| |
|
This is an attempt to try to understand a little bit more about how the big bowels of political behaviour work nowadays.
What do you think about Democracy? Honestly. Do you ever stop to consider all the meanings of the word?
I’m saying this because I’m completely delusional when it comes to aspects of the political theatre. Mind you that I didn’t say “arena”. I don't vote, because I don't believe in Democracy, a system where a vote against Hitler will become a vote FOR him, if he gets elected. It's crutial failure is to imply that a human being can take decisions in the name of, say, six million other people. That's a fallacy. I couldn't make a choice for my neighbour alone.
Our methods of organization as societies have been evolving through the centuries: we had experiments with fascism ,we have had kings who were *clearly* indicated by divine right, we had parliamentarism, all the way until for some reason the search for a better way of living among your peers stopped - we had reached Democracy.
When Churchill said that thing about democracy being the worst political except for all the others, I think the wordplay had deeper meanings. “Oh, really?”, will ask my fellow ‘lithers. I know I’m talking to people who are perfectly aware of the world they live in, however I need to lay down all my arguments before I proceed.
Since the word "Democracy" has cristalyzed itself in the masse’s colective unconscious as something inherently GOOD, it has become less and less questionable, it has become an empty shell, that the ones in the right places can fill with whatever they want.
Democracy can be the worst of the systems, except for the others, but shouldn’t we be striving for something more? To say that there isn’t a perfect society doesn’t help. Surely there are societies which are better than the others. And things always can be improved.
To me, it’s not that democracy “it’s the less worst form of system”. To me, it is a bad one, it’s as alienating as fascism, even more dangerous because since democracy stands generally as “freedom”, there’s not much one can do to fight it without danger of being perceived as a fascist, an enemy of the people. It might have been originated from a good theoretic principle, but its execution, through the years, only turned it into a readymade alibis for oppressive regimens. The fact that the USA, the big bully that intimidates even NATO (remember Nicaragua?), is generally acknowledged as a “beacon for freedom and democracy”, speaks for itself.
I’m not here to preach. There isn’t areason for this here. I’m here to ask, and my question is: Is Anarchy the next logical step towards a more humanistic form of society? And if so, why it hasn’t happened yet? Where are the anarchist thinkers today? Who better to go to the forefront in Argentina right now, for example, seize the microphones and say: “There are other ways. We can do this together”? Why it isn’t even considered an option in Argentina right now?
Another thing that I would like to see discussed relates to Barbelith and the image that its posters make of it. Because of the whole “Revolution” aspect of this board, I can’t help wondering if people around here stop and think that revolution means most of the time, sacrifice. I didn’t want to bring this up, but, you know – revolutionaries as we have known them were anything but trendy, hip people. They were the not-funny, the misfits; the ones who change the political scenario are most of the times alone in their visions (yeah, I'm paraphrasing Hitler here, but I hope you see the point). They are antisocial because the way society is organized doesn't appeal to them and they want change. Most of the revolutionaries were obsessed people that wouldn’t hesitate in giving away the priviledges and richness (Buddah, for one) and change completely their way of living.
I wanna ask, in order to be a revolutionary, you have to believe wholeheartedly in the cause, or there is a way in which you still can be true about your intents, while blowing post-modern kisses and winking at the “Revolution” concept?
This post, for instance, it's so earnest it hurts, there is no irony, no knowingly wink. And I know I'm gonna get some flaming for this, but I don’t picture Kropotkin discussing Buffy (I don't mean to diss anyone. Please take no offense, I didn't mean any).
So, how and where this leaves us? How much sacrifice are we willing to make, how much are we willing to deviate from the socially accepted standard behaviour? (I’m talking about big issues here, not only the “Tueday’s five o’clock march” that no one gives a fuck about). How much are you willing to give?
P.S.:Apologies if this doesn't read clear. But I know that as soon as this post's disemboweling process begins, we'll be able to make things clearer. I hope to learn a lot from what will be posted in this thread. |
|
|
