An Anarchist's Memo: The only time I was offended by DU

[The_Warmth]

There was a post on DU earlier today ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3481796 ) regarding the meeting of Anarchists and anti-authoritarians (the pReNC or RNC welcoming committee.) There were several comments along the lines of, "Anarchists holding a meeting, let's talk about yin and yang in a death match."

Anarchy should not be associated with a lack of coordination or cooperation. In fact, it should be associated with the utmost cooperation and grass-roots efforts. Although Anarchy implies a lack of government, it does not imply a lack of the contemporarily or possibly efficient social institutions. What Anarchists, or at least myself as one, are trying to purvey is that the government is no more than a middle man. Ever positive institution or social reform that has ever been enacted by the government (or should have been) could easily be accomplished by the collective work of the population.

Here I feel that I need to direct the definition of "government". Government, in its essence, is the centralization of power in order execute specific programs. Now, it is important to discern acts of government between those which benefit the people and those which benefit the government and those in personal relationships of the government become gain from.

With that definition, I would argue that nearly all governments have abused their accumulated powers, either causing destruction on a grand scale or using their influence for the growth of small, private sectors of society. Which leads me to a single point, throughout humanity's civilization, throughout the past several thousand years, the majority of various forms of governmental actions have weighed heavily against the general welfare of the world and it's population.

Here is where I find my common particles which bond me to those who consist of this community. We do agree upon a large portion of goals, those that not only will help the most among us, but are necessary to preserving the planet. And when I talk about saving the planet, as most I've heard, I am truly talking about extending humanity's existence, and its greatest component, creation. Perhaps to create an equilibrium with nature and evolve once again as a species.

You think that you're grassroots? Then why do you work inside the government? Any positive institution could be built, funded, and regulated by the people which are effected by it. From police, firefighters, education, import inspection, renewable energy, anti nuclear proliferation, a continually habitable planet and general welfare, people can have complete control of these programs without the interference of centralized power. A movement of the people is done outside of any formal systems, it only requires our brothers and sisters. Between a battle of all the governments and all the people permeating all existence, I'd bet all that is me on the people.

[Apollo11]

1. An anarchist who cannot handle free speech?

So you want moderators to control what is posted here on DU?

But you don't agree with the idea of elected representatives making laws.

Or if you do agree with it then you are a democrat - not an anarchist.

I don't see how one can be both a democrat and an anarchist.

These are two completely different political philosophies.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Way to not address anything the OP posted.

The OP cannot handle free speech? Why, because he responded freely to something he disagreed with?

Where did the OP say anything about the organization of DU? about moderators?

"I don't see how one can be both a democrat and an anarchist."

I'll try to explain your conundrum from my perspective. I'm not a Democrat, I'm a libertarian socialist, or a decentralized democratic socialist, take your pick. I vote Democratic because, of the two branches of the Corporate Kleptocracy and War Party, they are the less vile half.

[Perry Logan]

2. Anarchism sounds like the Reagan anti-government meme, metastasized to infinity.

Like you, conspiracy nut Alex Jones seems to have been overwhelmed by this brilliant idea from the Reagan era, i.e., the government is the problem, and we should do everything in our power to hurt the government.

What a great idea! That's why we lost New Orleans. That's why bridges are collapsing today. That's why the "privatized" military is in complete shambles. That's why we have the worst healthcare system ever.

What you are doing is essentially writing off an entire sector of society (government) and everyone connected with it. Since government is a natural and inevitable part of any society, I'm sure nothing good can come of trying to get rid of it.

[Steepler0t]

10. Sounds to me like you are speaking of right wing libertarians

In no way whatsoever are any of us advocating privatization.
That is Ayn Rand cultish right-wing market libertarians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

There is a huge difference between the two, it is downright offensive to accuse us of being right-wing libertarians.

Social Libertarians have a long history now and have had successful societies that prospered.

Granted they were are always smashed mercilessly by the Capitalists or even the Commies who cannot deal with a true grassroots society without centralized top-down authoritarian rule they can usurp at some point.

[cobalt1999]

3. Lots of ideas sound good in theory

Communism, in theory, has some good sounding elements. The way you want to define anarchy, is some utopia too.

Problem with this little "pie in the sky" idea, is that it is completely impractical when you take into account the complexity of what you are proposing and basic human nature.

