[Jordan]

If any of you spent one week, just one week in an anarchic system (ie no system), you would come back either dead or begging for order. Human beings are NOT, as a whole, sweet-tempered and gentle to their fellow creature, and in a world without order, most people, if they believe they can get away with it, will lie, cheat, steal or kill for their own personal gain. I'm not being cynical--I'm being realistic.

I fully agree. Human nature has taught me one thing. We are demented to a certain degree.

I like our system right now. Sure it's not perfect, but I can't see a government other than this one, working as good sans dictatorship.

[J m HofMarN]

Laura- Anarchy, Just like any other ideal, means a lot of things to a lot of people. For instance, some wouldn't consider the Soviet Union to be communist, some (Like myself) don't consider the US to be a democracy. Some consider what's going on in Iraq now to be anarchy. I don't.

If we anarchists are all crazy and misguided then how do you explain what an opposition force we've become? There are anarchist cells in all major northern cities of the US, probably many in the south as well. There are also groups in small towns. The anarchists aren't only active when a war starts up or the politicians commit too many crimes but we're active all the time. We hit hard every time the WTO or G8 want to get up to no good.

Anarchy may simply boil down to the strong ruling the weak but that's what any system is when you strip it to bare bones. Even the world government is a sham. If there were real government on this planet the US would have either been forbidden from attacking Iraq or would have been severely punished. However because Iraq is weak and the US is strong they're allowed to trample all over the country. The weak are forced to find ways to fight back and in many events they win.

My question is why do we need a system to set the strong over the weak if they'll do it anyhow? Creating a system only gives legitimacy to the strong and thus prevents their overthrow. I'm certainly not saying that a state of unending revolution is preferable but I think we're both agreed that an anarchic system can never come to be.

It's about the compromise. Anarchists are willing to accept government as long as it isn't tyranical. Reference, the peanut butter analogy. In a struggle of ideals between a fascist and a republican you will get a low-key fascism, such has mournfully come to power in our nation. In a struggle between a fascist and a democrat you get a republican. Once the anarchists become a serious enough force it will tilt the scale back towards the left, towards democracy and socialism, where it belongs. The radicals in the government don't understand anything except confrontation, those who politely disagree with them have been disregarded time and again. It is up to the anarchists, socialists and communists to directly oppose tyranny.

Anarchists and other far left activists should be embraced by liberals rather than shunned. What is happening instead is that while the republican party moves further right on the political spectrum towards fascism the democratic party is, instead of providing an alternative, also moving farther right to become the republican party. And when it finally becomes clear that both parties are hopelessly undemocratic and unattentive to the will of the people I am certain it will be the three protectors of the people, the anarchists communists and socialists, who will bring about a revolution.

[Rory]

"I'm certainly not saying that a state of unending revolution is preferable but I think we're both agreed that an anarchic system can never come to be... Anarchists are willing to accept government as long as it isn't tyranical."


Stop sitting on the fence, J m HofMarN. Do you want Anarchy or not? Do you really think Anarchy would be best for this country?

"And when it finally becomes clear that both parties are hopelessly undemocratic and unattentive to the will of the people I am certain it will be the three protectors of the people, the anarchists communists and socialists, who will bring about a revolution."

Its odd that you would choose to align yourself with communists and socialists, seeing as how they support a particularly strong, centralised government. A socialist or a communist seems like s/he would represent everything an anarchist hates, a government that treats people like "widdul iddle biddle children kin, who cannot even tie their own shoes without aid from the government. Hate Hate Hate." Are you sure you aren't a Pinko, after all?


"It's about the compromise... The radicals in the government don't understand anything except confrontation, those who politely disagree with them have been disregarded time and again. It is up to the anarchists, socialists and communists to directly oppose tyranny."

I'm getting the feeling this is a political strategy for you, and not what you really believe. It seems like what you actually believe is that we should have a non oppressive government, and you think that by pretending to be an Anarchist, you can make such a government come to be.

