Questions About Ideology: Part I

In my search to find answers to my questions in life, I have taken on various ideologies with the understanding that there is some singular modus operandi that leads to my version of success. The latest attempt at this has led me to the ideology of anarchy which intrigues me primarily due to the common misconception of being equal to unbridled chaos. Of course, the proper definition holds closer to separation from the forceful hierarchical concept of rulers and subjects. As I found myself finding more and more anarchist thinkers, I found myself enthralled in the concept. In fact, I begin to realize that I had taken on the ideas of these great thinkers as mine drawing closer to championing the ideas as the answer to our collective issues. However, as I have reached a few months with the idea I suddenly came cannot align myself with anarchy as an ideology. If one were to ask me what form of government I wished to see enacted in the world, I would be unable to answer the question still frames itself in a statist mindset. It is not that the concept of anarchy, under the assumption of the accurate definition- without rulers, is incorrect in theory. In fact, I think that a lot of philosophies about life whether it be collective, or individual are inherently wrong in theory. No, the problem of anarchist philosophy is the same as all ideologies. It calls itself a name, it gives itself a set of rules to abide by and sets to differentiating the human component of this idea as something other all the while behaving the same way as those they point fingers at – just human beings. I too suffer this problem you see, we all do. That is the issue with ideologies; they almost always seem to take a form of forceful adaptation. Although anarchists do not wish to imprison anyone under a system of government force, there are some who have the insatiable habit of wanting to call on others think as they do. They wish to topple governments but forget that to do so; they must become a force, a government’s primary role. As much as I understand the sentiment of wanting to rid the world of nefarious, power hunger, politicians I cannot risk the very essence of freedom by yielding my enemy’s weapon. For I understand, that the power that a man in power yields is even outside of his control, he is but a mere slave to it. Ideologies tend to have that effect on us. The fact is that many people do not wish to live life outside of their structures. In fact, I too do not desire to be uncomfortable outside of this system though I understand my need to do so to obtain a life which is in my best interest.

As I speak about anarchy and the freedom of life outside of systems, I sit in relative comfort in this system. I dream of a self-sufficient life without the dependency on societal help, but I understand that the cord must be completely cut before I can ever consider myself a simple man of honest consideration of whatever issue is at hand. To take honor in who I am – some would call this vanity, but it is nothing more than respect for oneself. To not be controlled by another’s propositions, to be ultimately free, it is an idea I understand most when I put pen to paper or finger to keyboard. To have an idea, to map it out with words and to share it is the pinnacle of freedom to me. However, life in this society is never pleasant in its entirety. I understand that if I were to take this to the extreme and completely remove myself from society will come at a great cost. As I said before, I live in a position of comfort, but if you take away that comfort completely, I slowly realize how unprepared I am. Instinctively I will want to play the game of society (I.E., find a good job and work hard for money to buy the resources that I need for both my survival and my eventual exit from modern society). I have had this realization a few times in my life and each time comfort sets in and I am forced conclude that the drug of society has its claws in me. Those needs become extravagant wants and with each needless yet convenient purchase a new link in the chain that binds me more to that which I hope to escape.

It is here that I find myself presently, chained to a societal structure that I at one point wanted more than anything else. I reflect on my choices and the mentality that I was in when I made them and realized they only were a flailing attempt to achieve the idea of success. From one ideology to another I went all with the same result- a stronger understanding of how no one has the answers I seek. To attempt to escape this paradigm of ideologies on any single idea alone would be the equivalent to attempting to break the metaphorical chain around my neck by running at full speed in any one direction. I will only succeed in harming myself. Instead, I must undergo the humbling task of removing my chain link by link simultaneously examining each piece for its valuable information.
While I accept many of the ideas of anarchy to be reasonable and eventually attainable for myself, I must take notice of the bizarre fact that the end goal for many of the anarchist that have influenced my perceptions of the idea. The common end-goal focus of achieving some equilibrium of these ideas are no different from the statist end-goal, and that is the fundamental issue of ideology. So long as there is something in it for people, they will continue to tie themselves to an idea if it means the continuation of a pleasant perception. It matters not what the name of the idea is; So long as the answer sounds good, the loyalty will have no boundary. This undying loyalty to any idea leaves no room for understanding any other perception. It is here that ideology begins to form as adherence to the rules of the idea becomes the reality in which we perceive to exist.

I do acknowledge the insight of the profound ideas on freedom and liberty that are expressed by anarchistic thinkers, but I cannot reject myself by taking up the label. Much like democracy, monarchy, and communism, anarchy also has the weak point of its “followers” of whom will cease to represent its intended purpose. It is my understanding that no one person or their ideas can provide me with an antidote to the problems I face. The mode of operation which I live by can only be understood by questioning both the end-goal of my ideas and the method in which I acquired those ideas. Upon questioning myself, I concluded that I have not been living under my perceptions but rather ideas that had been giving to me under the best of intentions. To live under my perception should be the goal, to understand myself in relation to others and not life on behalf of others nor their life on behalf of mine. To be free is not to hold an ideology which asserts that fact but to control my own frame of mind. Under this present frame of mind, I make only one proclamation- no ideology. To take on the ideology in a typical way that is to operate primarily from set principles does not lead to a fulfillment of the purpose for me. Instead, I realize that for me to understand my principles and live them thoroughly, I must strip myself of preconceptions and take in the world as it is not as I wish it to be.

I have come to understand the endless path in which I am to embark on, and that path has already led me to some critical questions. Is not the taking up of my own principles susceptible to the formation of ideology within myself? Can this not be just as dangerous as the taking up of the principles of other ideologies? It is here at this impasse that I must reflect.