Monday, 2 December 2013

Too many chiefs?

I sympathise in a way about what Boris Johnson was talking about last week. Intellegence does make equality pretty much impossible at least within mass societies. Besides, I don't necessarily believe that equality is always a good thing in and of itself. Equality can lead to to squabbles and ineffiencies which result in failure and injustice. I believe in freedom and justice not equality.

National Anarchists believe in small tribal communities that have seceeded from mass universalist society. Could these intentional communities be egalitarian? Maybe - and that would be the decision of the tribes themselves. I cannot speak for all National Anarchists but I would prefer a modicum of hierachy and expertise within my ideal community to the rule of the mob. Now that said, I don't advocate a filthy rich lord of the manor living in opulance while his serfs scrape by in squalor either! Any differences in wealth and creature comforts would be minimal within National Anarchist tribes because they will by necessity be based on simple-living and 'living the dream' according to our anti-materialist ideals. They will have to give up on most of what consumer society has to offer. For this reason social equality will be a lot closer in National Anarchist societies than under global capitalism. If for example a tribal community of 15-20 like-minded people sets up a working farm, then I'd want someone IN CHARGE, WHO KNOWS WHAT HE OR SHE IS DOING - an EXPERT. A farm manager who is best placed to deal with the challenges the tribe will face - FOR THE COMMON GOOD. So because of his/her pivitol role our leader (social justice dictates) is entitled to REWARDS. I'm not talking vast riches. I don't believe any tribal comrade should eat worse than 'the boss' or not be as safe and warm. But the leader (or leaders) who is steering the ship and making the venture a success, should if they wish (and by concensus) claim the larger living quarters and maybe the finest wine the tribe produces or secures through barter or trade from other tribes. This peck order secures stability and LOYALTY. Likewise those that are best able to defend their community physically - they too should be offered reward. Social justice breeds contentment - equality can lead to resentment.

To reitorate, I'm not suggesting huge differences in wealth or priviledge (and as I mentioned before, National Anarchist communities must be based on what Flora Thompson described as 'a poor plenty' - there probably won't be any way of generating extravagence, nor will it be wanted) what I am talking about is a healthy peck order which secures stability, security and cohesion to small social groups. If some tribes go with the egalitarian ideal then the best of luck and all respect to them. But personally I think a little hierachy goes a long way. The anarchist in me wants small society as opposed to mass society. No states as opposed to states. I part company with left anarchists when they DEMAND communism. Just for the record, any detractors might have a giggle when I say that I do not regard myself as being particularly bright. I've never taken an IQ test (wouldn't want to!) I'm just one of those people that likes to be led. In my ideal community I can see myself as someone who would waffle on at the monthly general assembly about what customs and feast days we should observe, but as far as the day to day running of the place goes, I'd be happy to to listen to the elites, to TRUST them, and perhaps invite them round to my tied-cottage or digs once or twice a year of an evening - I might even tug my forelock...