Add in statements like, "create an equilibrium with nature and evolve once again as a species", and you really are out in "woo-woo" land.

Maybe, if you Anarchists could ever get anything practical done, you'd be on your own working forum instead of here.

[NoPasaran]

5. Oh dear. Anarchists are being offended?

Good.

[DangerDave921]

6. Part anarchist

I have always had a great distrust of government and anyone who so badly wants to be in a postition of power. That's why I have trouble getting behind ANY candidate. I always ask myself, "Why is this person so desperate to be in a position of power where he/she can tell me what to do?" I think there is something inherently dangerous about anyone who wants to wield so much power. So I sympathize with the OP that government (or maybe excessive government) actually works against the interest of the people.

Government, when it's well-run, has an amazing capacity to help the less-fortunate and guide society toward greater equality and prosperity. But how does one draw the line between effective governemnt and government run amok? One truism: Governemnt never gets smaller and never spends less money. So it seems we're on a perpetual path toward even bigger government, more centralized control, and more of our money going to fund it.

[BadgerLaw2010]

7. Theoretical anarchy dies painfully when confronted with human nature.

Humans tend towards being lazy, not being able to organize something and being shitbags.

See Summer of Love in the Haight-Ashbury District. Tell people to "just be" and work out their own existance and accomedations ended pretty damn badly. Mostly due to logistics and leadership, or complete lack thereof.

It also doesn't take that many sociopath shitbags or profit-minded criminals to turn a utopia into a hell. See what used to be known as the "annual Halloween Riot" in Madison, where a tiny fraction of a percent of the people wearing costumes on State Street went nuts and either attacked police or attacked stores for the hell of it.

Increased police control, university-wide student guest policies and charging admission helped greatly last year. Lots of fun, no riot.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Where political and social culture supports grassroots participation

the theoretical gap between Anarchy in theory and in practice begins to narrow and comes into the range of failure of all systems of organization. Anarchy as a poltcal theory usually is measured against the standard of its ultimate goal by those who discount it as inherently unworkable, but that is never the standard applied to Democracy or Communism or Fascism or Royalty or any other system of social organization.

We live under a political system that claims the law is supreme and all men and women are treated equally under it with no one ever put above it. However we know that is an ideal that never has been realized and we are very far from attaining full equality under the law for all citizens. There is no method of people living in social systems that is perfect, and Anarchy should not be held to a false standard of perfection. There are means available to the community under Anarchy to limit anti-social transgressions, and peer pressure both for better and worse is one of them. Bannishment is another, and though that is harder to accomplish in a pure sense when one no longer is talking about a specific community but rather a whole society, people who show disrespect for the community they are part of can have the benefits that flow from being a member in good standing of that community witheld from them by others in it.

The Spanish anarchist movement was profound and highly developed prior to Spain's Civil War. Anarchist unions had already been extensively been operating social institutions including schools throughout wide regions of Spain involving millions of people. THat movement was built up over many decades to reach that point of sophistication and influence, and it brought about profound cultural changes in how people who were part of it viewed their role and responsibilities in society, and their sense of daily empowerment in the issues that effected their lives. Anarchy is organic and must be nurtured to take root and become healthy, it isn't something that can be easily procalaimed or imposed.

The type of situation you are describing with street riots did not occur within a real anarchist context, there was no functioning wide scale participatory community of people that took responsibilty for events that took place among them to establish a tone and context that was widely subscribed to by a broad cross section of people who might be effected by those celebrations. Hence the community was not present in an empowered self policing state of mind sufficient to intervene on a persoanl basis to prevent destructive or counter productive behavior from going unchallenged by peers who felt empowered to speak for the community. Instead there were cops and spectators.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. P.S. to my post above this one

Discussing all of the social forces and experiments at play in the "Summer of Love" would be a very complex undertaking. For one thing there is the matter of a preceeding generation or more of pent up social repression that created explosive social conditions. But I'll confine my point to a simple observation. Haight Ashbury became national in media scope but it remained a single neighborhood in reality. It is impossible for one neighborhood to respond to burdens driven by national forces with resourses that are almost totally local. There was a human needs infrastructure developed by the core Haight Ashbury Community, but it was swamped a hundred times over by tens of thousands of pilgrims arriving in San Fransisco weekly with wildly unrealistic expectations attracted by sensational non stop national media coverage.