|
|||||||||||||
|
Versus the Anarchist Philosophy By Punkerslut
The Liberal ideal dominates the Western hemisphere today, whether it calls itself left, right, conservative, or simply, "liberal." It is a political philosophy that emphasizes the liberty of the individual. The Liberal idea includes freedom of speech and assembly, universal voting rights and elections, as well as property rights and a market economy. The intent of this type of social organization is to create harmony between people in society -- to make each person independent and responsible to themselves. But how effective can these government institutions be in making each individual a master of themselves? Freedom of speech exists in Liberal countries, but only to a limited degree. At any point that speech threatens the government, those who speak are imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Martin Luther King had the right to organize and the right to assembly, until it became a threat to the government -- and that's when the police responded. So, too, with Eugene Victor Debs, who was imprisoned in 1918 under the "Espionage Act of 1917." What was he accused of? Running for president on an anti-war platform. He was found guilty by a U.S. court of law. The 1919 General Strike in Seattle, the Indian Naval Mutiny against British authority in 1946, and the Black Panthers in the 1960's. These were all instances of individuals voluntarily organizing for their own peaceful ends, until they were brutalized and oppressed by governments. Nor is this a type of behavior from Liberal governments that exists only in the record archives. In 1997, anti-corporate activists were charged with Libel by McDonalds, for stating that they used anti-union practices and sold unhealthy food. (McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel) In 2005, the European Union court ruled that the British government had violated the activists' civil rights -- which would mean that the British state has done this to hundreds of other individuals. The United States and Great Britain -- the world's home of Liberalism, whether it calls itself Toryism, Conservatism, or Labour. And yet, the most essential parts of Liberal ideas are completely excluded. Freedom of speech exists only where it has no meaning or ability to change society. In effect, only the most apathetic and pathetic speech is granted a voice in the mainstream outlets. Besides using violence and coercion to force people to keep silent, Liberal governments use propaganda, as well. You can speak, but only if you pay for the wages of two other people who say the opposite thing much louder.
Governments tax and exploit their people to pay for their own sustenance, to buy armies and news stations and churches and universities. All of these things justify its own existence to the people. And for each person who might threaten and oppose the government, the state responds. They tax even more, and buy even more news stations and churches. What's the point of freedom of speech? For every word you could say, the government could pay two people to say the opposite. Far from being an abstract reality, this is how every government in operation functions. Propaganda in favor of the established government becomes feverish and aggressive where the state genuinely finds itself threatened by the people. It is an effort to make the people see their leaders as honorable, civilized, cultured, and deserving every bit of taxation used for their support. The university, the employer, and the church all teach the rule of the law, and naturally, they are each valued by state authority. To counteract the rebels and the insurgents, the government defends itself as a necessity to human existence. It uses the presses to give a false identity to the public and the universities and schools to give a submissive culture to the people. For all the free speech that you're allowed, the government is allowed infinite speech against you. For all the good change you could've done for society, there is a louder voice working in the opposite direction. Free and equal speech has been fulfilled by the word of its argument, but not by its spirit. Liberal governments allow dissident voices, only if they're allowed to have a significantly greater voice -- only if they're allowed to dominate the airwaves of radio and television. Freedom of Speech has never been created by governments; it has been an idea pushed around and taunted, but it has never really been implemented. It has been used to lure the people to the polls, but it has not encouraged people to seek out their own liberty.
The Liberal doctrine has some definitely confused ideas. There is no government that has allowed its people full and varied education. The poor have always been driven into work early, because they have no economic opportunity for sustaining themselves. The rich have always been handed their degrees and diplomas, and it is done as a ceremonious act more than for recognition of academic behavior. And just as the people are free to have a full education, so are we allowed to have "free choice of occupation." Which, in fact, amounts to the same thing. The many, who have nothing, must labor or starve, while the few, who possess everything, live off of our labors. That is the freedom of occupation in Liberalism. There is a right to embark on individual enterprise, but there is also the right "to reap the full benefit of productivity of the soil and industry of man." These two phrases are a contradiction. We should ask the Liberal, "So, how then would the individual entrepreneur make a profit, if they were not to take the surplus labor produced by their workers?" They would have no response, as profit is the economic tax -- it is placed on those who want to work the land. And without abolishing it, it is impossible for each individual to have the full benefit of their industry. For all the praise given to the laborer being given the product of their labor, the Liberal governments still use slave labor. They still import products from China, Burma, Indonesia, Sudan, and Niger. They still use the commodities of forced labor throughout South America and Asia -- they still pay dictatorships, prop up totalitarian governments, and oppress foreign peoples. And this behavior, where Liberal governments support despotic states, is common. In Britain, France, Spain, Germany, and the United States, throughout the heart of where Liberal doctrine grew up -- even today, they are all exactly like this. Capitalism at home means exploitation, and abroad, it means even greater degrees of exploitation, from coerced workers to slavery. There are plenty of compliments for the working class in these Liberal manifestos. But none of the promises ever amount to reality. Like other political ideologies based on elections, they see the need in blinding and misleading the public. For instance, the Oxford Manifesto, by the Liberal International, grants the following right, "Security from the hazards of sickness, unemployment, disability and old age." Yet, there is no liberal party fighting for an end to unemployment, no liberal candidate who has ever given full employment. And today, unemployment soars past 10% in the United States, while underemployment would be nearly double that. There is no talk of ending unemployment, but only talk of keeping it low enough to stop the peoples' grumbling. No matter how high profits reach, the Liberal Government always sacrificed at least a few. Then what happens to those who are unemployed? What happens to those who are surrounded by fields ready for work, vacant buildings ready for labor, and idle factories ready for industry? What happens to those who have everything around them to feed themselves, but no right to it? They are left homeless and hungry in the streets. This is the "security against unemployment" that Liberal states have provided.
