US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Labor
Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
03 Sep 2004
Modified: 12:53:30 AM
A right-winger and possibly a government agent called "The Nefarious Cabal" recently posted a couple messages attacking anarchists. It is interesting how they switch from a sort of fiegned (faked) ignorance of what an anarchist is, and then over to being an "Expert" on anarchism when replying to anarchists who protest his attacks. It is thus very likely this person is a government plant to simply spread confusion about anarchism on Boston Indymedia, especially because this person will not give any kind of real identity.

Why would a person who doesn't like non-mainstream things (the two major political parties, hierarchy, authoritarianism, capitalism, etc.) have to hide their identity? Very curious.

Anyway... this article is an explanation of what anarchism actually is.
rednblack.gif



(The Red and Black flag of Anarchy)

Mister Cabal, are anarchists "crazy" just because you SAY they are? Come on. That's ridiculous. You don't know what an anarchist is, or (more likely) you are pretending not to know.

An anarchist is a left libertarian. An anarchist is a libertarian socialist. Ana anarchist is a true rugged individualist who believes in social organization in the interests of we ourselves, and not the rich and powerful. We are individualists who do not reject socialism, but who reject the market.. reject capitalism... and reject the de facto rule of the state (which always serves the ruling, rich class).

And anarchist is a person who understands that individual liberty is the most important aspect of being human, and that capitalism and private property are not liberty. An anarchist is a member of the working class and applies the idea of "liberty" to working class interests, rather than to capitalist interests.

An anarchist is an anti-authoritarian socialist. A person who understands that equality and democracy are achieved AFTER universal individual liberty is achieved... and universal individual liberty cannot be mandated by any leader.. it cannot be forced on anyone. It only happens when the working class.. the poor.. the underprivileged.. those of us who produce all the wealth but get only a small part of it.. stand up ON OUR OWN.. each and every one of us... and NO LONGER ALLOW ourselves to be exploited, divided, and abused.

Anarchists are libertarian communists. They are communists who reject the Marxist and Leninist and governmentalist idea of socialism and communism being based on government owenership of resources, but instead that socialism and communism is based on WE working class individuals acting in our own best, selfish, personal interests. We anarchists believe selfishness is a virtue, and that selfishness achieved and accepted by everyone leads naturally to true grass-roots democracy.. it leads to true socialism... a libertarian socialism.

Anarchists are individualists. We are the cowboys.. the rugged self-made working class, poor or indiginous women and men who work together to fight capitalism and push back government abuse in the service of capital. Anarchists oppose racism, sexism, authority, nationalism, and hierarchy... and as true libertarians we believe in organization... organization of and by the poor, the working class, the minority, women, youth, the indiginous people, the mentally ill, the homeless. Those who's backs the middle class and rich live upon.

Anarchists reject the notion of leaders that maoists, trotskyists and leninists embrace. We understand that because we human beings are self-interested, it is VERY dangerous for anyone to be placed in power over the rest of us.. that it causes a kind of madness to set into the rulers mind. So unlike the maoists, we know that even the most honest, most rational of us, or even the most oppressed 3rd world minority who seems somehow just in their suffering could never be made a ruler with power over others, because power, even in the name of good, is still domination. Maoists and other authoritarian leftists think that authority and forced equality are tools the oppressed can use. We anarchists recent this. Anarchists do not reject organization, but they reject hierarchical organization with rulers at the top.

Anarchists are not crazy. They simply reject the idea that people should dominate other people... they reject the idea that government knows what is best for people with its police, jails, and armies that act in the name of the rich and powerful.

Anarchists believe in hard work.. an honest effort put into a personal or useful project, art, or cleaning up after ourselves and our communities... but we utterly reject wage-slavery or compulsery labor, and therefor we appeal "lazy" to those wjho wish to use our bodies for their own purposes and against ours. We guard and embrace this "laziness", because it is us thumbing our noses in the faces of people who woould enslave us and make life a ridiculous chore. But when we ourselves accept have a job to do, we will do it better than any un-free person ever could.

And there is no such thing as "anarcho-capitalism". That is just capitalists trying to dress-up their murderous, authoritarian system with a pretty sounding name. And the "Libertarian Party" is NOT libertarian... it is a pro-police, pro-army, pro-jail (whether public or private versions of these things) capitalist political party that has no true connection to liberty or freedom... and certainly not liberty for working class people. The Libertarian Party is a party of the capitalists and statists who try to cover up this fact by stealing anarchist language and core ideas and applying it to capitalism, private property, exploitation and their built-in hierarchy. The Libertarian Party wants a private state instead of a public one. They, like the Republican Party, want to privatize everything so that the rulers are the capitalists themselves and not simply the government people who work for them today.
See also:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
03 Sep 2004
Wups.. I meant to say that this person likes mainstream things like the two major political parties, hierarchy, authoritarianism, capitalism, etc ... and does not like non-mainsteam things liek anarchism... so why does he have to hide his name?
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
03 Sep 2004
An Anarchist is any high school student or adult with arrested development who lives a chaotic, shower-free lifestyle with other like minded black clothing enthusiasts. It is a person who like so many other foolish people in the past view the French Commune as the template for a society. It is a person who takes Liberte Egalite Fraternite to its utmost reductio ad absurdum. It is a person with no personality save the corn-pone opinions it has gleaned from other anarchists, and a few dead European nihilists. It is a person with no knowledge of basic epistemology. It is a person with no grip on taxonomy, or physics. It is a person who thinks having no idea or clue is an idea or clue.
Bravo to "an anarchist."
03 Sep 2004
At least someone finally sees the harasser for what he is.
Something more...
03 Sep 2004
You said:

"Also, if you think capitalism is a "new" idea, or is rational, or is not absurd, you're crazy. Capitalism, religion, nationalism.. these are ideas that have been around a long time, and yet peopel delude themselves into thinking they are new or current, when in fact they are regressive and backwards."

Perhaps. But they are also IN PLACE, and have been for centuries. They will most likely still be in place for the remainder of your lifetime. But feel free to continue your "fight". There are many other ideaologies which have more viability standing in line for their turn. Good luck.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
03 Sep 2004
(Please forgive my spelling errors.)

Who's "Stevie"?

