Seeking Liberty

Liberty is the Fruit from Which All Progress Grows

Anarchists Organizing?

It seems the anarchists are organizing.

Wait, what?

Yes, it seems that the people who supposedly want a “state or society without government or law” are very upset at the racist, homophobic, libertarian, anti-Semite, Alex Jones conspiracy theorist, Ron Paul supporting, fascist, conservative, gun freak, militia men, constitutionalist Tea Partiers.  Why?  Because these anarchists don’t want to lose their government entitlements.

Huh?

Let’s ignore the contradictions and lies about the Tea Parties (racist, homophobic and Alex Jones followers?  Please!).  Let us also ignore the fact that fascism (the economic construct of privately owned property directed by an omni-present socialism-enforcing government) is what the Tea Parties are fighting.

Let’s instead focus on the most obvious contradiction:  That anarchists don’t want to lose their government-paid social programs.

Anarchy is defined above.  It is a state where there is no government, no social order, no political structure.  Anarchists are people who want to overthrow the existing social and political order without any plan or consideration for a new socio-political order, and indeed would not want any new social or political order to develop.

A real “anarchist” would not have any desire for government programs, because their real desire is to destroy all structures of authority and live without them.

A careful review of the website’s articles displays their true colors:  The are “progressive”, “liberal” and “anti”.  It’s not about anarchy, it’s about co-opting the most basic ideals of anarchy (tearing down the existing structures), but at that point they depart true anarchy and become statists:  They want to impose their own social order after the existing one is destroyed.

In what world would a true “anarchist” demand a “living wage” for “artists”, for example?  That isn’t anarchy; rather that is an socio-political and economic structure called socialism.  In what world does an anarchist care about treaties with Native Americans?  After all, the whole point of anarchy is that there is no political structure to make treaties in the first place.  The cognitive disconnect of these people is astounding.

Like so many on the Left, these people ignore the real meaning of words (anti-Semite, fascist, anarchy) and apply their own meanings to meet their own scurrilous needs.

Cross-posted at RedState.

Filed under: Government, socialism, , , , , , , ,

10 Responses - Comments are closed.

  1. [...] at Seeking Liberty. Sphere: Related Content Share on: Facebook | digg_url = [...]

  2. Real anarchist says:

    I know you Tea Party types have problems with basic logic, but let me help you a bit. Infoshop has news for anarchists. There may be articles about science, about Islam, or Judaism, or market theories. Does this mean that anarchists are inherently Islamic, Jewish, or market capitalists? NO!!! These Tea Parties are of interest because you are statist, xenophobic, capitalist, clowns. I’ve heard your arguments millions of times: you are for state governments, you are against federal govt, and you think Obama is a fascist. Its silliness, and nobody with half a brain takes you seriously.

    • fmaidment says:

      Um, read the linked article:

      It specifically states that people should oppose the Tea Parties because they could lose their government entitlements.

      True anarchists oppose the very existence of such entitlements, because they oppose the existence of government.

      Not be be flippant or anything but, “Just like a liberal, debasing the messenger with ad-hominem attacks but unable to attack the argument.”

      • Real anarchist says:

        I read the article, and I frequent infoshop. Due to this, and being involved with anarchist organizations, and whatnot, for the last 12 years, I think I have some idea of what I am talking about. To go into a bit more detail: the person who wrote this person was probably attempting to appeal to people who aren’t very well informed about anarchist discussions. One could see pretty clearly, at least before the tea partiers started showing up on the thread, that most of the commenters were stating how the suggestions weren’t good suggestions anyhow.

        But, I would state, most anarchists are opposed to state services, however, most would probably tend to think other institutions are way more illegitimate than a welfare service or health care; like the military industrial complex, police forces, the court system, financial institutions, and basic elements of the capitalist structure. If one wants to abolish the state, it is pointless, and ruthless to attack institutions that give a small amount of help to its victims.

        Lastly, what is of importance about opposing tea partiers is the xenophobic, capitalist, and statist agenda of these groups.

    • fmaidment says:

      (WP won’t let me reply to your latest)

      “Lastly, what is of importance about opposing tea partiers is the xenophobic, capitalist, and statist agenda of these groups.”

      I don’t know where you get “xenophobic” and “statist.” Unless you consider anyone who believes that total anarchy (and existence without government or societal structures) is impossible and so we must have *some* form of government a “statist.”

