Sadiq Gill: Making Sense of Anarchy

By Richard Perry


Anarchists believe in individuality. Everyone and anyone, no matter of what gender, skin color, or race you are, you are still a person. You can believe in whatever religion you want to believe, wear what you want to wear, and live how you want to live. You're a person just like everybody else! Why should you have people tell you how to live your life? Why do "We, The People" need a bunch of rich, old men with their own agendas to tell us how to spend our money, tell us what is right, what is wrong, when to sleep, what to eat and drink? Don't most people know inherently what is right and wrong, good from bad?

Ask yourself, if there were no more laws tomorrow, would you become a murderer and thief? No? Well, no one else would either. People who murder and steal do these things regardless of laws. Let's get rid of the reasons that people do these things instead. People are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. They know what's right and they know what's wrong and I'm sure they can learn from their mistakes when they are made. So, even though there are no laws and nobody officially running anarchy such as a president, dictator or King, people can control themselves. We're not sheep wondering mindlessly along fields, are we?

But the whole idea of anarchy has been around for centuries. Ancient Greek philosophy of Stoicism (a system having the same ideas of anarchy at the time of ancient Greece) was founded by Zeno of Citium said that wise men could and should evolve away from civil courts, government and rulers, acting eventually only by the universal law of reason and in accord with the universal brotherhood among human beings. The first modern western thinker to greatly develop and publish an anarchist philosophy was Englishman William Godwin, who supported the cause of an evolutionary anarchism reminiscent of Zeno's Stoicism. Benjamin Tucker, the great American individualist, got his anarchism ideas from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Josiah Warren, both of whom opposed Capitalism and The State, and both of whom embraced individualism. All three men focused on the ideas of a free and individualized economy. The most famous anarchist is Emma Goldman, whose anarchy-communism was based on the philosophy of Russian aristocrat, Prince Peter Kropotkin. His anarchist philosophy was collectivist, communist and non-violent, though he doesn't seem to have rejected violence and revolution.

Unfortunately, getting people to follow anarchism wasn't easy. Emma Goldman enforced many things against the government like stealing and woman's rights (which back in the early 1900's woman didn't have to many rights). Well, it ended her up in jail for about 4 years through 1893 and 1918. But others like William Godwin, never went to jail and had good views that inspired many people. He believed that all monarchies were "unavoidably corrupt". He felt that no one should power over another one. He believed that reason could and should rule over our lives. Between Emma, William, and many others, anarchy has come a long way.

Anarchy. The only system of government in which there are no ruler and no laws. Anarchist believe that The People can do for themselves realize what is right from wrong and resolve their own conflicts. Through centuries people like Zeno, Emma Goldman, and William Godwin have introduced this idea to many people. Now it's pretty clear why all we've been hearing about is anarchy, anarchy, anarchy.

Richard Perry is a senior specialist at Essay Writing [http://www.essaymall.com/] department of EssayMall.com. The author has many years of experience in Research Paper [http://www.essaymall.com/Research_paper.php] development.

Sadiq Gill: The cosmic magic of Ismail’s imagination

By The News on Sunday

Zohaib Kazi merges his love and curiosity about the planet, space, science, history and technology and creates a glorious world.

Ismail Ka Urdu Sheher is so much more than an ordinary book. Merging Kazi’s curiosity across various disciplines (such as science, philosophy, history and technology), the book, loaded with beautiful illustrations and gorgeous design elements, begins on planet earth and takes us across various dimensions, like a cosmic journey that is as adventurous as it is inspiring.

At the center of the story lies the individual known as Ismail Alset, an Urdu speaking scientist of immense intellect and resolve,  and a resident of Elaan, a planet carved by advancements in several fields upon who lays the responsibility to save the world from an experiment gone terribly wrong.

If you think it’s just a scientific exploration, think again. Ismail’s love and relationship with wife Mehr-un-Nisa is at the heart of this book and is perhaps one of the book’s strongest points. Jauhar, the artificial intelligent machine poses questions and conversations between the machine and Ismail are simply fascinating.
It’s a thoughtful book that takes in mind the struggles of mankind, and the need for discovery, the fear of death and the unknown, universal laws that seem unapproachable and ties them together neatly.

From Earth to Elaan

Our introduction to the story, however, begins with  an unnerved planet earth as an inevitable energy crisis lurks on the horizon due to mankind’s persistent recklessness, ignorance and lack of respect for scientific and natural laws.

Amidst the shadows lies the discovery that private consortiums run the world as they have ceased control of world resources. This “global control movement” has a leader organization known as Mandala, a front-runner initiated by the Caster family, as their manipulation “initiated wars and fueled conflicts around the world since recorded history”.