Anarchism is not like a baseball team that must be cheered on by it's supporters and win at all costs. Yeah, we have a flag and red and black colors (my personal interpritation is that the black means liberty and individualism, and the red means society and mutual aid bonds)... but "anarchism" doesn't really need that stuff. It doesn't even need a name. It doesn't matter if movements called "Anarchist" have been crushed in the past, or if today there are some serious, organized anarchists along side frivilous, confused, irrational ones. The essential idea is of a movement of people who throw off their oppressors and then do not replace it with a new oppression. If capitalism and the state are to be done away with.. if racism is to be fought ... no "reversed versions" of such things are to replace them. Some anarchists may fear reason, technology, cities ("civilization" means "the culture of the city") - but it is in fact the capacities of homo-sapains larger cerebral cortex that evolved naturally and made humans different from their previous upright-walking primate relatives that they fear. We have brains that allow us to think and reason in addition to simply moving, working and surviving. It is natural for human beings to question and change nature and this causes fear in some. But we can also choose how we treat each other and how we affect out environment in order to not harm each other and ourselves for personal profit (but losing it all in the end.)

The idea of anarchism is to realize that human history is a history of individuals dominating other individuals through culture, religion, politics, technology, nationalism, ideology, and other tools - and that this domination is not in the interests of the human individual, and that we offer something better by setting examples and verbal persuasion.

That some anarchists would choose violence or reject reason is not surprising - and that is okay. People are allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. This is liberty we are talking about... in it's rawest form... the idea of liberty "for the rest of us"... not simply for the business man, but liberty for the poor, the working class, and the indiginous, native people of many lands. How would that liberty manifest itself? No one book, no one woman or man can say. It is something we human beings must figure out on our own. We are working on it.

The people who choose violence or anti-reason or nationalism to liberate themselves and their fellow oppressed will at some time be given choices as to whether to take the libertarian path, or the authoritarian path. Whether to have a state or to have bosses and landlords and private property, or to live in social harmony. It's easier to take the authoritarian path.

The anarchist idea is merely part of the continuation of the human project. Of human history. Of social evolotion. Of the mystery of being alive, and figuring out how to achieve the happiness that we all seek.

Anarchism looks strange to people like yourself because it is difficult for people to think in terms of "liberty for everyone", and the social system that would naturally evolve out of it. We are so used to having things written down... to having orders handed to us.. to having a life structured by others.. we're so used to ideas .. concepts.. words like "entripeneurship" and "lassiez-fair" and "unbridled imagination" being applied purely to capitalist individuals, capitalist dreams, capitalist wishes... that we act as though we who are workers are lesser people and can only exist in group-think: as some faceless mob obeying some small group or individual leader. It is not true! There was always an anti-authoritarian "left" that talked about how working class individuals - poor individuals - indiginous individuals - could have a culture of liberty, dignity, mutual aid, and self respect, without the marxist curse... and we wish to keep that dream alive.

The authoritarian left utterly devistated the idea of "entripenerial socialism". Of individualism being the basis of true communism... of liberty being the basis of egalitarianism. They made it seem like we needed a welfare state, or an all powerful leader... but the anarchist understanding of humankind's self-interest shows us why if even in the name of "socialism" we have a "leader", we will have the same type of oppressions and divisions that one has in capitalism, only worse.
I admire your optimism, but there are others not so enlightened.
03 Sep 2004
You said this:

"Anarchism looks strange to people like yourself because it is difficult for people to think in terms of "liberty for everyone", and the social system that would naturally evolve out of it. We are so used to having things written down... to having orders handed to us.. to having a life structured by others.. we're so used to ideas .. concepts.. words like "entripeneurship" and "lassiez-fair" and "unbridled imagination" being applied purely to capitalist individuals, capitalist dreams, capitalist wishes... that we act as though we who are workers are lesser people and can only exist in group-think: as some faceless mob obeying some small group or individual leader. It is not true! There was always an anti-authoritarian "left" that talked about how working class individuals - poor individuals - indiginous individuals - could have a culture of liberty, dignity, mutual aid, and self respect, without the marxist curse... and we wish to keep that dream alive."

If all the elements in your theory were predictable and quantifiable, your concept would work. It is the optimistically utopian ideaology of such a concept which initially attracts people. Its when the reality of human behavior and the factoring in of the wide range of possible human archetypes which exposes the very obvious flaws. Let me explain:

The creation of a schizophrenic is not based in societal factors. The mentally retarded, the physically disabled, and the sociopathic (rapists, murderers, sexual deviants, etc). In your "liberty for everyone" scenario, the rapist should be able to "enjoy" the freedom of raping with impunity. The murderer who derives pleasure from his acts should also be able to "enjoy" his freedom to murder as well. You see where Im going with this. Leaders will naturally arise in human populations of ANY size, Even in a two person unit, one will be dominant and one will be passive (roles may shift, but they can never coexist at the same time without conflict). The hierarchy of THINGS (animal, mineral, plant, insect) is a natural state. Removing or unsetting the hierarchy is an UNNATURAL STATE. All movement within an anarchy is towards order. Stir up sand in a glass of water, and all the movement you see after you cease stirring moves inexorably toward order. Heavier grains start to settle, lighter ones remain in motion, and eventually they end in a state of complete order. People exist in an anarchy in a riot, or in a country where the government has been destroyed or disrupted, but in a relatively short time, order is restored. We cannot function without it.

Lets get back to my analogy. If those negative individuals (the rapist, the murderer) are not CONTROLLED, then they are allowed to roam free. What must happen in order to create that control? That's right - GOVERNMENT. First locally, then regionally, and finally nationally. The current destination for movement towards modern human social order has not arrived yet: Global Government. Its not here yet, but its coming. Hopefully, it wont be fascist or dictatorial. It may be anything from Capitalist to Socialist or perhaps even true Marxist Communism. It will be anything but ANARCHIST, that's for sure.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
03 Sep 2004
You just said what everyone skeptical of anarchy always says when it is plainly and clearly explained... why is it that when capitalists talk about THEIR "liberty" (which always translates mean markets and private property but not much else), people don't say "what about schizophrenics and rapists and murderers"? (of course the answer for them is the authoritarian's gun or billy-club, the street, the mental institution, the prison, and the death penalty - and people call that freedom?) Only when we workers, we underprivileged speak of liberty do we hear this kind of boogey-man scare tactic. The fact that you even bring up such things is more of a propaganda, psychological tacic to cause people to feel fear and forget about the most important issue: freedom for the most people, and how we working class individuals are to organize against authoritarian structures in a libertarian way.

