http://www.zmag.org/anarchism_debates.htm

http://anarchism.www7.50megs.com/

I note that you concede that the analogy between Islamism and anarchism is not straightforward. Indeed it’s not – the goals are very different – theocracy in one case, personal freedom in the other. Organisational form isn’t the sole determinant of what’s anarchist – most New Age and neo-pagan religions and many networked business organisations share with both terrorist and anarchist political groups a decentralised organisational structure. The key here is the commitment to democracy and self-determination and participatory decision-making which is present in anarchist groups but not in others that are superficially similar.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1861891695/qid=1112066529/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-3627246-5854244?v=glance&s=books

Sophie’s thesis above suffers from simplification and arbitary redining of terms. If anyone is making non-useful commentary it is Sophie, not Mark. The lack of any mention of 1960s and 1970s anarchists (especially the obvious violent ones eg Sybionese army) is telling.

I am philosophically unopposed to anyone redining, even in a public forum.

I looked through some of the stuff on zmag on the link you posted and it looks tame enough – vague New-Ageist sentiment with a hard political edge.

But the theory itself is not the test – the test is what is done in its name. Every political theory or dogma has the potential to be used violently, even terroristically. We”ve seen instances of that in the environmental movement and the animal rights movement, whose mainstream gorupings vehemently disavow the use of violence. It takes only a small number of people within a broader political movement to decide to take the path of violence.

Partly this is because violence imbues the ‘theory’ with real power, and exercises it. Endless talk-fests, theorizing, debating – and getting nowhere in terms of political impact – these are the things that cause some individuals’ impatience level to cause them to revert to violence. And violence is addictive and feeds on itself (something Hitler, for one, understood perfectly).

I think that’s the kind of anarchy Sophie’s talking about: not the ‘anarchy’ by which anarchists define and understand themselves, but the ‘anarchy’ that those exterior to it see it operating on the streets.

In that sense it is perfectly legitimate to talk of Islamic terrorism as containing elements of anarchism. I don’t think it’s an effective rebuttal to return to the guiding texts of anarchism and say, ‘no, it’s not’. That would be rather like contemplating what happened at Tiannenmen Square and saying, ‘that’s not socialism in action’. Of course it is.

Well, I agree with the “aloud” part…

0/10; do more research and re-submit.

the anarcho-capitalist Karl Hess, a former speechwriter to Barry Goldwater, even ended up with the left anarchists because of his opposition to the Vietnam War
http://www.billstclair.com/from_far_right_to_far_left.html

Yes, Rob,any political ideology can be violent, but so – what does this prove? Violence and politics go hand in hand. Yes. Terminology is obviously important because without precision we can’t draw distinctions and make evaluative judgements and Sophie clearly wants to do that.

Most anarchists – in practice not in theory – go out of their way to ensure all views are respected and the value and freedom of each individual is respected.

“Mark, most of my reading was actually done in sources that _were_ sympathetic to the anarchists–in books, newsletters, journals and websites run and written by anarchists. I drew my own conclusions. I am well aware of the fact not all people professing anarchy are/were violent; but the ones who made the stir were, I’m afraid, violent. And they were definitely anarchists, not anything else. Surely you cannot deny that.”

No, Sophie, I didn’t in my original comment.

May I suggest that if indeed you were reading sources representing anarchism positively it would be helpful then if you’d cite some of your sources? Otherwise we don’t know what your generalisations rest on.

I can see why they want to prosecute you. Try to be civil. You might even find it quite pleasant for a change. And there’s nothing wrong with “thinking aloud” on a blog. The comment box allows for an evolving dialogue where we can all refine our own thoughts. Nor should we be afraid to be wrong from time to time. A blog post isn’t a published lirerary work or refereed scholarly article; at most it’s a work in progress or an immediate reaction to current events. In Sophie’s case it was a reaction to her current reading, and I for one found it an interesting (if challengeable) insight. It would be nice if those who are convinced (rightly or otherwise) that they possess superior erudition could learn real wisdom as well and avoid being painfully patronising while displaying their enormous knowledge.

