[Apologies for duplicates. The earlier submission had the serious defect\nof failing to clearly set off my remarks from the excerpt of the Tribune\narticle itself. IMCers: please delete the earlier submission. Sorry.]\n<\/p>
An excerpt:\n
\nThose images of protesters clad in black with their faces\nhidden behind scarves and hoods as they stormed police lines in Genoa make\nit tempting to dismiss their opposition to globalization as stemming from\nanger, not reflection.<\/i>\n<\/p>
The name of their rallying cry doesn't help either. Anarchism sounds\ntoo much like a synonym for the chaos and confusion they recently brought\nto the streets of Italy and to previous economic summits in Seattle, Washington,\nD.C., Melbourne, Prague and Quebec City. Yet it would be foolish to write\noff those young militants as inspired by nothing more profound than \"Easy\nRider\" or some other version of the Hells Angels' philosophy of life.<\/i>\n<\/p>
The anarchist movement has a long history and a perfectly coherent\nideology.<\/i>\n<\/p>
It is not likely to go away anytime soon. It is more likely due for\na renaissance. Arguably, it is tailor-made for the increasing numbers of\npeople who feel alienated by the incessant absorption of all the Earth's\nsocieties and local cultures into a brave, new, one world of free trade\nand Golden Arches.<\/i>\n<\/p>
That last mouthful may sound a bit mystical. But anarchism can be\neasily understood by considering a kind of work-a-day experience many of\nus share.<\/i>\n
\nfrom Ron Grossman, \"Rebels with many causes,\" Chicago\nTribune, August 5, 2001<\/i><\/b>\n\nTake a gander at this\narticle, you radicals you, and pray tell what you think of it. This\ncould signal an important opening for discussion.\n<\/p>
I'm trying to make up my mind on whether the article was favorable or\nunfavorable. I'm having a hard time deciding. On the one hand, we can rejoice\nwhen any radical, visionary political ideas are treated with anything other\nthan contempt and vilification in the corporate press. (Am I the only one\nhere who noticed the irony of this article appearing in the same rightwing\nrag that, 115 years ago, beat the drums most loudly for the bloodthirsty\nlynchmob against the renowned anarchist martyrs of Haymarket Square?) On\nthe other hand, the conclusion that it leaves us with invites dismissal\nof anarchism as thoroughly quixotic tilting at windmills. It invites the\nreader to view radicals as \"beautiful dreamers.\" This serves the interests\nof the powerful almost as well as contempt and vilification.\n<\/p>
Unfortunately, a retort to this sort of misleading and harmful argument\nrequires skill and careful thought. This shows our work is cut out for\nus. I almost think one picture like that at http:\/\/www.indymedia.org\/front.php3?article_id=57531&group=webcast\nis worth more than a thousand words. But we also need some historical analyses\nto really show in positive terms why the author's dismissive conclusion\nis silly and wrong. I think we could come up with many practical examples\nto show that radical political thought is actually eminently practical.\nOnce upon a time, for example, abolitionists would have been similarly\ndismissed. Or, for that matter, should we dismiss the commandmant \"Thou\nshalt not kill\" as silly and impractical because it is too often violated?\n<\/p>
This makes me think that perhaps another powerful and more accessible\nline of reasoning we can use in defense of radical, visionary politics\nis an ethical one. Who really thinks it's right in principle for one man\nor woman to lord it over another against that person's will? Most people\nwould say that's wrong as a general rule. But we don't often use or honor\nthis sort of ethical reasoning, or draw from it its logical conclusions\nin the political, economic, and social spheres.\n<\/p>
I often hear inane arguments against ethically based politics, usually\nby people with extremely retrograde politics, but sometimes even by self-professed\n\"progressives\" -- arguments, for example, that the Geneva Convention is\nsomehow silly, because war is inherently cruel and immoral, or the Convention's\nrules are regularly violated. They thus miss entirely the moral tenor that\nthe Convention seeks to uphold, one entirely consistent with humane principles,\nprinciples which, if followed, would end war altogether. They also thus\nmiss the importance of demanding accountability from the powerful for abiding\nby the commitments they themselves have made, and the importance of attacking\ntheir hypocrisy when they fail to do so. The more regularly they fail to\ndo so (as in, practically every war), the more powerful a tool this could\nbe. We must use this tool among others to discredit the legitimacy of the\nrulers for failing to follow their own rules. If those who rule are themselves\nshown to be lawless, they can then rule only by force alone. This greatly\nweakens them, because the strongest, most crucial reinforcement to the\nrule of the powerful is the willing submission of the ruled, without which\nit is ultimately fatally undermined.\n<\/p>
As to historical analysis, we can show people that the most powerful\nindividuals and institutions, when conditions are right, can tumble like\na house of cards. We already have examples of just such collapses recently\nat hand. The Soviet Empire seemed immovable in 1980. It collapsed ten years\nlater. Even if it wasn't really a victory for democracy, it shows that\nrapid change is possible, and oppressive institutions are anything but\nimmortal. We should apply this analysis further to all the other institutions\nthat today seem immovable to most people: the state, the corporation, the\npolice, and capitalism itself. When people come to understand how relatively\nyoung these institutions are, when they come to understand, beneath the\nseeming invincible strength, the real fragility that undergirds them, then\nchange will come to seem possible, practical, necessary, and eventually,\ninevitable.\n<\/p>
Eben Fodor -- in a book not ostensibly about radical politics, \nBetter\nNot Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community\n-- <\/i>makes the following interesting remark: Having grown up in rural\nMaryland, he attests that one could, in many small towns and rural communities\nin this country, live for all one's formative years without everr seeing\na \"cop.\" This held true until relatively late in the last century. Once\nin a while, one of them might appear on a trip from out of a major city.\nThe fact that the police state now seems to be so much more ever present\nis a very recent phenomenon, and owes much to the wider phenomenon of urban\nsprawl and the attendant decimation of the countryside and rural and smalltown\nlife and economies in this country. The seemingly ever present \"police\"\nare thus a product of the perverted merger of rural life with urban life\nunder American capitalism, known in this country as automotive \"suburbanization.\n<\/p>
\"The police\" as a specialized profession of \"law enforcement,\" i.e.,\na separate class of fulltime, specialized \"experts\" charged with enforcing\nthe law against<\/b> their fellow citizens, is a phenomenon that only\nstarted appearing in the biggest cities of this country around the middle\nof the 19th century. No doubt the generation of Americans who fought the\nrevolution against British rule would have viewed such a concept with the\nutmost horror, aversion, and contempt. Nor would they have ever dreamed\nthat freeborn American men and women would passively submit to such a ubiquitous,\nomnipresent subversion of freedom. And yet, the magic of corporate state\npropaganda has made such a state of affairs seem natural, ineluctable,\nand reasonable.\n<\/p>
And so it goes with many other oppressive institutions that are taken\nfor granted. A detailed historical analysis although hard work, is in order.\nAnd we ought not to fear that it will bore people. I predict we will be\nsurprised to find how receptive they are to it. The support for most such\ninstitutions is mostly cooked up by elite-controlled media and is, to quote\na popular aphorism, \"a mile wide and an inch deep.\"\n\n\n<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/www.chicagotribune.com\/news\/opinion\/perspective\/chi-0108050190aug05.story","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Does this \"favorable\" article in the Chicago Tribune signal an important but little heralded opening?","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2001\/08\/anarchist-article-in-tribune.html","filesize":"8.4 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2001\/08\/9186.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}