Anarchism can be defined as a school of thought which sees the government of the institution as useless as harmful. Its antecedents can be seen in Protestantism and in some heretical sects, such as the Cathars, who, distrusting of the institutional look with hope to the individual. As a doctrine well established, however, to the. is developed in the seventeenth century.
11.1. The anarchist thought
is Gerrard Winstanley (1649) to illustrate one of the first, the guiding principles. "That power corrupts, that the property was incompatible with freedom, the other one are the main causes of crime, which men can only live happily in a society without rulers, where the work and its products are distributed equitably and in which man acts not control the laws, but listening to his conscience "(Woodcock 1991: 209). Marked by optimism, trust in man and the belief that every individual is able, with appropriate education, self-determination and to take responsibility for the anarchist thought revolves around the individual and seeks to promote the highest values \u200b\u200bof the person , from that of the intellect, but leaves aside the state and its institutions.
The English philosopher William Godwin, for example, expressed words of condemnation against of all types of government, including the DR, though he admits that this can be accepted as preliminary and preparatory to an anarchist society. According to the scholar it is unacceptable that an individual can give up their individuality, their autonomy of trial and his freedom of thought and agree to comply with a logical group and a raison d'etat. "Man - Godwin writes - is a being endowed with intellect. There is no way to make virtuous if not evoking his intellectual faculties. There is no way to make virtuous if they do not separate "(1997: 92). "Independence - says the English philosopher - Is the most precious birthright of man, the one that everyone should love beyond all worldly possessions "(Godwin 1997: 173).
Godwin insists on the importance of the independence of the individual's opinion: "The man is a being who can be judged only fair measure of his independence. He must consult his reason, draw conclusions and to conscientiously comply with his idea of \u200b\u200bwhat is appropriate "(1997: 90). "We should, in any event, be prepared to give a reason for our actions. We should move away as possible from being a mere inanimate machines, act causes we do not understand at all "(1997: 70). "Every man should have a balance and consult with their intellect" (1997: 73). Therefore, "it is not true that the bulk of our species must constantly be kept on a leash like children, while only few have the power to think and manage for all" (1997: 72).
To the anarchist, who only knows how to use the individual is truly free is free and only those who deserve to be considered a true man. However, man is born free, nor can receive freedom from outside and passively: "freedom can not be given as a gift and it must be conquered by those who desire it "(women 1987: 82). Hence the importance of education. The anarchist wants every society educates its children to autonomy and freedom of opinion, in the belief that the exercise of these qualities is essential for a human being worthy of the name. Now, if an individual is free and able to take responsibility, why should he feel the need of someone to represent them and take decisions on its behalf? "Unless we get a thrill in the back - says Goodman - no one is willing to barter their views with those of another" (1995: 179-80). The centrality of
is particularly evident in the thought of Stirner: "The essence of the theory Stirner, one for which even today is very timely Stirner, is given in the assertion of individuality as primordial and irreducible fact that everything must be reduced and brought back" I say that no man in the abstract, but the individual is the measure of all things "(ROEHRSSEN 1996: 255). An obvious reference to Protagoras. "The glory of the human race - Bassani claims - is the uniqueness of each individual, the fact that every person, though like every other in many respects, has its own well-defined personality. It is the because of the uniqueness of each person, the fact that no two people are fully interchangeable, which makes every man irreplaceable and that makes it important whether he lives or dies, if he is happy or oppressed. And, finally, is the fact that these unique personalities need freedom for their full development that constitutes one of the major arguments in favor of a free society "(1996: xxxiii). According
anarchism, the company is a consequence and a product of the propensity of individuals to socialize, but this in no way detracts from the centrality and uniqueness of the individual, through which people rise to sovereign, absolute values . In anarchist society there can be no distinction between citizens of series A and second-class citizens, there is no place for a ruling class and a people dominated and there is no citizen or be assigned to command obedience, but there are individuals otherwise gifted, able to take responsibility and assist in the administration of the company, each according to his ability and his will. It follows that the anarchist society can only be democratic.