      The whole point of the Tea Parties is to *OPPOSE OVERREACHING GOVERNMENT*. Sure, some groups are trying to “glom-on” to the popularity, and the Tea Party movement is very popular among conservatives, but to accept the meme that conservatives are xenophobic, homophobic racists who want to control your daily life ignores reality.

      If you are truly an anarchist, you must oppose all societal structures, including government. To state that, “If one wants to abolish the state, it is pointless, and ruthless to attack institutions that give a small amount of help to its victims,” you are aiding and abetting the very social order you claim you want to tear down. These social programs help prop-up the government you claim to want to eliminate, because they create an embedded constituency of people whoa re dependent upon government and therefore they will fight to keep it operating and supporting them.

      Finally, I disagree with the very concept of anarchy. I understand that a true anarchic state cannot last long. Eventually, somebody with the biggest sword or biggest gun comes along and takes control by force. I believe in the libertarian (small “l”) state, where government is only permitted to operate where individuals or collective groups cannot, because of the hardships they would endure by expending the resources.

      I can’t understand how, as an anarchist, you can oppose the Tea Parties? How can you oppose a group of people fighting to throw off an overbearing, repressive governmental structure? And don’t give me the “their racist, homophobic, xenophobic” *BULLSHIT,* because that ain’t their message. In fact, the real fascinating thing about the Tea Parties is how you can’t pin them down to any particular message at all, other than, “government is (somehow) too big, get them out of my life!”

      • Scott says:

        original post: “people who supposedly want a ‘state or society without government or law’”

        fmaidment: “I disagree with the very concept of anarchy. I understand that a true anarchic state cannot last long”

        Anarchism, that is, the theories of government-free social organization as propounded by Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc., and really even the anarchism of Stirner, does NOT advocate a lack of laws. Rather, anarchism asserts that laws do not have to be handed down from a ruling class, whether hereditary, elected, or won by conquest, but instead that the members of society together, cooperatively, can define the rules by which they will all live. It demands a consensus process, and the right of individuals to leave society if/when a law would be considered objectionable to them.

        As such, there is no reason that such a society could not exist for a very long time.

  3. RanDomino says:

    I think it’s great how Teabaggers are finally starting to look into Anarchism. I hope you all take this opportunity to learn about the split between Bakunin (one of the first Anarchists) and Marx, Lenin’s mass murder of Anarchists during the Russian Revolution, and the Anarchist CNT-FAI labor union’s heroic struggle against Fascism during the Spanish Civil War.

    Although Anarchists oppose non-consensual government interference in people’s lives, we also recognize that there are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people in this country who depend on government services to survive or stay in their homes. Tea Party people apparently want to eliminate that social safety net, leaving poor people completely screwed.

    Also, Anarchists aren’t nihilists. We have a vision of a libertarian communist society; self-organized democratic communities in complete control of themselves acting for the good of all, because that’s human nature. Anarchism is both a study of the problems of capitalism and unaccountable government, and a proposal for a new system and a way to make it happen.

    • fmaidment says:

      1) “Teabagger” is an offensive term on-par with the N-word. Use it here and have your posts deleted. You have been warned.

      2) Anarchists must be nihilists. See the definition above. Just because you claim to be an anarchist doesn’t make it so. Anarchy is a state of existence with no political, economic and societal structures. No government, no law, no societal rules or structure. Hence, to be an anarchist, one must reject all societal, political and economic structures and therefore be a nihilist.

      3) You’re “libertarian communist society” (an oxymoron, by the way, since libertarianism about free will, not subjugation of the individual to the collective) is not anarchist. Anarchy is the rejection of government, laws, and societal hierarchy. Communism is merely a hierarchy that replaces the hierarchy of individuals over groups with the group over individuals. Any form of societal structure, including democracy, is anathema to anarchy.

      4) On my blog, we use dictionary definitions. Not newspeak; not the urban dictionary; not re-definitions found in new works or the writings of supposedly great minds. The Dictionary. Redefining anarchy to mean “tearing down the military industrial complex and replacing it with local communal societies” is not acceptable here.

      5) I’m always happy to challenge my beliefs. I just prefer people who challenge me to be honest about what they are, not use a term they think sounds cool our counter-cultural (anarchy) when they really mean something else (communism).

      6) I’m moving on from this post and will not be responding to any new comments, but feel free to keep posting. I will enjoy passively reading the discussion.

