Is there a place in the modern left for a lone rebel

[strawberryfield]

I came to age just as the hippie movement was starting to fade. That movement is the basis of what I have become in the 40 years since. I regard myself as an anarchist, and I have lived my life as a rebel. My life can be summed up by a line from an old Bob Dylan song which I have taken as my guiding compass:

Always on the outside whatever side there was.
When they asked him why it had to be that way "Well" he answered "just because".

I have tried to live my life as true to those words as possible. I have also done my best not to interfere with others so they may live their lives as they choose. I detest being told I have to do something or I can't do something. I was railing against corporate conformity long before it became popular. People talk here about boycotting this or that corporation. I have pretty much boycotted all of corporate America. I own 30 acres of land where I grow all my own food, produce all my own fiber and energy. I built my own house and fix my own equipment. When I don't have the skills to do something, I barter with my neighbors. My only day-to-day connection with anything corporate is my connection to the internet. I supplement myself by building custom furniture. I am completely my own boss, and I own 100% of my labor. I have always considered myself to be a creature of the left, and most of my long term associations have been with people who identify that way. But when I come to DU and some other places, I feel somewhat disconnected. The idea of an intrusive state leaves me cold, and I certainly don't want to replace the tyranny of corporatism for the tyranny of the state. I am far less collectivist than most here. There was a time in this country's history where anarchists were at the forefront of the left, and progressivism was about standing up to the centers of economic power so a person may enjoy the fruits of his own labor. That is what I still believe.

[eleny]

1. It sounds like you've had one heck of an interesting life so far

...And could probably teach people here a thing or two.

K&R

[Hello_Kitty]

2. If you're bartering with neighbors and selling furniture you're collectivist too.

No one is an island.

Ever read this? http://jfxgillis.newsvine.com/_news/2008/11/02/2064936-correctly-political-what-if-john-galt-had-a-special-needs-child

[Greyhound]

3. Ditto what Hello_Kitty wrote.

You are only capable of being an isolationist/anarchist because communities exist.

Humans are simply not equipped to survive alone, we're not strong enough, fast enough, have insufficient natural weapons, and are not hearty enough. We are utterly dependent on others for survival.

Now that doesn't mean that what we have developed is ideal, or even very good, but it is what we have and it will not change until sufficient numbers band together to change it or leave it behind. You've made a good start.

[texastoast]

4. What about hermits living in the canyons?

There are some people who live totally alone. A lot of them were warriors in Vietnam.

[Greyhound]

5. Where did they get their knives with which to defend and feed themselves?

What would they do if civilization hadn't killed off the big predators that think hermit makes a tasty snack?

[texastoast]

29. I know a couple of guys

You could drop them off in the middle of a Montana blizzard naked with nothing and they would come out hale and hearty in the spring with hides for market and a new canoe. Granted, most hermits make use of tools which they purchase or scavenge. Not everyone fits in a mold, and remoteness and isolation appeals to some.

[Greyhound]

30. Yeah I know a couple of genuine badasses too, but they are still the products of community.

Well fed and protected while they grew, received training developed over hundreds of years of organized combat training, the lifespan to get good etc.

The point though is beyond dispute, the human animal is insufficient to survive alone but has evolved to utilize its strengths to overcome its weakness.
:kick:

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. You are correct that most people are "collectivist" on this newsgroup.

They believe in Democratic programs, meaning that government should be used for beneficial purposes.

I'm not sure you're going to find many who will agree with your position, once the debating begins.

[Hannah Bell]

10. he farms 30 acres with tools he fashioned by himself using rocks?

growing food from non-corporate sources of seed?

i doubt it.

i helped someone plant an acre by hand once. 30 acres = bullshit for 1 person. no one living that life has time to fart around on the internet.

[Horse with no Name]

34. When I was a kid I helped someone plant comfrey in a 20 acre field

Shit has to be spaced just right and depth has to be just right or it won't grow. I was one of about 10 planting this field.
I lasted until noon.
Probably less than a 1/4 acre by myself.
I'm in total agreement with you.

