Skip to main content

View Diary: No, Elizabeth Warren and Harry Reid, Republicans aren't Anarchists (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Transvaginal ultrasounds (9+ / 0-)

    So all of the laws that right-wingers (and especially Tea Party folks) love that regulate a woman's reproductive choices, those aren't laws?

    •  Oh please. Grover Norquist, who wants to drown (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban, NedSparks, bgblcklab1, Just Bob, doroma

      the government in a bath tub, is no longer extreme enough for these idiots. Try again.

    •  Tea party folks aren't for those laws (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban, betterdemsonly

      There are a number of versions of right wingers these days.  The Tea Party most strongly resembles libertarians, which generally come in two versions:  minarcho-capitalists (basically, government should only be involved in national defense and possibly law enforcement) and yes, anarcho-capitalists.

      Not all anarchists are on the left.

      •  No, they are (5+ / 0-)

        (1) So are you telling me that Louie Gohmert, Michele Bachmann, Ted Cruz, et al, aren't in favor of restricting a woman's access to abortion?

        (2) Libertarianism and anarchism aren't the same thing.

        (3) The Tea Party is definitely socially conservative.

        Christopher Parker: So I run a survey research lab at the University of Washington. In 2010, I began to see these opposing views on the tea party. You had Peggy Noonan and Juan Williams basically saying, the tea partiers are just angry Republicans, no big deal. Then I read Frank Rich, and he says no, these people are completely different. He says they’re more in line with Richard Hofstadter’s "Paranoid Style of American Politics." And I thought, I can get real data on this! And when I looked at it empirically, I found that people who supported the tea party tended to be more racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and anti-Obama.
        From this interview on Wonkblog with political scientist Christopher Parker: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

        (4) Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Most capitalists would deny that it's capitalism, and most anarchists would deny that it's anarchism. Doyenne of the Ryan Republicans Ayn Rand, for instance, (correctly!) argued that they were irreconcilable: http://www.aynrand.org/...

        •  Words change meaning over time (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban

          Liberal used to mean something akin to moderate libertarian.  What Americans call middle class would be working class in most places.

          •  Some words change (3+ / 0-)

            because we let the right wing usurp them.

            No thanks.

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

            by ZhenRen on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 10:21:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  don't think they usurped it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              anarchy has a neutral meaning that certain lefties in Europe latched onto.  Right wingers did so in the US .    Furthermore your distaste at the association does not extend to real life.  Anarchist of the left have allied with right Libertarians on several issues particularly ows.

              •  Actually, no (8+ / 0-)

                Proudhon coined the term in 1840, and it has a rather precise meaning: an = without and archo = ruler, authority.

                Hence, it means without authority. Anarchists support communities that self-manage without submitting to authority. Participatory communities self-manage without electing leaders to rule over them. This doesn't mean there aren't informal leaders, just that no one has authority by statute. It is true, direct democracy and horizontal self-management, and thus, real freedom.

                And no, OWS was not overrun by right wing libertarians. Some were involved, but it wasn't a large influence. I participated in Occupy. The Ron Paul types tried to have some sway but were mostly rejected. Anarchists (authentic ones) were largely responsible for founding OWS.

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

                by ZhenRen on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 10:40:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The word was around with a meaning long before (0+ / 0-)

                  1840. And that meaning is still the meaning today, even if the word has also been appropriated by some with a special sunset of meanings.

                  Here is Oliver Cromwell in 1647:

                  I know nothing but this, that they that are the most yielding have the greatest wisdom; but really, sir, this is not right as it should be. No man says that you have a mind to anarchy, but that the consequence of this rule tends to anarchy, must end in anarchy; for where is there any bound or limit set if you take away this limit , that men that have no interest but the interest of breathing shall have no voice in elections?
                  Thomas Carlyle wrote The French Revolution in 1837 in which he said
                  Meanwhile, we will hate Anarchy as Death, which it is; and the things worse than Anarchy shall be hated more! Surely Peace alone is fruitful. Anarchy is destruction: a burning up, say, of Shams and Insupportabilities; but which leaves Vacancy behind.
                  Duke Armand II  of Aiguillon said in the French National Assembly in 1789:
                  I may be permitted here to express my personal opinion. I shall no doubt not be accused of not loving liberty, but I know that not all movements of peoples lead to liberty. But I know that great anarchy quickly leads to great exhaustion and that despotism, which is a kind of rest, has almost always been the necessary result of great anarchy.
                  I could go on and on with quotations from before 1840 in which the word anarchy was used in the most common definition of the word.

                  No one owns the definition of the word. One would think anarchists would understand that.

