An excerpt from An Anarchist FAQ. The full version is available at http:\/\/www.infoshop.org\/faq\/index.html\r\n\r\nA.1 What is anarchism?\r\n\r\nAnarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, \"the\r\nabsence of a master, of a sovereign.\"<\/i> [P-J Proudhon, What is Property\r\n<\/b>, p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims\r\nto create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together \r\nas equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control\r\n- be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the \r\nindividual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nIn the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State\r\nmovement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a\r\nsimple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that\r\npower and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate\r\nmore co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and\r\neconomic organisation.\"<\/i> [The Politics of Individualism<\/b>, p. 106]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nHowever, \"anarchism\" and \"anarchy\" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented \r\nideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean \"chaos\" or\r\n\"without order,\" and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos\r\nand a return to the \"laws of the jungle.\"\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThis process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For\r\nexample, in countries which have considered government by one person\r\n(monarchy) necessary, the words \"republic\" or \"democracy\" have been used\r\nprecisely like \"anarchy,\" to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a\r\nvested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply\r\nthat opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a\r\nnew form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta\r\nexpresses it: \r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without \r\ngovernment there could only be disorder and confusion, it was \r\nnatural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government,\r\nshould sound like absence of order.\"<\/i> [Anarchy<\/b>, p. 16]\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\nAnarchists want to change this \"common-sense\" idea of \"anarchy,\" so people\r\nwill see that government and other hierarchical social relationships are\r\nboth harmful and<\/b> unnecessary:\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only \r\nunnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just because \r\nit means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody: natural \r\norder, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete freedom \r\nwithin complete solidarity.\"<\/i> [Op. Cit.<\/b>, pp. 16]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThis FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas regarding \r\nanarchism and the meaning of anarchy. But that is not all.\r\nAs well as combating the distortions produced by the \"common-sense\" \r\nidea of \"anarchy\", we also have to combat the distortions that anarchism \r\nand anarchists have been subjected to over the years by our political \r\nand social enemies. For, as Bartolomeo Vanzetti put it, anarchists are \r\n\"the radical of the radical -- the black cats, the terrors of many, of \r\nall the bigots, exploiters, charlatans, fakers and oppressors. \r\nConsequently we are also the more slandered, misrepresented, \r\nmisunderstood and persecuted of all.\"<\/i> [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo \r\nVanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti<\/b>, p. 274] \r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nVanzetti knew what he was talking about. He and his comrade Nicola \r\nSacco were framed by the US state for a crime they did not commit \r\nand were, effectively, electrocuted for being foreign anarchists in\r\n1927. So this FAQ will have to spend some time correcting the slanders \r\nand distortions that anarchists have been subjected to by the capitalist\r\nmedia, politicians, ideologues and bosses (not to mention the distortions \r\nby our erstwhile fellow radicals like liberals and Marxists). Hopefully\r\nonce we are finished you will understand why those in power have spent\r\nso much time attacking anarchism -- it is the one idea which can effectively \r\nensure liberty for all and end all systems based on a few having power\r\nover the many.\r\n\r\nA.1.1 What does \"anarchy\" mean?\r\n\r\n<\/p>
The word \"anarchy\"<\/i><\/b> is from the Greek, prefix an<\/b> \r\n(or a<\/b>), meaning \r\n\"not,\" \"the want of,\" \"the absence of,\"<\/i> or \"the lack of\"<\/i>, plus archos<\/b>, \r\nmeaning \"a ruler,\" \"director\", \"chief,\" \"person in charge,\"<\/i> or \"authority.\"<\/i> \r\n\r\nOr, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning\r\n\"contrary to authority.\"<\/i> [Anarchism<\/b>, p. 284]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nWhile the Greek words anarchos<\/i><\/b> and anarchia<\/i><\/b> \r\nare often taken to\r\nmean \"having no government\"<\/i> or \"being without a government,\"<\/i> as can be \r\nseen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply \"no \r\ngovernment.\"<\/i> \"An-archy\"<\/i><\/b> means \"without a ruler,\"<\/i> \r\n\r\nor more generally, \r\n\"without authority,\"<\/i> and it is in this sense that anarchists have \r\ncontinually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing\r\nthat anarchism \"attacks not only capital, but also the main sources\r\nof the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State.\"<\/i> \r\n[Op. Cit.<\/b>,\r\np. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means \"not necessarily absence of \r\norder, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule.\"<\/i> [Benjamin \r\nTucker, Instead of a Book<\/b>, p. 13] Hence David Weick's excellent \r\nsummary:\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"Anarchism can be understood as the generic<\/b> social and political\r\nidea that expresses negation of all<\/b> power, sovereignty, domination,\r\nand hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . \r\nAnarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] \r\ngovernment (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus \r\nof anarchist critique.\"<\/i> [Reinventing Anarchy<\/b>, p. 139]\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nFor this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, \r\nanarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy.<\/i><\/b> Why? Because \r\nhierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since \r\nthe state is the \"highest\" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, \r\nanti-state; but this is not<\/b> a sufficient definition of anarchism. This \r\nmeans that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical \r\norganisation, not only the state. In the words of Brian Morris:\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no\r\nruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government\r\nor coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. \r\nThey are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores\r\nMagon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the\r\nchurch. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to\r\nthe state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But\r\nanarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means,\r\na condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without\r\ncoercive institutions, a society organised through a federation\r\nof voluntary associations.\"<\/i> [\"Anthropology and Anarchism,\"<\/i> \r\npp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed<\/b>, no. 45, p. 38]\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nReference to \"hierarchy\" in this context is a fairly recent development -- \r\nthe \"classical\" anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin did use \r\nthe word, but rarely (they usually preferred \"authority,\" which was used as \r\nshort-hand for \"authoritarian\"). However, it's clear from their writings \r\nthat theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against any inequality of \r\npower or privileges between individuals. Bakunin spoke of this when he attacked \r\n\"official\"<\/i> authority but defended \"natural influence,\"<\/i> and also when he said: \r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-man? \r\nThen make sure that no one shall possess power.\"<\/i> [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin<\/b>, p. 271] \r\n<\/p>
\r\nAs Jeff Draughn notes, \"while it has always been a latent part of the \r\n'revolutionary project,' only recently has this broader concept of \r\nanti-hierarchy arisen for more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, the root \r\nof this is plainly visible in the Greek roots of the word 'anarchy.'\"<\/i> \r\n\r\n[Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement<\/b>] \r\n<\/p>
\r\nWe stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not \r\nlimited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian \r\neconomic and social relationships as well as political ones, particularly \r\nthose associated with capitalist property and wage labour. This can be \r\nseen from Proudhon's argument that \"Capital<\/b> . . . in the political field \r\nis analogous to government<\/b> . . . The economic idea of capitalism, \r\nthe politics \r\nof government or of authority, and the theological idea of the \r\nChurch are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack\r\none of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What \r\ncapital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does\r\nto the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice\r\nas it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing\r\nthe people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will\r\nand its reason.\"<\/i> [quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History \r\nof Anarchism<\/b>, pp. 43-44] Thus we find Emma Goldman opposing capitalism\r\nas it meant \"that man [or woman] must sell his [or her] labour\"<\/i> and, therefore, \"that his [or her] inclination and judgement are subordinated to the will of a\r\nmaster.\"<\/i> [Red Emma Speaks<\/b>, p. 50] Forty years earlier Bakunin made\r\nthe same point when he argued that under the current system \"the worker \r\nsells his person and his liberty for a given time\"<\/i> to the capitalist \r\nin exchange for a wage. [Op. Cit.<\/b>, p. 187]\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThus \"anarchy\" means more than just \"no government,\" it means opposition \r\nto all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In Kropotkin's \r\nwords, \"the origin of the anarchist inception of society . . . [lies in] \r\nthe criticism . . . of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian \r\nconceptions of society; and . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are \r\nseen in the progressive movements of mankind.\"<\/i> [Op. Cit.<\/b>, p. 158] \r\nFor Malatesta, anarchism \"was born in a moral revolt against\r\nsocial injustice\"<\/i> and that the \"specific causes of social ills\"<\/i> \r\ncould be found in \"capitalistic property and the State.