This reminds me of a similar game my friend and I used to play in Highschool. For example, say I wanted to buy my friend's brownie. I might offer him 1 penny. He might respond by demanding 10,000 dollars for the brownie. And then, we'd COMPROMISE on, say, 500 dollars or so, somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. It was fair for both of us; I got my brownie; he got his 500 dollars. Except, wait a second, we never did that. Because Thats Not How Compromising Works! When people compromise they don't just take the mean of what wild demands they might have happened to have made. If they did, we'd have the brownie problem. And No One Wants the Brownie Problem.

Don't you think it makes more sense to argue for your actual views, for the government (or lack there of) that actually makes the most sense for this country? At the very least, you're being honest, and you're probably able to more convincingly to argue for something you actually believe.

[Laura]

I agree. It seems like your main argument is that our present government is flawed, but that doesn't mean we should have no government. If you have a paper cut on your pinky, you don't amputate your arm.

[J m HofMarN]

Stop sitting on the fence, J m HofMarN. Do you want Anarchy or not? Do you really think Anarchy would be best for this country?

For this country, that's debatable. For the world? Almost certainly. If a system of anarcho-syndicist or socialist communes were to replace the national government of the US we would no longer be able to wage war. That would prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world. And what kind of record does this government have of stopping terrorists or violence? tens of thousands of people die each year in the US from violent crime. In the rest of the world, even well armed nations, the figure doesn't top the hundreds. The US government, to date, has not prevented one single terrorist attack with their silly war on terror. In fact through instigating an open-ended war with Islam they have caused an unending state of conflict that will only harm American lower class and Iraqis while they reap the profits of war.

If you think I'm lying look at Boeing or Dow industrial or any of the other profiteers that supply the army. You think they're donating the bullets that tear apart Iraqi infants? You think they give Apache helictopters to the US and Zionist governments out of the kindness of their hearts or a general love for meaningless genocide? No the profits of Boeing and Macdonnel Douglas and Lockheed have all doubled since the war started, Boeing's even tripled.

Its odd that you would choose to align yourself with communists and socialists, seeing as how they support a particularly strong, centralised government. A socialist or a communist seems like s/he would represent everything an anarchist hates, a government that treats people like "widdul iddle biddle children kin, who cannot even tie their own shoes without aid from the government. Hate Hate Hate." Are you sure you aren't a Pinko, after all?

Well we bleed with them, march with them and break bread with them. What the hell, if they're pinkos than so am I. Even the most ill informed anarchist will tell you that the official authorities are not the whole problem. If we bag Bush corporate America has another candidate with the same credentials waiting to take his place. If Bush were able to commit genocide efficiently he'd get a second term but since he can't even administrate the rape of a small nation he's going to be booted from office, possibly even before november.

Back to my point though we're fighting the corporations too, they're just as big as the government and even more harmful. They don't even have a smidgen of respect for the poor in America or the will of the people. And guess who opposes the corporations most vocally: socialist and communist organizers. All three groups recognize that large corporations pose a tremendous threat to the American public and that our government is unwilling to do anything about it. And besides, it takes guts to be a socialist or communist, guts and some zeal and those are two things that I for one admire.

"I'm getting the feeling this is a political strategy for you, and not what you really believe. It seems like what you actually believe is that we should have a non oppressive government, and you think that by pretending to be an Anarchist, you can make such a government come to be."

Now imagine that, political strategy from an anarchist. It's most advantageous to let the powers that be think that, although even they are catching on. Anarchists are responsible for a lot more than you think. They involve themselves in local organizing, volunteer work with other progressive groups and there are various national means of communication between us.

I believe that people, for the most part, are good. And that those who are evil will eventually use whatever ruthless tactics they can to rise to power. That is why power should be as widely distributed as possible. This is the basic principle of anarchism. Small government, informed people. A government that is this large and is the world's only superpower is bound to grow more and more corrupt until it falls.