Several characters emerge in this book that are human and hence, flawed, complex as fiery and unpreditcable as man himself. You can’t pick a side.

Jalut Caster is the young and dynamic heir to the throne, and understand earth’s importance as Mandala acquires NASA among other feats. This opens the story of other unique individuals who gain importance in the story as the narrative picks up pace.

Two diametrically opposite friends, Colon and Daud enter the terrain. This subplot is one of the most curious themes in the story as the two young genius scientists who manage the impossible showcase not just scientific ideas but also ties that bind, the ties of friendships and the fragility of relationships and how easy it is to lose one’s way.

Balancing each other’s weaknesses isn’t enough though as their personal relationship deteriorates and perspective change and intertwine. Daud, for instance, loses himself to reclusion as he questions the world around him and is disgusted by things like interest rates of the banks of the world and the commercialization of the race of discovery in the name of science. His disconnection from the world past and growing rage leads him to rebellion and in the arms of underground anarchy movements. Colon, the other-half of this genius combo, meanwhile, scales heights of excellence.

As Ismail’s embarks on this journey with Mehr, you root for them and wonder at the same time about what they will or won’t find.

The story so far

Ismail Ka Urdu Sheher isn’t written in a traditional narrative. The prose, engaging and observant, feels closer because of the design value of the book which includes skies full of stars. In between the chapters, the book also has dedicated pages to some of the scientific ideas that are explored in it. You don’t necessarily have to be a science buff to understand this world.

The longing and loss of family is also explored beautifully and is one of the many layers and emotions explored in the story.

What’s impeccable in Kazi’s narrative is that the characters blend seamlessly – they are perfectly imperfect and not viewed with a binary lens. Even as Kazi’s marvelous imagination and the knock-out design elements persistently make you marvel, it is easy to note the humanity and humility that lies within the book. The stories of Jalut, Ismail, Mehr, Daud and the others interconnect as it reaches a conclusion.

Kazi conjures a world that is often a reflection of some of the most prevailing questions of our times. A world that is made worse by wars and divided by religious animosity and intolerance evokes a real-time image.
Futuristic and engaging, Ismail Ka Urdu Sheher is  thing of mystery, a fantastic achievement for its chief architect Zohaib Kazi and the many collaborators across fields who have helped in realizing a dream.

Sadiq Gill: Remembering Professor Benedict Anderson

By Dr Arif Azad

Professor Benedict Anderson of Cornell University, who has died at the age of 79 in his beloved Indonesia, is widely known for his path-breaking work on nationalism. His magnum opus, Imagined Communities, has been translated into 12 languages and remains an influential text more than 30 years after its publication.

Professor T. J. Clark remarked that great titles are especially dangerous and Imagined Communities is one of the greatest titles. In the two words of the title are embodied a cluster of ideas that are so central to our fresh new perspective on nationalism.

In expounding his theory of nationalism, Benedict Anderson becomes one of the leading theorists of modernist school of nationalism. As opposed to primordialist school of thought, modernists argued that nationalism was the product of interplay of modernist forces of capitalism, modern printing press and literature. Also, nationalism bound together is an imagined political community, contrary to the toxic and insular nationalism of today, mostly represented by far-right, and embraced by the mainstream parties to varying degrees. Anderson saw nationalism as an imaginative process rooted in inclusiveness and outreach, as pointed out by Jeet Heer of New Republic.

In lamenting the lack of significant theorist of the stature of Hobe, Marx and Webber on nationalism, Anderson himself has come to be seen as the most important theorist on nationalism. In fact, one commentator has compared Imagined Communities as the communist manifesto on nationalism. Though Anderson’s scholarly reputation rests on Imagined Communities, he has produced an impressive body of work, equal in significance, and of high intellectual and scholarly merit. His work on nationalism and anarchism in the context of Philippines, titled Under Three Flags, is of immense significance. These two titles suggest where Anderson’s prime research interest lay.

He was an Indonesiaist through and through. Besides his scholarly works on the region, Anderson also exerted himself in the cause of democracy when it was derailed by military coups in the Southeast Asia. His involvement in Indonesia began in the 1960s when he and his colleagues at Cornell University came out with the Cornell Paper.

 

It was Anderson who had more insight on Pakistani politics than me, and would invariably draw comparisons between Pakistan and Indonesia, in terms of shared history of military coups.

This famous paper exposed the military coup as a premeditated act by a group of generals rather than a knee-jerk reaction to the fear of the communist revolution. Inevitably the publication led to a long ban on Anderson’s entry into Indonesia which lasted from 1972 to 1998 when General Suharto was finally overthrown. In between, he nurtured his love for South East Asia by turning his attention to another coup-ridden Thailand, where he again dissected the culture of military coups with great precision, prophetic vision and clarity.