You confuse liberty with liscence. You confuse ethics with the criminal or damaged and dangerous mind. You know very well what liberty is, and what universal liberty is... and I assume this is your "playing dumb" again, just to hurl insults and sow confusion.

But I will explain to make things anyway, to be clear. Universal liberty is not a free-for-all orgy of murder and destruction - as if this is what every person wanted deep down! (It seems to be the order of the day under dictatorship) Individuals do not have the "liberty" to do things that other individuals won't allow them to do to them because it would mean diminishing their own liberty. This is not mandated by some order, but is a natural process.. a "social invisible hand" - a "voting with the feet" that causes the evolution of social harmony and keeps us all from simply eliminating each other when we are on a even playing field and in close proximity. It works when we each choose on our own as individuals NOT to be exploited or abused.

The psychotic or schizophrenic person is that way as a side effect of capitalist society that does little to help them. It is not particularly profitable or useful for capitalists to cure the poor and underprivileged of these things in the current society we have.

But in an anarchist society - a society based on the interactions of libertarian minded working class individuals - it would not make sense to "allow" (what, would it be written up in some set of commandments?) any person to just go around killing and abusing, because as I explained above, we as individuals wouldnt let someone kill us... we as free individuals would self-correct such behavior in each individual confrontational situation by each taking responsibility for ourselves. The free individual can appreciate the personal benefits of a society that is not endless violence, and thus the choice not to be violent or destroy others can be a selfish choice. True socialism can be built on such selfishness... no free society can exist that is not the sum total of an immense number of separate free choices of many free individuals.

"Liberty for all" or Universal Working Class Liberty means a society developing based on as much liberty as practical and possible. Liberty ends where violating liberty begins. You know this and you're just pretending not to know, because I am sure you accept the principle of liberty applied to the capitalists, but you act like if working class people had it it would mean chaos. Liberty has been talked about and rhuminated over and formulated and praised by private property owners/advocates since the times of the capitalist class revolutions in the US and France and elesewhere. But I speak of liberty applied to those who are not the ruling class.. of those who do not wish to be bosses or bossed.. those who wish not to restrict or be restricted.

To you non-liberty or liberty for the capitalist ruling class is the only liberty you can imagine... but liberty that is universal .. working class liberty... is so rare and so hardly seen in history because no man can profit from it, and thus no one who wishes to rule another could dream of letting it exist! But history is not yet over.

Liberty for workers means liberty to fraternize.. to organize.. to solve social and economic problems. It means resources we have are used to benefit ourselves and not bosses - political or economical ones.

Liberty for the people means we understand that we all MUST be free beings, but we must also naturally and organically reach the great "libertarian compromise" that is a "society of free individuals" because we do, and always have lived with each other since the beginning of homo sapiens. So a libertarian society is a "society" because it is made up of many free individuals.. but it does have organization.. it has social bonds. it has mudual aid, reason and respect.

Anarchy is not a Utopia. Because of the chaotic nature of reality.. of physics.. because of the fact that evolution and quantum physics and unpredictable cause and effect there will always be some conflict, always be differences.. always be social forces pulling apart and combining again in new ways... there will always be change. But when it comes down to us working class people as individuals, we can ignore the "Grand scheme of things" and simply declare that we must be free in our own individual actions and lives... we must pay attention to the small personal things that happen every day and conduct them in a libertarian manner.. and when we all do this together in the same frame of historic time (revolution), it changes the nature of society in the only way it can truly change: when each person acts in their own best interests. And we working class, poor and underprivileged, indiginous, suffering or depressed, abused people are and always will be the majority.. those who are exploited, used, bored, apathetic, powerless, frusterated.. those without power over our own lives because someone else is ultimatly making decisions for us or owns the land or the building we reside in or the workplace we work in.

Let historians come after we are done with our anarchist lives and delude themselves into thinking that there were patterns in our behavior..that it could be mapped out.. that there was a "progression" of one step to the next (like the authoritarian leftists always assume).. that people with big names were important and some rulebook can be written where everything can be repeated with the exact same results.. it is hogwash! Our anarchist lives are based on individual decisions. On individual libertarin actions. There is no way to say for certain what we will do or think because we are the ones making these decisions, and that is why you don't understand us, becaue you expect it all to be written down. You make the same mistake so many people who study history and politics make: that there must be a roadmap to success. But liberty isn't about someone elses roadmaps.. it is about being in the moment, listening to as much advice from our fellow anarchists and historic accounts as possible, working together, and then as individuals making the best choice in our own interests. And we anarchists know that capitalism and it's authoritarian structure and byproducts are not in our own best interests.

You pretend that I am saying that universal liberty is liberty for the rapist and the insane and the criminal. No, it is liberty for the working class person, but within that scope there is of course a natural libertarian social process that must work itself out and solve its problems. The mentally ill person is already in a prison of their own mind.. of nature.. of illness.. and we others would help them as best we could be cured, because it would be in our interests, because they would be our brothers, sisters, family, friend's family. They are us and they matter.. their pain and their actions affect us.

Talk of a "hierarchy of things" and comparing it to human social organization hierarchy is laughable. The use of the term "hierarchy" in the case of, say, the classification of animals or chemical elements is not the hierarchy I am talking about. I am talking about whether *I*, as an individual, will alow YOU, another individual, to run my life... or allow the capitalist (or state "socialist") police or armies you put your trust in run my life. My decision could be a difficult one, because there is some security in slavery of various kinds.. security in bondage. But it is the quest of all human beings to learn to throw off these bonds. The delemma you are posing is a false one.

All the books and sciences and Karl Marxes and Ayn Rands in the world have no say over how I think and feel, as an individual, and the decisions I make. I am an individual and I have choices, and I choose to be free... I choose to not LET capitalists and their governmentalists rule me... and violence or irresponsibility or being a social recluse won't cut it. That isn't liberty, it's just a little vacation from normalcy. The only way to truly be free is to work those others in my situation and in my social class - work together to organise and counter the extremely high level or organization of the masters, the rulers. The only way to truly achieve freedom is to be honest, hard working, intelligent, methodical, well organized, always asking questions, and always open to new ideas, and to not forget my deepest dreams and hopes.