\"<\/i> When\r\nthe oppressed \"sought to overthrow both State and property -- \r\nthen it was that anarchism was born.\"<\/i> [Errico Malatesta: \r\nHis Life and Ideas<\/b>, p. 19]\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThus any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely\r\nanti-state is a misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been \r\nused by the anarchist movement. As Brian Morris argues, \"when one \r\nexamines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the \r\ncharacter of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it \r\nhas never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It \r\nhas always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has \r\nbeen equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the \r\nstate.\"<\/i> [Op. Cit.<\/b>, p. 40]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nAnd, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists \r\nseek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society \r\nbased upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, \r\norder from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by \r\nauthorities. Such a society would be a true anarchy, a society without rulers.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nWhile we discuss what an anarchy could look like in section I,\r\nNoam Chomsky sums up the key aspect when he stated that in a\r\ntruly free society \"any interaction among human beings that is \r\nmore than personal -- meaning that takes institutional forms of \r\none kind or another -- in community, or workplace, family, larger \r\nsociety, whatever it may be, should be under direct control of its \r\nparticipants. So that would mean workers' councils in industry, \r\npopular democracy in communities, interaction between them, free \r\nassociations in larger groups, up to organisation of international \r\nsociety.\"<\/i> [Anarchism Interview<\/b>] Society would no longer be divided \r\ninto a hierarchy of bosses and workers, governors and governed. Rather, \r\nan anarchist society would be based on free association in participatory \r\norganisations and run from the bottom up. Anarchists, it should be noted, \r\ntry to create as much of this society today, in their organisations,\r\nstruggles and activities, as they can.\r\n\r\n\r\nA.1.2 What does \"anarchism\" mean?\r\n\r\n<\/p>
To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is \"the no-government system of socialism.\"<\/i> [Anarchism<\/b>, p. 46] In other words, \"the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by \r\nman, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and \r\ngovernment.\"<\/i> [Errico Malatesta, Towards Anarchism,\"<\/b>, p. 75]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nAnarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society \r\nwhich is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists \r\nmaintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social \r\nsystem and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social \r\nequality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually \r\nself-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and \r\ninjustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.\"<\/i> \r\n[The Political Philosophy of Bakunin<\/b>, p. 269]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThe history of human society proves this point. Liberty without equality\r\nis only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is\r\nimpossible and a justification for slavery. \r\n<\/p>
\r\nWhile there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist \r\nanarchism to communist-anarchism -- see section A.3 \r\nfor more details),\r\nthere has always been two common positions at the core of all of them -- \r\nopposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In the words of \r\nthe individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism insists \"on the \r\nabolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government \r\nof man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man.\"<\/i> [cited by Eunice Schuster, Native American Anarchism<\/b>, p. 140] All anarchists view profit, interest and rent \r\nas usury<\/b> (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions \r\nthat create them just as much as they oppose government and the State.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nMore generally, in the words of L. Susan Brown, the \"unifying link\"<\/i> within \r\nanarchism \"is a universal condemnation of hierarchy and domination \r\nand a willingness to fight for the freedom of the human individual.\"<\/i> [The\r\nPolitics of Individualism<\/b>, p. 108] For anarchists, a person cannot be\r\nfree if they are subject to state or capitalist authority. As Voltairine\r\nde Cleyre summarised:\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"Anarchism . . . teaches the possibility of a society in which the\r\nneeds of life may be fully supplied for all, and in which the \r\nopportunities for complete development of mind and body shall be\r\nthe heritage of all . . . [It] teaches that the present unjust\r\norganisation of the production and distribution of wealth must\r\nfinally be completely destroyed, and replaced by a system which\r\nwill insure to each the liberty to work, without first seeking a\r\nmaster to whom he [or she] must surrender a tithe of his [or her]\r\nproduct, which will guarantee his liberty of access to the sources\r\nand means of production. . . Out of the blindly submissive, it \r\nmakes the discontented; out of the unconsciously dissatisfied, it\r\nmakes the consciously dissatisfied . . . Anarchism seeks to arouse\r\nthe consciousness of oppression, the desire for a better society,\r\nand a sense of the necessity for unceasing warfare against capitalism\r\nand the State.\"<\/i> [Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother\r\nEarth<\/b>, pp. 23-4]\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\nSo Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of\r\nanarchy, a society based on the maxim of \"no rulers.\"<\/i> To achieve this,\r\n\"[i]n common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is \r\ncondemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and \r\nwill, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by \r\nthe producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the ideal of the \r\npolitical organisation of society is a condition of things where the \r\nfunctions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the \r\nultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to\r\nnil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy\"<\/i> [Peter\r\nKropotkin, Op. Cit.<\/b>, p. 46]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques\r\ncurrent society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential\r\nnew society -- a society that fulfils certain human needs which the\r\ncurrent one denies. These needs, at their most basic, are liberty,\r\nequality and solidarity, which will be discussed in \r\nsection A.2.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nAnarchism unites critical analysis with hope, for, as Bakunin (in his\r\npre-anarchist days) pointed out, \"the urge to destroy is a creative urge.\"<\/i> One cannot build a better society without understanding what is wrong with the present one. \r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nHowever, it must be stressed that anarchism is more than just a means\r\nof analysis or a vision of a better society. It is also rooted in \r\nstruggle, the struggle of the oppressed for their freedom. In other \r\nwords, it provides a means of achieving a new system based on the needs\r\nof people, not power, and which places the planet before profit. To\r\nquote Scottish anarchist Stuart Christie:\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"Anarchism is a movement for human freedom. It is concrete, democratic\r\nand egalitarian . . . Anarchism began -- and remains -- a direct challenge\r\nby the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes\r\nboth the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of\r\npossessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately \r\nserve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.\r\n<\/i><\/p>
\r\n\"Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it \r\naims for the maximum accord between the individual, society and nature. \r\nPractically, it aims for us to organise and live our lives in such a\r\nway as to make politicians, governments, states and their officials\r\nsuperfluous. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign\r\nindividuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within\r\nnaturally defined communities in which the means of production and\r\ndistribution are held in common.\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"Anarchists are not dreamers obsessed with abstract principles and \r\ntheoretical constructs . . . Anarchists are well aware that a perfect\r\nsociety cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle lasts forever!\r\nHowever, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against\r\nthings as they are, and for things that might be . . .\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards\r\na more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every\r\nform of injustice. In general terms, this means challenging all\r\nexploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority.\r\nIf anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith, it is that,\r\nonce the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, \r\nand that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then\r\nordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their \r\nlives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely\r\nand fairly.\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they\r\nattempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute practically whatever\r\nthey can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels\r\nof both individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is\r\npossible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships,\r\negalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid\r\nand a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical,\r\nsocial and revolutionary movements in all times and places.\"\r\n[My Granny made me an Anarchist<\/b>, pp. 162-3]\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\nAnarchism, anarchists argue, is simply the theoretical expression of \r\nour capacity to organise ourselves and run society without bosses or \r\npoliticians. It allows working class and other oppressed people to \r\nbecome conscious of our power as a class, defend our immediate \r\ninterests, and fight to revolutionise society as a whole. Only by\r\ndoing this can we create a society fit for human beings to live in.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nIt is no abstract philosophy. Anarchist ideas are put into practice \r\neveryday. Wherever oppressed people stand up for their rights, take \r\naction to defend their freedom, practice solidarity and co-operation, \r\nfight against oppression, organise themselves without leaders and bosses, \r\nthe spirit of anarchism lives. Anarchists simply seek to strengthen \r\nthese libertarian tendencies and bring them to their full fruition. \r\nAs we discuss in section J, anarchists apply their ideas in many ways \r\nwithin capitalism in order to change it for the better until such time \r\nas we get rid of it completely. Section I discusses what we aim to \r\nreplace it with, i.e. what anarchism aims for.\r\n\r\nA.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?\r\n\r\n<\/p>
Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of\r\n\"anarchism,\"<\/i> have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive\r\nand constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are\r\n\"free socialism,\" \"free communism,\" \"libertarian socialism,\"<\/i> and\r\n\r\n\"libertarian communism.\"<\/i> For anarchists, libertarian socialism,\r\nlibertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. \r\nAs Vanzetti put it:\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, \r\nthe communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- \r\nthe fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are \r\nauthoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or \r\nGovernment of their own; we believe in no State or Government.\"<\/i> [Nicola \r\nSacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti<\/b>, \r\np. 274] \r\n<\/p>
\r\nBut is this correct? Considering definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary<\/b>, we find:\r\n<\/p>
\r\nLIBERTARIAN:<\/b> one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who\r\nbelieves in free will.<\/i>\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nSOCIALISM:<\/b> a social system in which the producers possess both political\r\npower and the means of producing and distributing goods.<\/i>\r\n<\/p>
\r\nJust taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:\r\n<\/p>
\r\nLIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM:<\/b> a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political\r\npower and the means of producing and distributing goods.<\/i>\r\n<\/p>
\r\n(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political\r\nsophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions\r\nto show that \"libertarian\" does not imply \"free market\" capitalism nor\r\n\"socialism\" state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have\r\ndifferent definitions -- particularly for socialism. Those wanting to\r\ndebate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and\r\npolitically useless hobby but we will not).\r\n<\/p>
\r\nHowever, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many \r\npeople now consider the idea of \"libertarian socialism\"<\/i> to be a\r\ncontradiction in terms. Indeed, many \"Libertarians\" think anarchists are\r\njust attempting to associate the \"anti-libertarian\" ideas of \"socialism\"\r\n(as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make\r\nthose \"socialist\" ideas more \"acceptable\" -- in other words, trying to\r\nsteal the \"libertarian\" label from its rightful possessors. \r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nNothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term\r\n\"libertarian\" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. \r\nAccording to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist \r\nJoseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social<\/b> in \r\nNew York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term \"libertarian \r\ncommunism\"<\/i> dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress \r\nadopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism<\/b>, p. 75 and p. 145] \r\nThe use\r\nof the term \"Libertarian\" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s\r\nonward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist \r\nlaws and to avoid the negative associations of the word \"anarchy\" in the \r\npopular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper \r\nLe Libertaire<\/b> -- The Libertarian<\/b> -- in France in 1895, for example). \r\nSince then, particularly outside America, it has always<\/b> been associated \r\nwith anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised \"The Libertarian League\"<\/i><\/b> in July 1954, which \r\nhad staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based \r\n\"Libertarian\" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early \r\n1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe \r\ntheir political ideas (and 90 years after the expression \"libertarian \r\ncommunism\" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have \r\n\"stolen\" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a \"libertarian\" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms. \r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nAs we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called<\/b> \r\n\"socialism\" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we \r\nwill elaborate in Section H, state \"socialism\" \r\nis just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is \"not a \r\nsimple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would \r\nhave to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the \r\nindividual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state \r\ncapitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling \r\nto a fictitious collective interest.\"<\/i> [quoted by Colin Ward, \"Introduction\"<\/i>,\r\nRudolf Rocker, The London Years<\/b>, p. 1] \r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nGiven the anarchist pedigree of the word \"libertarian,\" few anarchists \r\nare happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our\r\nideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the \"term 'libertarian'\r\nitself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification\r\nof an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure\r\ncapitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it\r\nappropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century.\r\nAnd it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to\r\nspeak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who\r\nidentify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit.\"<\/i> Thus anarchists in \r\nAmerica should \"restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured\r\nby\"<\/i> the free-market right. [The Modern Crisis<\/b>, pp. 154-5] And as we\r\ndo that, we will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism.\r\n\r\nA.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?\r\n\r\n<\/p>
Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because\r\ncapitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections \r\nB and C). \r\nAnarchists reject the \"notion that men cannot work together unless they \r\nhave a driving-master to take a percentage of their product\"<\/i> and think\r\nthat in an anarchist society \"the real workmen will make their own \r\nregulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done.\"<\/i> By\r\nso doing workers would free themselves \"from the terrible bondage of\r\ncapitalism.\"<\/i> [Voltairine de Cleyre, Anarchism<\/b> p. 32 and p. 34]\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\n(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all<\/b> economic forms \r\nwhich are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, \r\nSoviet-style \"socialism\" -- better called \"state capitalism\" --, slavery \r\nand so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating \r\nthe world just now).\r\n<\/p>
\r\nIndividualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like \r\nProudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves \"socialists.\"<\/i><\/b> \r\nThey did so \r\nbecause, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay \"Modern Science and \r\nAnarchism,\"<\/i> \"[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, \r\nand true sense -- as an effort to abolish<\/b> the exploitation of Labour by \r\nCapital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists \r\nof that time.\"<\/i> [Evolution and Environment<\/b>, p. 81] Or, in Tucker's words, \r\n\r\n\"the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession \r\nof its own,\"<\/i> a claim that both \"the two schools of Socialistic \r\nthought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism\"<\/i> agreed upon. [The \r\nAnarchist Reader<\/b>, \r\np. 144] Hence the word \"socialist\"<\/i> was originally defined to include \r\n\"all those who believed in the individual's right to possess what he \r\nor she produced.\"<\/i> [Lance Klafta, \"Ayn Rand and the Perversion of \r\nLibertarianism,\"<\/i> in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed<\/b>, no. 34] \r\nThis opposition to exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true \r\nanarchists and places them under the socialist banner.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nFor most socialists, \"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits\r\nof your labour is to possess the instruments of labour.\"<\/i> [Peter Kropotkin,\r\nThe Conquest of Bread<\/b>, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for example,\r\nsupported workers' co-operatives, where \"every individual employed in the\r\nassociation . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company\"<\/i>\r\nbecause by \"participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force\r\n[i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of \r\nmanagers: it becomes the property of all workers.\"<\/i> [The General Idea\r\nof the Revolution<\/b>, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the \r\nend of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a \r\nsociety within which the producers own and control the means of production\r\n(including, it should be stressed, those workplaces which supply services). \r\nThe means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist\r\nand other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists\r\nfavour direct workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations\r\nor by the commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists). \r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nMoreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as\r\nwell as<\/b> exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves \r\nduring the production process nor have control over the product of their \r\nlabour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor \r\ncan it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This \r\nperspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon's (who inspired \r\nboth Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see \r\n\"[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere \r\n[and] the wage system abolished\"<\/i> for \"either the workman. . . will \r\nbe simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he \r\nwill participate . . . In the first case the workman is subordinated, \r\nexploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the \r\nsecond case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms \r\npart of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the \r\nslave . