Politics | Writer201 | How about Anarchism

Many people are dissatisfied with the outcome of General Elections and have no regard for the political party who wins. I’m sure many have a vision of an alternative lifestyle and the dream where we are all happy, satisfied and no one has any power over another. Let me suggest that we consider some anarchism.

As a social movement, it has many associations from communists to capitalists. It is not a political theory given to a specific political ideal.  It can be applied in various forms across the political spectrum. Anarchists were active in

  • labour movements
  • civil rights
  • women’s liberation
  • both anti-capitalism and pro-capitalism (with varying definitions of capitalism)
  • both anti-globalisation and pro-globalisation (with differing interpretations of globalisation), and
  • finally yet importantly tax resistance.

Anarchism is a political theory, which has never had the opportunity to prove itself to the point where people say WOW anarchism works let’s go for it. Therefore, if you are adventurous what do you have to lose. Are you up for a real change in politics, the way you conduct your life amongst other’s as you strive for a new order.

You can do the following:

  • abolish ‘elf and safety
  • get rid of the nanny state
  • can make the rules unless of course, you choose individualistic anarchism
  • define law and order
  • the way commerce operates
  • define new regulations around the exchange and production of goods.
  • decide education policy
  • set levels of taxation suitable to your pocket.

Collectively in your little Anarchist state with like-minded people, you can deliver the way of life you always wanted.

Consider your politics and beliefs, and how they can be incorporated into your style of Anarchism. It just needs someone to grasp the nettle and vote to rid the country of democratic Government.

Why choose Anarchism over the democratic government? There’s an easy answer to that one. Anarchists argue that the primary cause of people’s misery throughout history is a lousy government. They don’t rule for the majority. Do governments ever represent people as a whole while suppressing the wishes of the majority to retain control.

If a government is the cause of our problems would it not make sense to rid ourselves of such an institution and look after our own needs? In case you think that chaos will become the order of the day, bear in mind that the definition of Anarchism is opposition to the government, not order or society.  As Pierre Prudhon wrote: “Liberty is the Mother, not the Daughter of Order” Why do Anarchists demand the abolition of the state? In their minds, they can offer something better. They have no desire to pursue violent disorder.

What does Anarchism mean?

Anarchy does not mean an absence of social organisation. Anarchy indicates the lack of state control and coercion. Let us consider the Anarcho-syndicalism theory. Humans to survive must work. The workplace is the primary governing unit of society. Everyone must work bar those who are disabled and unable to do so. Therefore, the anarchist organisation must decide how to manage welfare requirements. That includes Socal Care for the elderly, Medical needs and social justice. If you are capable of working but refuse to work what happens? That depends on the democratic rules of the organisation.  By not working you could be faced with the prospect of no shelter and no food. It may sound less than humane. The point is – your skills benefit the syndicate or commune. You are helping it to achieve its aims and objectives. The above may hold appeal to those who are continually calling time on welfare scroungers.

So, are starting to think like an anarchist? Remember that by abolishing government you have something better to offer people. That does not include rebellion but order.  The workers organise the workplace and democratically choose the best way to distribute the fruits of their labour. Therefore, you achieve a participatory government. You can also decide issues of Justice using the same essential organisation within the community.

So where are you now? Are you rushing to spread the word about a new order? We may dream and think of beautiful ways to see something better for ourselves. So many times I have heard the old clichéd political arguments by people trying to find an answer. “Until we find a political system to be truly representative then we need to stick with what we have.”

What is the truth? Do you have the desire to change old values for new and seek a radical overhaul of society? The disruption would be too much, and there are always those who will misinterpret Anarchism. No rulers, no rules, therefore chaos. The Sex Pistols sang about “Anarchy in the UK” way back in 1977. As punk philosophy was to change the world and the way we live the song was about violence as a means to achieve Anarchism.

Politics | Getting rid of Professional Politicians

Members of Parliament; those we elect into the great house have not fared well in recent years. The expenses scandal, which broke highlighted how, many use Westminster as a gravy train claiming expenses to maintain moats, fix roofs, buy their dog food and on we go.

The problem today is the system in Westminster incentivises people to get re-elected, instead of doing what needs what is right for the electorate. Follow this link to read what allowances British MPs have at their fingertips.


As a result, professional politicians, engage their role for gain rather than following a genuine desire to participate in public service. They like the power of the office, which they are reluctant to surrender.  When the election comes around they give the electorate the same old same old; promises and more promises to do what is right for the communities. Of course, when they are re-elected and step back inside the hallowed halls of Westminster they are bombarded from all sides by special interest groups who want the attention of your MP to promote debate, further, an ideal which benefits no-one (but there is money in it). Westminster becomes a symbiotic gathering of pressure groups, journalists searching for scandal and finally MPs who strut around the place lending an ear to those who don’t care while ignoring the needs of the people who placed them there.

So, is the time right to get rid of the professional politician?  That may be easier said than done. In getting rid of the present bunch, we only replace them with trainee professional politicians. In other words, we change the faces but not the lust for power and the temptation of corruption. The fact is if we want real change the entire system from top to bottom must change. After that it no longer befits any MP to consider pursuing a long time career in politics. Get rid of incentives, lobby groups and any other organisation, which thinks it is right that parliament supports minority interests.

The most natural step and the one in my judgment most likely to have an impact are to impose term limits.  I appreciate the benefits of continuity, and that there is a certain amount of expertise that’s helpful in the legislative process.

If public service is of interest, the salary and benefits should not be your first consideration when standing.

The point of anyone standing is for the good of the people who elected the MP. I would suggest that to stand there should be a few stipulations.

  • The selected Prospective Parliamentary candidate should be from the area they represent
  • They have previously been active in community programs and be aware of the problems or concerns of the community
  • They should have no less than ten years working experience
  • They can stand for no more than two terms
  • While in office they are responsible for decisions regarding the budget, in other words, they cannot spend or borrow money to fund ideological causes but can support community causes
  • That at least twice a year the electorate will be able to vote on referendums to democratically decide on issues, which affect the population
  • Any MP committing fraud or found to be a party to fraud can be subject to trial by jury
  • To meet transparency and to keep check on expenses that the local constituency funds the salary of the MP


Enacting term limits on MPs will not only require a policy change but will change the face of British politics. Some of the knock-on effects will be the diminishing and severely disrupted relationships between Lobby Groups and MPs. Lobby Groups will need to work harder to create and seek new relationships with ever changing faces. It also means that Lobby Groups will be less able to influence MPs who can only stand for two terms.

Some might argue that imposing term limits; we lose the continuity of the professional politician’s experience. However, is that not the point of the non-partisan civil service? The expertise of permanent Civil Servants who have served at the highest levels with a variety of ministers and prime ministers over many years should be providing unbiased advice and support.