The "global government" idea is a silly conspiracy theory. Every advanced nation has tried one after another to physically control the world throughout history. It is their nature to do so. But how many countries there are, how many religions there are, how many corporations there are ruling the world - a thousand, or just one - makes no difference. All that matters to me as a member of the working class is my happiness. My freedom. My concerns. I do not care about Bible doomsday stories. The UN or the USA or the Moslems or the Christians don't mean anything to me beyond the question of authority vs. liberty. Beyond my concern over how authoritarian they are or are not, they are not my concern at all, and their lines on maps and their laws and customs are just the flavor-of-the-century and will always be changing.

I do not wish to rule the earth. There is no anarchist world domination plan. There are only we individuals who suffer, who work, who dream, who cry.. we people who have no power and want no power. I dont care if they paint the earth red and yellow and call it McDonald's Land... I know that the best decisions in the world are those made by free individuals, and that individuals make the best decisions when they communicate with each others, and I know that freedom and communication and cooperation are all I and all WE working class people need to someday achieve our liberty and our happiness. Liberty, equality, fraternity.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
03 Sep 2004
Wups, in the last paragraph I meant to say "I dont care if the capitalists paint the earth red and yellow and call it McDonald's Land - authority is authority and masters are masters. One tyrant (world government) or a thousand tyrants (capitalist bosses and landlords) makes no difference to me or to my fellow anarchists."
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
03 Sep 2004
Let me add a bit more to the "hierarchy of things" idea since I answered it before in another way that was likely unsatisfactory.

You are essentially using some model.. some notion of what hierarchy and order are.. something you see in nature or a glass of water - observing from outside, and observing non-human things, or observing authoritarian societies in temporary flux (what you call "anarchy" which is in fact social chaos and confusion and fear).

You are not considering that:

1) Recent human history (starting around the 1400's) is still a very short sliver of time.

2) If anarchist society had been achieved we would not need to have this debate. I realize this may seem like a trick statement, but it holds true. You are assuming that I can only believe in something if it "wins". But I have seen glimpses proof that it can work and exist, and that it has been then been repeatedly quickly crushed only tells me that capitalists and other authoritarians will do all they can to destroy it. It's like the student who believes the school bully will always bully them, and not realizing that they can band together with their fellow oppressed students and defy the bully - because our society does not and cannot exist if it makes this it's number one priority. If the school yard bully is toppled, what will save the corporate statist bully? The fear and disbelief in the self, disbelief in liberty, endless war of all oppressed against all other opperssed must be maintained in order for hierarchical, exploitive society to go on.

3) Humans are not particles in glasses of water, or ants, or wasps. But if you wanted to stick with such analogies I am sure I could find anarchistic traits of such things if I myself tried.

4) The best decisions I make are those I make myself, and based on my surrounding conditions and circumstances and information I gather from my senses and from others. Whether Reader's Digest or Time Magazine or some Harvard intellectual or you declare that struggle against hierarchy is pointless, there is still my personal desire and need for liberty. I can see that those who are in power can talk about liberty, and have liberty, and I can see that I do not have it. That is what matters... not models or phophets (ideologues) or historian archivists and historic judges. Human systems only work when they are based on individuals making free decisions, and not models or speculations.

5) You slipped in this term "organization" as if it were the opposite of anarchy - it is not. Libertarian organization is the natural outcome of free human beings making free decisions but living together. Human beings in any organized system can decide if the organization is to be hierarchical and authoritarian or not, but organization itself is natural and inevitable, and so long as it is not hierarchical and authoritarian, it is not detrimental.

"An-Archy" (Ancient Greek) means "no rulers" but does NOT mean "no organization". So telling me that organization is inevitable does not phase me because it is true and it is not incompatible with anarchy. Telling me hierarchy and statism are inevitable only tells me that the urge to make others submit to ones will is powerful and strong, but that does not make it desirable to me.

It is not, and never will be a "natural state" for a working class, poor, underprivileged, peasant/farmer or indiginous person to have hierarchy over them. Proof of this is depression, alcoholism and other addictions, limitless personal frusteration/rage, domestic violence, stress, endless grief/lonliness, apathy, separation and alienation, rape/molestation, madness, and suicide. Just because these things have been around a long time in human history (as long as hierarchy and authority have been around) it does not mean they are a "natural state" because it is in fact only natural that we who suffer from hierarchy and authority always resist it.
Great response, but you are giving your contemporaries too much credit.
03 Sep 2004
LET ME ADDRESS THESE FIRST:

1) Recent human history (starting around the 1400's) is still a very short sliver of time.

RESPONSE: If you made that statement thinking that I was talking about "human RECORDED history: in my previous post, you are mistaken. I was talking about human history in the literal sense. Perhaps I should have said human EXISTENCE. Even the fossil records support the fact that human and pre-human populations of primates and all higher animals (indeed, it is even being found among dinosaurs), show that animals lived in hierarchial family units. It shows that those family units were then organized in still larger herd/tribal units. The social hierarchy of animals and insects and plants is genetically predetermined. It is not an artificial condition. Anarchy is the artificial concept, not hierarchy.


2) If anarchist society had been achieved we would not need to have this debate. I realize this may seem like a trick statement, but it holds true. You are assuming that I can only believe in something if it "wins". But I have seen glimpses proof that it can work and exist, and that it has been then been repeatedly quickly crushed only tells me that capitalists and other authoritarians will do all they can to destroy it. It's like the student who believes the school bully will always bully them, and not realizing that they can band together with their fellow oppressed students and defy the bully - because our society does not and cannot exist if it makes this it's number one priority. If the school yard bully is toppled, what will save the corporate statist bully? The fear and disbelief in the self, disbelief in liberty, endless war of all oppressed against all other opperssed must be maintained in order for hierarchical, exploitive society to go on.