I think what you're missing in your argument, which I shall call "The Brownie Theory" of politics, is the significant factor in my argument, "The Peanut Butter Theory" of politics. You see, in your argumenet it is a simple supply and demand. You might well be able to get a brownie from someone else and so your friend is going to WANT to negotiate since he likely needs the money.

What I think I failed to properly impart is that my opposition in the peanut butter theory is quite happy. They control the bread and both kinds of peanut butter as well as the jelly they also have the milk. So if I ask for a sandwhich they can make whatever they want just about. It is the stated demand for a sandwhich sans crunchy peanut butter that is most likely to gain you a sandwhich without crunchy peanut butter, or at the very least something resembling a peanut butter sandwhich.

Making demands like this, opposing any and all restrictive government measures that aren't absolutely necessary and always pushing against the government's ideas when they are in error is what the other parties need to do if they want change. Communists and socialists, like anarchists, tried to do this and were thus completely excluded from the system. Don't you think it odd that in a country claiming to be a democracy a political party (the communists) have been almost entirely whiped out and driven underground since their heyday around the time of the great depression?

The three people's groups have no say in the government and would be ignored even if they did so we are forced to make our presence known in the streets. Anarchists can't do much on the national level without a strong national comittee but this sticking to our ideals has made us difficult to target which is why the movement is thriving. Even despite the lack of a national image we still do a great deal on the local scale even it the powers that be do hteir best to ignore it. I think anarchists deserve a greater respect from the left but because the left is shifting ever more to the right it seems unlikely.

[Rory]

"Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.

Libertarians believe that this combination of personal and economic liberty produces abundance, peace, harmony, creativity, order, and safety. Indeed, that is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of these principles. But we are still far from a truly libertarian world. Libertarians believe we would see far more progress, abundance and happiness if the ideas of liberty were fully accepted and allowed to work their miracles.

Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people."
(From Libertarians.com, or something like that.)

"That is why power should be as widely distributed as possible. This is the basic principle of anarchism. Small government, informed people. A government that is this large and is the world's only superpower is bound to grow more and more corrupt until it falls. "
(JM Hoffman's own words)

Huh, I never knew Anarchists and Libertarians share exactly the same views. Why didn't you just say so at the beggining? I could have sworn you said you opposed all government in principle, but now you are saying you support small governments. So are all Anarchists just like Lbertarians, or just you?

"What I think I failed to properly impart is that my opposition in the peanut butter theory is quite happy. They control the bread and both kinds of peanut butter as well as the jelly they also have the milk. So if I ask for a sandwhich they can make whatever they want just about. It is the stated demand for a sandwhich sans crunchy peanut butter that is most likely to gain you a sandwhich without crunchy peanut butter, or at the very least something resembling a peanut butter sandwhich."

What?

My point was that, when making a compromise, its silly to take a ridiculous extreme view that you don't actually support. People won't take you seriously. So if you are just pretending to support a society without government (which im still a little unclear on; are you or arent you?), people are more likely to think you're just being ridiculous, and pay little or no heed to your views. If you want a society with smaller, more localised governments, then argue for that. People will be more likely to respect you for a view you actually hold, and can effectively argue for.

I, for one, know that when I argue for a view I don't actually support, I tend to caricature the view, and it shows.

[J m HofMarN]

My point is that though I recognize that the ideal state of anarchy may be impossible to realize (just as any ideal is impossible to realize) I still hold to that ideal. I understand that many may think that the realization of anarchist ideals would be bad and I can accept that however I believe that there are people who can survive without the government ruling them and that this is why anarchy has become so popular. I don't think any ideal can realistically be achieved but people still have to keep fighting.

Anarchists may be similiar to libertarians but we make use of a broader range of tactics and are more active. Anarchists are constantly fighting and striving to change things for the better and our ideology certainly encourages this. Anarchists should serve as an example of organization, action and devotion to all other left wing groups and are already winning support from communists and socialists. This wouldn't be occuring if their actions were not useful and admirable. More than anything I think it is the actions taken by anarchists that makes the movement great, not the talk.

