A Cornucopia of Agendas: The Devolution of Political Unity

by Fergal Wed Sep 15, 2004 17:09

This is from an essay by George Orwell on Swift's Gulliver's Travels. The rest of it is here:
http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/swift/e/e_swift.htm

but I think this section is most relevent to this discussion. I think it raises certain hard questions about anarchism as an organisation of society. Food for thought at the very least...

"... the totalitarian tendency which is explicit in the anarchist or pacifist vision of Society. In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by ‘thou shalt not’, the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by ‘love’ or ‘reason’, he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else. The Houyhnhnms, we are told, were unanimous on almost all subjects. The only question they ever discussed was how to deal with the Yahoos. Otherwise there was no room for disagreement among them, because the truth is always either self-evident, or else it is undis-coverable and unimportant. They had apparently no word for ‘opinion’ in their language, and in their conversations there was no ‘difference of sentiments’. They had reached, in fact, the highest stage of totalitarian organization, the stage when conformity has become so general that there is no need for a police force"

by Tom Wed Sep 15, 2004 16:38 olearys at oceanfree dot net

It seems to me that governance, of some kind (even the self-governance of ararchy ) is necessary. Certainly during a period of change or transition from our existing democratic, capatalist system to another some sort of governance would be required to steer the path and manage existing systems of distribution, transport, health care, etc. Without any governance during a transition period, wouldn't chaos ensue?

I'm not saying that I am an anarchist, by the way...at least not as defined by any proponent of anarchy. I refuse to label myself with the identity of any existing group...my beliefs, like many others I imagine, are made up of my own personal thoughts, which were formed through personal experiences and observations...some of those beliefs may be conservative, liberal or anarchic in some broad definition....but I don't identify with any one sweeping set of beliefs. Besides, my beliefs tend to change and evolve as my experiences and observations do.

was it WC Fields that said "I don't want to be part of any group that would accept me as a member."??

by o-: Wed Sep 15, 2004 16:23

"Worldwide, the number of political parties competing for power is staggering."

yep- republican or democrat
alien or predator
IBM or Apple
coke or pepsi
Putin or the KGB
truly staggering.

by notruledover Wed Sep 15, 2004 14:56

You are definitely not an anarchist if you want a system to 'effectively govern over four million people'.
But if you wanted a system where people could voluntarily co-ordinate their activities with each other then you might be an anarchist.
It is important how you use language.