Nan

Anarchist
"The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." [Anarchism, p. 284]
While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." [Op. Cit., p. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule." [Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 13] Hence David Weick's excellent summary:


"Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique." [Reinventing Anarchy, p. 139]

For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state. In the words of Brian Morris:

"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]

Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent development -- the "classical" anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin did use the word, but rarely (they usually preferred "authority," which was used as short-hand for "authoritarian"). However, it's clear from their writings that theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against any inequality of power or privileges between individuals. Bakunin spoke of this when he attacked "official" authority but defended "natural influence," and also when he said:

"Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-man? Then make sure that no one shall possess power." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 271]

As Jeff Draughn notes, "while it has always been a latent part of the 'revolutionary project,' only recently has this broader concept of anti-hierarchy arisen for more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, the root of this is plainly visible in the Greek roots of the word 'anarchy.'" [Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement]
We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian economic and social relationships as well as political ones, particularly those associated with capitalist property and wage labour. This can be seen from Proudhon's argument that "Capital . . . in the political field is analogous to government . . . The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason." [quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 43-44] Thus we find Emma Goldman opposing capitalism as it meant "that man [or woman] must sell his [or her] labour" and, therefore, "that his [or her] inclination and judgement are subordinated to the will of a master." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 50] Forty years earlier Bakunin made the same point when he argued that under the current system "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time" to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. [Op. Cit., p. 187]

Thus "anarchy" means more than just "no government," it means opposition to all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In Kropotkin's words, "the origin of the anarchist inception of society . . . [lies in] the criticism . . . of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of society; and . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are seen in the progressive movements of mankind." [Op. Cit., p. 158] For Malatesta, anarchism "was born in a moral revolt against social injustice" and that the "specific causes of social ills" could be found in "capitalistic property and the State." When the oppressed "sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it was that anarchism was born." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 19]

Thus any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely anti-state is a misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been used by the anarchist movement. As Brian Morris argues, "when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." [Op. Cit., p. 40]

And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities. Such a society would be a true anarchy, a society without rulers.

While we discuss what an anarchy could look like in section I, Noam Chomsky sums up the key aspect when he stated that in a truly free society "any interaction among human beings that is more than personal -- meaning that takes institutional forms of one kind or another -- in community, or workplace, family, larger society, whatever it may be, should be under direct control of its participants. So that would mean workers' councils in industry, popular democracy in communities, interaction between them, free associations in larger groups, up to organisation of international society." [Anarchism Interview] Society would no longer be divided into a hierarchy of bosses and workers, governors and governed. Rather, an anarchist society would be based on free association in participatory organisations and run from the bottom up. Anarchists, it should be noted, try to create as much of this society today, in their organisations, struggles and activities, as they can. "

__________________
"An idiot with a computer is a faster, better idiot"
Rich Julius

DaveK

Originally Posted by axzilla

Well if there are a bunch of illegals living in queens with you then why are they not trying to become legal ? Is it because then they have to pay taxes ? Is it because they think they will be turned down. How can you be honest and illegal at the same time ? If the corporations need their labor so badly wouldnt you think that it would make it that much easier for them to apply to be here legally ? Legal aliens taking jobs is not illegal and if someone is here legally and offers to work for less than someone else then that is no crime. They still have to pay taxes and support themselves. The cramming of illegals into substandard housing isnt our fault. Its the illegals fault and the fault of people who allow themselves to work for substandard wages so that they cant afford anything else. If you choose to work for $2.00/hr what do you expect to live like a king ? Its your own fault. I feel sorry for poor people in other countries and here too but it is not our responsibilty to take care of people from other countries just because their government cant or wont do it themselves. We have poor people of our own that need help. And saying americans wont do certain jobs is bull. They just wont do those jobs for the price corporations are trying to get away paying substandard wages for. Whats really happening that keeps the corporations out of hot water is that they are using these illegals thru a "legal" contractor who bids on jobs and pay him then he hires a bunch of illegals and pay them cash under the table and keeps most of the profits and the government doesnt know that a bunch of illegals actually did all the work and never paid any taxes because they cant be on record.

We agree on an awful lot of stuff in this. But Mexico's economy is based on folks working here for wages far better than what they would get in Mexico, and sending some home. They accept crappy living conditions so that they can feed their familes. Sort of heartwarming really.

