The American philosopher Noam Chomsky characterises anarchism as a tendency of populations to identify power structures, structures of domination and authority, and ask them to justify themselves. If these power structures cannot justify themselves, they must be torn down. 1 This is, for Chomsky, the essence of anarchism.
This seems contradictory to Third Positionist thought, are we not in favour of authoritarian systems? Why yes, so long as the regime in power upholds our values. If the regime deviates from our values we should have a mechanism in place which excises the cancerous cells from the political structure, a system can be created which takes into account this need. A system like this can be created, but for now we must tear down the existing structures and rebuild them anew.
It is clear that liberal democracy does not allow for any structural change. Liberal democracies are like all previous political systems, they are designed to prevent any challenge to capitalism and the dominant political parties. Largely, extra-political forces (such as corporations) keep dominant political parties in place. (For example, major media companies will demonise any potential threat into oblivion). This is most noticeable in countries such as Australia, America and Britain where two parties have a monopoly on power. It helps that words like ‘Fascist’ and ‘Nazi’ have been given so much power and can be dispensed upon whim by politicians and the media to immediately halt in their tracks any potential threat to their power.
It is clear that our ability to vote is just a formality in the election process. One of the dominant parties will win, then the same process underway will continue unabated. Mass migration is not popular in any Western nation, yet the process of replacement continues no matter who is in power and what immigration platform they have run on. Conservative parties will talk about ‘halting illegal immigration’ up until the point they are in power, then they will simply increase the amount of ‘legal’ immigration – there is no deficit on how many people are coming in regardless of who wins the election.
So, should we be anarchists?
At this point, yes. Our existing systems cannot justify their existence, they cannot justify their actions. They quite literally make up stories to justify their behaviour, such as the ‘weapons of mass destruction’, for example. Countless lives and trillions of dollars have been thrown away over weapons which did not exist. The wars in the Middle East have caused the displacement of countless migrants who have flooded into the Western world through opened gates, they have been handed money, houses and cars which could have been given to the actual citizens of the West.
And what do our governments do for us? In America corporations are bailed out while people in hospitals have to take out mortgages to pay off their hospital bills. Does this sound like a system working for the people, or is exploiting them? I think it is the latter.
The European people are paying for our militaries to enter into other nations and create a mess which then displaces the native people. They then enter into the Western world and are handed luxuries not afforded to other Europeans in need. They are given positions over Europeans because they are ‘minorities’ in our countries. This is exploitation.
The solution to this problem is tearing down what exists and creating something new which can justify itself to us.