Anarchy?

[undergroundpanther]

What is Anarchism?
John Zerzan

For decades an unwritten but universally-observed rule required that media avoid using the terms anarchism or anarchist. Such reference would tend to give legitimacy to a doctrine that was anathema to the powers that be. Under this ban only very odious references to these terms could be made. Namely, any breakdown of authority had to be portrayed as resulting in a completely awful situation; for example, the "anarchy" that allegedly reigns, from time to time, in places like Bosnia, Somalia, Beirut, etc.

But lately this has changed somewhat, at least in Eugene. The dreaded A-word has been used several times in the past couple of years and, even though generally applied in a pejorative sense, its political meaning is at least somewhat acknowledged. This usage has mainly occurred by reference to the late great Lucky's Tea House in the Whiteaker district, and its coterie of anarchists. It was these anarchists who established a sort of haven for some of society's undesired, who held a benefit for Ted Kaczynski in May '96, who were harassed by police for their activist ways, etc.

For many an unanswered question remains: just what is anarchism?

Most simply, anarchy means "without rule." This implies not only a rejection of government but of all other forms of domination and power as well. This anti-authoritarian principle is generally thought to be grounded in autonomy for the individual. But how is such an outlook fleshed out? Disagreement begins here among anarchists.

Some eschew virtually all organization, as invariably tending toward bureaucracy and manipulation. This tendency emphasizes critique and/or direct action over organization; and it sometimes includes a rejection of the increasingly massified industrial society we find ourselves in.

Others see in mass organization the only realistic hope to achieve a potent anarchist presence. This tendency generally has no basic dispute with modern technological society, and confines its opposition to the strictly capitalistic aspects of society. The most well-known anarchists, Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin, fall into this category.

Both points of view, I think, recognize the huge social fact of class division. But as a marxist-dominated leftism has been declining in the world, so has its influence within the growing anti-authoritarian milieu. Two developments have become rather clear over the past ten years or so: (1) opposition to the status quo has become increasingly "anarchist," and (2) anarchists are becoming increasingly critical of technological civilization itself and its hollow refrain of Progress.

It is unsurprising, given its fundamental orientation, that a philosophy of anarchy would find the current, approved political spectrum unattractive. Conservatives call for removing restraints on a system or social machine that is producing more social and environmental disasters every day. Liberals equal this masochism by tinkering slightly with that system, thereby attempting to re-form and legitimize it. More and more people are losing faith in a business-as-usual, paycheck and price-tag arrangement of life that amounts to a gathering assault on humanness and the destruction of nature.

Until very recently it was completely denied that there is a war going on, with the very survival of the individual and the natural world at stake. The blackout on this fact seems to be lifting a bit; public use of the word "anarchist" is a start, a small recognition of what can hardly be covered up any longer.

For myself and, I think, many other anti-authoritarians, a new message, a new paradigm is overdue. There is more to be challenged than we once thought. The roots of the current crisis go very deep. This season's disaster in Southeast Asia, where the flames of domestication join the poisons of industrialism, is an all-too-vivid case in point. The planet is fast becoming a place of horrors, on the personal, Prozac-for-everyone level as on the ecological plane.

Nearness is being lost, and is a very big part of the solution: nearness to each other, nearness to nature. It may be that our only real hope is the recovery of a face-to-face social existence, a radical decentralization, a dismantling of the devouring, estranging productionist, high-tech trajectory that is so impoverishing.

This has been a thumbnail version of the anarchist challenge as I see it. Thanks for listening.




Just listen to the arguments on DU are looters wrong for stealing food or TVS,Why are looters black and"finders" white?
Yes these divisions run deep. I myself have come to the conclusion there are persona's that cause problems for the rest of us the narcissist,the sociopath and the authoritarian types.These kinds of persona's corrupt relationships.They make Peace on earth and equality impossible,they WILL NOT live and let live for their sickness within them compels them to rule,control,dominate,take advantage,lie,separate, or regulate others and they must win win win at any cost,they are hierarchically minded,colonialist minded,..all others lose so they can BE SOMEBODY!

These people can be anyone, a mother, brother, sister, Friend,lover,boss,neighbor, or stranger.
And they are different In their hearts than us. They have no conscience they feel no empathy unless they GAIN by it. They FAKE love to get what they want. They care about nothing except conquest,acquisition, power, control and winning.

The thing ruining life as we know it, looks like us but it is different,in the heart.

What are we going to do? These kinds of people control and dominate ourr culture for thier own advantage..they will not be rehabbed,you cannot get a person with no heart to grow one by pitying them or giving them power..

