 |
|
Pen Points
Letters to Gay Today |
|
Espousing and Defending Anarchy in Print!
His extensive quotes from Whitman carried the sharp pertinence of a surgeon's scalpel -- "The depravity of the business classes of our country is not less than has been supposed, but infinitely greater." Now THAT is a savage indictment of Capital, buoyed by no less an author than Whitman. But -- snob that I am -- I question whether the majority of readers will understand the depth and breadth of that indictment. I have accepted the fact of living in a nation populated largely by sheep. The sheep may follow this shepherd, or that shepherd -- but they were born to follow SOME shepherd, and the notion of leading themselves and rejecting ANY shepherd has not and will not ever seriously enter their minds. Nor should it, I must confess based upon my rather-jaundiced view of the popular intellect. Nichols and I and our compatriots are the proverbial black sheep -- able and determined to carve out a niche (or a throne) from the rock of nonconformity. We are in the minority who care little about "what the neighbors will think." And we must accept and work with the truth that most citizens care deeply about what their neighbors will think!
And I feel no compulsion to apologize for that cynical world-view, having lived it. I was reared in the Philadelphia Main Line's triumph-of-capitalism milieu. I have an Ivy League education. Both circumstances prepared me for the fact that the majority of citizens (A) don't know what they're talking about, and (B) mostly don't understand anyone who DOES know what they're talking about. That's simply a fact of life. So I fear that when you present the readership with a subtle and complex defense of anarchy, they may not "get it." Nevertheless, I think it is crucially important that views like this essay --nonconformist, and supported by strong evidence and arguments -- challenge citizens to think. To think, for once, for themselves! What a nation we might be if every citizen could and WOULD think for himself or herself! The pragmatic reality, though, I maintain, is an America eagerly prepared to be led. Let us hope that sufficient numbers of them may be willing to be led by those of our ilk. Challenging authority. Insisting on the truth instead of official explanations. Claiming their power as sovereign citizens of a democratic republic, and insisting on the rights appertaining thereto!
Teddy Snyder Redeeming the American State
When they subvert an election, as they've just done, people (some, anyway) can see through the hocus pocus. That's where the anarchist tradition is strongest -- cutting through all the mystification, showing that state agencies are always arbitrary and violent. That message can't be repeated too often. However, I'm not willing to give up on the state all together. I think that Aristotle was right when he said that human beings are by nature social animals, and that the progression of family-community-state is a natural and expected one, once certain economic and technological developments appear. We shouldn't strive to eliminate the state without also striving to eliminate the church and the business corporation. Otherwise, churches and corporations would be even more oppressive than they are now. For all its corruption and violence, the state in democratic countries does provide some balance against churches and corporations. I think we should constantly challenge the state. Not in order to destroy it, but rather to purify it, and to make it as just and as democratically accountable as possible. At the very minimum, we must insist that the state have legitimacy. That's where the Supremes' recent decision comes in. It has undercut the legitimacy of the state. Americans have yet to come to terms with that development. It can't be allowed to stand; otherwise, either the state will become ever more bold in its corruption, or else the people will become accommodated to living corruptly, or both. There's a big stain now on the American state's robes. It won't easily be removed. Part of the cleansing, I think, is Walt Whitman's vision of adhesiveness, comradship, equality, and plain-speaking honesty. These have redeemed the American state in the past, even in the face of its greatest disgrace, the official toleration of slavery. Maybe they will redeem it again. The essay is important because we need to think about our goals. People believe that we can just keep schlumping along as we have been, and everything will be okay. It's not true! As it points out, we're moving toward global ecological collapse. So we have to ask ourselves, "What kind of a society do we want to live in?" Knowing that, we can be more mindful about which tactics are appropriate and which are not. That means, in turn, that reflection about goals is not impratical, because it affects the values we bring to bear when we decide on immediate tactics. I saw this as the key paragraph: "Are you finally willing to consider acknowledging your own tendency to rebel against such an administration? If you think you deserve the right to expect that your vote counts, that you are entitled to express your own opinions, lend me your ear." The recent attack by the Gang of Five of the Supreme Court on democracy should make all Americans ask the question your article poses: What's the proper role of the state in a democracy? The essay is right to insist that we can't keep pretending that nothing important has changed as a result of the Bush vs. Gore decision. We live in a different country now. We need to face up to the degree in which the spirit of democracy has passed from our lives as a people. It's appropriate that someone who lived through the Stonewall era should raise these issues. The wonderful thing about that period is that for a brief moment we really lived the democratic spirit. Nobody who has had that experience can ever look at the state, religion, corporations, and the educational establishment with the same eyes.
Arthur Evans |
Author and GayToday Senior Editor Jack Nichols wrote Common Sense II: Preparing for the Revolution in the wake of the presidential election of 2000
Arthur Evans 
© 1997-2000 BEI