Is Julian Assange an Anarchist?

[MineralMan]

Here's what the Nihilo Zero blog has to say about that:

http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-julian-assange-modern.html

"But now... in the headlines of all the world's newspapers, on the lips of all the television pundits, all over the internet, and in the running for Time magazine's "Person of the Year," we have Julian Assange. One may argue about whether or not he precisely fits into the definition of what an anarchist is, and some dyed-in-the-wool anarchists will perhaps turn up their noses at the suggestion, but Julian Assange is engaged in anarchist acts and has presented governments around the world with damning attacks against their credibility and legitimacy.

He is one of the founders, and the public face, of Wikileaks (which publicly leaks damning internal documents from governments and corporations from around the world). With that tool he has thereby presented one of the biggest contemporary challenges to the continuation of state power. In theory, by the nature and design of the Wikileaks project, no national authorities with any degree of power are safe from exposure and subsequent public scrutiny. If that isn't a threat to corporatism and centralized governing power... nothing is. And while that alone isn't enough to make Assange an anarchist, the Wikileaks organization is intentionally designed to exist outside, and in spite of, the control of all nation states. Furthermore, in his own words, "leaking is basically an anarchist act." His organization, and his personal actions, are overtly in support of anarchist acts! At the very least... his tireless devotion to freedom of speech, and his intense scrutiny of governing bodies, is anarchistic at its core -- because most modern governments and major corporations could arguably not exist if people were fully aware of what the leaders of those institutions were actually doing."

More at link -
----------------------------------------------------

Now, we can have a discussion about the nature of anarchy and it's suitability for the world, but it appears that Assange, himself, recognizes his actions as anarchistic. The blog article is well-written, from a perspective that considers anarchism to be a valid thing. It's worth reading in full.

If, indeed, Assange is an anarchist, does that affect your view of his actions with regard to Wikileaks?

My own opinion is that anarchy is fairly useless in the 21st century. The population is too large and the problems are too large as well for non-government to lead to anything but utter chaos and suffering. Please see my disclaimer in the signature line of this post.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. If he is, he's carrying on a long tradition of fighting the abuse of power.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - as said by another Anarchist named Mohandas K. Gandhi

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

6. This post is not about me. Please don't try to make it about me.

This is Democratic Underground. I'm trying to start a discussion on this forum. Your reference to another forum where I used to post is irrelevant. I was banned there in 2006. Have a good Sunday.

[tekisui]

3. It is an irrelevant question to me.

His actions, regardless of motivation or arbitrarily assigned labels, have an inherent value. This release, or any others for that matter, risk leading us to a non-government. It could lead to a more open and honest governments or more secretive and more deceitful governments.

The value of the leaks is that we get a small peek, in nearly real time, of how our governments operate. It isn't neat and tidy. It is conniving and untrustworthy, by a small club of corrupted elites. They play with the people and this earth as if it were a game. I applaud the leaks. I hope to see more through wikileaks and more channels for whistle-blowers open up. I hope the global war-gamers are running scared. I doubt much will change, but at least we can get to a point where they know that we know that they can't be trusted.

[Bryn]

4. He's our "V"

V for Vendetta! Yay for Wikileaks!

[xchrom]

5. if not an anarchist -- certainly subversive. nt

[RandomThoughts]

7. Great question.

You have to ask what 'law' is. The statement he is making about being an anarchist comes from some bad labeling of the WTO groups that got them the name anarchist, so most don't know what that word means.

The law applied to someone is the law they apply to someone else. If he is applying the same law back on a group based on their actions, he is following their laws in matters that apply to them.


He is not ignoring law, he is using the laws they set by example of their actions. If that is called no laws, that is their fault. And the laws they set up for themselves by their actions.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. good answer.

[Xenotime]

8. Why isn't there more stuff on Bush? Isn't there anything we can use for a conviction?

[MineralMan]

9. Only a small fraction has been released.

I don't think that Bushco is likely to ever face any criminal proceedings. More's the pity. But there may be additional information in the released material, still to be revealed.

