Politics

Where I Stand

I know all 0 of the people who looked at my last and first foray into writing have been pissing themselves in anticipation of the next, so here you go.

Yesterday I took a politics test of sorts here ( http://thevirtualpolitician.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/where-do-you-stand/ , also a very interesting blog I’d recommend giving a read, and if not I recommend at least opening this link and having it easily accessible in another tab as I reference the picture at the top throughout) and based on his map I am an anarchocollectivist. What the fuck is that? I have an interest in politics, and while I had great fun doing the test I also came to realise that the graph which he uses to classify everything in fact represents what I find to be a huge problem with politics, or humanity more generally . Why you ask?

Because not everything can be put in a fucking box. Why are we as a human race obsessed with classifying everything based on the most petty and insignificant of differences? All it does is create division and argument based on these pathetic criteria instead of an actual rational debate about things which genuinely matter. I put to you the following case, and the possibilities based on what I could apparently do.

Path 1

I walk up to somebody in the street in order to incite a discussion about politics (unlikely given I’m really, really fucking shy, however suspend your disbelief for a moment please). I say to them „Hello, politically I believe in the disestablishment of governing bodies in order to allow people to govern themselves, and I believe that as human beings we are all equals and thus should work together in order to provide for both ourselves and each other. What about you?“. Assuming this person doesn’t beat me up for interrupting whatever they were doing, and has an interest in politics too, we then proceed to have a nice rational conversation discussing the merits of different ways of doing things and perhaps one is able to better inform the other about a different way of thinking. All is well.

Path 2

I then go to the next unsuspecting victim of my strange compulsion to approach strangers and talk about politics, only this time I decide to say „Hello, I’m an anarchocollectivist, what are you?“. Again we make the assumptions made above in order to allow this hypothetical conversation to occur. There are now two ways for this to proceed. In the unlikely event this person too is an ‚anarchocollectivist‘, they reply with „Cool, me too“. Conversation proceeds no further. Or in the more likely event they don’t share my views, their reply is „Cool, I’m a(n) [insert box here]“. Instantly there is a division , and due to the primitivity (is that a word) of human nature, we proceed with hostility towards one another’s ideas on the basis of some arbitrary classification.

In assessment of the argument I just made, I know it’s not exactly concrete. Ignorant and divisiveness is possible via path 1, as is rational debate possible from path 2, however the point I’m trying to make here is that it’s a lot easier to discuss an idea as an idea itself than it is to discuss it under some rigid heading. Which leads me to my next point.

What if some of my ideas don’t fit into my box? The idea that anybody can be classified by these concrete lines and everything they think can be encompassed by one single word is absurd. What if I take my beliefs that make me an ‚anarchocollectivist‘ then take a dash of inspiration from my favourite politician Nigel Farage (please sense the sarcasm here) and decide that I believe in all of those things but only for British people, immigrants can fuck off. Does that automatically stick me at the other end of the map in ‚Fascism‘? Because of one slightly different idea? Does my box suddenly span everything in between the two? Or do I suddenly not have a box? Do I have a box all to myself? OK, I may have taken it a little far with the questions here, but you get the idea. Trying to meticulously classify everything with a single label is stupid in a world of practically infinite diversity.

Furthermore, it’s quite possible that one can become a prisoner of one’s box. What if I, as an ‚anarchocollectivist‘, suddenly have an idea belonging to my neighbour ‚anarchocommunism‘. What do I do with this shocking idea!? Am I allowed to have it? But it’s on the wrong side of the line! How can I be thinking this!? Or does having this idea suddenly make me an ‚anarchocommunist‘? It’s like when you see these American films about high school where everybody fits into some sort of fucked up stereotype. What if a ‚jock‘ was also smart? Do they become a ’nerd‘? If a ’nerd‘ develops a talent for football are they then a ‚jock‘? (As a side note, in the unlikely case this reaches anybody from America, are your high schools really as clique-y and stereotypical as these films make out? I’ve always wondered). Or consider music. If you’re a reggae artist and you make a fast song (i.e. a ska song) are you then a ska artist? Or if you slow it down are you a rocksteady artist? I find this example particularly helpful, as most people who make this kind of music don’t really stick to one and cross over between all. That is what a mind needs too. Freedom to think whatever the fuck it likes without trying to live up to some sort of self-imposed limits. Just think as you please and let the world worry about putting you in a box.

o/

Standard