Informal Essay

Mick Jagger held that “anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope” and although Jagger is not known for his political views it looks as if he has done a good job of capturing its essence. Anarchy seems to be widely held as a synonym for chaos and disorder, but in fact it is quite the opposite. Anarchism is truly the only philosophy in which the world will ever be allowed to blossom.

To begin with, the abolition of social hierarchies will eradicate the world of inequality and injustice. Anarchy will allow all men, women, and children of all races and creeds to be freed from their rulers. There will be no need to rent oneself out on the market, and no longer must anyone follow the arbitrary rules of some self-serving ruler. No longer will minorities, or majorities for that matter, be unjustly treated; people of all backgrounds will be treated equally. In summation, anarchy brings upon the world an egalitarian utopia, which in every sense of the word is perfect.

Anarchy does not breed chaos, theft and violence. On the contrary, those would be the dealings of capitalism. Would you steal from a fellow man if there was no institution to which the need was fuelled? Capitalism is what causes greed, and to get rid of free enterprise would be to get rid of greed. Anarchy professes the need to get rid of all institutions, bureaucracies, and authorities. In this ideology, people voluntarily work for the good of themselves, and they willingly work for the betterment of their community. There would be no reason to kill, and no reason to steal. Secondly, although the abolition of government means that there are no more judicial laws, it does not mean that each individual must ignore their morals. Anarchism stands for a form of voluntary socialism, in which an organic, and truly democratic, community forms. This replaces the tyranny of representative democracy and in its place creates a forum in which everyone is accounted. In such a community, there is no chaos, and it is not every man for themselves as people most commonly believe. Finally, if Anarchy did cause chaos, then would that not contradict the very idea of anarchy, freedom? The very intent of eliminating the hierarchical structure is to liberate, and to implement a system of individual autonomy. A system of self governing, but at the same time one in which everyone’s freedom is valid. The perception that anarchy advocates the “rule of the jungle” is completely false. Humanity is not free, until each person is freed, and this can only be done if everybody’s freedom is respected and never infringed upon. Thus, anarchism is not the source of disorder; it is the creator of peacefulness and order.

Finally, the elimination of oppression means that humanity can beyond a doubt mature into a liberated civilization. This means that everyone will have the freedom to do exactly what they choose. People will be allowed to live their lives however they please, because isn’t that what life is about? Should we not focus our time on doing things that we love, not being coerced into obeying commands? Our natural absolute right should be to live freely. In addition, when you are emancipated from dictatorship you strive to achieve your own incentives, not that of boss’s. When you concentrate on your own successes then you can ultimately live happily.

Consequently, without anarchy the world will always be a garden full of weeds. We must as a society, as a species, strive to make our world, our garden, beautiful again. To get rid of our oppressors and our hierarchies will be to clear our garden of its weeds and pests, and only then can we admire our world for what it is. Only then can humankind live happily, live freely, and live triumphantly.

Argument

            Despite popular belief, Anarchy does not breed chaos, theft and violence. On the contrary, those would be the dealings of capitalism. Does not our current government see these things, are they not problems already. Would you steal from a fellow man if there was no institution to which the need was fuelled? Capitalism is what causes greed, and to get rid of capitalism would be to get rid of greed. There would be no reason to rob a bank if there was no monetary system. Anarchy professes the need to get rid of all institutions, bureaucracies, and authorities. Does this not include the system of currencies and bartering? In this ideology, people voluntarily work for the good of themselves, and their community. There would be no reason to kill, and no reason to steal. Secondly, although the abolition of government means that there are no more judicial laws, it does not mean that each individual now must ignore their morals. Anarchism stands for a form of voluntary socialism, in which an organic, and truly democratic, community forms. This replaces the tyranny of representative democracy and in its place creates a forum in which everyone is accounted for. In such a community, there is no chaos, and it is not every man for themselves as people most commonly believe. Finally, if Anarchy did cause chaos, then would that not contradict the very idea of anarchy, freedom? If rule of the jungle did apply, then people, the majority of people, would be oppressed, and that is not what anarchy is about. That would be capitalism. Thus, anarchism is not the source of disorder; it is the creator of peacefulness and order.

Cause and Effect

            The newspaper headline read "Intense Blaze at the Local Library," and further evidence would suggest that Gerald Green caused such a fire. Gerald’s great thirst for knowledge would bring him on a trip to his library. When Gerald entered the public institution he promptly forgot about the selection of firecrackers he had collected form a recent trip to his convenience store. Gerald had gone with his father to buy a chocolate bar, but ended up buying a package of cherry bombs. Once he had bought his firecrackers, he had no way to open his car door with his hands full, so he placed his purchases in his backpack. When the duo got home, Gerald had so much fun shooting their fireworks, Gerald decided to make his own fireworks. This would bring him to the library to research chemistry and physics. Unfortunately for the taxpayers though, Gerald had neglected to check his backpack to see if he had actually used all of his firecrackers. He hadn’t. So when Gerald placed his backpack on one of the heaters in the library, it was a cold day, the neglected fireworks ignited. The reason for the fire was thus Gerald Green and his love of firecrackers.

Comparison and Contrast

Although many would say that Joseph Stalin’s regime was very much like Pol Pot’s, it was truly radically different. For example, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge considered the rural farmer to be the proletariat, and the true representative of the working class. Based on agrarian communism, Cambodians worked on collective farms and on labour projects. In contrast to the Khmer Rouge rule, Joseph Stalin’s rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union focused on urban industrialization, and greatly ignored agriculture and farm work. As a result many people starved to death in a widespread famine. Secondly, under Pol Pot’s command an estimated 1.5 million people died solely because they were suspected of free market activities. Whereas, Stalin’s Great Purge was a campaign to rid the Communist Party of corruption and treachery. Finally, Pot cited the enemies of the state and society to be the parents of families. Children would be separated from their parents at a young age because the parents were said to be tainted with capitalism. Thus, children could be brainwashed with socialist ideals, and taught to torture animals. In comparisons, Stalin saw ethnic minorities as the greatest threat to the Soviet Union. To combat this Stalin would deport millions of people to Siberia to be exiled. In conclusion, although Pol Pot was influenced by Joseph Stalin’s ideas and actions, their regimes were by far diverse.

Analogy

            Life is like literature. One could be classically formed, romantic or analytical. There are academic types, and there are recreational types. Life and literature are full of stops, and breaks. They can be formal or informal. There are successful writers, and successful people.  Both have beginnings and endings. They are full of surprises and suspense. Furthermore, life and literature can get better with age or wither over time. They can be cut to short, or dragged on too long. Besides, they can begin with a bang, or end with an explosion. Finally they can be full of cliff hangers, or empty of soul.

Metacognition

            Socrates’ designed his Socratic seminars to initiate dialogue, and not to create discussions or debates. Students would examine a text, and respond to it by carefully listening and not interrupting each other.

            In this sense I believe that I was somewhat successful in the first Socratic seminar of my life. I was able to generate meaningful points, although few, and analyses during the course of the exercise, and I was able to listen intently to my peers. Additionally, I feel that the group as a whole was able to effectively discuss, and ultimately criticize, the paragraph.

            In due course I would like to improve both my listening and my participation skills, as well as build up my analyzing ability.  To do this I plan to utilise my preparation time more efficiently by planning what I will say, and also by making notes in the margins.

            If I were to give myself a label based on my performance in this first discussion, I would call myself the “quiet listener.” I would say this because although I did contribute, I spent most of the time intently listening to and absorbing what my peers had to say. Perhaps that is a good thing though, because the famous proverb does say that “we were given two ears but only one mouth.”