[Newest Reality]

7. I can very much relate to your story, personaly.

Thanks for sharing your perspective and experience. You provide a resourceful contrast to collectivized modes of belief that are relentlessly inculcated into the values and beliefs of many.

I honor your integrity and capacity to choose and be flexible as a unique person.

[krabigirl]

8. I am with you.

[Tsiyu]

9. What can you grow in Tucson?

DO you use shade cover to protect stuff from the sun?

I had a job offer in Tucson, but I'm a Woodlands Person.



And the answer to your question: Most leftists shun the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps/rugged individualist" mindset. Why?

It's more libertarian than progressive. It assumes you exist only to benefit yourself - fine for you in and of itself but not a model on which to build a fully functioning, healthy society.

Most progressives recognize the value of hard work and the sanctity of personal property, but we also acknowledge that any sane, decent society is going to want to care for those who cannot work - children, the elderly, the disabled - and will want to join forces and pool resources in order to secure survival for these weaker members of our society.

Why? Because we're evolved, thinking, compassionate people. We don't have some need to feel superior to those who are unable to "help themselves." Nor do we need to see them abandoned in order to feel we are getting our "fair share." At least, that's how i believe most leftists would describe themselves.

And I hate to say this, but if you want to be a "loner" why would you want to reach out and "join" anything?

[strawberryfield]

11. If you like a lot of green, Tucson will disappoint you.

I actually live in some mountains near Tucson. Over the last 20 years, I have built 9 green houses where I grow produce. I sell the produce at a highway truck stand at certain times of the year, and I can what I don't sell. I also raise goats that I use for fiber and make cheese out of their milk. I also raise bees for honey.
I use a combination of wind and solar energy to power everything.

[TygrBright]

12. Are you kidding? The "modern left" is nothing BUT lone rebels.

Get any three of us together to discuss any one issue and you're guaranteed to hear at least five passionate, adamant, belligerent opinions about it.

helpfully,
Bright

[mudplanet]

13. You're welcome here, but please quit pretending that you're doing anything but

sponging (i.e., enjoying the benefits of without contributing to) off of the rest of us who participate in a society organized and regulated by an intrusive government. I'm not passing judgment on you here - your way of life sounds great. But don't pretend that your way of life isn't actually made possible by the existence of a larger group of people that are living in a highly organized culture. We're not crazy about some of the intrusiveness either, but we (for the most part) have come to accept some of the intrusion as a trade off for the benefits (health care, electricity, police and fire protection, safe food and water, paved roads and bridges, hi tech conveniences like phones and the internet and low tech ones like the US mail, etc). Really, I envy your ability to be so self-reliant and will readily praise it but no matter how independent you think you are, you are still benefiting from highly structured and tightly regulated civilization and intrusive government. The fact that you are welcome to enjoy the benefits of a highly regulated society and intrusive government while minimizing your involvement with the aspects of our political and economic life that you don't like are a testament to how un-intrusive your government really is.

I mean, really, the fact that you didn't contract TB at age 14 and die from it in your twenties or have half your family killed in a smallpox or cholera epidemic may be thanks to an intrusive government. I hope you have the ability to generate a lot of cash from whatever it is you do on that farm because, I got news for you, The Mayo Center don't take chickens in exchange for treatment (you do know that the most "intrusive" goal of most DUers is the provision of a socialistic National Health Plan?)

Please refrain from using the internet (which was invented and is sustained with my tax dollars collected by an intrusive government), start not just fixing your own equipment but inventing it and manufacturing it as well (especially your computer equipment, the safety and quality of which is monitored by intrusive government and whose development was paid for by intrusive government), dig a salt mine on your property because, even if you're getting it through barter with your neighbors, unless they have a salt mine I'm sure at some point it passed over roads built by an intrusive government (which had to take people's property from them even when they didn't want to sell under eminent domain to build roads and then levied taxes to build bridges), be sure to stock up on firearms (manufactured by yourself from iron mined on your or your immediate neighbor's land and if not, stop using materials transported over my roads), and very importantly, since you live in a rural area, please, please stop using electricity generated off-site, because although you think you're paying your fair share for it, your service was provided under an intrusive, socialistic governmental program called Rural Electrification and your rates are subsidized by law (intrusive government) so that rural customers don't pay what it actually costs to provide it for people that live miles and miles away from other people but instead pay a rate similar to what urban residents pay, and if you or your kids get sick, just tough it out because, no matter if you barter with a doctor for your care, somewhere down the line in your treatment you're probably using medicines that were (however imperfectly) guaranteed effective and safe by an intrusive government.

