When I was much younger, I thought that the most important political stance that one could take was to be apolitical. I came to this over simplified conclusion by observing that the strict barriers of political ideology often inhibit human progress and problem solving. Of course, this was the reductive thinking of an adolescent. Because, I came to understand that our very existence and all things experienced are in some manner political. Politics is not limited, by any means, to the self-important ramblings of wealthy people in governance. In fact, that is just a spec of dust on the proverbial beach. Further, the manner in which we give such credence to "hot topic issues " is often problematic.

I began to read and study a great deal about various movements ranging from the French Revolution to the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. (These are among the more commonly known, as I also studied more obsure events such as the Turner Rebellions, etc.) I also began putting what I read in Historical, Sociological, and Cultural perspective. And, I began to understand that such elements all carried an amount of political significance in of themselves.

As different as each situation is, there is a very common back story to each incidence of changing regimes and even micro-political phenomenon. That thread lead me to my most strongly held political opinion.

The solution to many of the world's problems is anarcho-communism. "Oh Lord," the reader is thinking. "She's one of 'those." But, let me ask you to stop and just consider the following. After which, you may go back to squabbling over issues with proposed solutions that seem to be bandaids on bullet holes, as far as I can tell.

Here is a brief explaination of the general tenets of this theology, and it is not at all dominated by angry rebellious teenagers and out of touch flighty vegans doing yoga. (Though, all that has its place, of course.) Essentially, a great deal of human suffering stems from two sources throughout all known time: a struggle for resources and oppression. Both of which are completely unnecessary. There is literally no reason for one group of humans to have more than they can ever hope to use, constantly acquiring even more, while other groups of humans cling to the fringes of survival. This has always been true, and with current technology even more so. This is the part where someone inevitably makes a comment about the importance of competition for innovation and motivation. I strongly refute that claim. To begin with, it is the bastard child of Social Darwinism (a load of bs itself). We have no evidence that supports this thought, and a world of evidence that refutes it. Throughout the known existence of human kind it has been out ability to create community that enabled ALL human progress beginning with organized farming.

That said, it is never the right of one group of humans to subjugate any other group based on anything. I think most of us can agree to that. The question is: can we practice it, or do we get needlessly angry when asked to acknowledge this in the micro-political arena?

Now is the part where someone comments about how unrealistic and impractical anarcho- communism is and how communism in general has always failed. I point the reader to the reality that we have seen such structures work in the past in small communities. The majority of the world once thought that the concept of democracy was radical. Anarchist rhetoric doesn't state that there will be zero governing, but that voluntary groups of people would be self governing. It doesn't propose that it can cure all human tragedy. It merely takes the possibility for mass atrocities committed in the name of resources or dominance off the table. Ridiculous? Irrational? Perhaps, but at it's core, it's the most egalitarian rhetoric I have ever come across.