[Laura]

By definition, anarchists cannot be an example of organization, as you say. Anarchy = chaos. This is what the word means. You seem to take the word and fight for something entirely different. This perplexes me, because if anarchy doesn't actually mean anarchy, what does? Language is meaningless!

[J m HofMarN]

On the contrary. Government and order are not the same thing. Anarchists create an order because they band together and cooperate with a common goal. There are no leaders of the Black Bloc or other militant anarchist organizations. We simply listen to all the members ideas and go with the best one. Thats what an anarchist cell looks like. The national organization is a bunch of cells communiccating without leaders or other hang ups and it works well. The anarchists are active and organized. Anarchy is merely the absence of government, This dosnt mean cooperation and order are impossible, just as the absence of cheese does not mean starvation... Mmmmm Cheeeese...

[Heccubus]

I agree. It seems like your main argument is that our present government is flawed, but that doesn't mean we should have no government. If you have a paper cut on your pinky, you don't amputate your arm.

My god...that's the best way I've ever heard it worded. Is it okay if I use that from now on?

[Laura]

There are no leaders of the Black Bloc or other militant anarchist organizations. We simply listen to all the members ideas and go with the best one. Thats what an anarchist cell looks like. The national organization is a bunch of cells communiccating without leaders or other hang ups and it works well.

See, that's government, though!

You say there are "no leaders," but in that case, how does anything get done? In a truly anarchic system, nothing would get done.

We simply listen to all the members ideas and go with the best one.

And who decides which one to go with? Who moderates the conversation and decide when it's over? Do you wait until you're all unanimous? On a national level, who would communicate the ideas, and of all the different local ideas, what group would decide which ideas to go with in terms of national decisions (foreign policy etc.) If each cell decides for itself with no regard to the others, then you're all separate nations. If there is any cooperation, there must be some sort of governing group.

And are there laws? Do people living there make any kind of agreement about what they will and will not do? Is killing okay? If not, there's government, baby!

I don't know what this is, but it isn't anarchy. I know you're not the only one who calls it anarchy, but I have beef with everyone who does. Anarchy means not only no leaders, but no laws, no rules, no system of organization. That's what it means.

[J m HofMarN]

Laura- I think as an anarchist I am in a very good position to say what anarchy is. As I remember it we were at the protest and there was a general consensus that we were going to get up to no good. We put up various ideas and in the space of five minutes we decided to trample a police barrier and do some other things which dont need to be said here. So we did that and it was cool.

You raised an interesting point though. Comparing all of us black blockers to nations. Why is it that the so-called world government works? There is no president of the world and the only laws are clearly understood laws of deceny that may as well be unspoken. And yet the UN manages to be a fairly useful institution. The only problem with it is the existence of the US which can pretty much do as it pleases. However in normal society there is no super-powerful person, as it should be in the world.

[Rory]

"There is no president of the world and the only laws are clearly understood laws of deceny that may as well be unspoken. And yet the UN manages to be a fairly useful institution."

The thing is, the UN is pretty much a government. Every country sends representatives. They vote on things. Their votes determine international law (to at least some degree). There's a guy who helps regulate the proceedings of a vote, and junk. The stuff they vote on is supposed to matter, right? Like people arent supposed to violate UN regulations or they suffer consequences.

This just seems like an example of a democratic government. A democratic government is still a government. Furthermore, it seems like one of the biggest problems with the UN is that it doesnt have quite enough power to enforce international law. There's an oppressive government, and theres an assertive government; the UN sort of seems to be neither (i dont actually know much about the UN; maybe it does have some power, but it seems like people ignore it quite a bit) or maybe just the US...) Still, if the US can just fuck with UN policies with no reprecussions, thats no fun))).

[J m HofMarN]

If the US government can just do as it pleases than dosn't that make the world government anarchist?

[Laura]

No, that just means the world government failed. I'm sure if you ask the UN they wouldn't say that they were anarchists.