I don't want to cross the line into political territory as that is not allowed in this forum...
I think we're OK so far. I'm pretty sure we just need to stay away from any topic likely to be discussed by a serious political candidate. I doubt we'll see any political ads on TV debating the merits of anarchy. But if anarchy actually became a political hot potato, we would have to stop discussing it here.
...but I would like to state that it might be important to distinguish between "anarchism" (which is the political idea that there should be no - or, rather, as little as possible - government) and "anarchy" (which is a state of chaos and/ur uncontrolled social unrest such as for instance the situation in Somalia).
Yet I would argue that anarchism in practice is anarchy. No government means no laws and no laws means competition by gunfire. The only reason no thug is aiming a gun at me is because a cop is aiming a gun at the thug. Take away the cop and the thug is free.
I'm a person who rejects on principle abstraction sans
praxis. I require ideas to be assessed in terms of their practical implications in the real world, and in the case of anarchism, that means thuggery unleashed.
In my opinion, anarchism should probably rather be called autarchy
, principally to avoid this common misconception.
That concept incorporates the elimination of government and therefore I would argue that autarchism in practice is anarchy, lawlessness, and having to dodge bullets. Under autarchism, what restrains the thug? I would argue that nothing weaker than a gun will restrain a gun. Might trumps all, and renders moot all opposition except equal or greater might. Only in a world without thugs could autarchism be operationalized without continual gang warfare. We are far from living in such a world. Remove cops and gangs take over. Power abhors a vacuum.
What I wanted to problematise was the often incongruent relation between idealism and realism.
Excellent topic! I would argue that realism without idealism can be safe, healthy, and productive but idealism without realism will prove dangerous, unhealthy, and counter-productive. First maintain realism, and only then, if at all, indulge in idealism.
The question is: When you find that your ideas are in conflict with reality-as-it-flows, can you abandon your ideas and principles - at least for some time - without your feeling of personal integrity being compromised?
Yes, but I would abandon my previous ideas permanently, because I would deem them erroneous. Reality is the arbiter. Ideas that conflict with reality are in error. Willfully remaining in error is asinine. I hate being asinine.
This is a tough one for a lot of people. Especially if and when they have invested a lot of personal prestige into the advocation of some arbitrary set of ideas and/or principles that they experience as personally meaningful standards to live by.
Usually such people have failed to put into practice the dictum I stated above. First maintain realism, and only then, if at all, indulge in idealism.
Doing otherwise will inevitably have consequences at least inconvenient if not dire. Suffering the penalties of error is justice. When it happens I applaud it. When it happens to me, my response is divided, one part anger at myself, one part fear for my well-being, one part gratification at having acquired wisdom, and one part reverence at having witnessed justice in action.
I am personally a total whore like that. If for instance I were kidnapped by some Islamic terrorist group and offered the choice of converting or being ceremoniously beheaded on an internet video, I'd be the world's fastest motherfucker to drop down to my knees and praise the eternal glory of Allah.
I might beat you to the floor. Survival is the first law. In fact, it is precisely that first law that underpins my dictum of first maintaining realism, for realism is just another word for survival instinct. One reason non-human animals are de facto
Satanists is the fact that survival is their god, as it should be, for them and for us.
And what's more is that I would think little of it. Preserving my life trumps all other considerations.
As it should, barring a scenario of having to choose between your own survival and that of someone or something you love just as much, perhaps a daughter, or perhaps a work of art so precious to you that you would die to preserve it, a decision that can be sane if it isn't self-deceitful or herd conformist, since death will come to you eventually, and perhaps today is a good day to die, if the thing you are preserving is sufficiently precious to you in your demonic core. To deny the foregoing is to name every soldier fool, and I am unwilling to give every soldier that name.
There will be times in all people's lives when "having principles" will become a luxury that's ill affordable.
The best solution is to have principles that support survival. Organize my mind around my survival instinct. Make survival my god. Be an animal.