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is \r\nnecessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without \r\nthat, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and \r\nthere would ensue two. . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which \r\nis repugnant to a free and democratic society.\"<\/i> [Op. Cit.<\/b>, \r\np. 233 and pp. 215-216]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nTherefore all<\/b> anarchists are anti-capitalist (\"If labour owned the wealth\r\nit produced, there would be no capitalism\"<\/i> [Alexander Berkman, What is\r\nAnarchism?<\/b>, p. 44]). Benjamin Tucker, for example -- the \r\nanarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later) -- \r\ncalled his ideas \"Anarchistic-Socialism\"<\/i> and denounced capitalism as \r\na system based upon \"the usurer, the receiver of interest, \r\nrent and profit.\"<\/i> Tucker held that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, \r\nfree-market society, capitalists will become redundant and exploitation\r\nof labour by capital would cease, since \"labour. . . will. . . secure its natural wage, its entire product.\"<\/i> \r\n\r\n[The Individualist Anarchists<\/b>, p. 82 and p. 85]\r\n Such an economy will be based on mutual banking \r\nand the free exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and \r\npeasants. For Tucker, and other Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not\r\na true free market, being marked by various laws and monopolies which \r\nensure that capitalists have the advantage over working people, so ensuring\r\nthe latters exploitation via profit, interest and rent \r\n(see section G for a fuller \r\ndiscussion). Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had nothing but scorn for \r\ncapitalist society and its various \"spooks,\" which for him meant ideas \r\nthat are treated as sacred or religious, such as private property, competition, \r\ndivision of labour, and so forth.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nSo anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a specific \r\nkind -- libertarian socialists<\/i><\/b>. As the individualist anarchist Joseph A. \r\nLabadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin):\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake.\r\nAnarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism,\r\narchistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free.\r\nIndeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or\r\ndecrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As\r\nthey increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic.\"<\/i>\r\n[Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not<\/b>]\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\nLabadie stated on many occasions that \"all anarchists are socialists, \r\nbut not all socialists are anarchists.\"<\/i> Therefore, Daniel Guerin's \r\ncomment that \"Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The \r\nanarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the \r\nexploitation of man by man\"<\/i> is echoed throughout the history \r\nof the anarchist movement, be it the social or individualist wings.\r\n[Anarchism<\/b>, p. 12] Indeed, the Haymarket Martyr Adolph Fischer \r\nused almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same\r\nfact -- \"every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not \r\nnecessarily an anarchist\"<\/i> -- while acknowledging that the movement\r\nwas \"divided into two factions; the communistic anarchists and the\r\nProudhon or middle-class anarchists.\"<\/i> [The Autobiographies of the\r\nHaymarket Martyrs<\/b>, p. 81]\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nSo while social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many issues --\r\nfor example, whether a true, that is non-capitalist, free market would be \r\nthe best means of maximising liberty -- they agree that capitalism is to \r\nbe opposed as exploitative and oppressive and that an anarchist society \r\nmust, by definition, be based on associated, not wage, labour. Only \r\nassociated labour will \"decrease the powers of external wills and \r\nforces over the individual\"<\/i> during working hours and such \r\nself-management of work by those who do it is the core ideal of \r\nreal socialism. This perspective can be seen when Joseph Labadie \r\nargued that the trade union was \"the exemplification of gaining freedom \r\nby association\"<\/i> and that \"[w]ithout his union, the workman is much more \r\nthe slave of his employer than he is with it.\"<\/i> [Different Phases\r\nof the Labour Question<\/b>] \r\n<\/p>
\r\nHowever, the meanings of words change over time. Today \"socialism\" \r\nalmost always refers to state<\/b> socialism, a system that all anarchists \r\nhave opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals. \r\nAll anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on \r\nthis issue: \r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly \r\ndissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest\r\nenemies of socialism.\"<\/i> [Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative \r\nFutures<\/b>, p. 779]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nAnarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, social\r\ndemocracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail Bakunin\r\nwarned the followers of Marx against the \"Red bureaucracy\"<\/i> that would\r\ninstitute \"the worst of all despotic governments\"<\/i> if Marx's state-socialist \r\nideas were ever implemented. Indeed, the works of Stirner, Proudhon and \r\nespecially Bakunin all predict the horror of state Socialism with great\r\naccuracy. In addition, the anarchists were among the first and most vocal\r\ncritics and opposition to the Bolshevik regime in Russia.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nNevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share some<\/b> ideas with \r\n\r\nsome<\/b> Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker \r\naccepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his \r\nlabour theory of value (see section C). Marx \r\nhimself was heavily \r\ninfluenced by Max Stirner's book The Ego and Its Own<\/b>, which contains \r\na brilliant critique of what Marx called \"vulgar\" communism as well as \r\nstate socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement \r\nholding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the \r\nanarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example, \r\nAnton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are \r\nvery far from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of \r\nthe anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from \r\nMarx to Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more \r\nlibertarian Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and\r\nBolshevism and whose ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the \r\nfree association of equals.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nTherefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands \r\nin direct opposition to what is usually defined as \"socialism\" (i.e. \r\nstate ownership and control). Instead of \"central planning,\" which \r\nmany people associate with the word \"socialism,\" anarchists advocate \r\nfree association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and \r\ncommunities and so oppose \"state\" socialism as a form of state capitalism \r\nin which \"[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver, and the\r\nState the only wage payer.\"<\/i> [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist\r\nAnarchists<\/b>, p. 81] Thus anarchist's reject Marxism (what most\r\npeople think of as \"socialism\") as just \"[t]he idea of the State \r\nas Capitalist, to which the Social-Democratic fraction of the \r\ngreat Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism.\"<\/i> [Peter\r\nKropotkin, The Great French Revolution<\/b>, vol. 1, p. 31] The anarchist \r\nobjection to the identification of Marxism, \"central planning\" \r\nand State Socialism\/Capitalism with socialism will be discussed \r\nin section H. \r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nIt is because of these differences with state socialists, and to reduce \r\nconfusion, most anarchists just call themselves \"anarchists,\" as it is \r\ntaken for granted that anarchists are socialists. However, with the rise \r\nof the so-called \"libertarian\" right in the USA, some pro-capitalists \r\nhave taken to calling themselves \r\n\"anarchists\" and that is why we have laboured the point somewhat here. \r\nHistorically, and logically, anarchism implies anti-capitalism, i.e. socialism, \r\nwhich is something, we stress, that all anarchists have agreed upon (for a fuller\r\ndiscuss of why \"anarcho\"-capitalism is not anarchist see \r\nsection F).\r\n\r\nA.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?\r\n\r\n<\/p>
Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote the\r\nThe Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists<\/b> produced\r\nby participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution (see \r\nSection A.5.4). They point out that:\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of anarchism: \r\nthe idea of the total negation of a social system based on the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free non-statist society of \r\nworkers under self-management.\r\n<\/i><\/p>
\r\n\r\n\"So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle of the working masses.\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and knowledge to specify and spread \r\nit.\" [pp. 15-16]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nLike the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass movement \r\nof working class people resisting the forces of authority, both Red (Communist) \r\nand White (Tsarist\/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from 1917 to 1921. As Peter\r\nMarshall notes \"anarchism . . . has traditionally found its chief supporters \r\namongst workers and peasants.\"<\/i> [Demanding the Impossible<\/b>, p. 652]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nAnarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for \r\nfreedom. For Kropotkin, for example, \"Anarchism . . . originated in \r\neveryday struggles\"<\/i> and \"the Anarchist movement was renewed each \r\ntime it received an impression from some great practical lesson: \r\nit derived its origin from the teachings of life itself.\"<\/i>\r\n\r\n[Evolution and Environment<\/b>, p. 58 and p. 57] For \r\nProudhon, \"the proof\"<\/i> of his mutualist ideas lay in the \"current \r\npractice, revolutionary practice\"<\/i> of \"those labour associations . . . \r\nwhich have spontaneously . . . been formed in Paris and Lyon . . . \r\n[show that the] organisation of credit and organisation of labour \r\namount to one and the same.\"<\/i> [No Gods, No Masters<\/b>, vol. 1, \r\npp. 59-60] Indeed, as one historian argues, there was \"close \r\nsimilarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon . . . and \r\nthe program of the Lyon Mutualists\"<\/i> and that there was \"a remarkable \r\nconvergence [between the ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was \r\nable to articulate his positive program more coherently because of \r\nthe example of the silk workers of Lyon. The socialist ideal that \r\nhe championed was already being realised, to a certain extent, by \r\nsuch workers.\"<\/i> [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon \r\nand the Rise of French Republican Socialism<\/b>, p. 164]\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThus anarchism comes from the fight for liberty and our desires \r\nto lead a fully human life, one in which we have time to live, \r\nto love and to play. It was not created by a few people divorced \r\nfrom life, in ivory towers looking down upon society and making \r\njudgements upon it based on their notions of what is right and \r\nwrong. Rather, it was a product of working class struggle and \r\nresistance to authority, oppression and exploitation. As Albert \r\nMeltzer put it: \r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"There were never theoreticians of Anarchism \r\nas such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed \r\naspects of its philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has \r\nbeen worked out in action rather than as the putting into practice \r\nof an intellectal ideas. Very often, a bourgeois writer comes along \r\nand writes down what has already been worked out in practice by \r\nworkers and peasants; he [or she] is attributed by bourgeois \r\nhistorians as being a leader, and by successive bourgeois writers \r\n(citing the bourgeois historians) as being one more case that\r\nproves the working class relies on bourgeois leadership.\"<\/i> \r\n[Anarchism: Arguments for and against<\/b>, p. 18] \r\n<\/p>