But yes, it is all about corporate profits. Our founding fathers were so scared of the power of corporations that they put strict limits on their power. After all, just about the first corporation in history was the Dutch East India Company, and you know that the fathers weren't big fans of them.

So they issued Corporate Charters, giving limited powers in exchange for public good. Over the years, corporate money eroded those limitations, and one spectacularly bad Supreme Court decision granted them the powers that people have. That Supreme Court was packed with former Railroad executives.

One state even found a way to make lots of money by stripping virtually all constraints and issuing corporate charters to anyone who would pay the licensing fee. And that it why so many corporations are chartered in Delaware. That is why Biden, an otherwise decent Senator, is a captive of the credit card industry.

What we really need to do is have strict public financing of elections and eliminate all corporate and special interest money. Of course, I'm a special interest as is everyone else, but until we break the link between contributions and laws, we will never have independent and honest politicians. How can you be honest when you need to raise $20 million in order to run for Senate?

The whole sudden immigration debate was started to divert attention from the crumbling Bush administration. I just read a poll that said that Conservatives are abandoning Bush, and I just wonder why it took them so long. No term limits, no balanced budget amendment, no gay marriage ban. They did get the all important anti-abortion Supreme Court judges, but far more important than even that is that they got super defenders of corporate power on the Supreme Court. Both Roberts and Alito are firmly on the corporate side of any battle.

I can never figure the hostility towards allowing gay marriage. I mean, who gets hurt by gay marriage? Well, except gays of course.

jimbo32

Originally Posted by psionandy

And why is someone not allowed to express his opinions that political threads on aximsite aren't wanted by some people?????

I have no problem with expressing his own opinion in a thread discussing whether political threads should be allowed, or his own thread, but not hijacking someone elses thread.

Jeanyes

__________________

1234com

he is cool don't diss Bush

mcrosco

Originally Posted by axzilla

I didnt say to keep legal foreign people out I said illegal. If you are illegally accross someones boarder then you are a criminal and probably have criminal intent other wise you wouldn't have to be sneaking around. If you have nothing to hide and are not a fugitve criminal then why not enter the legal way ? How would you like it if you came home one day and someone is sitting in your house that you dont know without your permission and demand you let them live with you ?

If you want to keep illegals out you have to get rid of the magnet. Heavy fines and jail time for employers who violate the law by hiring them and stiff penalties for posessing and manufactring forged documents would cause many here illegally to deport themselves. Add to that no taxpayer funded benifits and none would come here. Pretty simple really. I doubt you would need to increase border enforcement.

__________________
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time.
I think I've forgotten this before.
-Steven Wright-

DaveK

Originally Posted by 1234com

he is cool don't diss Bush

If you define cool as lying about the reasons for starting a war. Use google. Type Project New American Century. Read what they have to say, read what its critics have to say.

In summary, invading Iraq had nothing to do with WMD, 9/11, freeing the Iraqi people, or any other hogwash passed off as the reason. It had everything to do with creating an empire and making huge corporate profits. Is that cool?

Forge42

Actually... some time last week, I think it was, there was a story that actually restored some of the credability to the suspicion of a WMD program that Saddam was pursuing. Mainstream media didn't give it much airtime, but it was there. I wish I could find a link.... basically, the gist of the story was that Saddam had weapons facilities that doubled as other facilities. He was waiting on sanctions to be lifted before restoring the program...

lemme see if I can find a link..

*shuffles off*

DaveK

Originally Posted by Forge42

Actually... some time last week, I think it was, there was a story that actually restored some of the credability to the suspicion of a WMD program that Saddam was pursuing. Mainstream media didn't give it much airtime, but it was there. I wish I could find a link.... basically, the gist of the story was that Saddam had weapons facilities that doubled as other facilities. He was waiting on sanctions to be lifted before restoring the program... lemme see if I can find a link.. *shuffles off*

Even if true (it goes against everything else I know about the subject) it doesn't change the fact that the reason for going into Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs. The US gave him what was necessary to develop gas in the first place. And gas, to me, isn't exactly the big deal it was in 1918. We've sort of left that behind if you want to talk WMD.

In order to rule the world (what do you thing the Project For A New American Century means?) we need permanent offensive bases. That is what it is all about. Perhaps the US should have a debate about whether this is the direction that we want to go, but that isn't what was done.