I'll admit here to a fundamental lack of respect for the ideas of people who profess to be "anarchists" as I've never, ever run into one who could articulate any practical or theoretical models of or methods for organizing society. period. It always sounds like some pie-in-the-sky idealistic dream they have about how people "ought" to comport themselves in their relationships with others and is about as realistic as utopian socialism or true communism. What you've managed to do with your life is find a way to selectively take the benefits of intrusive government while minimizing what you have to pay for it. It's a good gig but it's not true self-sufficiency and it isn't anarchy.

[AndrewP]

14. Interesting

Seriously. Well thought out answer. You make sense.

[mudplanet]

18. Thanks. It's not so much that I make sense but that anarchy doesn't.

What is it? Where has it ever been tried with any success? It was adopted by some parts of some communities in Spain in the Thirties and is generally held responsible for the victory of fascism there because no one would take orders from anyone, no one was responsible to anyone but themselves, and no one could agree on anything regarding the war effort while the other side was a tightly organized group that could be sure that when the sun came up there would actually be troops manning their positions.

If you've ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you can get a good idea of how it works. After the Arabs dynamite and loot the train most of them take their loot and ride off into the sunset.

Anarchy would be the best of all possible political systems if 1) all people were intelligent and literate and 2) all people were good. Good luck with that.

[defendandprotect]

22. 'There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive --

I'm sure we've all heard in our schools that the labor movement in America was full

of "anarchists" -- and those who went to Spain to fight Franco and fascism were "anarchists" --

that the anti-WWI demonstrators were all "anarchists" but when our government put 75,000

pro-war propagandists on the streets to talk men into war it wasn't "anarchy" -- !!



And possibly when our government gets through with Julian Assange, if they haven't managed

to label him a "terorist" they will have at least succeeded in labeling him an "anarchist."



Here's Emma Goldman on anarchy ...

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_eg_an1_anarchism.htm

and a few excerpts --

ANARCHISM:--The philosophy of a new social order based on
liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all
forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong
and harmful, as well as unnecessary.

Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails. Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.

"Property is robbery," said the great French Anarchist, Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs.


Other thoughts on anarchism --

Feminism

Lucia Sanchez Saornil founder of anarcha-feminist organization Mujeres LibresFeminism has historically played a role alongside the development of anarchism; Spain is no exception. The CNT's founding congress placed special emphasis on the role of women in the labor force and urged an effort to recruit them into the organization. There was also a denunciation of the exploitation of women in society and of wives by their husbands.

Women's rights had been integral in anarchist ideas such as coeducation, the abolition of marriage, and abortion rights, amongst others; these were quite radical ideas in traditionally Catholic Spain. Women had played a large part in many of the struggles, even fighting alongside their male comrades on the barricades. However, they were often marginalized; for example, women often were paid less in the agrarian collectives and had less visible roles in larger anarchist organizations.



Organised labour

The anti-authoritarian sections of the First International were the precursors of the anarcho-syndicalists, seeking to "replace the privilege and authority of the State" with the "free and spontaneous organization of labor."<52> In 1886, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (FOTLU) of the United States and Canada unanimously set 1 May 1886, as the date by which the eight-hour work day would become standard.<53>

In response, unions across the United States prepared a general strike in support of the event.<53> On 3 May, in Chicago, a fight broke out when strikebreakers attempted to cross the picket line, and two workers died when police opened fire upon the crowd.<54> The next day, 4 May, anarchists staged a rally at Chicago's Haymarket Square.<55> A bomb was thrown by an unknown party near the conclusion of the rally, killing an officer.<56> In the ensuing panic, police opened fire on the crowd and each other.<57> Seven police officers and at least four workers were killed.<58> Eight anarchists directly and indirectly related to the organisers of the rally were arrested and charged with the murder of the deceased officer. The men became international political celebrities among the labour movement. Four of the men were executed and a fifth committed suicide prior to his own execution. The incident became known as the Haymarket affair, and was a setback for the labour movement and the struggle for the eight hour day. In 1890 a second attempt, this time international in scope, to organise for the eight hour day was made.The event also had the secondary purpose of memorializing workers killed as a result of the Haymarket affair.<59> Although it had initially been conceived as a once-off event, by the following year the celebration of International Workers' Day on May Day had become firmly established as an international worker's holiday.<53>

Spain --

Anarchists played a central role in the fight against Franco during the Spanish Civil War. At the same time, a far-reaching social revolution spread throughout Spain, where land and factories were collectivized and controlled by the workers. All remaining social reforms ended in 1939 with the victory of Franco, who had thousands of anarchists executed. Resistance to his rule never entirely died, with resilient militants participating in acts of sabotage and other direct action after the war, and making several attempts on the ruler's life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism


BEWARE OF THOSE WITH THE POWER TO LABEL OTHERS --

[mudplanet]

25. Thanks for proving my point.

The term anarchist is thrown around like the term communist, and just as inaccurately. And while it may be a typical tactic of the oligarchy to throw around the term "terrorist" to try to label its opponents as enemies of all citizens, it's pretty easy to understand how they could get away with it with the anarchists around 1900 which can be seen by perusing Anarchism and Violence at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_violence. Self-identified anarchists conducting an ongoing campaign of mail bombs will tend to give the other side plenty of ammunition for targeting blame for scary behavior. And, while I'm sure the socialist, democratic, and communist elements of Republican Spain committed their fair share of kangaroo trials and executions it's a matter of historical record that the anarchists were the champions in this area and that their "trials" were little more than lynch mobs.

I'm sure that the majority of people who self-identify as anarchists are perfectly decent and reasonable people (the ones I've known are) but their political ideas are IMHO poorly thought through and rest upon some pretty naive assumptions. Kind of like most of the pacifists I've known. I respect a person whose philosophy will not allow them to participate in violence, especially the ones who "walk the walk" (I had a Mennonite professor in college who did three years in a federal prison during WWII because he would not register with the draft or serve in the armed forces) but no matter how hard I try I can't figure out how else we could have dealt with the Nazis. No amount of non-violent resistance was going to dissuade the Nazis from what they were doing, as can be seen by the millions of Jews and thousands of militant Christians who were murdered in their camps. Jesus wept, they ran the damn things right up until we nearly bombed the Germans out of existence. Maybe if we'd let them kill and enslave everyone they would have seen the error of their ways, but I doubt it. Passive resistance doesn't work with that kind of person. And while I recognize Gandhi as one of the greatest human beings of our time, to portray Indian passive resistance as solely responsible for Indian independence is simply inaccurate and may be so inaccurate as to be simply untrue.

"the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary." Did I say that anarchist hadn't thought through what they were proposing or were naive about human nature? I think I did. Thanks for illustrating the point for me for everyone else.

The wikileaks article you cite simply serves to mislead, or at least the selective portion of it you used does. The majority of the collectives in Republican Spain were socialist and communist, and these were the most effective elements of the anti-fascist fighting forces. And, while I'm sure some of the Lincoln Brigade may have identified as anarchist, a lot more of them identified simply as anti-fascist or simple freedom lovers. And Franco didn't just execute tens of thousands of anarchists, he also murdered communists and socialists on a massive scale, just as the Nazis murdered millions of communists and union members in the concentration camps.

The anarcho-syndicalists were either rendered irrelevant or killed in the Russian Revolution by the Bolsheviks shortly after the Soviet Union was formed largely because they couldn't fucking organize a tea party (to use a bad example).

I believe in free markets but I also believe that we need strong laws and governmental agencies to tightly regulate these markets and the actors within them. When I tell that to the average American they say, "You're a fucking communist. And the only good communist is a dead communist." But when I tell that to a European they say, "You sound like a classic liberal." Both of these are literal quotes, so I'm familiar with being labeled unfairly and inaccurately.

[HuckleB]

17. A very sensible answer. +1

[defendandprotect]

20. Our Founders were anti-government, as well.... the very word "anarchist" has been used

as "terrorist" is now used -- to frighten people into not listening to

criticism of government --

As I've said elsewhere, our entire language -- especially our political language --

has been polluted by the right wing for their benefit.

I don't know if it's been clear what this poster meant by "intrusive" government --

does he mean government forcing us to pay for wars of agression -- or to bail out

corporations after they've committed crimes which have harmed all of us?

Or is he guilty of what you're accusing him? You may be completely correct, but I don't

think we actually know that yet.

I'm regularly saying here that we need to push on from capitalism -- does that make

me an "anarchist"? I know it probably makes me an enemy of those controlling our

government right now, that's for sure.

Certainly our Founders stood against the government of that time -- and brought it down.

Did that make them "anarchists"?

What most of us know is that we no longer have a "people's" government -- and that's

true no matter which party is in power and controlling the White House.

[mudplanet]

21. I'm all for having a system of government and an economy that is flexible

enough to have, or even encourage people like the OP to exist.

But your post reflects the problem that I have with most who say they are anarchist: they either haven't thought out what they are proposing very well, or they are hopelessly naive about human nature.

Capitalism is an economic system not a governmental system.

Systems of government include democracy, fascism, autocracy, plutocracy, monarchy and what we seem to have in this country, oligarchy (or, what some of us jokingly refer to it as, a kleptocracy).

I'm not trying to break your balls or suggest that we should all study political science before we have a discussion about government, but I object to conflating democracy with capitalism as though the two were one-and-the-same. We've got capitalism, we don't have democracy.

[defendandprotect]

24. Actually ....

I did NOT say I was an anarchist ....

What I was trying to point to is the power of labeling --

Who has that power and how and when it is used --

they either haven't thought out what they are proposing very well, or they are hopelessly naive about human nature.

and that contrary to what seems to be your impression, there is no straight-jacket definition

of what anarchy is -- or what any anarchist believes.


Capitalism is an economic system not a governmental system.

Capitalism is an invention of ruling powers -- in the case of capitalism it is the invention

of the Vatican when Feudalism became insufficient to run its Papal States.

At the time the Vatican was essentially government and a government which had a great and

overwhelming influence on the "discoverers" who stole this continent. And, upon their treatment

of both the Native American and the African enslaved here.

There is only one system of government we should acknowledge and that would be ...

A people's government.

I'm not trying to break your balls or suggest that we should all study political science before we have a discussion about government, but I object to conflating democracy with capitalism as though the two were one-and-the-same. We've got capitalism, we don't have democracy.

Let me first make clear, it's impossible to "break my balls." Give it a try! :rofl:

And, what we have seen of political science and how it is taught -- its goals and ends --

is not something anyone should admire.

It is our schools which have taught that capitalism and democracy are synonymous --

and, of course, they are not -- rather, they are the very opposite.

Corporatism is fascism.

[mudplanet]

26. "there is no straight-jacket definition of what anarchy is -- or what any anarchist believes."

If it doesn't mean anything specifically it's meaningless to anyone but you.

There are a lot of different nuances to many terms, especially political ones. For example, Mexico, the United States and Great Britain are all democracies, but they are organized in very different ways. And I understand that a lot of people have different ideas about what anarchy is. So much so that it can best be described as amorphous, ambiguous and, dare I say it, poorly thought out.

If you truly identify as an anarchist, and to your statement about its definition then, if you would like for me to understand what you're talking about, it's up to you to explain it. I flunked mind reading in elementary school.

My statement about breaking your balls was meant to emphasize that I'm not attacking you as a person, and that I welcome any serious discussions that are based upon facts and the willingness of both parties to listen with an open mind and to take constructive criticism.

As most credible economists describe it, capitalism grew out of mercantilism as merchants and governments began owning not just the means for buying, storing and transporting goods toward the end of maintaining a favorable trade balance but the means of production itself. While the Vatican may have a played a role in it, its role was not greater than that of other monarchies of the time such as Spain, England and France.

It's pretty clear the corporatism is fascism. The terms are virtually synonymous.

[defendandprotect]

27. Really? Tell me what a "conservative" or "centrist" or "liberal" is ....

in absolutely definite iron-clad terms --

Even Pres. John F. Kennedy defined what a "liberal" was because the term was being

defamed even then by right wing.

If it doesn't mean anything specifically it's meaningless to anyone but you.

You're confusing a lack of an iron-clad definition with "no meaning" ...

but, again, that's what I tried to point out to you in my previous post.


There are a lot of different nuances to many terms, especially political ones. For example, Mexico, the United States and Great Britain are all democracies, but they are organized in very different ways. And I understand that a lot of people have different ideas about what anarchy is. So much so that it can best be described as amorphous, ambiguous and, dare I say it, poorly thought out.

I don't know how many of us would describe the US as a "democracy" any longer. But obviously

you don't question that? Same with Great Britain.

But re your last sentence describing anarchy as "amorphous, ambiguous and, dare I say it,

poorly thought out," sounds like what many right wingers have said about democracy.

A frequent accusation by the right is that it is "mobocracy."

Rather, if we look at what Emma Goldman defended, union leaders, and feminists ... it is

hardly any of that.

If you truly identify as an anarchist, and to your statement about its definition then, if you would like for me to understand what you're talking about, it's up to you to explain it. I flunked mind reading in elementary school.

Evidently you missed it the first time around: I DID NOT SAY I AM AN ANARCHIST --

Nor does it take a mind reader to understand that labels are used to demonize people --

And, "anarchist" is one of those labels which has been so used. Quite like "terrorist" today.

My statement about breaking your balls was meant to emphasize that I'm not attacking you as a person, and that I welcome any serious discussions that are based upon facts and the willingness of both parties to listen with an open mind and to take constructive criticism.

And you didn't take the hint to wonder if I was not a male but a female?

As most credible economists describe it, capitalism grew out of mercantilism as merchants and governments began owning not just the means for buying, storing and transporting goods toward the end of maintaining a favorable trade balance but the means of production itself. While the Vatican may have a played a role in it, its role was not greater than that of other monarchies of the time such as Spain, England and France.

That's tiresome nonsense -- even the WSJ confirms that it is the invention of Christianity.


It's pretty clear the corporatism is fascism. The terms are virtually synonymous.

Agree --

[mudplanet]

28. You're citing the WSJ as a more credible authority

on history than Karl Fucking Marx and virtually every other decent historian on the subject. The WSJ is THE main propaganda organ of capitalism. I'm not sure why you'd take anything they print as fact or truth. You're clever, but since when has busting someone's balls had anything to do with gender?

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
* "No rulership or enforced authority."<1>
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."<2>
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."<3>
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."<4>
* "Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this." <5>

The OP described himself/herself as an anarchist. I didn't label him or demonize him but I will cop to labeling anarchy as a political philosophy complete bullshit.

Virtually everything you posted regarding anarchy is so limited in its scope as to be misleading:

Goldman was involved in the propaganda of the deed, which was terrorism by anyone's standard, and pointless terrorism at that. She is a fascinating historical subject and was an amazingly intelligent and brave person, but she gets the bad baggage with the good. I believe that sometimes people have legitimate cause to resort to what others might consider "terrorist acts," but that's not what Goldman and her colleagues did. They killed and maimed people and caused a lot of problems for the progressive labor movement and in the end had the exact opposite effect of what they were trying to do - their actions strengthened jingoism, racism and anti-socialist sentiment in America.

There were some anarchists involved in the labor movement, but "the anti-authoritarian sections of the First International" were a marginal element in a much larger labor movement and while I think the Haymarket Affair was a tragedy, the actions of anarchists such as Goldman were what gave the authorities the license to commit the act and set the labor movement back by decades. Who needs agents provocateurs when you've got anarchists? Virtually every time anarchists turn up in history they are a force against progress toward creating the more just and humane world they claim to seek to create.

Anarcho-syndicalism is the idea that people can live together in a form of stateless communism. No one, especially the anarchists, can agree on what shape it should take or how it would work. Take away its Marxist influence and it looks like utopian socialism. I have serious doubt that the OP is an anarcho-syndicalist, and I'd be willing to bet that the OP would object to being in a labor union.

[defendandprotect]

31. The antecedents of fascism are in Catholic corporatism

Dictionaries do not describe exactly what people think they are doing --

Again, labels are often used by governments to demonize free thinkers --

especially those who push revolutionary -- counter-establisment -- ideas.


And you haven't supplied any "iron-clad" definitions for even today's labels ...

because it is impossible to supply a definition of political behavior

-- one merely tries to explain a label within a time frame -- and to interpret

the thoughts of those so labelled -- while usually also including the thoughts of

those who hold opposite views -- i.e., history by white male propaganda.

History written by winners.



Meanwhile ....

Karl Marx --

"Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in its turn, would

replace capitalism ... "

Karl Marx also used the term in political analysis. In the 19th century, Marx described feudalism as the economic situation coming before the inevitable rise of capitalism. For Marx, what defined feudalism was that the power of the ruling class (the aristocracy) rested on their control of arable land, leading to a class society based upon the exploitation of the peasants who farm these lands, typically under serfdom.

There is no broadly accepted modern definition of feudalism

The term "feudal" was invented by Renaissance Italian jurists to describe what they took to be the common customary law of property. Giacomo Alvarotto's (1385-1453) treatise De feudis ("Concerning Fiefs") claimed that despite regional differences the regulations governing the descent of aristocratic land tenure were derived from common legal principles, a customary shared "feudal law".<7> According to another source, the earliest known use of the term feudal was in the 17th century (1614),<8> when the system it purported to describe was rapidly vanishing or gone entirely. No writers in the period in which feudalism was supposed to have flourished are known to have used the word itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism


If you are interested, here are a few links to the article that appeared in the WSJ by

Robert Novak -- whom I presume you are saying was bragging that Vatican invented capitalism?


How Christianity Created Capitalism
http://www.aei.org/article/11105
http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-10-number-3/how-christianity-created-capitalism


The antecedents of fascism are in Catholic corporatism

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/defendandprotect/152

[mudplanet]

32. Are you seriously using Novak and the WSJ as your sources?

Identifying the Roman Catholic church as the "antecedent of fascism" is IMHO pointless. You could reasonably argue that Catholic corporatism is the antecedent of virtually everything, every European economic and political concept since the birth of Jesus, including socialism and communism. Just as the democratic Greek states were the antecedent of Rome and the Catholic Church.

The OP self identified as an anarchist and has never followed up with an explanation of what it was he was talking about. All we know is he isn't a fan of "intrusive government". Your posts seem to take issue with the definition of anarchy and anarchist as shown in the historical record as "white male propaganda," like my explanation or definition of anarchy and anarchists was disinformation. Are the anarchists unfairly treated in the historical record? If so, how? Did I write something untrue about Goldman and the anarcho-syndicalists? If so, what. I imagine that the majority of them here and in Europe didn't participate in pointless acts of violence, but they also failed to have any substantial positive influence on the wider capitalist culture, unlike the socialist and communist movements.

If you can refute the points I make about anarchy, do so. Point out anarchists and anarchist organizations that have made positive progress and contributions in the struggle for justice and truth. I've yet to see any. The closest I can conceive of are religious communities such as the Amish.

I think you probably have some cogent idea that you were trying to get across in your original post, and I'm going to guess it had to do with objecting to labels and conventional political thought and male control of European culture and the desirability of changing that, of reshaping the very way people think by freeing their minds from patriarchal thought and practice etc. I agree it's an important issue. Marxist theory posits that the last class conflict, probably the ultimate one, is the conflict between men and women, or the struggle of women to free themselves from patriarchy. Otherwise, I can't figure out what your point is. I want protection from predatory and rapacious capitalism, fair treatment under the law, and access to decent healthcare for everyone regardless of her or his economic status. And I believe the way to get those things is through effective participatory government.

[defendandprotect]

33. There are many who identify fascism as beginning in Northern Italy ...

and that corporatism -- Christian corporatism -- is fundamental to it --

The WSJ is simply one way of showing you the arguments for that concept --

Acknowledge it or don't -- your choice.


