The next time you meet a so-called "Anarchist..."

...remind them of New Orleans.

*This* is what anarchy looks like.

Talk about idiot ideologies.

Most anarchists that I know would be organizing search and rescue missions or foraging for food instead of waiting for help from the federal government.

That's if they weren't dressed in black and throwing rocks at the police like they do at every trade agreement protest.

Equating a handful of angry teenagers with the sum of a philosophy that dates back to the ancient Greeks is ridiculous. It's like discounting existentialism because you don't like the films of Stan Brakhage or Kenneth Anger.

Good luck with that approach, you'll need it.

Which happens to be at odds with what most anarchists understand by the political philosophy of anarchy. In fact, what you are witnessing now is not that anarchy at all, but rather a symptom of authoritarian societies like our own when the trappings of authoritarianism collapse. What you are seeing now, in other words, is not anarchy at all, but the anarchy of an authoritarian society without its authoritarian controls: the kind of anarchy that only happens in authoritarian societies, and never would happen in an anarchic society. This is not what anarchy looks like. This is what fascism without the police apparatus looks like. This behavior, furthermore, is not "human nature," whatever the revered European philosophers of the 17th and 18th century may have imagined. This is a form of behavior cultivated in individualistic societies with no cooperative ethics. It is historically contingent and the product of a form of social organization: our own. These are not nature's monsters; they are, rather, monstrers of our own making.

to leave tens of thousands of people in the path of a powerful storm because those who make the decisions couldn't care less about their welfare.

nt

is a natural disastor. It has nothing to do with anarchy. Gandhi said that a non-violent human society would be orderly anarchy.

Well put. A startling majority of people perceive anarchy as being synonymous with unmitigated violence and disruption.

The chaos we are seeing, as you say, is not an affirmation of the Hobbesean definition of man in his barbaric natural state, but rather the a very predictable response contingent on a number of subjective factors.

The "anarchism" of Emma Goldman has much more to do with education, self-empowerment, and transcending our primitive mode of existence which is far too dependent on the avarice of governmental control and military might.

To be sure. Not in a deterministic way, but the kind of subjectivity produced is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for this particular kind of response. Thanks, by the way.

This is what Capitalism looks like in a disaster situation.

Even the inadequate top-down response by those who are able to live above the fray.

More of a reflection of Patriarchal authoritarianism than anything.

What you saw with the tsunami victims helping each other was true anarchy.

What you see now in NOLA is the results of a controlled police state when the facade of "control" has fallen away.

..about the Spanish Civil War. Anarchists made up a significant portion of the Republican (read: anti-fascist troops) side. They were the first to get wiped out by the Nationalists because they tried to do everything by consensus.

Most American 'anarchists' are ignorant of that and the rest of anarchy history.

Libertarianism, anarchism, autism--same difference to me.

self-rule?

they would like to have a beer with over someone who they wouldn't...

I suggest you do some research.

Not all that easy to pin down--I believe there are several schools.

But connecting them to bearded bomb-throwers or trust-fundies in black is a good way to discredit a strangely idealistic set of beliefs.

Anarchism: Anarchism is the political philosophy of those who believe that a society based on shared ownership and voluntary agreements among individuals and groups is possible and that without each person's consent and involvement in the social order all established forms of government essentially rest upon the threat of force. As a result, some anarchists believed in the use of violence to bring about change. Emma Goldman, however, believed that social change would occur only when people's beliefs and attitudes changed, and hence her lectures were intended to educate and to inspire her audiences with a vision of social harmony. She identified with the anti-authoritarian tradition of writers Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman, and Leo Tolstoy as well as prominent anarchist political theorists like Peter Kropotkin and Michael Bakunin.

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Curricula/glossary.html

This is exactly what anarchy is.

The Emma Goldman Papers (DL SunSITE)Biography, writings, photographs, video clips, bibliography, and school curriculum materials about topics related to her life, work, and social change in ...
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/

dictionary.com negates Emma Goldman's existance.:shrug:


Emma Goldman (1869–1940) stands as a major figure in the history of American radicalism and feminism. An influential and well-known anarchist of her day, Goldman was an early advocate of free speech, birth control, women’s equality and independence, and union organization. Her criticism of mandatory conscription of young men into the military during World War I led to a two-year imprisonment, followed by her deportation in 1919. For the rest of her life until her death in 1940, she continued to participate in the social and political movements of her age, from the Russian Revolution to the Spanish Civil War.

are no more than congealed ideologies. And like textboooks they are put together by authors.

It would be quite easy to go through Webster's and pick apart hundreds if not thousands of ill-defined terms.

Anarchy is a loaded term and how we have come to define it currently is due to certain indoctrinations.

Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism... Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others.

-- Emma Goldman

The added definition of anarchy basically meaning 'chaos' came much much later, and is only one of many definitions now.

stop the oppressive evolution of word meanings, that sort of thing.

Or perhaps you can explain why the OP decided THAT definiton of anarchy related to anarchism?