                  You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                  by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 08:20:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Anarchism (0+ / 0-)

                    with the -ist or -ism attached was first used by Proudhon. That is a fact. Thus, when Reid says Tea Partiers are anarchIST he is referring to them as if they are adherents to anarchist philosophy.

                    And yes, I'm aware that the word anarchy was used prior to Proudhon, but not in the form that Proudhon coined. No one before Proudhon turned the word into a sociopolitical theory.

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

                    by ZhenRen on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 10:55:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You are telling me that in the at least 2200 years (0+ / 0-)

                      that people have written the word anarchy, no one ever put the suffixes which mean "an adherent of" or "the state of" onto the word before 1840. Somehow I doubt that. What did people call those whom they thought promoted anarchy during all those years?

                      As to a sociopolitical theory, it has also been around since the Greeks, at least.

                      Just because Proudhon used the word to describe himself and his philosophy in a specific way does not mean that others are only permitted to use it in that way. Quite frankly, it would have been much better if he had actually coined a word, rather than taking  one with an etymology, history, and connotation and trying to use that for his specific purpose. Then you would not have to spend your time trying to convince people you are the only true church, uh, anarchists.

                      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                      by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 12:40:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It has been around even longer than the Greeks (0+ / 0-)

                        The early Taoists, such as Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, espoused an anarchist philosophy, and this was around 2,600 years ago.

                        But neither the Greeks nor the Chinese came up with a term like anarchist.

                        It was Proudhon who first came up with this formal name for the concept. He certainly didn't invent the concept, which has been around for thousands of years.

                        So, this is the name anarchists use for their philosophy, and they have established this in a tradition rich with literature since 1840, well over a hundred years before right wing Libertarians (another word usurped from authentic anarchists since the mid 1800s) began using either of these terms.

                        People are free to use language as they please, but people are also free to object to the use of terms inappropriately.

                        And progressives, of all people, should know better than to support Orwellian right wing spin. Obviously, if you're a progressive capitalist, you might not give a shit.

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

                        by ZhenRen on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 03:41:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  And anarchists (real ones) (5+ / 0-)

                ...have nothing to do with right wing self-described "anarchists."

                They reject the entire premise of right wing anarchism. They despise capitalism, and have no desire to give any support whatsoever to capitalism or its supporters. They loath its enslaving of the working class. They wouldn't normally want to be in the same room with "anarcho-capitalists".

                I'm sorry, but you're misinformed.

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

                by ZhenRen on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 10:46:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Could you explain to me how a movement (0+ / 0-)

                  supposedly based on no rulers can try to define exactly who is and who is not an anarchist? Who makes that definition? Who enforces that definition? Who decided that the historical definition of anarchy was no longer valid?

                  You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                  by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 08:28:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Do some reading... (0+ / 0-)

                    This concept is out there if you care to inform yourself beyond a tiny dictionary reference.

                    Anarchists practice community self-management. They make decisions by consensus and direct democracy. Consensus may be in the form of a vote. Participatory communities of various forms and functions in turn delegate members to be part of federations. These delegates are re-callable and mandated to serve and implement the instructions of the communities who appoint them. From these groups actions are taken collectively.

                    The definitions of anarchism come through agreement among the groups. A tradition has formed over time, and people who identify with these traditional; definitions refer to themselves as anarchists. Through debate and dialogue, anarchism evolves. There are certain basic ideas that have always defined anarchism. Among the most basic are anti-capitalism, and rejection of unjustified authority and hierarchy (to put it briefly). These have always been the cornerstones of anarchism. Using the term to describe the opposite is tantamount to taking the word "egalitarian" and rendering it to mean "authoritarian".

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

                    by ZhenRen on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 11:08:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I am well aware of the anarchist movement, (0+ / 0-)

                      and have been aware of the movement for over 20 years, having been a founding member of the Memphis Green Party and for many years a practicing Wiccan.

                      However, I am also aware of the more common definition of anarchy and anarchist. Telling other people how they can or cannot use a fairly common English word seems to me to be an example of trying to have power over them. Seems a contradiction to your philosophy since certainly Warren and Reid, among others, have not consented to limit themselves to your definition.

                       

                      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                      by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 12:18:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Once again, you misunderstand anarchism (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm not forcing anyone to use language according to my opinions, but rather it is the opposite: People are shoving an innapropriate definition down the anarchists' collective throats. Progressives should honor the anarchist tradition, and not accept right-wing Orwellian spin.

                        Anarchists have a right to respond with countering opinions. Watch what would happen if the right wing tried to establish a definition that the Democratic party is a form of fascism, or what happens when they call Obama's politics socialism, or characterize him as Hitlerian: Democrats throw a fit.

