Editorial

It's an Anarchy Killing?
By Frank Vest
1:124/6308

Far be it for me to claim any knowledge of Anarchy. My interest is due mainly to claims that Fidonet is/was supposed to be an anarchy and that Tom Jennings is/was an anarchist.

With the above in mind, I felt that a wee bit of study should be invested, therefore, I have done a little reading on the subject of anarchy. Probably as much as some have done regarding Policy4 prior to rejecting or using it. Maybe more. :)

Ok... So what is Anarchy??

(Before going on, I would advise the tobacco and brewing industry to double production immediately The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and MADD (Mothers against Drunk Drivers) should go into "alert" status as well as any other entities affected, as there is going to be an increased need in the areas covered by them.)

From the definitions I read, anarchy is "no rule" or "without rule".

<sputter, cough>
What!!! NO RULES!?!?!? We can't function without rules! This is insane!! Where's my cigarettes! I need a beer!! Where's my car keys???! I need to go to the store for more cigarettes and beer!! (insert sound effects as desired)
</sputter, cough>

Easy now... easy...

Um.. er... Would someone please help these poor readers back to their chair in front of the computer?.... Thanks! :)

Now, kind readers, please give your car keys to someone you can trust or put them away, take the 5 cigarettes out of your mouth, put the glass of whatever alcohol you are drinking down before you spill it on the keyboard again, clean the monitor screen, take a few deep breaths and relax..... Good... much better. :)

Ok, let's continue.

Anarchy is "without rule"... it is not "without RULES". Notice the difference? From my understanding, the belief is not being ruled over or by someone/group. "Rules" are allowed. In fact, rules will exist.

Anarchy also seems to believe that a group of people will, if left alone, work out a system of "rules", or agreement(s), to accomplish whatever they need to accomplish. This, without the need for a person, or group, to tell them "how to", "what to", "when to" and such. IOW without force, coercion or rule.

The above can be accomplished via two methods.

One is revolution. This can require coercion, and often, deception to get others to join in the action... unless the group is large enough to cause the revolution by itself. This can work, but can have the side effect of a need to be able to "enforce" the "anarchy" that has been fought for and won. If you note "enforce" and "anarchy", you can see that there is the real possibility that this can revert back to the same, if not a worse, state than what was fought for in the first place.

The other is through cooperation, education and such. While this might take a long time and ultimately end in a revolution, the revolution would, IMHO, be more lasting in its intended effect. IOW, The larger the group that has the same views, the less the resistance needed and the less the enforcement needed to maintain the results. Of course, this could revert back, but wouldn't be as likely since most would be of like mind and belief.

Whew! I'm glad that's over. :) With that behind us, let's press on and look at Fidonet.

Fidonet is an anarchy? Well, I'll get into my humble opinions here and you can decide from them... or other means.

Fidonet has a policy. Yes, I know it is old. I know it has been used wrongly and all the other arguments that go along as well. However, Fidonet is an anarchy in the respect that, for the most part, the Sysops that run the systems (computers) in Fidonet do as they please and choose to be in Fidonet.

The "choose" is important. If the choice to be part of Fidonet was made with full understanding and knowledge that there is a policy, then there should be little in the way of problems. If the choice was made without this understanding and knowledge, then someone did someone a disservice. Take that up with that person. The point is, The choice was made to join... the choice can be made to leave if desired. Anarchy. No force or coercion to stay. Your own free will.

One other thing that anarchy seems to deal with is reality. While anarchy is "without rule" the reality is that there will be rules and rule. The difference is that in anarchy, the group agrees on the rules and the rule is by the group. No one person or group can rule over another. All are free to join or leave a group as desired or create a group.... without fear of persecution by the rest of the group(s). Any person can form another group if the group they are in doesn't "fit" what they believe. No one is forced to stay in Fidonet. No one is prevented from starting a new group outside of Fidonet. That much of Fidonet is anarchy.

Once someone chooses to join Fidonet, they are subject to it's rules. The coercion and force are currently there. Policy is policy until policy is changed. How to change policy is written in policy. How to change policy to fit what the people want is written in policy and in anarchy.

Policy allows for change. It's hard to do. People don't want to change.... unless it is shown to be good, of benefit or something positive. As it currently stands, most of what I've seen in Z1 has been anything but positive. Arguing that anarchy is better by accusation, names being called, blame being laid (justified or not) and all other such are negative. Why would people want to change from a government enforced order to a anarchy when appearances are that both use the same thing to administer? Why change policy when the arguments to change are justified with the same political accusations that are used to justify not changing? Where is the positive? People aren't going to vote, ask for or try to change anything in such a situation. Why change? They have the same thing now, from all appearances.

Yes, Policy4 was voted in by the, then, controlling parties. Yes, it's been forced upon Fidonet? That is not relevant to this. What is relevant is that this forced policy was, and is, accepted by Fidonet in general. Remember that one Zone dos not a Fidonet make. It is entrenched in Fidonet and a revolution by one Zone, much less a Region or Net, that makes up a small part of Fidonet isn't going to last. People, in general, don't want to change.

A revolution, in definition, is the overthrow (removal) of one thing for another. Often times, more so with anarchy, there is a vacuum left by the revolution. This vacuum is often filled with the same, or a worse, government than what was removed by the revolution in the first place.

Is anarchy a good thing? Yes, it can be. Can it be done in Fidonet? Yes, it can. Will it be done? I don't know. I don't believe it will be done until those that claim to be anarchist realize that they are barking up the wrong tree. I don't believe that it will happen without changing Policy4. I don't think that Policy4 will be changed by/with revolution or force. I think that the only way to change policy is to work within policy for a change. Not violently, not with force, but within what policy allows. Use policy to change policy. Use education to show the benefits. Remember, people don't want to change. This is even more true if the change from force is made with force. :-)

Do I believe that Fidonet is an anarchy? Yes and no. Some of it is, some isn't. Reality? What Fidonet it is, it is. Until the groups in Fidonet can be convinced that anarchy is positive, good, of benefit and other such, full anarchy will not happen. I'm not sure this is possible in any reality to begin with. It is possible to have a group, or groups, that is/are anarchistic, but they will have to live within the current Fidonet and abide by it's rule until such time as enough are educated and join with them. Force, rebellion and other such acts will not accomplish this. IMHO, this is reality.

I do believe that many of those in Fidonet that claim anarchy aren't and know little about anarchy. I do believe that I don't know all about it either. I do believe that, to some degree, I've read more on anarchy than some have read on Policy4. I do believe that my interpretation of what I have read may be as accurate as some interpretations of Policy4. :)

I do believe that I have some references for those interested. :)

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~ctb/anarchy/
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~ctb/anarchy/docs/consent.html

Best regards,

Frank