Comment on Space Collective and Anarchy: A Perfect Match

First Dark Tue, Dec 18, 2007
I agree, to a great extent, with what you're saying. For me, an ideal humanity has no need for government (terrestrial or celestial*). Unfortunately, our species has a long way to go before anarchy would play out as it should (and as you noted), peacefully and progressively.

To this end, I no longer label myself as an anarchist because I find it to be counterproductive within the current state of humanity. It's either a reversal or dismissal of priorities. Rather than proposing solutions to the obstacles between humans and the ideal, the anarchist ends up simply emphasizing the goal as if the obstacles are negligible or will pretty much work themselves out. Anarchy has little or nothing to say about most of humanity's major problems (which would become uncontrollably aggravated if there were an anarchistic upheaval sometime in the near future).

At the same time, I think that drawing a direct connection between 'post-politics' and 'no politics' is inaccurate and misleading. To me, post-politics would be a system of consensus which makes government primitive or obsolete. This follows my opinion that philosophy is the best representation of 'post-religion'.

Anyway, I'll conclude with a couple of suggestions for what those with post-political mentalities should do while waiting for the revolution:

- emphasize that the most important issues are non-political and that politics almost inevitably create more unnecessary problems
- avoid using any sort of political labeling of ourselves as often as possible (to be honest, I do occasionally describe myself as Libertarian) or use post-political labeling

*By "celestial" I am referring to the so-called 'divine [A/a]uthority of the universe'.