RESPONSE: "band together with their fellow oppressed students" Isnt that statement describing the formation of a coordinated unit (a "state" as it were)? Isnt the person who makes the plan to topple, and the strategy used to accmplish considered the "leader"? Isnt it also true that the act of "toppling the bully" is a form of oppression (of an antagonist, but its still oppression). You seek to replace the current system, and that's one thing, but anarchy, by definition requires the REMOVAL of government and hierarchial structures. Anarchist movements are not "crushed", they simply disintegrate in favor of a more ordered system.

3) Humans are not particles in glasses of water, or ants, or wasps. But if you wanted to stick with such analogies I am sure I could find anarchistic traits of such things if I myself tried.

RESPONSE: Actually, you couldnt. I can point out a few "anarchist" traits in nature and physics, but as you look at them you will realize that they are merely transitional states existing only as part of the movement towards order:

Fire
Stampedes
The "fight or flight" response in all animals
Insect swarms
Riots
Algae blooms (red tide)
Locust swarms

There are a few others, but not many. EVERYTHING, from the tinyest subatomic particles to the most complex sentient beings (humans) organize into hierarchial units NATURALLY, without any imposed influences. Order is the law of nature, not anarchy. Government and the "exploitive" behavior of hierarchial nature is by design. Each system must make use of energy derived from another system. The gears of a watch must remain intermeshed in order for the watch to function. Such is the case for all organized systems.

I admire your passion for the concept you are trying to communicate, but I suspect that you fall within the typical demographic for people who support anarchism. Tell me if Im wrong:

Between the ages of 16-25
Unemployed, or earning less than 20K a year
Do not own property (real estate)
Are unmarried
Come from dysfunctional families or one-parent families
Possess a high school education (or less), but no college degrees


Several factors can lead to a given individual supporting anti-authoritarian movements such as anarchism. Bad homes can lead to anti-authoritarianism (or at least questioning authority). That is a good trait, and comes naturally after one gains authority for themselves. When that trait gets expressed in the early years as a result of a bad home environment or childhood, the normal progression of maturity is disrupted. Instead of seeing the virtues of order, one seeks to destroy it. I am not some programmed robot who is swallowing the whole Dubya/Right Wing thing because my parents told me to (they were Democrats). I belong to a minority among minorities (bi-racial Black and White). I look at the big picture before making my critiques.

There is more good in society than there is bad. Perhaps that is why it has been governing humans since the dawn of Man. Concepts such as anarchy can only form within highly ordered and free society. The "black bloc" activities of anarchists, as well as the free expression of their ideaology is only possible within the confines of a democratic nation. In any other less democratic nation (i.e. communist or religious theocracy), you wouldnt have the "right" to even express your ideas.
What a crock of shit.
03 Sep 2004
I fall into none of those "demographic categories." I have mulitple degrees, come from a family with two parents, have a very good job (in terms of income), am married and have owned real estate.

There you have it, "NC" is blowing air out of his ass.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
03 Sep 2004
Anarchist, NOW, ACLU, Green Peace and others are being labeled by Corporate Media as extreamists. The only extreamists I see? Corporations! Feeding the American "sleep walkers" FALSE information!
I agree with dissent!
When Freedom of Speech is turned off?
We're all fucked!
Anyone who thinks I'm wrong? Is one moronic, uneducated individual!
Then your passion makes even less sense to me.
03 Sep 2004
"I fall into none of those "demographic categories." I have mulitple degrees, come from a family with two parents, have a very good job (in terms of income), am married and have owned real estate."

Yeah...right. If you say so. Lets just say that what you say is true. Your anarchist philosophy would take away your real estate, eliminate your income, and make your wife fair game in the competition for females by other males. I used to be a Democrat years ago, but when my income exceeded 100K a year and I bought real estate, I became resentful at the sudden jump in my tax liabilities, as well as continued legislation which hurt the wealthy. Why should I be forced to pay higher taxes just because I have made wise financial decisions and made wise investments? Today, I am a Neo-Conservative, and I support Bush.

Nothing about your anarchist ideaology is lost on me. I am only appalled at your continued support of it, especially given your stated demographic. By the way, that set of demographic factors IS the correct one for at least 90% of those claiming to be anarchists, so you are an exception. Anarchism doesnt work. Its very simple. Because you live in America, you are free to express your ideaology as you see fit, but anarchy as a governmental system will NEVER materialize in any developed nation anytime in your lifetime (or mine). Because you disagree, you might feel a little frustration at that rather blunt statement, but Im just the messenger. Nature and History have written the message already.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
03 Sep 2004
Man, yu are so full of bull. You're taking terms and using these lame mainstream-ized definitions. And you define everything in your favor so that it is impossible for anything outside of your own reality (the way things are now) to exist. You are a typical reactionary.. the typical person who rejects change and social progress: you believe anything other than what exists now (or that you bother to see) is impossible, and that human nature is whatever leaders and authorities define them to be.

I honestly don't care much.. it doesnt bother me if you want to be an ass... people like you don't give a crap about being convinced, you just come to places like Indymedia to be disruptive and abusive, and this is why talking to people like you is generally a waste of time. You come to progressive sites like this simply to waste space and time and disrupt things instead of sticking to your own right wing forums where your crap is more relevant.

You listed a bunch of recent events as anarchism (1968, 1936, etc.) so I pointed out that recent history in which these events happened in is a very small amount of time in the grand scheme of things. Then you use all these examples of "hierarchical things" ... yawn. You are being so arbitrary and subjective that all yur examples can be reversed the same way. You can say "hierarchy is natural" all you want, but I know that the desire for liberty within me is what matters, and what is "natural" is not for you're subjective mind (which cares nothing for my self interests as a working class person) to decide for me.

Is taking anti-depression medication to make an abusive workplace or a abusive husband tolerable "natural"? Whether it is "natural" or not is moot. The point is that people do as they wish and as they must. You are clearly an advocate of "natural law", which anarchists reject.

It is amusing that you switched.. at first you said "organization is natural" and when I explained that it was not incompatible with anarchy, you jumped to "hierarchy" instead. Pretty suspicious.

I used a simple explanation of the schoolyard. Banding together is simple organization... it is not a "state". A state is a very specific political formulation. It is not simply defined as "anything I don't like", as the Republicans have done. The bully not being allowed to bully anymore is not an authoritarian act... it is an action that counters authoritarian acts. And you know very well that anarchist movemernts have been purposefully smashed... by the authoritarian right and by the left. Liberty is natural for me to seek because it is what makesme happy to be alive, and that is all I need to go on. You do not know what is best for me, only I can ultimatly know that. It's called being personally responsible for my happiness.

