society and a utopian society (or at least world peace on a realistic level). people believe that others are not trustable, and that laws and governments keep those people in place -- preventing them (to a certain extent) from committing crimes against the well being of others.
of course, if those people were simply wrong, as i assert, than i would imagine one might suggest there would be no crime. alas, this is a false suggestion ... and for that matter, the reason one should not trust someone who does not lean toward anarchism as a general philosophy. the problem is that those who do not trust others lack in trust because they know their own hearts.
fundamentally, i suppose i am asking how one can trust someone who does not trust them in return. of course, that doesn't fucking matter anyway.
i am just saying that it's hard to convince yourself that you live in a democratic society when you are forced to vote for cocksuckers who don't even trust you. you certainly can't convince yourself that you have representation in
i am convinced, however, that it is best to just imagine that wherever you go is an autonomous collective with a democratically elected local governing body to maintain the infrastructure. at the same time, one must ignore all laws, and act only on one's moral intuition. at least, that seems to work for me as a way to pacify my own growing disillusionment.
what i am really saying here is that the government of the
of course, one must also eventually accept that not everyone wants anarchism, and the cornerstone of anarchism demands that one not be forced into something they do not want. a simple but seemingly insurmountable obstacle.
and moreover, oft times one finds anarchists who do not aspire toward anarchism at all, but rather some sort of chaotic and unappealing general anarchy. where they think they would find popular support for such a notion is beyond me itself, still they soil the ideals of democracy, autonomy, and liberty.
i do, though, believe in an anarchism that can accept individualism and collectivism, as well as a reasonable notion of property ownership for rural people who have only known said property as a means to identify themselves. in that, i am saying that poor people in urban areas equate property ownership with the evils of society because they have never known property ownership. conversely, poor rural folk think of themselves in terms of the property that they own, and have been forced to spend most of their lives fighting off the advances of the authoritarian regime on that property.
certainly the concept of property rights has been the downfall of society, and is beyond any doubt the root of the violence that plagues our world. it is property taxes that pay for virtually all of the violence, except for the violence in pursuit of capital -- itself based on the notion that laws established to protect property serve the purpose of making lawlessness profitable and leaving virtue without value. violence is little more than a physical manifestation of capitalism, and will only intensify the further away society moves from its humanity.