THE HAUNTED frontman Peter Dolving has posted the following message on his MySpace page:
"I am slightly confused here. What is hard to grasp with the idea of an anarchist society? A social structure built on responsible individual action based in free will rather than that of the obligatory choiceless form of structure that we live in today...
"What is it we have to give up? It seems that is what frightens most when the discussion arises. Would it not be appropriate to ask the opposite? What can we gain? I mean, we are after all human beings, desire in its many forms are among the strongest instincts we have.
"The gains such a structure offers are indeed plentiful, though mostly on a non-financially quantifiable scale. It goes without saying that for an anarchist society to function it would have to be non monetary. This statement I understand is enough to make many cringe and twist, but I think one needs first understand what a non-monetary society is.
"A non-monetary society acknowledges the fact every human being has the right to food, water, housing, plumbing, transportation, education, work, play, and exploration. A very well grafted model is described in Ursula K LeGuin's novel 'The Dispossessed'. Of course critics of this type reasoning will point out that it is a science-fiction novel, but so was Jules Vernes' 'Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea', 'Robur the Conqueror' and 'From the Earth to the Moon'. His works were considered outlandish in his day, but many of his ideas have actaully become things we take for granted around the globe a century years later...
"So how would a society like that function? Not very different from how we live now, and at the same time extremely different. On the small scale there is the individual in context to social constructions like families and the closer community, work, games, learning and teaching. How each community shall structure itself the responsibilty of the individuals involved. Accepting the equality and responsibility of the self and each other individual a mutual necessity for existance. Participation in accordance with individual capacity and desire. If one individual would not be able function in the community he or she would find him/herself most likely he or she would be denounced from it one way or the other. The failure to find a function for an individual in accordance to his/her needs/desires would be an equal responsibility to all in the community and therefore a priority to avoid through education, sharing, and emotional as well as a material in its nature.
"On a greater scale, there is the individual and the community in context to infra structure and other communities and individuals. Matters like transportation, production of food, textiles, electricity, fuel, communication and leisure would be of an even greater importance than it is today simply for the reason each individual would have to acknowledge the fact that he/she are dependent of other individuals in order to continue living comfortably. A wellfunctioning administration and education would be a common responsibility and ambition, since the quality of everyday life for both individual and community would be dependent on it.
"In simple words — a society not very different from the one we live in now, but without the overhanging threat for the individual of being cut out from participation for lack of material possessions, monetary quantifiable capacity or birth given social positioning. The only thing that would alienate an individual from a community would be abusing the common rights of other individuals in it.
"Regarding crime in traditional society, I personally don't believe it to be pathological in its nature, exept in very few cases. More likely it is a disfunctional pattern of social interaction learned and adapted to as survival strategies, passed on from one generation to the next. Crime itself is not evil, I believe it is a symptom, of lack of knowledge and/or social and emotional functions. Of course this does not take away the pain for someone who is robbed, shot, beat or abused. But it does explain the reason for why it happens, and can help us in any emotional healing process in the wake of crime. The question about crime still remains though; Is it morally justifiable to privatize prisons and correctional institutions?
"So would it be a crimeless society? Technically yes, since it would be a lawless society. But it would certainly not be free from individuals violating the rights of other individuals, though a violator would most likely not feel remotely as safe as one can conjure up illusions of being in the society we live in now. On the other hand, the motivational psychology of violating the rights of others would be a great deal less prevalent(kolla upp översättning...) and the possibilities for reconciliation by far greater in that we can assume the type of violations would differ greatly; money, material possession and hierachy no longer offering solid motivation. A violator would most likely be considered mentally unhealthy or lacking in education, hence being offered a great deal more creative options than todays correctional institutions or penal system. Though to a greater extent more hands on responses like physical beatings and loud mouthed arguing would probably be to expect to the extent that the violated individual or or those emotionally attached to the violated would have emotional capacity for, knowing that indeed a violation of ones rights had been breached. Again, the spontenaeous reactions to violations in a society like this would very much depend on the maturity of the 'victim.' Also, whether a violation had really come to pass would also depend on the experience and knowledge of the violated individual.
"This is theory. If it could work I will most likely not live to see, but maybe our grandchildren or their children can be a part of something like it.
"Granted, it seems a fact that we do enjoy the emotional and at times physical manifestations that come with materialism, and that they are perhaps the greatest force behind materialism itself. Also it is clear what these objects of our desire symbolizes. Having. Owning. It all gives a sense of security. Of safety. Control over our inner most fears, a fetish to protect us from the cold rains, the storms, the absence of a rested body, the lack of food or experiencing the psychological ease of physical safety. As well as a totem to shelter us from the stress of disease, alienation and death. Further reasoning also makes it clear how vulnerable we are in a greater social context. Materialism soothes and comforts us. It's only natural. To have what others have does entail a sense of community. A shared sense of mutual knowledge and something to help us bridge the social gap between people.
"Traditionally religion has carried a great deal of that function for those who found it unbearable to fully and utterly give in to the harsh reality of complete and absolute monetary materialism. A sort of spiritual compromise to simplify life.
"Now what if that gap, no matter how real it is, is nothing more than a symptom. Could there be ways to soothe that symptom other than material possession or hierachic religion?
"To me it seems reasonable that there is a possibility...
"So can a society function without token, i.o.w. money? It seems reasonable, simply because we need the same basic things. The material, and the immaterial. If those needs are satisfied money would be superfluos, merely a general obstacle for the intrisic good, like say the ebola virus.
"If indeed the traditional perception of hierarchy and material wealth is outdated, has come to a point in history where it does more damage to the human species than good, would it not be a rational choice to attempt exploring other ways of looking at the issues at hand? Survival of the species being the top priority for all of us.
"Self. Community. Material security, sexual and spiritual freedom. These are basic needs of the human being. So far our choice of path in the general struggle for these things have been through hierachic monetary strife. It's a very old system. Dating back to the early feodal nation buildings of Egyptian, Sumerian, and Indian cultures, we've merely been rehashing the same old formula as long as perhaps 8000 years. Naturally it's a way of percieving life that's fairly well rooted in the common thought process as something intrisically good. But with all the evidence at hand in the early 21st century we can pretty much agree on the fact that we've reached a point where the idea that the elite is self justifying and given power is divine is old shoe. After all these years of theorizing in order to explain what good hierachich structure is to man its defender and promotors are running out of arguments. We are one species. We know inbreeding is genetically destructive. We can scientifically prove how stagnant social structures violate the human psychologic needs, and we know that social and mental stress/duress triggers the human instinct for procreation. We are also aware that on a global scale the administration of assets and consumption are as far from equal as they have ever been. Naturally leading some to agrue in terms of 'overpopulation' rather than misdirected source/asset/consumption administration. Obviously the old days of supremascist delusion have reached a historic point. Now what are our choices?
"Of course some will not agree with me and argue for further global expropriation and continued enpowerment of certain groups, nationalities, or financial entities. Very much making them look like Jehovas Witnesses in trying their best in creating a perfect paradise on earth when all the rest are killed off in one way or the other and indeed I understand this is a greater group of humans than one might want to accept. The inert problem in that type of solution is that is entails vast risks of the complete annihilation of not only mankind, but a great deaal of other organisms on the planet. One must question if one is willing to take that risk when there are in fact other ways of adressing and acting on the problems we face."