      • RanDomino says:

        “feel free to keep posting. I will enjoy passively reading the discussion.”

        Okay, then I’ll respond to your points.

        “1) “Teabagger” is an offensive term on-par with the N-word. Use it here and have your posts deleted. You have been warned.”

        Sorry, I thought that was what you called yourselves…?

        2, 3, 4:

        The definition I’m using for Anarchy is the original terminology from the late 19th century, so I think it has precedence. If you really want to know what we think, read some of the works of Mikhail Bakunin, Lucy Parsons, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Errico Malatesta, Rudolf Rocker, or many others, most of them freely available on the Internet. Anarchism is both an analysis of capitalism an authoritarianism and a vision for a society burdened by neither.

        The idea of Anarchists standing only for destruction is mostly the invention of the yellow journalism of the time. There is a difference between “anarch-y,” the rule of destruction; and “an-archy,” the destruction of rulers.

        5- “a term they think sounds cool our counter-cultural (anarchy) when they really mean something else (communism).”

        There are different terms that could be used, like “market socialism” or “libertarian communism,” but they all basically amount to the same thing. Communism essentially means a society in which communities are the main political unit, so it’s basically true that Anarchists are communists… but that term’s already been taken by *authoritarian* communists, who subscribe to Marx’s foolish belief that the best way to bring about a communist system would be this:

        1) A coup d’etat, revolution, or other sudden and violent overthrow of the old political system, and its replacement by Party-rule. The Russian Revolution is one example, in which Lenin and Trotsky used the army and secret police to crush all dissent. Some important but little-known events from this period are the Kronstadt Uprising and the Anarchist Ukraine, both of which were brutally crushed by the Red Army simply because they dissented from the Marxist/Bolshevik plan.
        2) A “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” in which all property would be owned by the State. Also called “Socialism” in Marxist terminology. The USSR really only stuck to the script for a few years, but once they had a few early setbacks (such as the defeat of the Red Army at the Battle of Warsaw, 1920), the weakness of Marxism should have become clear.
        3) Theoretically, the State was supposed to return all property to the People and then dissolve itself. Fat chance! But if it would happen, it would be called “communism”.

        Clearly, this was a stupid plan, and it all went to hell in just the way Bakunin said it would 40 years earlier. It hasn’t worked anywhere and there’s no reason to believe it ever will. So, when the word “communism” is used, people generally mean Marxism, which is stupid and wrong. But for some deranged reason, there are tens of thousands of dedicated Marxists in this country (the International Socialist Organization; the Revolutionary Communist Party; Workers’ World Party; Communist Party USA… there are several dozen, and I can’t tell them apart but they all hate each other’s guts).

        So we’re not Communists; we’re Anarchists. That means something very specific. Essentially it means that we don’t trust any Party or any government or any authoritarian leader to give us freedom. We have to take it for ourselves, by organizing and by working for liberation in everything we do. It means it won’t just be, Bang!, tonight’s The Revolution!, and then everything’s wonderful forever. It means building a new world even while the old one still exists, in a way that ‘prefigures’ how a free world would be- the ends do not justify the means, because means ARE ends! Communists think that if we just trust someone else to make us free, that if we defer freedom until the ‘experts’ or the Party has it all figured out, that it won’t end up like it has every other time. To hell with them.

  4. fmaidment says:

    Okay, just so everybody understands:

    When I say “anarchy”, I am referring to the 16th century Middle English word (“anarchie”) that literally means “without government”. The concept of anarchy pre-dates the 18th and 19th century political philosophers to whom you all refer. It means a society with no social order what-so-ever. To live in anarchy is to live with no political, social or economic rules, ethics or morays.

    Period.

    You can call yourself an anarchist all you want, but the reality is, you’re REALLY a communist. Maybe not a Marxist, but a communist. DEAL. WITH. IT.

    Also: “Teabagger” was a term picked by a cable news anchor. I forget which one, but I covered it in a post earlier this year or late last year. It is a reference to a sexual act, and said anchor was so pleased with himself for figuring out this association he couldn’t help giggling on air every time he said it. Many of our numbers, unaware of the connotation, adopted it. By an large, we no longer use the term in reference to ourselves (with a few exceptions).

    Now, how do I close comments so I don’t have to hear the same insipid, historically-fallacious comments over and over again?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: