Neoconservatives write an essay on Anarchism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/anarchy-usa_609222.html?page=1

Bad scholarship...anarchists haven't been involved in struggles related to wages? Yeah, OK.

[Weezer]

Burn that article...just burn it.

[Smyg]

Successful IRL troll is successful.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The keywords tell you all you need to know: neoconservatives+essay...did any of us actuallly read it looking for an insightful analysis on Anarchism? :rolleyes:

[socialistjustin]

He doesn't know what he's talking about. We have never been involved in wage struggles and hate democracy. Sure.

[Luc]

Was this meant to be a criticism? I just can't tell what the point of the article was:confused: not to mention the author didn't even talk about anarchists till the third page:bored: The author also didn't talk much about Kropotkin and what he called the anarchists canon and just rambled on about Fourier's Phalanx as if he was the king of all anarchisms.

This article/essay isn't worth the pollution if we burned it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think the point of the article was that conservatives should take "the hippies" seriously, as they're fearsome utopian socialists, and "their method is revolutionary anarchism". :closedeyes:


(The article does have a couple nice quotes from Noam Chomsky, though.)

[Ocean Seal]

Notice how only about 4 paragraphs of the whole essay are actually about anarchism.


Anarchism has a theory and even a canon: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, and others.
Lol no



Anarchism’s purpose is to turn the whole world into one big Fourierist phalanx.

Again lol no



“At every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to​—​rather than alleviate​—​material and cultural deficit,” writes Noam Chomsky in an introduction to Daniel Guérin’s classic, Anarchism. Dismantle “the system.” Then we’ll be free.


Oooh scary.




The anarchist sees no distinction between free enterprise and state socialism. He cannot be happy as long as anyone has more property or power than someone else.


Oh noes they're comparing us to the evil empire:laugh:.





“Any consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage-slavery which is a component of this system,” Chomsky writes, “as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.” What Chomsky is saying is that you can justly grow your own tomato, but you can never hire anyone else to pick it.




If anarchism is so cannonical then how come he isn't quoting Bakunin and rather Chomsky?






An anarchist does not distinguish between types
of government. Democracy to him is just another form of control. Here is Chomsky again: “Democracy is largely a sham when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers and technocrats, a ‘vanguard’ party, or a state bureaucracy.” (Or bankers!) The ballot, wrote Guérin, is “a cunning swindle benefiting only the united barons of industry, trade, and property.”
This permanent rebellion leads to some predictable outcomes. By denying the legitimacy of democratic politics, the anarchists undermine their ability to affect people’s lives. No living wage movement for them. No debate over the Bush tax rates. Anarchists don’t believe in wages, and they certainly don’t believe in taxes. David Graeber, an anthropologist and a leading figure in Occupy Wall Street, puts it this way: “By participating in policy debates the very best one can achieve is to limit the damage, since the very premise is inimical to the idea of people managing their own affairs.” The reason that Occupy Wall Street has
no agenda is that anarchism allows for no agenda. All the anarchist can do is set an example​—​or tear down the existing order through violence.



Ok this is a cute piece of idealism by a neo-con. Also OWS isn't just about anarchists (sorry guys) its about all of us as the working class.






Just as hostility to property is inextricably linked to utopian socialism, violence is tightly bound to anarchism. “Anarchists reject states and all those systematic forms of inequality states make possible,” writes Graeber. “They do not seek to pressure the government to institute reforms.

Umm yes they do. My good comrades would like to pressure the state to GTFO.





Neither do they seek to seize state power for themselves.


If they did you would call them hypocrites





Rather, they wish to destroy that power, using means that are​—​so far as possible​—​consistent with their ends, that embody them.” What seems aimless and chaotic is in fact purposeful. By means of “direct action”​—​marches, occupations, blockades, sit-ins​—​the anarchist “proceeds as if the state does not exist.” But one who behaves as if the government has no reality and the laws do not apply is an outlaw, not to say a criminal.

No, everyone except for ancaps acknowledge that the state exists. Getting rid of it is the problem. And more scary name-calling: outlaw, criminal. The state is run by and for criminals, and obviously if criminals are making the law there is nothing quite wrong with being an outlaw.