|
|
|
|
|
by Per Bylund |
|
The
shock of what happened on September 11th in New York City seems
to never settle. The seemingly pointless attack on innocent civilians
makes no sense. Looking upon this horror from the eyes of an
individualist, it is impossible to understand how and why anybody could
make this happen. It seems the ones behind these “acts of war” must be
totally inhuman, with no emotions and no respect for human life
whatsoever. It makes no sense at all, cold-heartedly killing thousands of
innocent people one has never met and who have never been a threat on
one’s life or well-being. What can anybody possibly intend to achieve by
causing this mass destruction and suffering? Looking
at it in another way, this is “simply” a result of collectivism. The
very foundation on collectivism is the conflict involving “us” and
“them.” By identifying oneself as part of something greater, with a
common goal, one can find strength to carry on in life. In this
identification of the “us” one finds natural friends and enemies, and
a way of quickly identifying who is who and who is what, drawing a line
between good and evil. It makes us feel we belong somewhere and with
someone, it helps us construct the illusion of safety among “our own
kind.” Some
forms of collectivism are “friendly” in the way that they emphasize
the “us,” and identify the “them” as a collective of no priority
or low or no interest. This kind of collectivism is focused on “us,”
not caring what happens outside the secured collective as long as it does
not inflict on it. The “them” is not of any importance, we do not care
for them and they do not care for us. We may build walls to keep them out
of what is considered ours, but we do not use offensive violence against
them. Examples
of this non-violent, introvert collectivism are patriotism, stressing the
“fact” of our supremacy, not necessarily caring about any other
nationality, and non-fundamentalist religions. Everybody in these kinds of
collectives is focused on their own collective’s well-being, the
“common good.” In the
other form of collectivism the conflict is more apparent. This violent,
extrovert kind stresses the “us’s” supremacy and power partly by
identifying a common enemy. This kind is dangerous, since it identifies
another collective that has to be destroyed one way or the other. An
extreme version of this extrovert collectivism is founded on a common
(divine) cause that has to be accomplished no matter what. The members of
the collective have strong beliefs in common values, and have enormous
faith in one or a few leaders, may it be a God, a priest, or a prophet.
What is important is not the own collective’s current well-being, but to
enslave, wipe out, or make “the others” learn “what is right” to
reach a higher goal in the future. Anyone who does not believe in the
cause is an enemy, even if they do not impose a direct threat. The
leader(s) of this collective could make any member do almost anything for
the cause by promising eternal life, honor, or vengeance. The sense of
belonging, and the loyalty to the cause, is so strong, most people in the
collective would happily die on the leader’s command. This is what some
fundamentalist religions are about, and what happened in New York City is
a direct result of this extrovert collectivism. It was a logical thing to
do for whoever is responsible. Its purpose was to make the own
collective’s greatest enemy suffer, and get underway towards the goal.
The death of anybody opposed to the cause, or non-believer, is a victory. Collectivism
in any form is a threat upon humanity, since it is always based on a
fiction conflict between two or more subjectively identified abstractions.
There will always be people emphasizing the conflict; taking action to get
rid of the evil “them” on religious or other grounds. This
concept of simplifying the world by erasing the existence of individuality
and painting the world in black and white by subjectively making other
people parts of good and evil abstractions is the most common basis of
conflict. What collectivism boils down to is a conflict made up in our
minds, to confirm a desperate need to belong. This is one of the reasons
the State is so dangerous – it is an instrument of collectivists and a
result of collectivist philosophy, made to fit a world of abstractions in
conflict with one another. Anybody considering themselves as a unique
individual must resist the temptation of making the world simpler through
collectivism. It is a philosophy breeding hatred and conflict. Anyone you do not know is not an enemy – he or she is a potential friend. September 27, 2001
|
| Per Bylund is a software engineer in Stockholm, Sweden. He is one of the founders of anarchism.net. |