\r\nIn Kropotkin's eyes, \"Anarchism had its origins in the same\r\ncreative, constructive activity of the masses which has\r\nworked out in times past all the social institutions of \r\nmankind -- and in the revolts . . . against the representatives\r\nof force, external to these social institutions, who had laid \r\ntheir hands on these institutions and used them for their own\r\nadvantage.\"<\/i> More recently, \"Anarchy was brought forth by the\r\nsame critical and revolutionary protest which gave birth to\r\nSocialism in general.\"<\/i> Anarchism, unlike other forms of \r\nsocialism, \"lifted its sacrilegious arm, not only against\r\nCapitalism, but also against these pillars of Capitalism: Law,\r\nAuthority, and the State.\"<\/i> All anarchist writers did was to \r\n\r\n\"work out a general expression of [anarchism's] principles, \r\nand the theoretical and scientific basis of its teachings\"<\/i> \r\nderived from the experiences of working class people in struggle \r\nas well as analysing the evolutionary tendencies of society \r\nin general. [Op. Cit.<\/b>, p. 19 and p. 57]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nHowever, anarchistic tendencies and organisations in society have existed \r\nlong before Proudhon put pen to paper in 1840 and declared himself an\r\nanarchist. While anarchism, as a specific political theory, was born with \r\nthe rise of capitalism (Anarchism \"emerged at the end of the eighteenth\r\ncentury . . .[and] took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both\r\nCapital and the State.\"<\/i> [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit.<\/b>, p. 4]) anarchist\r\nwriters have analysed history for libertarian tendencies. Kropotkin\r\nargued, for example, that \"from all times there have been Anarchists\r\nand Statists.\"<\/i> [Op. Cit.<\/b>, p. 16] In Mutual Aid<\/b> (and elsewhere) \r\nKropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous societies\r\nand noted those that successfully implemented (to some degree) \r\nanarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. He \r\nrecognised this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic \r\nideas to predate the creation of the \"official\" anarchist movement \r\nand argued that:\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\"From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have realised\r\nthe evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire personal\r\nauthority. . . Consequently they developed in the primitive clan,\r\nthe village community, the medieval guild . . . and finally in the\r\nfree medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist\r\nthe encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those strangers\r\nwho conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who endeavoured\r\nto establish their personal authority.\"<\/i> [Anarchism<\/b>, pp. 158-9]\r\n<\/p>
\r\nKropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which modern\r\nanarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular organisation.\r\nHe argued that \"the labour combinations. . . were an outcome of the same\r\npopular resistance to the growing power of the few -- the capitalists\r\nin this case\"<\/i> as were the clan, the village community and so on, as\r\nwere \"the strikingly independent, freely federated activity of the \r\n'Sections' of Paris and all great cities and many small 'Communes'\r\nduring the French Revolution\"<\/i> in 1793. [Op. Cit.<\/b>, p. 159]\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\nThus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of working\r\nclass struggle and self-activity against capitalism and the modern state, \r\nthe ideas of anarchism have continually expressed themselves in action \r\nthroughout human existence. Many indigenous peoples in North America and \r\nelsewhere, for example, practised anarchism for thousands of years before \r\nanarchism as a specific political theory existed. Similarly, anarchistic \r\ntendencies and organisations have existed in every major revolution -- \r\nthe New England Town Meetings during the American Revolution, the Parisian \r\n'Sections' during the French Revolution, the workers' councils and factory \r\ncommittees during the Russian Revolution to name just a few examples (see \r\nMurray Bookchin's The Third Revolution<\/b> for details). This is to be expected \r\nif anarchism is, as we argue, a product of resistance to authority then \r\nany society with authorities will provoke resistance to them and generate \r\nanarchistic tendencies (and, of course, any societies without authorities \r\ncannot help but being anarchistic).\r\n<\/p>
\r\nIn other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against oppression \r\nand exploitation, a generalisation of working people's experiences and \r\nanalyses of what is wrong with the current system and an expression of our \r\nhopes and dreams for a better future. This struggle existed before it was\r\ncalled anarchism, but the historic anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people\r\ncalling their ideas anarchism and aiming for an anarchist society) is\r\nessentially a product of working class struggle against capitalism and\r\nthe state, against oppression and exploitation, and for<\/b> a free society\r\nof free and equal individuals. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/www.infoshop.org\/faq\/index.html","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"image\/gif","summary":"Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.","numcomment":27,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2005\/10\/faq_top.gif","filesize":"5.6 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2005\/10\/136509.php","image":{"original":"\/uploads\/2005\/10\/faq_top.gif"}},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":136511,"heading":"hard to believe","article":"First: that someone still admires this gibbering war criminal. \r\nSecond: That they or it is still foolish enough to waste their time peddling drone droppings. \r\nI had all this crap thrown at me by clucking chickens like this one when I was younger and before I found out different. ","author":"Ajusted to Reality.","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-03 00:55:33","modified":"2005-10-03 00:55:33","fileurl":""},{"id":136608,"heading":"Hard to believe ...","article":"... anarchists haven't quite reached the wisdom of the animal kingdom!\r\n\r\nBe it a pack of wolves, or a lion pride, AT THAT LEVEL of development the group is led by the strong, the skilled, the competent, the one, who has the know-how.\r\n\r\nYet, this bunch of losers, this lunatic fringe, who haven't quite managed to reach and convince 1% of the reasoning human beings of any practical value of their useless, failed believes, keep wasting time on preaching, and writing, and ranting and raving about it!\r\n\r\nAnd they are aware of it, too: that's why they keep showing up wearing hoods, and masks, and shades and such on their rallies!\r\n","author":"Cesar Chavez","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-04 14:51:00","modified":"2005-10-04 14:51:00","fileurl":""},{"id":136610,"heading":"eclipsed by human thought","article":"> pack of wolves, or a lion pride, AT THAT LEVEL of development\r\n\r\n\r\nperhaps the reason you don't see the light that people are more advanced than wild animals and *value animalistic activities* is because YOU are at or below the level of animals yourself\r\n\r\njust a thought\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n> 1% of the reasoning human beings of any practical value of their useless, failed believes, keep wasting time \r\n\r\n\r\nhave any evidence to back that statistic up ?\r\n\r\n\r\nwasting time - is that anything like the time wasted making prank phone calls ? what level of development does it take to find amusement in THAT ?\r\n\r\nreading the comments after it was posted I wasn't laughing at the prank call like your buddies were - I was laughing at *you and them* for finding such childish activities so fulfilling.\r\n\r\nand here you are attempting to trash anarchism - something you most likely don't even understand (or want to)\r\n\r\nleaving your trail of failed arguments that seem to stretch endlessly behind you as you get yet another fresh start as yet another handle...\r\n\r\nfailed - like your business did\r\n\r\n ","author":"Hex","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-04 15:10:06","modified":"2005-10-04 15:10:06","fileurl":""},{"id":136618,"heading":"What the Hell?","article":"We saw what anarchism means in the aftermath of the Gulf States disaster. Why would anybody think that anarchy is something to be desired?\r\n\r\nWe also saw what Coimmunism and Socialism means and there are _still_ people who advocatre them.\r\n\r\nAre humans broken? Can't learn from their mistakes or the mistakes of others?\r\n","author":"Fredric L. Rice","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-04 15:50:06","modified":"2005-10-04 15:50:06","fileurl":""},{"id":136672,"heading":" A Common Misconception of Anarchy.","article":"Fredric L. Rice has the common misconception of anarchy. Social disorder, looting and rioting is often referred to by the media as anarchy. This is regrettable. Rice is confusing social chaos and lawlessness with anarchy. \r\nLike the others, Rice would do well to read the posting instead of reacting to what he has been told about anarchists from the media. Anarchism is a political philosophy. It is widely misunderstood, even by many of its proponents.