"This is What Democracy Looks Like."

Watching the documentary about the anti-globalization protests in Seattle reminded me that civil disobedience is still very much alive. There is a tendency to think that protests and sit-ins stopped with the Civil Rights Movement, but that is not remotely the case. It also made me look back on my own involvement in the world around me. I remember in middle school, there was a walk-out organized to protest the war in Iraq, and I remember that I was too afraid to go. I was in Ms. Quilty's environmental science class when the walk-out was supposed to take place, and she told us that as Americans, we had a right to protest, as long as we were willing to accept the consequences. She told us that if the protest was something we believed in, then we should get up and leave. At that point, I did not understand the concept of civil disobedience or what it could achieve; I think I have a much better understanding of it now. I completely disagree with those who call protests pointless and futile, who say that you have to be in a position of political power to make a difference. The protestors in Seattle may not have stopped NATO or its actions, but they did make a difference. Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that "Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open where it can be seen and dealth with." This is what civil disobedience is about; to remind the government that its purpose is to serve the will of the people, and to let them know when they are not.

It's Anarchy!

Reading Emma Goldman’s essay “Anarchism: What it Really Stands For,” truly intrigued me. I had never really thought of Anarchism as an actual ideology or school of thought, I only associated it with a complete lack of authority. The kids in my town who called themselves “Anarchists” are certainly not people with strong political views; they were just kids who hated being told what to do. Goldman’s essay called out the public for just that reason: she dispelled the notion that Anarchy is nothing but an ideology of rule-breakers. After reading the essay, though, I was still not completely sure about what exactly Anarchy does stand for. I was interested in the “three evils” that Goldman listed (religion, property and state), and actually agreed with some of her arguments about these evils. As a matter of fact, I found myself excited as I read through the essay, and felt a sense of pride and respect for the Anarchists’ theories on the individual. In my “teen” years, I was aways interested in anything that went against the grain or against peoples’ expectations, and I still have serious problems with religion and property because of the way it belittles the power and importance of individuals. At the same time, Anarchism is based on the theory that a person can only be free when that person is completely free from all constraints of a society. I completely disagree. In fact, this is the basis for my problem with Anarchism: humans are social creatures. I think it is our natural inclination to organize ourselves and form societies. This is one of the great strengths of humanity, that we naturally strive to work together. Individuality is key, yet I don’t think that individuality and society are mutually exclusive. I think a successful society is one that allows humans to work together for the benefit of everyone involved while maintaing their individuality. I think Anarchism offers an unrealistic and undesirable approach to preserving the individual; it maintains that any “state” whatsoever makes this preservation impossible. It is on this basis that I have such a huge problem with the idea of Anarchism. Anarchists do not seek a balance of individualism and society, they seek an abolition of one in order to promote the other.