11.2. Anarchism and democracy
Democracy - Godwin says - is the best government possible, the only one that "restores to man the knowledge of its value, the sign, removing the authority and oppression, only to hear the suggestions of reason, gives him the confidence to help each other with sincerity and simplicity, and induces him to regard them not as enemies to beware, but brothers to attend "(1997: 123). For the avoidance of doubt, it is now clear that democracy is not covered by Godwin to representative. For the scholar, in fact, the institution of secret ballots encourages hypocrisy and deceit, is not conducive to accountability in our actions, nor is it a symbol of freedom, indeed, the vote itself is a symbol of the tyranny of the majority. "Now, what is the ballot? Neither more nor less than a piece of paper that symbolizes the bayonet, blackjack or the bullet. It is a device that allows you to save work in highlighting which side is the power and submit to the inevitable "(Women, Warriors, Iurlo 1987: 49).
Moreover, unlike democratic representative of the company, the anarchist society is based on individual sovereignty and rejects the principle of majority. For Godwin, in fact, "the voice of the majority prevent bloodshed, but it is nonetheless arbitrary decree of absolute tyrant backed by the army more powerful "(Women, Warriors, Iurlo 1987: 49). Also according
Holley Cantine, "the real Democrat-anarchist society is one in which the individual may refuse to adjust their ideas to the decisions of the majority who do not conform to them:" The government of the majority, without this guarantee of freedom, is simply a form of tyranny '"(Warrior 1987: 104). The anarchic democracy is based instead on the 'consent' of individuals. "If the government is founded on the consent of the people, can not exercise any power on an individual who refuses that consent" (Godwin 1997: 105). Ultimately, for the anarchist best form of democracy is, therefore, that direct, albeit in the version indicated by the federalist Proudhon.
11.3. The sovereignty of the individual
For a. sovereignty does not belong to the people, nor the State, but to the individual, at least as regards his person. The full and absolute sovereignty of the individual is, as his freedom, and yet it is limited to the individual himself, who must of course be left free to do what I want him to think, say and believe anything, but condition not to affect the sovereignty of another individual. "If a man wants God as a companion for fun and education, have a lasciategliene. Interfere, would deny him his freedom. But when the God was trying to make an undisputed authority for others, it would become a public enemy and a pirate spiritual "(Iurlo 1987: 42).
11.4. The critical state
To the anarchist, the authoritarian state and dual, whatever its form of government, "association does not arise from the instinct of man: on the contrary, it stems from an act of violence and domination "(Women, Warriors, Iurlo 1987: 49). "The unequivocal testimony of history has shown that the state has always had its origin in conquest and in confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other way. [...] Moreover, the only unchanging feature of the state is the economic exploitation of one class by another. In this sense, every State known to history is a class state [...]. Wherever we find that the political organization proceeding from the same origin, and has the same intention, namely the economic exploitation of a defeated group by a conquering group "(NOCK 1996: 30-1).
In essence, the anarchist believes that the rule was created by the strongest, which, by law, use it to protect their conquests (property) and to feed their privileges. The state would be short, a tool created by the rich for their own benefit. "The civilian government, insofar as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or those who have some property against those who have none" (BROWN in 1996: 485 ). And that is why the state does not promote the sovereignty of the individual, but only the interests of the strongest groups. Such a state is entitled only from the survival of the fittest, not the people, and "does not warrant or effectively protects the fundamental rights of the individual" (NOCK 1996: 34). It therefore is an institution profoundly unjust and should be removed. "If the state for the Liberals is a necessary evil, for Stirner is an enemy to be killed" (CASTANA1996: 481).
11.5. Limits anarchism
Who should lead, therefore, for an anarchist? Certainly not a prince or a king, or even an oligarchy or a representation of citizens. Could be satisfied with a DD with the participation of an entire people, even better if extended to the whole planet, a planetary DD, where, however, there should be no fixed rules, and where everyone can be really free to interpret in his own way his life project . Perhaps this is the weakest aspect of anarchism, the which is why it is generally seen as a pure utopia: its extreme relativism and the design of a society without laws, points of reference, of certainty and security, a company practically uninhabitable even by the same anarchists who do not could not even face each other and share their personal views, because everyone, no matter what they said, would have the same part of the reason. A state can also be charming anarchist, but it is impossible to achieve.
0 comments:
Post a Comment