\r\n","author":"Read the article","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-05 15:22:17","modified":"2005-10-05 15:22:17","fileurl":""},{"id":136676,"heading":"No, watch the news","article":"> Fredric L. Rice has the common \r\n> misconception of anarchy. \r\n\r\nAnd that's complete bullshit. Did anybody else happen to see what anarchy and anarchists mean to the nation of Greece last week?\r\n\r\nIf you missed it, the anarchists "fighting" for anarchy attacked police stations, set fire to buildings, cars, innocent people's houses, no end of violent activities as they "fought for freedom" from the oppressive State.\r\n\r\nI read the article. It was a lengthy public relations lie spew that might well have come from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh, a disjointed missive that expressed ideals utterly unlike what _real_ anarcy and what _real_ anarchists are like out in the street.\r\n\r\nActually that's not fair, either. A great many anarchists are great people who do a lot of good work here in California. Food Not Bombs and the like do a great deal of good work and I'm always happy to see anarchist flags at anti-fascism \/ anti-hate \/ anti-war protests.\r\n\r\nBut let's try to be a little more honest about what anarchy actually means in a political context and what anarchy means when anarchists take over when the fascist government failed -- as it did in the Gulf States.\r\n\r\nFuck anarchy, yes, but also fuck Sovialism, Communism, Republicanism, the Democratic Party, fascism, Theocracy -- absolutely fuck them all because none of them contain justice, heal;th, or safety or equal rights for all.\r\n\r\nBut let's not pretend that anarchy is some how better than the fascist regime we're currently laboring under. Playing pretend with the _ideals_ of cooperation for the common good and the good of the individual is a pipe dream, unobtainable, outrageously stupid, and historically such attempts have led to mass murder.\r\n","author":"Fredric L. Rice","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-05 16:10:39","modified":"2005-10-05 16:10:39","fileurl":""},{"id":136679,"heading":"Freddy...I'm back!!!!!","article":"Freddy, will you marry me? Your brilliance is just such a fucking turn-on, Frederico. You are the most well-informed white man I've ever known. Really. I really mean that. You're really just so fucking on top of things, how about you get on top of me and inject me with some of your hot, brilliant insights?\r\n\r\nAnyway, for the non-somnambulents: check out Mike Davis' interview on KPFK last week or the week before (not sure which show exactly, look it up--if anybody knows, plz post here) in which he explains why going to New Orleans in the aftermath of the hurricanes convinced him to be an anarchist, because what he saw was people there self-organizing effectively, efficiently, and WITHOUT GOVERNMENT FROM ABOVE. These are communities of thousands who, in the breakdown of so-called democratic government power, have taken care of themselves and governed themselves just fine, the way humans have done for tens of thousands of years naturally and instinctively. When asked how people make decisions, one older woman who is recognized as a "leader" of sorts in the community (in the sense of a kind of naturally respected authority, not superficially force-imposed authority), laughed and responded with something like, "We just do. We know how to cooperate."\r\n\r\nAlso, for those who actually read books: Check out David Graeber's book _Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology_. It is a must-read for anyone discussing anarchism these days, and I wish I could convince ignoramuses like Freddy the Freeloader here to pick up a copy, but I know that won't happen, unless I lie and say there are pornographic photos in the book.","author":"WHITE ON RICE","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-05 17:18:03","modified":"2005-10-05 17:18:03","fileurl":""},{"id":136689,"heading":"Bush Admirer","article":"actually, capitalism didn't give us much until it was socialized with public schools, health care, and unions. Pure capitalism would have never allowed for a middle class at all. Pure capitalism is the dog eat dog world that lead to the great depression. Socialism, on the other hand, is just as responsible for our greatness as anything else. Here are some socialist programs:\r\n1. Public Schools\r\n2. OSHA\r\n3. Public Utilities\r\n4. Public Hospitals\r\n5. Interstate Highways\r\n6. Public Defenders\r\n7. Social Security\r\n8. Milatary\r\n9. VA Hospitals\r\n10. Police\r\n11. Fire Department\r\n12. Unions\r\n13. Minimum Wage Laws\r\n14. Child Labor Laws\r\n\r\nNow granted, I would like to do away with some of the things (as I am sure you would as well). Nonetheless, they are all socialist organizations. Its never as black and white as the right tries to make it look.\r\n","author":"1planet1people","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-06 02:04:28","modified":"2005-10-06 02:04:28","fileurl":""},{"id":136692,"heading":"here you go white on rice dude","article":"KPFK Wed. 9\/21: Mike Davis, Live from New Orleans\r\n\r\nPosted on Tuesday 20 September 2005\r\n \r\nLISTEN ONLINE TO STREAMING AUDIO OF THIS SHOW:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/64.27.9.54\/archive\/index.php?p=4pm_Jon_Wiener\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/64.27.9.54\/archive\/index.php?l=10&p=4pm_Jon_Wiener%2F09_21_05_4JW_Mike_Davis_in_New_Orleans_-_Adam_Shatz_on_Jews_In_France_-_Barbara_Ehrenreich_author_of_Bait_and_Switch.mp3\r\n\r\n\r\nI'm downloading it now as "mike.mp3" \r\n\r\nthe playlist URL is tricky - most of my apps are confused and think it's HTML.. I'd upload it here as a plain MP3 but it's pretty large, about 13.MB and it would take over an hour on dialup, but if anyone has trouble listening to it, I can convert it to a lower bitrate and\/or edit only the Mike Davis part using a lossless MPEG editor\r\n\r\nthis sounds like a great example for anarchism in action to debunk common myths so many people hold about what anarchism is really about\r\n\r\nI'm not going to get in the middle of the debate between you two as I don't feel qualified in the subject - I have anarchist leanings and see it much the same way in light of cultural anthropology - that peoples throughout the ages have had what we now call anarchism but it just came naturally as people working together with no leaders..\r\n\r\nI may not have much of a evolved sense about it - haven't read books or anything - but at least I have the right idea based on examples I've seen from anthropology which I have studied a bit..\r\n\r\nAs you stated , white on rice, explicidly the same ideas, I support you. Fred's version is repugnant to me too, but I don't have the knowledge and background to effectively refute him except in a very general way (and I hope I don't come off that way either - I'm starting to socialize with a few people at work along the same lines and hostile know-it-all attitude definitely isn't conducive to building relationships, so if you think it applies feel free to say so)\r\n\r\nah - download just completed so I'll shut my trap now and give it a listen..\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","author":"Hex","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","created":"2005-10-06 04:49:57","modified":"2005-10-06 04:49:57","fileurl":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/10\/mike.jpg","image":{"original":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/10\/mike.jpg"}},{"id":136720,"heading":"Anarchist Principles In Everyday Life","article":"See:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/sf.indymedia.org\/news\/2003\/02\/1577293_comment.php#1592936\r\n","author":"pointer","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-06 15:18:31","modified":"2005-10-06 15:18:31","fileurl":""},{"id":136721,"heading":"What's to "refrute?"","article":"> Fred's version is repugnant to me too, but I don't \r\n> have the knowledge and background to effectively \r\n> refute him except in a very general way \r\n\r\nWhat's to "refute?" The history of anarchy and anarchism is explicit, isn't it? Anarchy doesn't scale well. It sounds good for local communities but when scaled up, it devolves into mob rule, violence, mayhem.\r\n\r\nIf the facts are to be "refruted," an example of a successful moderate scale anarchism would need to be offered.\r\n\r\nAnd while we're at it, Socialism and Communism also don't scale well. Historically they've been as monsterous as any other brand of government.\r\n","author":"Fredric L. Rice","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-06 15:38:41","modified":"2005-10-06 15:38:41","fileurl":""},{"id":136726,"heading":"I'm not going to spar with you Fred","article":"as I already said\r\n\r\nI will say however that I'm immune to your jibes - both in general and knowing what I know about you\r\n\r\nI've done some digging on you and what I found is disturbing, (to others not to me personally) not to mention the time & energy you invest on debate stretching back years..\r\n\r\nI don't have that kind of time - matter of fact I have to go to work right now or I'll be late...\r\n\r\nin 8 hours I'll reply at length but we're mostly on the same side, so I won't be fighting with you - just as I don't with several people I otherwise would be inclined to with on here..\r\n\r\n\r\n","author":"Hex","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-06 16:25:47","modified":"2005-10-06 16:25:47","fileurl":""},{"id":136738,"heading":""It sounds good for local communities but when scaled up, it devolves into mob rule&q","article":"This is at odds with the historical record. Consider Spain. Anarchist principles worked fine in Spain. Not only was it on a grand scale, in the middle of a brutal war and under blockade by the so-called "free" world, but the workforce was largely illiterate and the young, healthy ones were at the front fighting. \r\n\r\nAll it takes is the will.\r\n\r\nAnarchists liberated and collectivised the economy of much of northern Spain. Suddenly, the workers themselves ran everything from ranches and farms, to steel mills, locomotive factories and the telephone exchange.\r\n\r\nFrench economist Gaston Leval toured the liberated zone. He visited hundreds of collectives. He studied their books. He observed their production methods. He attended their meetings. In his book, *Collectives in the Spanish Revolution*, he states his perhaps startling conclusions. He shows the numbers to back them up. In every case, after a brief period of adjustment lasting at most a couple months, the cost of production went down, the rate of production went up, and the standard of living improved.\r\n\r\nHow could this be?\r\n\r\nThe worker self-owned, worker self-managed workplace is the most efficient structure ever devised for the job. In part this is because just cutting the boss out of the equation means a lot more money for everyone else. In part this is because the people who actually do the work have a far better idea of what it actually entails than any boss ever could. The boss only knows what people tell him and everyone lies to their boss. As the old anarchist proverb says, "If you want to know how many widgets to order for next month, don't ask the boss. Ask the widgeteer."