[tekisui]

10. We have no one willing to convict. It would require a Justice Dept.

willing to bring charges and pursue arrest. It is clear that won't happen under an Obama Administration, nor will meaningful investigations arise from Congress. Democrats held Congressional majorities for 4 years and refused to do a damn thing about it.

[MineralMan]

11. That's why I say it's unlikely to happen.

I think there are many reasons for that. I can't imagine that it will happen under any administration that could possibly be elected.

[tekisui]

12. The Obama Administration got elected, they had the choice.

They chose to sweep it under the rug and protect the bush administration from other investigators. Electability had nothing to do with it.

[MineralMan]

13. You're misunderstanding me. I don't think that any administration

that could be elected would prosecute a former President in this situation. I'm not judging that as a good thing. I'm just saying what I believe is the practical matter. It's not going to happen, and it wouldn't no matter who was elected. There are too many reasons that prosecuting a former President for war crimes or anything else would be unlikely. I don't like it, but that's the reality.

[Forkboy]

14. I don't know. Let's throw it out there and see if it sticks.

[EFerrari]

19. LOL, as Frank Lopez says, good morning, slaves!

:)

[MineralMan]

20. Google Assange anarchist.

There are a bunch of people writing about this. Seemed like a valid discussion to me. Your opinion may differ.

[Forkboy]

22. I have you to do it for me.

[BeFree]

15. well, these days...

...one is either a bit of an anarchist or one is an ass-kissing, brown nosing, anti-freedom, corporate tool. Eh?

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Ad Hominem.

"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You forgot to mention that he didn't use a condom, or so it is said, while practicing anarchic free love with a women in cahoots with us intelligence agencies.

This is relevant to the content of the documents published by wikileaks how?

[Igel]

17. Probably not.

Anarchism would be a commitment to no government and imply a consistent tearing down of all orders as they arise. If you're not a very far-seeing anarchist, you sort of have a 5-year plan (renewable annually) but only have the first few weeks formulated and written down--a plan that requires tearing down the existing order. The assumption may be that in the absence of archons every man will be peaceful and prosperous, and truth and beauty will blossom from corners, but no point in worrying about such things.

Often when you perceive yourself as a Crusader against the established order on the side of some ideal system, tearing down the order is such a necessary first priority that everything else must wait. In other words, in a 5-year plan the first few weeks involve tearing down the current order, but only the first few weeks have even been formulated. Let others worry about how to keep the resulting, undoubtedly brief, stage of anarchy from developing into a very destructive form of chaos, or even totalitarianism (as it most often does).

Now, compare the two plans and find a principled way, on the basis of that document, to distinguish between the Crusader for The Perfect Order from the anarchist.

Lots of kinds of ideologies look the same: The would be dictator who has concluded that he can't take over the system and he and only he can bring True Enlightenment to the sheeple, the would-be liberation fighter who intends for the righteous former, oppressed margins to oppress and marginalize the old center, etc.

[Vidar]

18. Only if one regards freedom as anarchy.

[Taverner]

21. No. Transparency =/= Anarchist

[knotwurstforware]

23. Assange is the messenger

and people who have done very criminal things dont like messengers
and will do everything they can to discredit the messenger. Hope that helps.

[EFerrari]

24. It's the return of the repressed. lol

Wikileaks is a manifestation of popular will. Is it anarchic? Somewhat. What other force balances the national security state?

Trying to suppress the impulse back of Wikileaks is like trying to suppress laughter. It won't over time.

[knotwurstforware]

25. let the light shine brightly

I say. We get told all of the time if we havent done anything wrong we have nothing to worry about. Well, if its good enough for us....

[AlabamaLibrul]

26. I suppose his assertion that "leaking is basically an anarchist act" is correct.

He's actively undermining the power of nation-states around the world as the MIC grows, power consolidates and globalization continues.

Is Assange an anarchist? I dunno, man. Speaking truth to power is not inherently anarchist.

[EFerrari]

27. I sing in the shower but that doesn't make me a vocalist except in hell, maybe.

Taking an element of behavior and reverse engineering it to pigeonhole a whole person is not a winner in most cases.

[JackRiddler]

28. Anything to keep our eyes on Assange instead of state-sponsored crime, I guess.