There's an Alan Moore interview up at Infoshop News that gives you an excellent sense of how the man thinks. I know that many readers of this blog don't care about comics, and thus have probably never heard of Alan Moore outside of my blog, but how can you not be intrigued about a man who says:
"This is one of the things about anarchy: if we were to take out all the leaders tomorrow, and put them up against a wall and shoot them— and it’s a lovely thought, so let me just dwell on that for a moment before I dismiss it—but if we were to do that, society would probably collapse, because the majority of people have had thousands of years of being conditioned to depend upon leadership from a source outside themselves. That has become a crutch to an awful lot of people, and if you were to simply kick it away, then those people would simply fall over and take society with them. In order for any workable and realistic state of anarchy to be achieved, you will obviously have to educate people—and educate them massively—towards a state where they could actually take responsibility for their own actions and simultaneously be aware that they are acting in a wider group: that they must allow other people within that group to take responsibility for their own actions."
He goes on to talk about fascism and anarchy, and has this to say about each:
"Fascism is a complete abdication of personal responsibility. You are surrendering all responsibility for your own actions to the state on the belief that in unity there is strength, which was the definition of fascism represented by the original roman symbol of the bundle of bound twigs. Yes, it is a very persuasive argument: “In unity there is strength.” But inevitably people tend to come to a conclusion that the bundle of bound twigs will be much stronger if all the twigs are of a uniform size and shape, that there aren’t any oddly shaped or bent twigs that are disturbing the bundle. So it goes from “in unity there is strength” to “in uniformity there is strength” and from there it proceeds to the excesses of fascism as we’ve seen them exercised throughout the 20th century and into the 21st."
and
"Now anarchy, on the other hand, is almost starting from the principle that “in diversity, there is strength,” which makes much more sense from the point of view of looking at the natural world. Nature, and the forces of evolution—if you happen to be living in a country where they still believe in the forces of evolution, of course —did not really see fit to follow that “in unity and in uniformity there is strength” idea. If you want to talk about successful species, then you’re talking about bats and beetles; there are thousands of different varieties of different bat and beetle. Certain sorts of tree and bush have diversified so splendidly that there are now thousands of different examples of this basic species. Now you contrast that to something like horses or humans, where there’s one basic type of human, and two maybe three basic types of horses. In terms of the evolutionary tree, we are very bare, denuded branches. The whole program of evolution seems to be to diversify, because in diversity there is strength."
Maybe it's just me, but I could read the man's words all day long...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That was very interesting. He obviously thinks about governing humans a lot. I'm still pondering an educated anarchy based society! Oh my.
What I wonder is if education is enough, and I mean "education" in the most general sense. Education would not eliminate the psychopaths, and here again I'm heading to the dictionary definition instead of the common-usage definition.
The medical/dictionary definition of "psychopath" is someone who basically is extraordinarily self-centered. They aren't killers, but they will do whatever they want to get what they like. So in an office environment, they might sleep with someone to gain an advantage and then turn on them when it gives another advantage.
Now my brief illustration is probably the education that is described above, but it doesn't solve the problem of such individuals. Psychopaths could very disruptive so how would an anarchistic society handle them?
Anyway, that's my late-night thought. A definite sign of good writing is that it is thought-provoking and sometimes even response-generating.
Post a Comment