NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/society/anarchy/1181

Text File | 1993-01-24 | 5.3 KB | 104 lines

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!wsu-cs!vela!argo.acs.oakland.edu!W2LEE
From: [e-mail] (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:48:34 GMT
Lines: 91

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (david rolfe graeber) writes:

...

>    You didn't reply to my main point, which is that while individual
>thinkers have been known to say and call themselves anything, Anarchism
>as a mass movement has always been socialist. That's because you can't.
>Instead you merely list the names of individuals who believe capitalism
>would work more conveniently without the state, some of whom even want to be
>called anarchists, and say that their existence compells me to accept your
>definition of anarchism. Why?

I wasn't aware of any law that says anarchism has to be a mass movement.  I
myself don't think that massiveness justifies movements.  672 million people
CAN be wrong!!  Now I have difficulty imagining a pro-capitalist (not to be
confused with anti-communist) mass movement, or even grass-roots movement.

>    The meaning of words does not come from God. It comes from human
>agreement. When you say "anarchism means X and nothing more", what you
>are really saying, though you are obviously too thick to realize it, is
>"I think it would be a good thing for all of us if we agreed to use  my
>definition of this term, for the following reasons..." This is because
>you cannot force people to accept your definition (frustrating though
>you obviously find this).
>
>    There are a large number of people, millions even over the years,
>who have been engaged in a conversation with each other where they have
>used the word "anarchism" to mean the opposition to all forms of
>systematic power and coercion between human beings - political, economic,
>social, sexual, ANY kind. They have explored the ways all these forms
>of power and inequality reinforce one another, and tried develop
>alternatives to them. The meaning of anarchism - as they see it (and I
>like to count myself among their number) is a growing, developing thing.

Getting back to entomology...  Can -archy be considered synonymous with
-ocracy?  (as in plutocracy, say?)  For that matter, can you espouse ANarchy
while even tolerating HIERarchy?

>Then suddenly, Perry Metzger shows up and starts screaming "there were
>a couple of guys in the 1800s who said they were anarchists who didn't
>believe any of that shit you're talking about, so stop saying that's
>what anarchism is; I got a really loud voice and I'm willing to post till
>I'm blue in the face and I'm gonna stand here and blabber on and on and
>on until you agree to only use the word the way I want you to..."
>
>    You know, MOST people who are taking part in the conversation
>you seem to be a part of call themselves "libertarians".

Thanks for bringing that up, I had almost forgotten.  Since Perry wants
"anarchism" to be a big inclusive umbrella, can I assume he has no problem with
anti-capitalists billing themselves as "libertarians" or "voluntarists"?
Anarcho-capitalists and related ideologies seem to prefer to call us
"collectivists".  I'm about as collectivist as Perry is conservative.

> They also have
>not one but if I am not mistaken two different newsgroups all for their
>very own to carry out their conversation in over the Internet.

alt.politics.libertarian, alt.individualism, alt.philosophy.objectivism,
alt.society.eternl-vigilanc, alt.politics.correct to name a few.

I get the impression from almost all the political groups and most of the other
groups that about 80% of USENET participants are some combination of (big L)
Libertarian, Objectivist, anarcho-capitalist, social Darwinist, survivalist,
Extropian, individualist, "Jeffersonian Liberal" etc.  (Did I forget anyone?)
My guess is that net.demographics favors people to whom markets are relatively
friendly.

While the general philosophy behind the above named ideologies sometimes bores
me when it degenerates to "Private Sector Good!  Public Sector Bad!", even at
those times these people are far more interesting and challenging than any
political discussion you will find anywhere near the American mainstream.
Don't even get me started on the range of ideas discussed in the mass media!



> This is
>at the moment the only one we have. I suppose you do know that your
>lumbering around in here is having the effect of driving away probably
>hundreds of people who would otherwise be interested in taking part in
>this conversation or at least listening. I suppose you don't care.

I don't see why these hundreds of potential participants in left-anarchist
discussion should feel intimidated.  Also, "we" have write access to "their"
newsgroups, no?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee                                          [e-mail]

Bare feet magnetize sharp metal objects so they always point upward from
the floor -- especially in the dark.         -- Al Ross