I rediscovered a journal I wrote in when I lived in Santa Cruz about 3 years ago. I was surprised, I forgot I had written these things. I actually sound kind of intelligent from an outsider perspective. Hey hey! Anyway, I'll share some with you. The following is not quite from the person I am now, but this person has some good points:

---

Am I an anarchist? That's a difficult question to answer. I'm not happy with the way the system works, and I know I'd be much more comfortable without an overall governement hanging over my head like a storm waiting to rain on my parade. But the way things are now as it is, I don't think we could or should get rid of it all in one fell swoop and simply live without laws. There'd be all sorts of bad shit up in there, because people couldn't handle it. A system is only as shitty and backwards as the people who create and maintain it. The fact that the system is so dysfuctional, unjust, and childish reflects on us not as a nation, but as a population. Speaking of nations (because I must have a segway, even when writing to myself), Avi and I were talking about prosperous nations. Well, first we were talking about Greece.

Delphi: [traveling in Greece is cheap]

Avi: Yeah, what with it being a third world country and all.

D: (hesitation, thought) I don't know if you'd consider Greece a third world nation...

A: Dude, they're third world.

D: But not really, I mean, they live pretty well over there. People seem generally quite happy, no more or less than in the USA.

A: But when you look at their standard of living--

D: It's not that bad...

A: But compared to ours.

D: Yeah, I guess you could say that. But I don't know, the whole concept of third world countries doesn't quite sit well with me. It's like saying our way of living is better than another.

A: That's exactly what they're saying!

D: I know, but I don't agree with it. I can't really just accept their idea of what's good and bad, first and third. When you begin thinking in those terms... Remember that as things are now, the general opinion of a nation almost exactly mirrors that of the people who live in it. When we label a nation as third world, it slaps a slew of connotations onto the people there. Backwards. Helpless. Can't get their shit together. Silly natives, still living in the jungle using the witch doctor to cure diseases instead of insitutionalized synthetic addictive substances. They need our help. Isn't that pretty scary when you think about it? But it's true! That's how we, on this end, have been taught to feel about different lifestyles and cultures. It allows us to think of other people as less than ourselves. And I can't take that.

You see, the image that pops into my head when I think of 'third world', the thing that I've been trained to see growing up and watching the news, is starving, wide-eyed, brown-skinned children, and emaciated, deadened adults cooking a cup of rice for the day's food. It's depressing and quite scary, as if it were a catching disease. Well, it is, if we continue living the way we're living. America will catch the poverty bug someday. And there's no doubt that nations in that state need help, if only in the form of getting our own corporations the fuck out of there and helping them establish an economy and system based on their own culture. I don't mean to trivialize their state of affairs.

The point is, Greece never felt like a third world nation to me, not the entire time I was there. It was simply a different atmosphere. Houses were smaller, things in general were dirtier, the facilities were fewer; but they were always there, and they always worked, the people were fed and the food was good, the countryside was pristine (not war-torn),and people lived healthy, generally happy lifestyles. 'Third world' as it applies to Greece simply means that their lives and surroundings are less manicured, less anal. God but Americans are anal. And that difference is simply cultural. Greek people take siestas, they take their time eating dinner, they laugh, and smile, and walk slowly in the evenings. They give little attention to the things that are inconsequential. The outside of the building can be dusty; it's been there for hundreds of years, and whoever's headed there shouldn't care, and to whoever isn't it shouldn't matter. Houses don't have to be large. A hotel gives exactly what it's supposed to provide: a place to sleep and bathe, no more. I don't see how that makes Greece third world.

A: Look at it this way. Financially, Greece has next to nothing. They definitely aren't a superpower, and their GNP is like, nonexistent. Compared to America, Greece is a third world country.

D: But all that stuff you listed doesn't matter AT ALL. Like, Fuck GNP, fuck how much power the nation has. Prosperity is not about power. Prosperity has to do with the quality of life that the population of a country leads.
...(later in conversation, something's missing, I forget what)
Like, check Sweden. Did you know that of all the countries, Sweden has experienced the least population growth over the past century? Their population has been basically the same since before World War II. Population growth is one of the biggest problems of modern times, and Sweden has held in the reins supremely. They're at the point of national maturity where people devote their lives to doing things that enrich the community instead of creating more burdens for the community to bear (namely, children and the resources needed to provide for them). They are educated, and the majority of children are planned and wanted. They just don't need to have tons and tons of babies. So they don't have the problems that come with excessive reproduction. THAT's a prosperous nation.

A: What kind of government does Sweden have?

D: Sweden is the only fully-functioning, totally prosperous, Socialist state. Half their pay goes to the government, but their system of budget and spending is so well-designed that it really does go right to the people. The results are tangible and beneficial. Their education is free, including gradutae and undergrad university. Health care is paid for, available and good. Lack of population growth means lack of urban sprawl, which means environmental problems are minimal and the countryside is largely untouched. Conservation is therefore easy, and mandatory (people are fined if they don't separate their recyclables).

A: Is is democratic socialist?

D: I'm not sure... I don't think there's royalty, if that's what you're wondering. I'm pretty certain it's democratic.

... silence, walking ...

D: You know, however high up on the mountain the US may be to other countries, we're pretty low on the scale when it comes to prosperous enlightenment of the people. We spend more on jails than on schools. There is an inordinate number of homeless on the street. I have to say, there wasn't much of that in either Greece or Israel, nations we tend to snub our noses at. TV, the most mind-numbing thing ever, has its hugest culture in America. 40% of our population is obese. But hey, our army's real big and strong. We can whup anyone's ass! Cool.

... end conversation.

We're not ready for anarchy yet. I'm not talking about burn-things-down-fuck-shit-up anarchy; I mean the kind of society where we have learned to live with people based on love, not law. (Love is the law, love under will?) The ones that want anarchy are ready for it, and their number is growing, but they're still a pitifully small minority.

Most people live within the system because daily life is too much of a burden to care about change. People have a hard time keeping themselves alive. This happens because public education is shitty, and private education, quality, is too expensive but for that upper 20% of people middle class and up. Most educated people are happy with the system because it provided for their fat cat lifestyle, while those who are not are discontent yet don't know how to change it, how to utilize their power as individual people, thinkers, voters.

Anarchy can only work in a broadly and highly educated community. Education applies to all aspects of life. Parents must know how to raise an intelligent, healthy, self-confident chlid. Every child, or a large percentage, must be wanted. Ideally, these children are raised in a community setting, being raised by and around many different adult influences. This eliminates the need for rebellion against one set of values, eliminates the need for a hard painful, shocking deconstruction. The upbringing is instead constructive, allowing the child exposure to different viewpoints, so he can grow up having chosen his influences instead of having them forced upon him. This would form a strong community bond, giving the child goals of furthering the community he loves instead of himself and his family alone. The world is his immediate family. Fundamental teachings could include the value of human life, the necessity of love in all things you do, whatever they may be...

I'm getting utopian. And I know that utopias are idealistic, and in the past have always failed. But I have to dream this, this is what I want, if not for my generation, then for people everwhere at any future point in time. It's good for my heart to believe that anybody, under the right circumstances, can be a good person, is a good person. There is a key to every person's good will that is not based on money, be it a smile, an identification, or kindness they initially reject but in time respond to. This is the faith I have in something higher.

But... this is so hard to put into words... it's not something above us, in control of us, out of our reach and unfathomable; it comes from inside each person, and we can understand it when we fully understand ourselves. The ability to harness this stems from self-confidence, knowing that it is in you, it is possible, you can do it. That also seems in short supply. My answer to the original question is this: I am all for anarchy. I like the idea. But not now, unfortunately, not for us. I can only do my best to encourage people, prepare them.

---

Oh, and love this cartoon.

3:42 p.m. 2003-12-17