The Anarchism Dilemma, Violence or Freedom?

The Anarchism Dilemma, Violence or Freedom? When we hear from the mass media or see firsthand phenomena that publicize violence, destruction, rebellion, chaos, and other things related to an action that has relevance to the above example, our minds must be stuck and conclude that all these actions are Anarchist.

This was added to and strengthened by the stigmatization carried out by the mass media which seemed to justify the increasingly severe labeling of Anarchism.

In fact, if defined definitively, destruction, rebellion, chaos, etc. are acts of Vandalism which mean destruction.

Whereas anarchism itself is a thought or principle that aspires to abolish the hierarchy that is thought to classify individuals against other individuals which has the potential to lead to a desire to control between humans and other humans which ultimately forms a hierarchical order of individual excellence categories.

Then, have there been individuals or groups who adhered to the ideology of Anarchism ever committed Vandalism?

Yes, but if Anarchists are sometimes violent, does that mean Anarchism is violent?

However, aren't there various countries in the name of Communism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Religion, and others that have also committed acts of violence, even claiming many lives?

However, why does Vandalism only emphasize and be pinned on groups acting in the name of Anarchism?

Listen carefully. The analogy is like this, when a civilian is in army uniform, he can use the power or authority contained in an army uniform by using violence against individuals or groups that try to tarnish national stability or state security in the name of nationalism.

Should we assume that these civilians are advocating violence? Of course not.

We will surely be angry at the accusation. I mean, to put it simply, in certain situations and conditions, a person may have to resort to force accidentally or voluntarily.

This person can be a Nationalist, Socialist, Liberal, Humanist, or even Anarchist.

However, it must be remembered that I do not condone vandalism in the name of a particular ideology in less threatening circumstances of urgency.

And, yes, as I said that in certain situations and conditions a person will inevitably use violence.

Anarchism is not a religious, state, or material system but a system that respects and inspires common justice, frees one's mind from the entanglement of the dogma concerned, works together to create mutual prosperity, does not want to dominate each other, then shares the benefits they have with others. for weeks.

All of that will be realized if there is an individual consciousness which will become a shared awareness.

Moreover, the fundamental view of Anarchism is to give mutual trust.

If common consciousness is realized, there will be no more historical record of the revolution which resulted in bloodshed.

The ruler will become powerless by himself, because in reality the number of rulers is a minority or less in a power hierarchy.

Often humans see themselves only as themselves, while whatever is out there is not themselves.

Whereas in the beginning all came from the same entity, such as a unitary organ.

If one person is injured in a group and is not given help, naturally everyone in the group will get sick.

And, if in a country there are people who are injured and not treated, then naturally that country will fall sick.

My freedom is a freedom that functions for the freedom of all people. Oppression for some people is slavery for others. I can only break free if I acknowledge the freedom and humanity of others.