\r\n\r\nFor more about worker self management, click here:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/sf.indymedia.org\/news\/2005\/07\/1717610_comment.php\r\n\r\n\r\nFor more Leval, click here:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.anarchosyndicalism.net\/history\/collectives.htm\r\n","author":"anarchist","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-06 19:59:45","modified":"2005-10-06 19:59:45","fileurl":""},{"id":136745,"heading":"Fredric L. Rice","article":"Well, when friends diverge...\r\n\r\nTo be honest, pure socialism and\/or communism have never been tried. According to Marx, socialism is a step towards communism. True communism does away with government all together and, in a way, becomes anarchism. The only model even close was the Native cultures (such as Native Americans) before westerners came here. Of course this is not true for Latin America, but North America it happened to a small degree. Of course, there was violence and wars, but with proper ethical education people may be able to live in such a way that laws are no longer necessary. But to arrive at this place, we as a people must grow some. As for mob violence, it has only been experienced when there have been systems of oppression and exploitation. If this mob violence ran its course (which would not be good for the haves), then eventually, the have nots would tear the system down to the point where everyone was on their social and economic and social level, then we could work as a people to rise up. This is all theoretical, so practical examples lack. But it was not too long ago that there was feudalism and the same was said about capitalism. So, while the anarchist model may seem far fetched, it is an ideal that is worth a serious look. Just because we haven\u2019t done it before does not mean it is not possible or ideal. Just remember, we have yet to see a political model that treats all people fairly or is ethically, economically, or socially stable.\r\n","author":"1planet1people","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-06 22:08:23","modified":"2013-11-11 00:35:37","fileurl":""},{"id":136747,"heading":"opps....","article":"As an Anarchist, I should know more about the spanish history. I should have read "anarchist's" comment before writing mine. Maybe there is a model out there.....","author":"1planet1people","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-06 22:11:08","modified":"2005-10-06 22:11:08","fileurl":""},{"id":136759,"heading":"I found a computer on the way home","article":"anyway cultural anthropology provides many examples throughout history plus recently in Brazil as I recall when factories were ran into the ground and the owner took off with the profits, the workers themselves started running them - and the model they use is basicly anarchism\r\n\r\nthis works out so well in some cases the owners try to "take back" what they abandoned seeing how successful it is. this is because of 2 reasons ;\r\n\r\n1.) every worker has an equal say\r\n\r\n2.) the profits are reinvested back into the factory and everyone shares what's left\r\n\r\ntherefore there's much more money to go around and many more people are helped\r\n\r\nI'm not very worldy or eloquent on this subject but I've seen enough working examples to know Fred does not know what he's talking about and seems biased against it for some reason - almost like he can't stand the idea of it working and closes(ed) his eyes to even the article at top\r\n\r\nmaybe if we enumerate actual examples using solid hard data and sources he'll "see the light"\r\n\r\n\r\nmy digging revealed that he's been "duking it out" with many different types of people for years, from USENET to here, and has posted a tremendous amount of material when added up\r\n\r\nI basicly speed read or skim as I bring up hits (he's not worth an in depth detailed scour since although he's slightly annoying at times and seems to have "personality shifts" he's not been a major pain in the neck and doesn't do anything bad on a wide scale)\r\n\r\n\r\nI find that he "spreads himself thin" by posting much the same retorts on many forums - using what appears to often be pastes (either that or he's a damn fast typist - according to timestamps)\r\n\r\nalthough his own words, they tend to be redundant across forums..\r\n\r\nhe seems to find joy in insulting "right-wing retards" - abundantly\r\n\r\n\r\nHe sometimes directs this behavior at people like us - as if he's driven by an inner need to put people in thier place\r\n\r\none could say I do that - but only extremely selectively to only one or a few "targets" - only towards people I consider particularly deceptive AND against us. and only within a limited scope - I rule out a large number of people simply because we are mostly in agreement, on the same side.. And only in selected ways - I won't try to mind fuck anyone I think I might even possibly ever become friends with, and with the few left it's a very limited amount and ways\r\n\r\nI believe to do otherwise would make me an ugly person, and as bad as the person in question (or worse even) and I myself am vulnerable to it within the context of anyone I consider potentialy a friend. Some people have a rather sophisticated manner where when they use it as a weapon (catty) can hurt others who never learned that (and actually wouldn't want to either)\r\n\r\nI have a "kinder gentler" sensibility - naive, green, wet behind the ears, when it comes to that. Being mentally cruel was just something I never picked up on. This vulnerability only applies in the context of friendship however - otherwise I have the same hard exterior as anyone.. So people I like and respect are able to do this but strangers are not.\r\n\r\nAnyway what I found is it's fairly common the world over - that Fred does it as well to a wide range of people but mostly in situations like here - forums, posts, boards - this result is skewed however because I don't have access to other data\r\n\r\nAgain it's pretty common though - lately I've been seeing blogs where the author "hates everyone" and makes cruel observations for amusement. When I first saw this I was kinda shocked and surprised, however the context is pretty impersonal (although sometimes the *replies* get quite nasty - readers will go on the attack occassionaly and be even crueler than the author)\r\n\r\nsince it's not my bag my reaction would be to withdraw and shrink away from it...\r\n\r\nFred engages in this - more often in less public contexts that I have less access to in datamining\r\n\r\nBut I can't condemn him as millions of other people do it too, BUT this makes him unsuitable for friendship as far as I'm concerned..\r\n\r\nThink of me as the exact opposite - as my friends here can attest -\r\n\r\nThe group of people I work with here is a mini-model of anarchist structure - everyone just does what they want while I set up the technical means to do it then let them be. Sometimes I have to fix and clean up messes (like a few days ago one node was all clogged up with spam and kept BSOD'ing, several nodes have become infected with adware, spybots, BHO's, etc. One they keep using up all the HD space by turning off the computer causing lost clusters - things like that.)\r\n\r\nWe basicly have an "internet cafe" except it's spread around the neighborhood insted of all in one place..\r\n\r\nWe follow the same ideals of sharing, equality, freedom..\r\n\r\nso even here there's a small example - Fred said doesn't scale well..\r\n\r\nThink of big city wi-fi networks - thousands of nodes, they seem to scale pretty well..\r\n\r\nThis is the most relevant example I have..\r\n","author":"Hex","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-07 03:04:47","modified":"2005-10-07 03:04:47","fileurl":""},{"id":136785,"heading":"What "jibes?"","article":"> I will say however that I'm immune to your jibes\r\n\r\nTrying to pretend that the irrefutable facts of the matter are some how "jibes" merely evidences your inability to defend your position.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the inability to find a government of Socialism or Communism that has led to anything other than injustice on a massive scale should also be a hint as to the indefensibility of the position.\r\n\r\nNo "jibes." No personal attacks. No unreasonable observations. There are simply no discernable historic or extant instances of such governments being perferable to any other system of governance.\r\n\r\nDon't take being wrong so personally.\r\n","author":"Fredric L. Rice","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-07 15:37:28","modified":"2005-10-07 15:37:28","fileurl":""},{"id":136787,"heading":"I can agree with that, 1p1p","article":"> To be honest, pure socialism and\/or \r\n> communism have never been tried. \r\n\r\nThis is also undeniably true. I agree with this assessment entirely. But you have to delve into the reasons why actual Communism hasn't been tried yet -- not at the macro scale.\r\n\r\nThe reasons you touched upon: "the proper ethical education." Translated into equal words, what you suggest is more formally called "indoctrination." You adxd that "This is all theoretical" and I also agree completely.\r\n\r\nIt's theory and ideology only because the concepts are unworkable, even with indoctrinationm of the young. The reason is because primate evolutional development over millions of years dictates human behavior that's contrary to such theories and ideals. The ideals sound nice but human nature drives humanity otherwise.\r\n\r\nTo be specific, corruption will _always_ be the primary governing factor of human dendeavor when government is scaled up. Accountability quickly becomes lost once a governing system leaves the local community and is expanded upwards. It's also why the Christian clergy is frought with pedophiles, if you examine the entirety of the human model of behavior.\r\n\r\nWe agree, 1p1p, on a great many things. Where we don't agree: I stipulate that human nature disallows justice for all, equality for all, and human nature disallows reason as a primary driving force. Greed, avarice, occultism, superstition, hate, and other emotions are what drive all primates, not reason, and not justice.\r\n","author":"Fredric L. Rice","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-07 15:47:30","modified":"2005-10-07 15:47:30","fileurl":""},{"id":136792,"heading":"just a quicky before I'm off","article":"> What "jibes?"\r\n\r\nrefrute \/ refruted\r\n\r\nI've posted working examples from even right here with people I know, other's brought up Spain..\r\n\r\nI can dig up more examples too. (actual data mind you, not your trademark "only my opinion" which seems to have evaporated in this thread)\r\n\r\nas to taking "being wrong" personally I'll leave that scuffle to other's better armed to duke out - nothing personal\r\n\r\n","author":"Hex","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-07 16:19:10","modified":"2005-10-07 16:19:10","fileurl":""},{"id":136813,"heading":"Well no, you're wrong yet again","article":"> I've posted working examples\r\n\r\nNo you haven't. And no, Spain isn't an example of a legitimate, non-monsterous anarchy. I'm sure the Spanish government would be amused. }:-}\r\n","author":"Fredric L. Rice","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-07 21:43:09","modified":"2005-10-07 21:43:09","fileurl":""},{"id":136833,"heading":"lay off the poor guy","article":"I was riding the subway today, thinking about this thread, and some of the stuff Hex was saying about Fred, and I was thinking, maybe we should lay off the guy and all the other endangered Flintstones like him. \r\n\r\nFred, you see, suffers from a quite common disease known as Whitemanitis. \r\n\r\nIt's a tragic thing. It affects everyone. Cases are concentrated most heavily in Europe, Canada, Australia, and, of course, the United States, but at this point in history, this devastating illness has traveled throughout the world and colonized virtually every population on the planet, where it has often mutated into stronger, more virulent strains.