The fact that you think you cant tell Anarchists what they believe instructs us alot more about you than Anarchy.

vastly different things.

...not 'without order'."

"This is not 'The Land of Do-As-You-Please', this is 'The Land of Do-What-Thou-Wilt'."

"This is not anarchy. This is chaos."

- Alan Moore, V For Vendetta

this is libertarian "heaven."

More importantly, why am I responsible for this? We got this big ass authoritarion police state government responsible for this mess and you want to blame libertarians. That makes about as much sense as invading Iraq for 9-11.

There's no "authoritarians" at all in New Orleans now, and it's a bloody fucking disaster.

Being a cynical old "big government liberal," I doubt that this will tell you what a childish fantasy libertarianism really is. But it ought to.

We've got a big government sitting around doing nothing right now. They created this disaster, not a bunch of out of work syndicalists.

not just a pr puppet but a leader who actually
cares about this nation .

I keep hearing the words from the Movie Excalibur
when sir Lancelot and Guinevere wake to find
Excalibur between them ..Lancelot screams out
"A king without a sword a land without a king"

Despair washes over the land without Arther
at the helm .

I feel afraid for our nation without a leader .

I've feared for our nation for almost 5 years now.

:hug:

This is the and economic political criminality of the "every man for himself" dictate of the Capitalist culture.

Sadly the way most people come to (mis)define anarchy has been crafted by the same capitalist indoctrination that creates the conditions for what we are witnessing in New Orleans-and elsewhere.

Why don't you research it?

Here's a google page for ya:

http://www.google.com/search?q=anarchists&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations. Bush is their choice. I doubt there are very few people left of FAUX who would believe Anarchism has even the remotest influence on what happens in the US.

Go read your Bakunin, dude.

...remind tham that this is also what unvarnished libertarianism looks like. :evilgrin:

Very helpful. From where I stand, the big authoritarian police state made this mess, why don't you take it up with them. From where I sit, this is libertarian hell. Translation, we live under a big fucking dictatorship that doesn't give a shit about what happens to poor, black people.

Poor black people deserve to be poor because they choose not to be self-reliant and affluent. It's their own damn fault. It's not the role of government to help anyone out.

THAT'S the libertarian message.

Any softening of that is not pure libertarianism.

That's the LP talking. Anarcho-syndicalists view capitalism as the economic system of authoritarianism. Get a clue. You can start here -> www.spunk.org

I'm aware of the theory of anarchism from the leftist perspective.

I'm talking about right wing libertarianism -- the "It's all up to the individual" variety.

and we see from the tragedy unfolding in Katrina's wake what an ill-thought out, childish, and fundamentally malicious fantasy libertarianism is.

I read recently that anarchists generally changed their minds about anarchy after the Russian Revolution when the realized what a little organization could achieve.

The Russian revolution strengthened the ideas of Anarchists, becuase it showed what they had said all along, that authoritarianism of any stripe is tyranny.

He says that in Cuba, anarchists had some sway before the Russian Revolution. After the Revolution their influence waned because people seeking change saw how successful the Russian Revolution was, all due to a little bit of organization.

He says that Jose Martí wasn't impressed by the anarchists either (in the late 1800s, IIRC).

IIRC, this debate largely took place in the exile community in NYC and reflected arguments about revolution that were occurring not just in the context of Cuban liberation.

Incidentally, I don't think that there's a liberation movement, fully or partially successful before or after 1917 that was driven by anarchist ideology.

You said that anarchists changed thier position. Now you are saying that thier influence waned in Cuba. Which is a completely different claim.

Yes, after the russian revolution people desperately wanted to believe it was a success and that gave a great deal of credibility to those who had similar ideas as the bolshiviks.

organization. So obviously, some were changing their minds. By the time Castro was forming his government, there were no anarchists represented probably because there were so few (and they were so poorly organized). IIIRC, Castro's first government had only one are two Marxists, a couple communists, and the rest were some variation of socialist, except for one or two conservatives.

I think what you're saying is that, although there were fewer, they felt more convinced they were right. That's not inconsistent with what I said, so you're post title there is a little overboard.

New Orleans today is PRECISELY the society that application of their policies would create.

As the CNN reporter said of the crowds waiting at the convention center, "No one is in charge here."

The rich have left and are ensconced at their vacation homes or in luxury hotels, the poor are dying...or treated as vermin.

Something better may eventually arise from it.

And, quite frankly, I tend to prefer her description of the ideal society: "The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every human being to liberty and well-being."

A true anarchistic society would have modulated to adapt through cooperative assistance. Instead, Americans are forced to experience the frustration of dealing with a grandiloquent and wholly unresponsive president - one who would much rather posture for cameras than roll up his sleeves and lead the recovery effort. Which do you prefer?

A true anarchistic society would not have allowed media deregulation and corporate greed to dissolve civil society into a mind-numbing barrage of hyper-polarized blatherings from a near infinite procession of government-funded talking heads. Instead, it would have used its media resources much more wisely - quite possibly solving the problem long before it had a chance to happen, through public education and pre-emptive safety measures. Again, which of the two would you prefer?

