anarchy 101
If ten people walk beyond civilization and build a new sort of life for themselves, then those ten are already living in the next paradigm from the first day. They don’t need to belong to a party or a movement. They don’t need laws to be passed. They don’t need permits. They don’t need a constitution. They don’t need tax exempt status. For those ten, the revolution will already have succeeded.
- Daniel Quinn, author of Ishmael
Here’s an article on a college class I would take in a heartbeat: “Deconstructing Systems in the Pursuit of Anarchy.” Apparently the class has caused quite the uproar in this age when anarchism is (falsely) equated with terrorism.
From the class they learned that anarchists didn’t seek out death and destruction, but a life based on cooperation rather than competition, freedom rather than coercion, and equality rather than hierarchy.
Now, that’s the anarchy I know and love! Fittingly, the students in the class wound up organizing to defy the administration’s typical way of doing end of the term evaluations, possibly leading to the actual removal of the policy.
sps said,
March 14, 2004 @ 11:46 pm
I’ve read, and enjoyed, Ishmael, but I can’t remember that passage…I’m going to pick up again soon though, b/c I have had 4 really good philosophy classes, an English and a Psychology major since I read it last…i will probably see things I never did before…
On your point about deconstructing systems, I’ve been recently re-reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which says something about that…if I may quote:
“But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effecs only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematick thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government.”
I’m not entirely sure right now (because it’s quarter to 3 in the morning, and I can’t just can’t sleep) what this quote might mean in terms of the class, since I don’t know the details of the class. It’s just some food for thought. If you haven’t read this book then I suggest it. If you have, it’s always worth a re-read if it’s been awhile.
Interesting how the (insert word for fate, cosmos, god(s) here) sometimes throws one down a certain path…especially on the internet, b/c I probably wouldn’t have thought about that passage or it’s relation to your post had I not been reading this lately.
Emily said,
March 15, 2004 @ 12:07 am
…if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory.
I agree with this 100%. It’s why most revolutions fail; because most aim to replace the old bosses with new bosses without dissolving the roots of the whole dominant structure. On topic, there’s a terrific transcription of a speech by Derrick Jensen, an author I highly recommend, called “Why Revolutions Fail”. From it, I love this line: “There is another kind of revolution, one that doesn’t emerge from the culture, from philosophy, from theory, from thought abstracted from sense, but instead from our bodies, and from the land.”
Oh, and I’m not sure if the Quinn quote is in Ishmael. I got it from the article about the class.
leblanc said,
March 16, 2004 @ 4:32 pm
i loved Ishmael. that quote is perfect for what’s going on out here in SF with the gay marraiges for sure - just a few people step forward and go beyond what is establshed, and not only do they find a new freedom, they lead others.
it’s the same with communism - in theory it is about the same things: community and equality and freedom through lack of competition. anarchists, communists, and socialists all have very much in common in this sense. just like anarchy, the label has been misused by groups and regimes and it’s gotten a bad rap, and so the idea is always dismissed.
i think we could use a little anarchy around here.