Anarchytect

I remember a good friend of mine, TD, used to be a great 'Anarchytect' in college. He had strong views on the subject and would usually be venting against the government, the system, the ABVP...whatever. I was (and still am a little) unclear on what anarchy really means.

I believe the literal meaning is 'without rule'. Lawlessness. Chaos. Anarchy and its supporters usually stir up images of protest, violence and the exuberance of youth, in my mind. What was it about being 17-20 that made us want to rebel? Give us a perfect life and we'd still find something to crib about, something to fight, something to protest. There was always something 'bad' in our lives, some thing or concept that was unacceptable to our ideas of what our lives should be like. Which brings out an interesting idea - how would you know something is 'good' unless you have something 'bad' to contrast it with? If every protest worked and all that we thought was wrong became right, would our lives be perfect?
(v interesting movie somewhat on these lines - Pleasantville. Tobey MacGuire, Reese Witherspoon).
But I digress.
Somehow the words 'lawlessness' and 'chaos' are associated with negative ideas. But that's because we're fed on the ideas that 'law' and 'order' are 'right' and anything else is 'wrong'. A place without order must definitely be headed down the toilet (my room wishes to differ!). But is this necessarily the case? What about the very underrated concept of communes? I'm not saying it's perfect, but it does work more or less without laws and rulers. Agreed it has a better chance of working because it's limited to a small population, but the idea works.

Bacteria don't have kings and parliaments. Lions by and large don't have laws, although they do have leaders of the pride. Include man and the discussion gets complicated by a factor of X. Believe it or not, there are more than enough arguments about bacteria and amoebae, or even viruses, being more 'evolved' than we are. But this train of thought takes us into a debate on evolution, so let's not go there. Food for thought, though.

I think a certain level of control is ABSOLUTELY necessary. The problem is - who decides what that level is? Every generation feels it doesn't get enough from the one before. So they take it a step further. The more you have, the more you want. Push the limits, for they were set by someone else.

But this is pretty much what evolution is, isn't it? Wanting more has brought us where we are, made us what we are. We would be nothing without desire. Greed. Then why are we taught that these are wrong?? Down with the bloody system!!

What if we had no laws, then eh? Everyone free to do exactly whatever the fuck they wanted to. A state of anarchy. What the hormonally overdosed clamour for at hard rock/heavy metal concerts. Jungle law, basically. Who would survive? The strongest? The smartest?

I think anarchy would be the evolutionary biologists' DREAM. If we don't self destruct as a species in the next 500-1000 years (a flicker on an evolutionary time scale), fikar not. The Anarchytects of the young generation will do it for us.

Another thing I remember my friend TD picked up from somewhere and wrote on our notice board - 'By the time I realised my father was right, my son was too old to listen to me'.

An Anarchytect in the making.