And, since the Vatican ran the Papal States I would say that "yes" they certainly had

an impact on European economics -- and political views --

Socialism, like democracy, imo, is something natural to the human being -- instinctual.

That is, democratic socialism.

As I've tried to make clear, you seem to have the idea that dictionary and wiki definitons

of labels are some kind of concrete castings which dictate human behavior, unfailingly.

Rather, people behave -- and then dictionaries try to describe it.

But, more clearly, your mind is not open to other ways of seeing this subject, so as

I've tried to make clear, it's not worth commenting on.

EXCEPT ... as I have passed on to you Karl Marx's comments on the basis of capitalism

originating from Feudalism.


This is interesting in parts ....

I think you probably have some cogent idea that you were trying to get across in your original post, and I'm going to guess it had to do with objecting to labels and conventional political thought and male control of European culture and the desirability of changing that, of reshaping the very way people think by freeing their minds from patriarchal thought and practice etc. I agree it's an important issue. Marxist theory posits that the last class conflict, probably the ultimate one, is the conflict between men and women, or the struggle of women to free themselves from patriarchy. Otherwise, I can't figure out what your point is. I want protection from predatory and rapacious capitalism, fair treatment under the law, and access to decent healthcare for everyone regardless of her or his economic status. And I believe the way to get those things is through effective participatory government.


Yes, Marx is correct that the war on females will be the final human rights battle --

however ...


The primary conflict will stem from patriarchy's war on NATURE, which precedes its war on

females. Marx didn't look at patriarchy from a high enough perspective, evidently -- but today

we have Global Warming as the proof of that patriarchal suicidal folly. And it is a huge and

growing threat to the planet and humanity.


And further on that point ....

or the struggle of women to free themselves from patriarchy.

Feminism is actually a struggle to free women and MEN and NATURE from patriarchy.


Here's the best definition of Feminism I'm aware of -- and it's by Marilyn French:

"Feminism is anti-domination of anyone by anyone else"

[mudplanet]

35. Actually, this response begins to make your position more clear to me.

Thanks

[defendandprotect]

36. You're welcome ...

[defendandprotect]

15. Our language has generally been polluted by the right wing for their benefit .....

as I'm sure you're aware the youth revolution of the late 1960's was minimized by

calling it a "sexual" revolution --

Meanwhile, she also perceived an assassination plot, not merely against specific individuals, but against the entire counterculture that was burgeoning at the time.

"I realized that in this country we had a revolution--of housing, food, hair style, clothing, cosmetics, transportation, value systems, religion--it was an economic revolution, affecting the cosmetics industry, canned foods, the use of land; people were delivering their own babies, recycling old clothes, withdrawing from spectator sports. They were breaking the barriers where white and black could rap in 1967. This was the year of the Beatles, the summer of Sergeant Pepper, the Monterey Pop Festival, Haight-Ashbury, make your own candle and turn off the electricity, turn on with your friends and laugh--that's what life was all about."

http://maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Ballad%20of%20Mae%20Brussell.html


Lots of memories as well of the John Lennon today --

:)

[pitohui]

16. if you need a place, you're not a "lone"

i didn't hear julian assange ask permission from the left before he acted

for that matter i didn't hear john lennon ask permission from the left

if you need a "place" in the "modern left," you are not about a lone rebel of anything, you're just looking to get laid or butt kissed

[HuckleB]

19. FYI: Railing against corporate conformity was popular during the hippie movement.

Thus, you weren't railing against it before it became popular. Also, historically speaking, anarchists have always been a fringe element of the left. They may have been at the forefront, but they remained a small minority of the forefront.

It's nice that you can "sustain yourself," but there are many among who cannot sustain themselves. I don't want to live in a society that chooses to leave those people behind. At the end of the day, most human endeavors that moved our quality of life higher were accomplished as a group.

And, yes, I find the whole need to define oneself in the rather immature romantic light that you have done here as pointless. In some ways, you've defined yourself out of personal growth.

[hobbit709]

23. welcome to the monkey house.