\r\n\r\nThose afflicted with Whitemanitis are rarely cured, but the important thing to remember is that there is always hope. You see, part of the difficulty in dealing with Whitemanitis is that most if not all of the possibility of beating the disease lies with the afflicted himself. There are no medications, no treatment programs, no textbook instructions on how to combat this debilitating disease. Most Western doctors, in fact, are completely useless in battling Whitemanitis, since most of them are afflicted by it themselves.\r\n\r\nIn the end, as I stated above, the cure for this horrible illness can be found only within the afflicted. It begins with a recognition of symptoms and an accurate self-diagnosis: An impairment of vision, a deafness (to the ideas and voices of others), an inability to perceive the world and reality in anything but binary terms, a tendency to talk or write or express "ideas" excessively in a way that drowns out others and that almost always betrays a fundamental ignorance of the subject at hand, and, finally, a persistent image of oneself as the center of the universe and all existence, which is related to an obsessive indentification with the ego as though this persona constituted one's true self.\r\n\r\nOf course, apprehending the fact that one even has this illness in the first place is itself a formidable task, since the vision of its victims is so horrendously impaired. This is the most frustrating aspect of Whitemanitis--built in to this vicious sickness is a self-protecting blindness that prevents the victim from even realizing he is ill in the first place.\r\n\r\nThe cure begins, then, with opening one's eyes and, most importantly, shutting one's mouth. As one learns to shut up and listen, one begins to learn, little by little, that he shares this planet and universe with other beings who are also thinking and experiencing and expressing themselves and their reality--often in ways that are quite at odds with his own conception of reality. Gradually, the patient must learn to open his mind and heart, to allow space--physical, emotional, mental, intellectual--for all those around him. He must learn to first recognize all the privileges he has, which his illness has conveniently blinded him to, and must then learn to abandon those privileges, to give up his position of power, and share the world with others.\r\n\r\nIt's a hard path. There is a lot more involved, but it is imperative that the patient discover for himself the rest.\r\n\r\nOne final note: It is absolutely essential that people remember that this disease is highly contagious. It is vicious, though it often appears quite benign. For this reason, others who are battling with the illness themselves, or who seek to protect themselves from it when it attacks through host bodies like Fred, must continually develop creative ways to respond to it. Some respond with data, facts, statistics. Some respond with sarcasm and cruelty which mirror the cruelty of the disease and its efforts to attack others. Some respond with reasoned debate. What is key is imagination, creativity, and, whenever possible, a sense of play, a sense of humor, a sense of fun. The disease appears to thrive on despair, anger, and hate. Humor, sarcasm, wit, and playfullness, are all powerful antioxidants to the rust and decay inherent in Whitemanitis.\r\n\r\nGood luck to you, Fred. Yabadabadoo!!!!","author":"WHITE ON RICE","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-08 03:59:31","modified":"2005-10-08 03:59:31","fileurl":""},{"id":136902,"heading":"Speak of the Devil...","article":""Reminder!! \u00a0Tomorrow night (Saturday 10\/8) Jensen will be presenting his timely and much needed analysis\r\n Of racism and white privilege. \u00a07:30 sharp at 33 1\/3 Books & Gallery!!\r\n \r\nAn honest look at U.S. racism, and the liberal platitudes that attempt to conceal it.\r\n \r\nAs devastating as the physical destruction brought by Katrina has been, it may turn out that one of the hurricane's most enduring legacies is the way it made visible the effect of racial and class disparities on who lived and who died, who escaped early and who suffered from being left behind. Such realities have always been clear to those on the bottom of the hierarchy, of course, and to others willing to face the reality of white supremacy. But now all of white America has an opportunity to see what racialized disparities in wealth and well-being look like, in painfully raw form.\r\n \r\nWill we take that opportunity, or turn away out of fear? Do we have the courage to face the meaning of what we have seen?\r\n \r\nThis book offers an honest and rigorous exploration of what Jensen refers to as the depraved nature of whiteness in the United States. Mixing personal experience with data and theory, Jensen faces down the difficult realities of race, racism, and white privilege. He argues that any system that denies non-white people their full humanity also keeps white people from fully accessing their own.\r\n \r\nThe Heart of Whiteness is both a cautionary tale for those who believe that they have transcended racism, and also an expression of the hope for genuine transcendence.\r\n \r\n \r\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0"Very few white writers have been able to point out the pathological nature of white privilege and supremacy with the eloquence of Robert Jensen. In The Heart of Whiteness, Jensen demonstrates not only immense wisdom on the issue of race, but does so in the kind of direct and accessible fashion that separates him from virtually any other academic scholar, or journalist, writing on these subjects today.\u201d \u2013Tim Wise, author, White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son\r\n \r\n"With radical honesty, hard facts, and an abundance of insight and compassion, Robert Jensen lays out strategies for recognizing and dismantling white privilege\u2013 and helping others to do the same. This text is more than just important; it's useful. Jensen demonstrates again that he is a leading voice in the American quest for justice." \u2013 Adam Mansbach, author of Angry Black White Boy, or The Miscegenation of Macon Detornay\r\n \r\n\r\nRobert Jensen is the author of Citizens of the Empire. He is a professor of Media Ethics and Journalism at the University of Texas, Austin."","author":"WHITE ON RICE","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","created":"2005-10-09 02:27:06","modified":"2013-11-11 00:35:38","fileurl":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/10\/image.jpg","image":{"original":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/10\/image.jpg"}},{"id":136922,"heading":"Socialism Successes","article":"If you're comparing real world Socialism to real world "Capitalism" (as in, not socialism) and real world Communism, you can't say the philosophies have failed or succeeded. Is Cuba a success or failure? Depends on whether you're living in Haiti, Honduras, or Miami. Compared to the poor countries, Cuba's doing okay: people are literate and fed. There's injustice and thuggery, but, you can say the same for the two capitalist countries as well.\r\n\r\nThere's also the question of degree. Are Norway, Libya, Sweden, and Japan socialist countries? In varying degrees. They all have large social states that provide services to the people. The two oil nations of Norway and Libya redistribute their oil wealth to the people. That's very fundamentally socialist, to treat things like mineral rights as a national treasure rather than as private property.\r\n\r\nAs for successes of Anarchism... it's not like there's been many Anarchist countries. Spain was a short term victory during a series of wars against Fascism.","author":"johnk","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2005-10-09 16:19:10","modified":"2005-10-09 16:19:10","fileurl":""},{"id":136961,"heading":"$$$ I $$$ think $$$$ about $$$ nothing $$$ else $$$$","article":"> If you're a street person (a bum) and you win the lottery then I guess you can call yourself successful (even though you haven't achieved anything).\r\n\r\n\r\ndepends on your defination of "success" and "achievement"\r\n\r\n\r\nboxed into a narrow, shallow materialistic (biased) way perhaps, but many inventors were poor, many artists were poor yet they achieve more than a million average working stiffs (with average working stiff values) ever do.\r\n\r\nAnd only the lottery (money) is equated with success, not the arts, science applied for the betterment of mankind or spiritual advancement.\r\n\r\nthen we have these narrow, shallow values applied to whole societies in selected countries - vast generalizations\r\n\r\nwhen you judge the person only through the eyes of money you then see the whole world that way too - art, culture, science, religion all ignored..\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n> someone who has a job as a boxboy at Safeway looks like a success if his friends are all chronically unemployed derelicts. That would be Cuba. \r\n\r\n\r\nagain success is equated ONLY with money, once more seeing through only the eyes of a working stiff (see above)\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n> I need to buy Ann Coulter's book 'How to Talk to a Liberal, if you must.'\r\n\r\n\r\nShe's very ignorant - (narrow minded and materialistic) if you feel you have something to learn from her I feel sorry for you.\r\n\r\nMatter of fact, I do anyway\r\n\r\n\r\nconsider who would WANT us to think in terms ONLY of money, ONLY of jobs - think outside the box\r\n\r\nit's the capitalist that gains from this kind of thinking - if they can keep us all boxed in *worrying only about money - thinking money is all that matters* and thinking having a job equals success, while they make 850 % profit (average) off of that job and\/or tax 1\/3'rd of your efforts to fund the *war machine* which simply ends up in thier pockets as well (defense contractors), then we aspire nothing more than making them rich\r\n\r\nwe waste our lives and buy worthless trickets they advertise to us as their version of success and happyness - that they *also* make huge profits off of...\r\n\r\n\r\nthink outside their box - and think for yourself\r\n\r\ndon't buy a materialist's book and dumb down further, study higher learning and smarten up\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","author":"Hex","parent_id":136509,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","created":"2005-10-10 08:14:27","modified":"2005-10-10 08:14:27","fileurl":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/10\/this_is_your_god.jpg","image":{"original":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/10\/this_is_your_god.jpg"}}]}