[ArkDem]

1. It doesn't hold even a small candle to Anrco-Syndicalism.

[undergroundpanther]

5. I wanted to keep it simple

for people who don't know what anarchy means or IS.. and never heard of anarcho-syndiclism.
I am referring to keeping it simple for people that are REACTING..here..

[H2O Man]

2. Gandhi on anarchy:

"The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy."

[Old and In the Way]

4. Heinlein called it "rational anarchy"

Doing the right thing without need of governments to codify it for you.

[Selatius]

8. Ultimately, there are those who choose not to do it

This ruins it for everybody else. That's a problem that needs an answer. I have very strong, well-defined principles and a code of behavior I follow, but others may not have those.

[undergroundpanther]

9. This is why I encourage

EVERYONE to educate themselves on personality especially the sociopaths narcissism and authoritarianism spectrums .These are the people that prevent peaceful co existance between everyone else. They need to be reliably detected,quarentined or wiped out..They must never be trusted or listened to .. they must kept away from any sort of power political or otherwise.Or we will end up with the state we got now.

[K-W]

3. Nice,

I thought of posting something like this when I read 'anarchy' used in place of 'chaos' in a looting thread.

Anarchy is the furthest thing from chaos.

[Selatius]

6. Ultimately, many of my views coincide with Noam Chomsky

Due to the history of the word (e.g. "propaganda by deed"), many would term their economic/social ideology as Libertarian Socialism. However, the reason why I use the term "libertarian socialist" is because I find it more descriptive of what exactly it is. More descriptive terms could be "laissez-faire socialism" or "voluntary socialism." My economic views as well as views on governance would most likely classify me as a form of libertarian socialist. Although I'm not as specific in methodology to achieve the end-goal as anarcho-syndicalists, I do consider myself and them as ideological brothers.

In recent days, however, I've grown to question the ideology. It can be termed "voluntary socialism" precisely because it was an ideology forged in order to avoid the mistakes of previous systems where decision-making power became heavily centralized and where that power became abused, such as "involuntary socialism" where participation is required or forced upon the individual despite that individual's wishes.

With libertarian socialism, the point is not only the establishment of a mutually beneficial economic relationship for all involved (as well as finding a balance with the environment) but also to attempt to establish an order where decision-making power cannot be centralized to the point of threatening individual freedom. (i.e. authoritarian socialism, corporatist fascism)

The question I'm struggling with: Are people too ignorant or perhaps too greedy and self-centered (as a people, not as individuals) to enter into an economic relationship built on cooperation where no one individual can gain power over others? Yes? No?

For me, the answer may be obvious, if I limit the scope of the question to JUST myself. I believe strongly, at least I did before now, in the power of the human spirit, the inherent goodness of people and its ability to overcome flaws found within people.

After I answer such a question, exactly how many others would come up with a similar response to such a question? And all these people who came up with the same answer as myself, would they be safe or left alone from the sociopaths and those infected by greed who want nothing but to ultimately inflict misery and pain on others?

The answer, in my mind, is most definitely no. In many previous cases where individuals who believed in a form of libertarian socialism began cooperating together as a group, the end has usually come in the form of bloodshed and oppression from those who wished to destroy such relationships to protect their own pre-existing interests and from those who seek power for their own sake.

History seems to suggest nothing but pain and suffering for those who do decide to go this route, so is it worth it? Would it be a responsible thing to even try such a relationship knowing the risks involved for all?

I'm not so sure the strength of my belief in the inherent goodness of man is as strong as it once was. Lately, my faith has been shaken.

[undergroundpanther]

10. I believe some men are good

Others are not..a few are mixed wounded or confused. The evil people do exist..tyhey are sociopaths,authoritraiands and narcissists trying to make the world become like themselves or make it bow to them. The truly evil insulate themselves for they know how evil they are,so if the good knew what they were, they would be eradicated.So they LIE..Kinda like how cancer covers itself in keratin naturallky found in the body to avoid detection by the hostbody's immune responses so a tumor can form..

[mtnester]

7. I can honestly say I believe that this is the state that New Orleans

is in now...total anarchy.

I love the Gulf Coast...vacationed in New Orleans, lived in kooky and unique LA (FWB Fla in the early to mid 80's), vacationed all the way from Panama City to Gulfport, drank at Sammy's on the Island when Destin was a sleepy town.

My prayers and healing light are being sent as fast as I can send them to everyone there for a safe night, and my donation to the Red Cross has been posted.