Your "anarchist traits in nature" bit is just silly. Like a salesman, you can say whatever you wish is "natural". But it's not natural to me.

As for your list of what you think anarchists are, this is the demographic of the average visible activist in general. This is simply a good sign of how weak the workers movement is in America and elsewhere right now, and it is why you are so stridently able to believe your own ignorance of the idea of a movement of oppressed people standing up for themselves.

A hundred and fifty years ago, even the white abolitionists who believed blacks deserved to not be slaves often did not believe that they possesed the same intellectual capacity as whites, because they assumed that since they were not as educated as whites, they never COULD be - but this was only because they had not been ALLOWED to be educated. It is the same way for anarchism - after a movement is smashed, there is a long period where the few advocates around are of a demographic that has an easier time being anarchists. But it will not continue to be this way as the anarchist movement gets stronger, and I'm sure people like you will make up other convoluted rationalizations against it once the demographic changes.

You remind me of the Republicans who make a big deal about John Kerry and Bill Clinton and other Democratic Party members being rich, when you know very well that your own policies made it impossible for anyone BUT a rich person to be president or governor or congressman or senator. You sit back and laugh at those who oppose the rich yet are forced BY YOU to have rich people speak for them during historic periods where they are very weakly organized (or have no real working class organization at all). A rich person on your side is at least better than nobody at all, and it was not we who made things thus, and we do not wish for it to be this way.

"A bad home" may lead one to be an anarchist, but what could possibly be wrong with that? Rape can lead a woman to oppose rape and rape culture. Why would you be surprised? I suppose though you want to use a "blame the victim" argument ("damn those subordinate children!")... or you are saying "if I am not convinced then nobody will ever be convinced". I think you will be surprised. The world does not revolve around you and people like you. It just seems like it right now.

The argument that "at least in this society you are allowed to protest" is a hollow statement. The level of civil liberties in the USA is directly proportional to the low (or non existant) threat to national security demestic activists represent in a democratic society. But also, the rest of the world, where much of our labor is outsourced, is as undemocratic as the US was in the early days of the great labor battles... so we can see that lack of freedom and lack of working class organization are linked. The more individuals stand up for freedoms, the more freedoms they have. The less able they are to secure freedom through resistance and protest, the less freedoms they willhave. The freedoms in the USA were not bequethed to people ordinary people by the Founding Fathers in 1776, who instead reserved them for white male property owners alone (voting, for example): those freedoms only exist for the restof us now because the oppressed did not give in to arguments like yours and stood up for their own liberty.
More nonsense from NC (No Clue)
03 Sep 2004
Your philosophy is baed on egoism. From your words it is clear that you believe that every person should act in the interest of their class rather than some set of principles based on concepts such as universal liberty and dignity. Your philosophy is a perfect example of brown-nose-ism: kiss the ass of those who can increase your material benefit and become like them.

I decided to get rid of my real estate and to never own real estate again because I consider owner real estate a constraint on my individual freedom. So long as I am tied to the system through a mortage, I am forced to conform. That is, I must care about what my employer thinks of me so that I do not lose my job and, therefore, my life's work (embodied by my real estate debt).

It is more in tune with my nature as a free person to not latch myself to a system which demands that I conform to corporatist norms in order to keep my property. By freeing myself of my property the state (and employers) have little or no control over me.

As for my wife. It is a mutually agreed upon relationship (as all marriages ought to be). Under anarchism or under corporatism she still chooses to me my wife. You ignore the rights and will of women when you talk of them as "fair game." Sorry, bud, women aren't "game." Women are individuals with all of the same rights and freedoms as men. That you view women as game shows that you have no respect for them (i.e. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a rapist).
Cool your jets. You need to read your responses before blurting.
03 Sep 2004
"Man, yu are so full of bull. You're taking terms and using these lame mainstream-ized definitions. And you define everything in your favor so that it is impossible for anything outside of your own reality (the way things are now) to exist. You are a typical reactionary.. the typical person who rejects change and social progress: you believe anything other than what exists now (or that you bother to see) is impossible, and that human nature is whatever leaders and authorities define them to be."

RESPONSE:

I have defined nothing. I merely state the definitions already in place. As far as "mainstream-izing" shit, the mainstream is the most important stream. Without it, you dont have the tributaries and backwaters which represent non-mainstream ideas. Because my ideaology is derived from the mainstream, and supports it, then the arguments I make are going to go in my favor. Your latest responses have been knee-jerk and somewhat rude. Dont take your frustration at the facts out on me, just take a minute and review your ideaology. It is illogical.

THEN YOU SAID THIS:

"It is amusing that you switched.. at first you said "organization is natural" and when I explained that it was not incompatible with anarchy, you jumped to "hierarchy" instead. Pretty suspicious."

Organization IS natural, and it may be compatible with anarchy to some degree in a microcosm, but not in a macrocosm. And certainly not in an environment where the resources are limited to ANY degree. Hierarchy and organization are ALWAYS compatible, both in the micro and in the macro. What's so suspicious about that?

"...anarchism - after a movement is smashed, there is a long period where the few advocates around are of a demographic that has an easier time being anarchists, but it will not continue to be this way as the anarchist movement gets stronger, and I'm sure people like you will make up other convoluted rationalizations against it once the demographic changes."

RESPONSE:

The "anarchist movement" is not getting stronger, its getting weaker. Because the demographic of the anarchist is transitional (teenagers become adults, the low paying job becomes a high paying career, the renter becomes a homeowner, etc), the tendency to protect those things which we earn changes one's ideaology in keeping with that protectionism. I changed from a Liberal Democrat to a Neo-Conservative Republican for those reasons. The "hippies" of the 1960s are today's supporters of Bush and Kerry and the American Way. The buyers of SUVs and Prada. What a twist, huh? From "Flower Power" to "Towers of Power".