                        And the suggestion that the "more common definition" of anarch-ist or anarch-ism is something other than the anti-capitalist form is ludicrous. The rest of the world, and especially Europe and Latinamerica, use the proper definition. It is only American ingorance and the American right wing pushing these definitions.

                        And anarchists have the right to point this out without people telling us to shut up. It's your culturally embedded authoritarianism coming through here, not mine.

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

                        by ZhenRen on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 02:43:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  While I realize... (0+ / 0-)

          ...that leftist anarchists argue that rightwing anarchists aren't "real anarchists", this is more of an ideological disagreement than a philosophical objection.

          Know your enemy:

          http://world.std.com/...

          •  And for the record... (0+ / 0-)

            ...I've been arguing against the anarcho- and minarcho-capitalist versions of libertarianism for nearly 20 years.  I have a pretty good familiarity with the concepts.

          •  If you're really interested (0+ / 0-)

            here is a long, well developed anarchist critique of "anarcho-capitalism" from the Anarchist Faq, written by an international  group of anarchists.

            http://www.infoshop.org/...

            I urge you to read it, since you only seem to have read the right wing point of view.

            Here's an excerpt (but this section in the FAQ is quite long, probably around a hundred pages -- I suggest at least reading the introduction if you can't spend the time):

            Anyone who has followed political discussion on the net has probably come across people calling themselves "libertarians" but arguing from a right-wing, pro-capitalist perspective. For most people outside of North America, this is weird as the term "libertarian" is almost always used in conjunction with "socialist" or "communist" (particularly in Europe and, it should be stressed, historically in America). In the US, though, the Right has partially succeeded in appropriating the term "libertarian" for itself. Even stranger is that a few of these right-wingers have started calling themselves "anarchists" in what must be one of the finest examples of an oxymoron in the English language: "Anarcho-capitalist"!!!

            Arguing with fools is seldom rewarded, but to let their foolishness to go unchallenged risks allowing them to deceive those who are new to anarchism. This is what this section of the FAQ is for, to show why the claims of these "anarchist" capitalists are false. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist and any "anarchism" that claims otherwise cannot be part of the anarchist tradition. It is important to stress that anarchist opposition to the so-called capitalist "anarchists" do not reflect some kind of debate within anarchism, as many of these types like to pretend, but a debate between anarchism and its old enemy, capitalism. In many ways this debate mirrors the one between Peter Kropotkin and Herbert Spencer (an English capitalist minimal statist) at the turn the 19th century and, as such, it is hardly new.

            At that time, people like Spencer tended to call themselves "liberals" while, as Bookchin noted, "libertarian" was "a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57] David Goodway concurs, stating that "libertarian" has been "frequently employed by anarchists" as an alternative name for our politics for over a century. However, the "situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of . . . extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy . . . and [its advocates] adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism.' It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition." [Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow, p. 4] This appropriation of the term "libertarian" by the right not only has bred confusion, but also protest as anarchists have tried to point out the obvious, namely that capitalism is marked by authoritarian social relationships and so there are good reasons for anarchism being a fundamentally anti-capitalist socio-political theory and movement. That a minority of the right "libertarians" have also tried to appropriate "anarchist" to describe their authoritarian politics is something almost all anarchists reject and oppose.

            Here's the complete sub-contents of the section:

            LINKPDF version of Section F.F.
            Introduction

            F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?

            F.2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by freedom?

            F.2.1 How does private property affect freedom?
            F.2.2 Do "libertarian"-capitalists support slavery?

            F.3 Why do "anarcho"-capitalists generally place no value on equality?

            F.3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?
            F.3.2 Can there be harmony of interests in an unequal society?

            F.4 What is the right-"libertarian" position on private property?
            F.4.1 What is wrong with a "homesteading" theory of property?

            F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?

            F.6 Is "anarcho" capitalism against the state?
            F.6.1 What's wrong with this "free market" justice?
            F.6.2 What are the social consequences of such a system?
            F.6.3 But surely Market Forces will stop abuse by the rich?
            F.6.4 Why are these "defence associations" states?

            F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?
            F.7.1 Are competing governments anarchism?
            F.7.2 Is government compatible with anarchism?
            F.7.3 Can there be a "right-wing" anarchism?

            F.8 What role did the state take in the creation of capitalism?
            F.8.1 What social forces lay behind the rise of capitalism?
            F.8.2 What was the social context of the statement "laissez-faire"?
            F.8.3 What other forms did state intervention in creating capitalism take?
            F.8.4 Aren't the enclosures a socialist myth?
            F.8.5 What about the lack of enclosures in the Americas?
            F.8.6 How did working people view the rise of capitalism?

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

            by ZhenRen on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 03:53:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site