Benedict Anderson’s essay, Withdrawal Symptom, published in 1977, is still considered the best study of Thai politics of the 1970s. He also co-authored a collection of short stories in Thai.

Yet Indonesia remained his abiding and lasting love where he has legions of admirers and mourners. He taught himself Indonesian languages and acquired sufficient proficiency to joke and think in the language. He also adopted two sons from Indonesia.

My knowledge and interest in the work of Benedict Anderson was further amplified by my connection with him forged during a conference on Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State in Patna in 2003. Like all delegates to the conference, we hung out in proximity of Benedict Anderson, who was the star speaker at the conference. By sheer luck, he was my neighbour in the hotel where all delegates were housed. We invariably shared the breakfast and lunch table during the conference where Professor Anderson shared his vast knowledge of the South East Asian politics, nationalisms and military coups of various stripes. Anderson would ask me searching question about the Pakistan politics and the military coup in particular.

Like a true scholar, he wanted to learn as much as he could from the people of the region. I explained the current situation as much as my knowledge allowed. But it was Anderson who had more insight on Pakistani politics than me, and would invariably draw comparisons between Pakistan and Indonesia, in terms of shared history of military coups.

I found his knowledge of Pakistan as deep and as insightful as of Indonesia and South East Asia in general. I can say that I learned more about the comparative trajectories of military coups in Indonesia and Pakistan from him than the scores of books I had read before.

Yet despite his vast knowledge, he was unpretentious, warm and engaging. In the decades or more since, my own thinking on politics and nationalism is still being continually shaped by conversations I had with him during the conference and his subsequent works.

Benedict Anderson was born into an Anglo-Irish family in China in 1936. His father James Anderson was the Customs Commissioner in the service of the Chinese administration. His brother, Perry Anderson, has written movingly of the father’s stay in China and of the Anderson family. In 1941, the Anderson family moved to the US because of the impending Japanese advance on China.

Benedict Anderson grew up in California and was educated at Cambridge and Cornell. His Marxism was honed while he was a student at Cambridge during an era of anti-colonial movements and political ferment.

This brush with the historic epoch was to shape his political worldview deeply marked by Marxist and anti-colonial thinking.

The Andersons have lived a peripatetic existence. The family moved back to Ireland in 1945 for a brief period only to realise the strain of multiple belongings. However, this nomadic existence was a blessing in disguise because the peripatetic life was to instill in the Anderson sibling an international and global outlook.

Not comfortably anchored anywhere in the world, the Andersons have lived in languages, ideas, theories and global movements. The family’s legendary global-mindedness and instinctive multi-lingualism has led Jeet Heer of the New Republic to describe him as a man with no country. The Anderson clan is truly global and internationalist in outlook and intellectual sympathies, fluent in most of the European and South East Asian languages. Benedict’s younger brother, Perry Anderson, is a formidable historian in his own right. Another sister, Melanie Anderson, fluent in many languages too, is a distinguished anthropologist.

Sadiq Gill: A Plan for Anarchy VS Current System

Blog by Sadiq Gill

Guest Blog Post By Lance Winslow

We have all heard the saying that less government is better government. However there may be a point of diminishing returns as you get to absolute zero or no government at all. Those who call themselves libertarians and take it to the lowest common denominator risk being called Anarchists.

But in reality Anarchy is a plan with no plan. So if you are debating with an Anarchist or a Libertarian who has jumped off the deep end there are a couple of things you can do to bring them to their senses. Ask them this pointed question for me:

Now then show me your "Complete Plan" strategy and implementation proposal for a change over from the current system? Show me. Let's debate. If you do not have a plan then one might say you are talking out your pants and from where you are sitting your message is muffled in methane gas and human waste. Is Anarchy the making of Bio-Fuel too?

The reason I mentioned this is anarchy by its definition does not have a plan, it is an utter free-for-all and it cannot work. Is this the type of civilization or society that you wish to live in? Those who preach anarchy need to come to their senses and it makes sense for us to stick up for a system of government which is time-tested and proven. Again you should ask them:

Show me your plan. Show me the empirical data. Show me the prototype and working model. Show me this up and running and working and show me you have duplicated it. Until then, you have nothing but theory.

Whereas, I have all you see, every where you go in the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind working better than expected and better than any other form of human civilization that we can find in the written human record - as my proof.

I win. You lose and that is scientific fact, not Sci Fi Fantasy. Show me, I am originally from Missouri. Dear Anarchist - Take That!

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.