"Talk of a "hierarchy of things" and comparing it to human social organization hierarchy is laughable. The use of the term "hierarchy" in the case of, say, the classification of animals or chemical elements is not the hierarchy I am talking about. I am talking about whether *I*, as an individual, will alow YOU, another individual, to run my life"

RESPONSE:

Capitalism works precisely because it is not necessary to physically control you in order to have control. If I control your food supply, I control you. If I determine what you can and cannot buy simply by pricing beyond your means to purchase, I control you. If I control your ability to move by regulating the devices which you use to move, I control you. Most importantly, if I control the information you need in order to determine HOW control is acquired, I control how much control you can get. Its kinda sinister, but its true.

By the way, statements like "he's blowing it out his ass" and "what a crock of shit" dont do much in the way of support for your arguments, and they underscore what much of society already thinks about anarchists: they are reactionary extremists. You dont strike me as a dummy.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
03 Sep 2004
Actually, saying things like "you are full of crap" is just a bit of flippant talk - it's OK if it is not the entire tone of the writing. I don't have to be %100 perfect, you know. I can show a bit of emotion here and there.

At this point we are at the "yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't" stage. You say what I believe in is a failure, and I refuse to call your bluff. Not much point.

I accept, though, that anarchist society, as with liberty itself, isn't a certainty - I merely desire the opperunity to try for one. Just like any human idea or venture or project. It really depends on ordinary people and how much they want and like something. It starts with getting out of bed in the morning, and goes from there.

And yeah, I have a pretty good idea of how capitalism is able to "work". And I've seen it completely fail as well.

The public will only think anarchists are "extremists" if they keep getting their definitions from people who don't care much for anarchism, or people who do it completely wrong. If Enron and Worldcom were the only corporations around, people would have a pretty bad impression of corporations. If Rev. Phelps ("God Hates Fags") and David Koresh (Waco compound) were the only Christians around, people would have a pretty bad impression of Christians.
"Nefarious Cabal's" history speaks for itself.
03 Sep 2004
Nefarious Cabal acknowledged that he is KOBE. KOBE wages online warfare against anarchists (e.g. targets have been Anderberg, DeVoy and Austin (all of whom were running anarchist websites)).

KOBE is obsessed with anarchists. This is obviated by his constant focus on the topic, his stalking, his libel, his defamation and his cyber warfare against anarchists website (which, despite his arguments against hacktivism - is hacktivism). We can only conclude that if he has a "desire to understand anarchists," it is a goal he seeks with an eye to harming anarchists and not for the mere sake of knowledge.

This leads me to wonder why anarchism is so important to him. For example, revolutionary communists of the Moaist type wish to destroy the world as he knows it and replace it with something else, yet he doesn't spend his energy on them. His life must have been touched by anarchism in a way that made him profoundly fearful of anarchism and anarchists. I happen to know what this event was, though he will deny it to the bitter end. When the anonymity of his operation is completely lifted society will judge him as an insane fruitcake (which would be a cause of merely acknowledging what is already true - he is a sociopath).

There is no point in debating with him because it is not a debate - it is a probe.

Been there. Done it. Know what is going on.
Re: "Nefarious Cabal's" history speaks for itself.
03 Sep 2004
Whoever he or she is, they sure have AL0T of free time on their hands. Probably some sad, lonely computer programmer with no friends I would guess.
I dont know if you saw this in my other article, but
03 Sep 2004
Anarchy COULD work, if the following conditions were met (and we are well on our way to this):

*If there was an inexhaustable energy source (i.e. fusion)
*If food was plentiful (with enough for all, and was evenly distributed)
*If education was free and not limited by the "class" system (i.e. learn at your own rate, ungraded and have access to all written material, unabridged and uncensored.
*If housing was plentiful and free (allow people to build their own, or let the anarchist collective build modular housing in automated factories)

In other words, the "Star Trek" concept. It is entirely possible that we will be able to realize these things in our lifetimes. If that happens, your anarchist society could actually work. Actually, it would be more Libertarian, but as close to workable anarchy as possible.

The success of Capitalism and Socialism, Communism and Nationalism are all based in the availability of resources. It was the lack of them which caused the USSR to collapse.

Political ideologies are frameworks of action. They are a comprehensive set of beliefs about political events and phenomenon, about desirable goals, and the best means of achieving those goals. Although ideologies have the best intentions of guiding people, they have their faults. Ideologies all promise perfection, although they can never provide it. They are not necessarily neat, tidy, and consistent in their details. As held by individuals they are generally full of inconsistencies because of personal experience and self-interest. Perhaps because an ideology is not perfect, it fails to live up to its means. Or, that its faults overcome itself and thus destroying its purpose.

You are right about this: "At this point we are at the "yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't" stage.". You have my respect. I admire anyone who sticks to his/her convictions no matter what. Others who claim that they support anarchy seem to waffle back and forth or perhaps they dont live by the ideals they preach. You seem to have a spine, and I can respect that. This is a great thread, and I have been forced to at least CONSIDER the motivations of an anarchist. Thanks.
To "Poor Thing".........LOL
03 Sep 2004
"Whoever he or she is, they sure have AL0T of free time on their hands. Probably some sad, lonely computer programmer with no friends I would guess. "

Its a "HE", and Im neither sad nor lonely. Im definitely bored today. Sigh. I have many friends, but Im at work right now, and I have nothing better to do. Before you go to the "does your boss know that you waste time while on the clock" speech, I am a partner in the company and I dont answer to anyone (One can write his own ticket when one earns the right).

Care to add anything to this thread (within your limited ability to comprehend the issues)? Feel free. Otherwise, STFU.
To "Anarch": I have concealed nothing.
03 Sep 2004
"Nefarious Cabal acknowledged that he is KOBE. KOBE wages online warfare against anarchists (e.g. targets have been Anderberg, DeVoy and Austin (all of whom were running anarchist websites)."

RESPONSE:

All true. Also true is the fact that Anderberg, DeVoy and Austin are waging online warfare against KOBE, against Republicans, our President and our government. All is fair in love and war, as they say. DeVoy and Austin lost the war. Austin went to prison, DeVoy just went crazy (he currently thinks Im Doug Lenat of Cycorp I think)Anderberg needs $250 by September 15 (http://users.resist.ca/~kirstena/). Send her some money. At least I own my responsibility. Some of you anarchists (and others) attempt to pass your equally reprehensible acts off as "defense" or simply deny them altogether. I am only one KOBE. I am not responsible for what the others do. Your constant theories and "connections" and "100% identification" (which later ALWAYS proved to be mistaken) became tiresome. I no longer seek to attack my adversaries. I prefer to understand them. I can learn more by communicating with them.

