Skip to main content

View Diary: why aren't republicans called anarchists? (74 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Try harder... (5+ / 0-)

    The two have very little in common. Anarchism is a well-developed socioeconomic way of life.

    Tea-party folks, on the other hand, are ignorant zealots who don't really have a developed theory other than they want low taxes and small government while somehow keeping their medicare and social security.

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

    by ZhenRen on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:39:48 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I question the accuracy of calling it a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unfangus

      well-developed socioeconomic way of life, because it has not to my knowledge been put into effect as you (and Proudhon) have defined it.

      I think you are being overly academic about the issue.  Libertarians, Grover Norquist and others advocate a very limited form of government and I think it can qualify as a type of anarchism by definition.  Proudhon isn't the only word on the subject.  

      If you were to look at the right wing more fully, I think you would find elements that are opposed to any kind of authority, not just governmental, and organized social control.  Many of them practice and advocate home schooling, e.g., and survivalist life styles, e.g. living "off the grid", growing their own, etc.  

      There's a wing of the Repub party that exploits these people at election time so as to elect reps who favor business.  But they aren't necessarily the last word on what the political philosophy of all people who vote for them is.

      The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

      by helfenburg on Sun May 12, 2013 at 04:32:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just a minute (0+ / 0-)
        I question the accuracy of calling it a (1+ / 0-)

        well-developed socioeconomic way of life, because it has not to my knowledge been put into effect as you (and Proudhon) have defined it.

        No, there are many examples of anarchist society.

        I will list a few:

        The Paris Commune

        http://libcom.org/...

        The Anarchist regions of Spain during the Spanish Civil war, which occurred under harsh, severe conditions of war, but were nevertheless succseefully anarchist, involving nearly 8 million directly and indirectly, and which lasted almost three years. Industry and agriculture were collectivies and run by workers, democratciallyw ith self-management. Educations was frerely provided, everyone was givne a pesion after age 55, no one was unemployed if they were able to work, those who weren’t able were still provided an income, banking was collectivized, free health care was provided.

        Here’s a documentary if you want to open your eyes a bit to what was accomplished.

        http://flag.blackened.net/...

        http://libcom.org/...

        The Makhnovist Ukraine.

        http://libcom.org/...

        And there are other examples, such as peasant villages which were more or less anarchistic, and were collectivized and were relatively free of a ruling class, and indigent primitive societies which were anarchic. Many modern families are largely built on anarchistic behavior, since wealth and authority are often shared.

        I think you are being overly academic about the issue.  Libertarians, Grover Norquist and others advocate a very limited form of government and I think it can qualify as a type of anarchism by definition.  Proudhon isn't the only word on the subject.  
        The anarchist theorists are far more than Proudhon. He was the first to call himself an anarchist (and he declared property to be theft, which is a far cry from Norquist), but there was also Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and many others who have written about the concepts within the worldwide anarchist movement.

        The historical usage of words like anarchism and libertarianism continue in modern literature, as well as in Europe, where the original meaning ot the terms are still in popular usage. America doesn’t get to arrogantly decide for the rest of the world what the meaning of terms are. The terms were recently co-opted by right wing zealots who tend to indulge in Orwellian redefinitions of terms in order to confuse people, and it’s a pity that there are many on the “left” who willingly cooperate with these propagandistic  efforts of the wing-nuts.

        You are conflating anarchism with notions of being simply anti-government, as if that is all there is to the concept. Anarchists are against central, top down authority in any form, including centralized government, the workplace, and local municipalities. The corporate hierarchical model would be eliminated under anarchism, replaced by worker co-ops and collectives which are worker self-managed.

        Support for the employer/employee relationship, which is inherently authoritarian (and some corporations are larger than some national governments), is support for hierarchy, domination of workers, wage slavery, and is support for inequality in both personal autonomy as well as economic wealth. It cannot be described with any rationality to be anti-authoritarian. In fact, the reason the free market types want less government is because they don’t want interference from government in the wantonly exploitative and enslaving behaviors of the ruling class, whom they represent. They want unfettered authority (they call this freedom) for the owners of the means of production which comes entirely at the expense of the working class (which is everyone who works for a boss).

        And you’re unwittingly buying into this Orwellian reframing of the right wing.  Regarding your statement:

        “If you were to look at the right wing more fully, I think you would find elements that are opposed to any kind of authority, not just governmental, and organized social control.  Many of them practice and advocate home schooling, e.g., and survivalist life styles, e.g. living "off the grid", growing their own, etc. “
        They oppose forms of authority that impinge on their own attempts to dominate/have authority over people. They oppose authority that tries to impinge on the authority over labor, the authority over capital, the authority of those who own the means of production, the authority of religion in social issues such as abortion, racial equality, women’s equality and gay rights (they want the authority to discriminate, have white privilege and deprive people of freedom), the authority of using economic power over their communities. There are a few vague overlaps, but the motivations are coming from a completely opposite direction.

        Thus, the free market advocates are highly authoritarian. Anarchism abolishes unjustified authority, which in effect gives each person autonomy, but that autonomy is limited from exercising control over someone else’s autonomy.  This creates an egalitarian society based on equality and sharing of power and wealth and the means of production.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Sun May 12, 2013 at 02:03:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Tea-Parters are the epitome of hypocrisy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mentatmark, ZhenRen

      And anarchists are not.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site