True Anarchism
by Nico Myowna
Anarchism is the theory of absence of mastery. The anarchism reject every
rule, every goverment and every morality, who is found in an higher order,
rules of myths, an religious profession or an universal theory, who claim
that she is able to solve every problem or conflict now and in future;
anarchism define freedom as absence of manipulation of the individuum
through rules, religious or universal moralities, states, laws and gover-
nements. Human dignity saw the anarchism in the chance of everyone to use
this freedom for sincere fulfilment and sincere actions against the state.
This negative definition of anarchism and freedom express a fixed positive
attitude of anarchists in front of reality and life.
If we reject universal or religious founded moralities and universal theo-
ries than we have to cultivate an open, anti-universal attitude. If we
reject universal moralities than we could found our anarchist moralities
only in ourself and our individual, relative experience. If we reject
every theory who claim that she is able to solve every problem or con-
flict now or in future, than we couldn't have an fixed Utopia who should
be realizable in our past, in present or in our future. We could logical
be only Anti-Utopians who try to realize how the reality is and how this
reality could be.
If we define freedom as absence of manipulation than we could only fight
for an asymptotic human reality who contain all values, self-choiced mo-
ralities, ways of living, cultures, cults, ideologies and other ways of
thinking which people have established or be able to establish, if they
doesn't manipulate other human beings or deny their human dignity --
equal, how paradox they are. If we define freedom in an anarchist manner
than everyone should be able "to act without fear of social sanctions who
influence the to hit decisions." ('La sience moderne et l'anarchie' by
Peter Kropotkin, Paris 1913, page 161)
If we are as anarchists confronted with an asymptotic human reality who
contain the opulence of human ways of living who are sometimes contrary
and paradox than we are only able to guarantee the freedom for everyone if
we radical attach to everybody his responsibility. But when we reject
universal moralities than we cann't establish an anarchist universal mo-
rality who bind everyone and give him a hint what his responsibility is.
If we reject manipulations and if everybody should act without fear of
social sanctions than we couldn't treaten someone with social sanctions to
prevent crime and wrong decisions.
Nobody can betray our movement because we havn't an all comrades bounding
morality. Our single moralities are based on the question only: How would
we be treaten if we fail and hit a detasteful decision? -- And we should
treaten others in this mutual way how they should treaten us in a compa-
rable situation. Should everybody cry "Swine! Swine!" if we fail against
the principles who based on our experience to fight against the state and
their police only? Should everybody exclude us without a chance for re-
habilitation? -- And could we really allow that our enimies -- the state,
the nazis, the right-wing, the law -- dictate us our moral principles?!
{Back to essays}