Anarchism is not about cracking skulls and stealing pampers from the local Circle K.

It is about casting off the clumsiness of bureaucracy; it is about educating the people to understand that a government unresponsive - even deleterious - to their needs is one that they must abandon immediately, for their own good.

"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name!"

"Crime is naught but misdirected energy"
Emma Goldman

:thumbsup:

Collective mobs without leadership are VERY stupid. Sociological fact.

Sections of that mob are also inherently inclined towards taking advantage of people and using violence if they need to.

And your comment displays a profound level of ignorance of the historical depth and importance of anarchist and anti-authortarian thought. Anarchists like Emma Goldman would be horrifed that you had managed to equate their humanitarian visions for a better world with the chaos unfolding in New Orleans.

Aren't you a history teacher???

I nominate DrunkenMaster's post (above).

sorry about that. Just as anyone who wants a pure capitalist system witohut government regulation should look at New Orleans. This is how people act when there is no government. This is man in his natural, hobbsian state.

Anarchists can say they are idealists all they want. So were many communists. Turns out that, in practice, it doesn't work.

It can, and has been argued that man's "natural state" is much more progressive, cooperative and communal in nature than the cynical treatment Hobbes applies to it.

His solution in Leviathan, by the way, is total authoritarianism.

Ironically, your argument against Communism - citing anarchism as an equally misguided parallel - is truly an indictment of authoritarianism masquerading as populist ideology, rather than the practice of Communism itself.

I'm not speaking on behalf of all Communists or Anarchists here, but I do believe a couple of junior college courses in Philosophy would have prevented this misguided Anarchist-bashing from happening in the first place.

Anarchy has nothing to do with the chaos in NO. The truth is that you owe the five day work week to ANARCHISTS who started the US labor movement with the IWW. The labor movement wouldn't EXIST in this nation without anarchists like Emma Goldman and Big Bill Heywood. Being without leaders is NOT being without order. I suggest reading the documents of the EZLN in Chiapas, Mexico for further examples of how community-based equalitarian systems can function.

YOU may require a Big Brother to keep you from killing and looting, but all I need is a personal code of ethics and an attachment to my community. It seems to me that the poverty and urban misery caused by our current system are much more to blame than a historical system of philosophy that speaks to individual freedoms.

You blaming anarchy for this situation is just as wrong as blaming anarchy for the Watts riots, Kent State or the burning of Detroit after the killing of MLK jr. It's not just incorrect, it's completely baseless.

Trying to clue some of the denizens of DU in on the anarcho-syndicalism is hopeless. They've been forever brainwashed by the Murray Rothbards of the world, who have some how made the opposites of capitalism and anarchism equate. You're wasting your time.

I'm gonna go home, sip an absinthe, smoke a bowl and play with my cat. Peace.

This isnt Anarchy as much as those who want to smear anarchy may want it to be so.

I guess even on DU it is ok to treat the marginalized like children.

The idea that people will behave in the absence of authority is completely and total nonsense that is historically baseless.

Maybe you require a master, I dont.

Theoretical anarchy = theoretical Communism.

Neither take into account what people are actually like.

ive had my fill for today.

Why would someone in an anarchistic society steal a car?

"Might makes Right" is the OPPOSITE of anarchism: it is commonly called DICTATORSHIP.

Leo Tolstoy (yeah, him) was a Christian Anarchist. Emma Goldman was an anarchist. Ivan Illych was a Catholic Anarchist. The EZLN and Mayan community in Chiapas is modeled on equalitarian anarchist principles of organization. Native American culture was essentially anarchist (or radically egalitarian) in nature.

Saddam Hussein (a firm believer in might-makes-right) is NOT an anarchist, he is a DICTATOR. Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, all likewise. ANARCHISTS oppose false authority, they don't contribute to it.

There are a number of examples of anarchic governments in history--quite successful til the authoritarians came with their soldiers and guns and took over again by violence.

There are also everyday examples every day. Every time people divvy up the workload on the job and get it done without the boss taking all the decisions, that's anarchy in operation.

Open your brain!

compounded by the incompetence of the government. And if this anarchy then I can't blame them.

Anarchy is ... not defining what anarchy is.

If you put a definition on it, you've missed the point.

If you try to make it match your definition, you've missed the point.

If you think it would be fine, so long as people follow some form of moral code, you've missed the point.

Such as at the Sheehan protests, *you'll* be reminded of what Anarchy looks like.

Thanks.

...against his BS post. I am so encouraged by how many people here at DU are sympathtic to anarchist theory going by this thread, it feels like sometimes I'm in the midst of, well, more statist liberals. But yeah, very encouraging. Rock on DrunkenMaster!

but i'd Like to thank you wiLL for insuLting quite a few DUers.

Love you lots. And Scott and everyone else you work with. Never ever STOP what you do!

as anyone would/should.

Lori Price

This has become a flame war.