Finally, after giving humanity every right that could be desirable, Liberalism bestows self-mastery upon the individual. Each person shall have a voice in determining how society is organized. Liberalism makes declarations for rights of free speech and assembly, but then Liberal states and organizations violate these rights without a second thought of contradiction. Then they declare that each have a right to employment, to land, and to their wages, but then they set up a system where an extreme few have land and unemployment is rampant. After all these rights and privileges of Liberalism, it pushes forward one final platform: every individual shall have a right to society's decision-making process. But if an individual's vote succeeds, and the politician they elected turns out to be a liar, they have no effective power -- until the next election in some amount of years. And if the individual vote fails, then they have no voice in deciding how society shall be organized. At least, if they had to joined the dominant party, they could try to steer the agenda in their direction, even though it might just have a slight and unnoticeable effect. By choosing something besides the dominant party's candidate means voluntarily withdrawing from the ability to change society. What the individual really has a choice of then, is not to make the laws for themselves, or to collaborate in building government. They only have a choice of a handful of candidates, who are nominated by the political parties. When their politician doesn't fulfill their promises, the citizen have no power, and when no politician champions their cause, they have no one to vote for. The media is owned by capitalistic corporations and oligopolies, and likewise, it'll broadcast the political message of its owners. It will support candidates who develop economic and social policy to their liking -- policy with high profits, low wages, and a constant, unbeaten tide of unemployment. From a strictly economic standpoint, there is all within the interests of the rich and wealthy. An economist would be a liar if they said that economics wasn't based on individuals having an interest and then responding to that interest. There is nothing illegal about campaigning for their side, and it is completely for their own benefit. Capitalists that take this route survive, those that are too noble die out -- the evolution of a property-based market, no matter where it has developed. The effect is that laws are only made that benefit the wealthy, and crimes are only prosecuted against the poor. Microsoft stole trillions of dollars during their monopoly scam, and still benefits from illegal market behavior. While a homeless man would spend a month in prison for stealing a box of crackers, Bill Gates is a free man -- despite having destroyed countless lives. The very few keep a strong, dominating hold on the many. This is the "Democracy" and "equality" that Liberal governments, political parties, and philosophers have given to us. Equal enforcement of the law has always been the basis of fair government, but there is no state to have practiced it. For all the decision-making allowed to the people, the great, vast power of government is held by the Capitalists, the CEOs, the landlords, and the investors. It is worth broadcasting a message to you in print, radio, television, and on the internet because your mind is worth controlling. For those who maintain the poverty of the masses, it is worth controlling those who might reconsider the social situation. The presses build and destroy candidates at their whim. The investors fund a campaign for this, or fund a campaign against another campaign. The real power is held by those who possess the wealth, and not the majority.
The ultimate failure of Liberalism is not its ideals, but that it has no intelligent way of either creating or sustaining them. Liberalism compliments freedom and blesses the worker, but only Anarchism creates freedom and emancipates the worker. While the Liberal idea still allows property-owner to control all of society, the Anarchist idea abolishes economic tyranny. As Liberalism offers a ballot box to person above age eighteen, Anarchism allows all to participate in voluntary cooperation to shape our social environment. Speech cannot be freer than in anarchy. For all the "free speech" of Liberal nations, they still must hire censors, must imprison people for speaking their minds, must charge and convict people with planted evidence and fraudulent trials -- they must all have their prisons and jails for the political offender. So, too, with freedom of cooperation and assembly -- whether it's something mutual and loving between two or three or four individuals, or something wider and more general between thousands and thousands, like a road system or an industry. Anarchy allows each group struggling for its freedom and its expression to organize for their own cooperative efforts. While the state's sheriffs, police, and military defended the Ku Klux Klan, they used attack dogs on Civil Rights protesters Racist and Fascist groups would be abolished where each had equal power, and Egalitarian and Equality Activism would bloom where there was no state coercion. Whereas Liberalism promises each worker the fruit of their labor, Anarchism can actually deliver it. Liberalism tolerates Capitalists and investors, middlemen and economic tax collectors -- for each person to work the land, they must pay so much of their produce away. The Capitalist exploits their deed as the feudal baron exploited their title of aristocracy. They use their position, acquired only through birth or malice, to live off of the labor of others. They contribute nothing, but enjoy the highest luxury, while the many contribute all and suffer the lowest.
In the Anarchist system, every individual owns the tools and the land that they work. There is no employment, but only cooperative and voluntary production of society's needs. Each individual receives according to their contribution, and each has a right to manage society's collective resources. It must be done cooperatively and voluntarily, with free exchange between all. While Liberalism promises a free market, it only creates an economic domination of those who possess property. The free market of Anarchism is the only one that is truly free, because there are no taxes or regulations or impositions -- it is just the people, working together voluntarily. Where each has an eye to their own interest, it is easy to understand that very quickly, there would be voluntarily cooperation for mutual interests. Liberalism declares the right to be free from poverty, unemployment, and oppression -- but its governments still build ghettos, prisons, and forced labor camps. The Liberal ideal declares freedom of speech, but then imprisons its greatest critics on ridiculous charges. It declares free assembly, but then it breaks up unions and civil rights groups. It declares the right to the earth and to self-government, but then it makes you dependent upon a capitalist for bread, and submissive to a politician for liberty. Starvation keeps you working, prison keeps you lawful. There is no right of Liberalism that has ever been truly created. And, there are no significant Liberal groups that criticize or resist Liberal states committing these crimes. The Liberal doctrine is meaningless. The philosophy of Anarchism declares all those rights, the emancipation of the worker and the citizen, and it actually creates a system capable of maintaining this liberty.
Punkerslut,
|