"We can only conclude that if he has a "desire to understand anarchists," it is a goal he seeks with an eye to harming anarchists and not for the mere sake of knowledge."

RESPONSE:

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. My goal here is to understand anarchists. If nothing else, you can say that I stand by my convictions. I cannot say the same for you. Also, I dont go around the net attacking innocent people and companies because I think they are involved with supporting you. Also, I am willing to change according to the needs of the many, instead of co-opting issues in order to satisfy self-serving, narcissistic goals.


"His life must have been touched by anarchism in a way that made him profoundly fearful of anarchism and anarchists. I happen to know what this event was, though he will deny it to the bitter end"

RESPONSE:

Since you do not know who I am, you could hardly know of any events which have taken place in my life. If you are ASKING me why I have a problem with anarchists, I would be happy to tell you: They are supporting an ideaology which necessarily MUST destroy mine. The event which catalyzed my activism was 9/11. I had a relative killed by those terrorists. I feel that the lax and spineless activities of anarchists and pacifists hurt the role of the United States as I see it. Of all of the potential replacements for American-style Democracy (Socialism, Communisn, etc.), it is ONLY Anarchism which seeks dismantlement of ALL government. By definition, anarchism is the enemy of all nations living under a government (which is all of them). There is no secret there.

I refuse to be drawn into any sort of useless diatribe with hecklers/detractors. I am only interested in healthy, non-combative debate and discussion. If you dont want to participate, then that is your choice. The other anarchist (the author of the lead article) is a far more interesting protagonist.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
04 Sep 2004
You will now notice that someone here has port sniffed me and is now posting my name and address, as an attempt to show me how clever they are with a computer, and perhaps to intimidate me into not messing with anarchists.

Or perhaps it is a dweeb trying to force me into taking a more lunatic stance against anarchists, since thus far my posts have been elitist but also calm cool, collected, rational and nonthreatening.

I am an atheist, but a lot like Jesus. Come to my home and I will share my bread with you.

I am also not like Jesus. Come to my home where my wife and child reside, the locus of all my responsible acts, with the intention of making mischief and I will commit horrible acts of violence. I have always longed to. I am not on anyone's moral level.

Not even with the most odious members of the directorate of the IMC have I EVER threatened violence. You will know my posts because I do not threaten users with violence.

But I will gladly meet persons who post here for any reason, if only you request it in an email to me.

It is odd that the violent post attributed to me had not yet been deleted. I encourage the censors to erase it, since it is spurious.

I am always the master of my own actions.
A Further Point
04 Sep 2004
I have a degree in political science, and my specialty is agent provocateurs within revolutionary movements. I know which stink belongs to which agent. Do not spoof me and expect I will enact reprisals against persons at the IMC.

In fact, the attacks began when I said I am an advocate of divestiture. Beware, you bogus right wingers posing as conservative americans. I am well aware of your agenda. I am an expert on the Qubilah Shabazz case.

You know who you are, and I know who you are by your stink.

Look to the poster at IMC who has consistently used the tactic of posting as other regulars to defame them. Look at persons who use words like "spew," "vile," and "canard."

Every agent that says things I personally dislike has his words matched against a database by which I can identify his politic.

Know me by the degree of intelligence of my posts, my elitism, and my disdain for communism, anarchism, zionism, neconservatism, or any other anti-federalist ideology which coaligns upon the man who has no nation.

No one pulls my strings.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
04 Sep 2004
Some people on the right/pro-capitalists are obsessed with anarchists. There's been a small handful of Internet personalities around for at least 10 years (starting in USENET newsgroups) who have relentlessly attacked them. It is not enough, apparently, for them to go after Marxist-Leninistsand other authoritarians who are indeed the real villians of the left. Those of us who refuse to accept capitalism but will not impose our views and wills on others through force or fraud, and instead use argument and example, must be ceaselessly villified.

The only way for the status quo to fight a trurthful, honest, rational, calm, intilligent, working class, libertarian socialist woman is to spread lies of unreason, naivete, hatered and violence about her.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
05 Sep 2004
Did you deliberately use the female tense when writing your article? Do you fantasize about being a woman, or are you really a woman? That is really odd behavior.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
14 Sep 2004
It's funny to see how these right-wingers can't imagine that women or racial minorities would actually stand up for their liberty.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
12 Oct 2004
" make your wife fair game in the competition for females by other males."

um - does the phrase "voluntary association" mean anything to you? it's one of the cornerstones of anarchist thought, and if you don't know it you're not nearly as clued in as you think you are.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
12 Oct 2004
"Actually, it would be more Libertarian, but as close to workable anarchy as possible."

you know, the word that originally meant "anarchist" until it was misappropriated?
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
12 Oct 2004
"The "anarchist movement" is not getting stronger, its getting weaker. Because the demographic of the anarchist is transitional (teenagers become adults, the low paying job becomes a high paying career, the renter becomes a homeowner, etc), the tendency to protect those things which we earn changes one's ideaology in keeping with that protectionism. I changed from a Liberal Democrat to a Neo-Conservative Republican for those reasons. The "hippies" of the 1960s are today's supporters of Bush and Kerry and the American Way. The buyers of SUVs and Prada. What a twist, huh? From "Flower Power" to "Towers of Power"."

specious. you just made a bunch of claims and did nothing to back them up.
Re: Are Anarchists the Only Sane People?
12 Oct 2004
"The "anarchist movement" is not getting stronger, its getting weaker. Because the demographic of the anarchist is transitional (teenagers become adults, the low paying job becomes a high paying career, the renter becomes a homeowner, etc), the tendency to protect those things which we earn changes one's ideaology in keeping with that protectionism. I changed from a Liberal Democrat to a Neo-Conservative Republican for those reasons. The "hippies" of the 1960s are today's supporters of Bush and Kerry and the American Way. The buyers of SUVs and Prada. What a twist, huh? From "Flower Power" to "Towers of Power"."

specious. you just made a bunch of claims and did nothing to back them up.