Is that a general statement, Mark? Not in liberal democracies, I would have thought.

Or was that an ironic comment on my comment?

There’s nothing wrong with Sophie’s post and I don’t see what’s in it that has managed to rattle your cage.

You’ve posted plenty of stuff that I’ve thought was pure opinion. Citing writers who obligingly agree with you doesn’t mean it’s not still your opinion.

Yes, violence in politics go hand in hand in liberal democracies too – remember Weber’s definition of the state as the territorial monopolist of violence. And liberal democracies have typically been instituted by violence – eg the French and American revolutions and often through anti-colonial wars.

Your general position, Rob, would also have to concede that “freedom” was brought to Iraq through violence – ie war.

Sophie – Kropotkin actually saw a libertarian community emerging from progressive change, and the Spanish anarchists in the Civil War were only violent in defence of a legitimate regime against Franco’s fascists. There’s a counter example for every one you cite.

Most modern anarchists do not see violence as a productive or ethical way to bring about social change.

But if you or your readers are seriously interested in all this, I’d urge you to read Sheehan’s book.

I don’t have the time to go further into it – meeting a friend for dinner in half an hour so I’d best choof off.

“In that sense it is perfectly legitimate to talk of Islamic terrorism as containing elements of anarchism.”
Sophie was talking both specifically and generally about anarchism. This leads to comprehension problems. Either talk about anarchism as anarchism OR talk about anarchistic practises in general. Even then I can’t see how using ‘anarchist’ in a general way helps when far more accurate terms are available eg Islamic terorism. When she writes about the anarchistic side of Al Qaeda she means the part where they violently overthrow societies and that is all. This is over simplification and wrong and therefore throws any conclusion into profound doubt.

“I don’t think it’s an effective rebuttal to return to the guiding texts of anarchism and say, ‘no, it’s not’.”
It’s how we agree on what we’re talking about Rob.

“That would be rather like contemplating what happened at Tiannenmen Square and saying, ‘that’s not socialism in action’. Of course it is.”"
Err? No it’s not! This is a case of oversimplification to the point of uselessness. So, one of the precepts of Socialism is that you must run people over in tanks?
Come on!

Sorry Sophie and Ken, but I am inclined to agree with Bill Posters. You need a rewrite.

And arguing that either the French or American revolutions instituted a system of liberal democracy is historically very dubious. What flowed from the French, as you will be well aware, was a period of tyranny known as the reign of terror, followed by the Napoleonic period of imperial autocracy, followed by the restitution of the monarchy.

The American revolution brought the American nation into existence on the basis of freedom and enterprise and its passage toward liberal democracy was speedier because of those founding principles. But it didn’t happen overnight either.

I think it’s a fundamental principle of liberal democracy that there is a collective commitment to avoid using violence for political ends.

But, harry, that’s exactly my point. Of course it’s not in any of the textbooks, any more than the gulag was. It’s the way socialsim worked in practice, and that’s the real test, not what it says in theory.

I don’t think concentration camps were mentioned in Mein Kampf but you’d be pretty brave to say they were not the way Nazism panned out in practice. they were the consequence of the practical application of a political theory, like the tanks running over students in Beijing.

Drifting OT again, Ken, I’m sorry.

Have a look at true anarchies, Afghanistan between the exit of the Soviets & the rise of the Taliban, the midwestern border states during the US Civil War, much of modern Sub-Saharan Africa, and tell me if you’d move your family into any of them. Your food is what you can hunt, grow or scrounge. Your medical support is limited to what folks in your group know. Your security is what’s packed in your holster or slung over your shoulder. And you’ll loose it all as soon as someone bigger, meaner, and better armed comes along. And there’s always someone bigger, meaner or better armed out there… That’s anarchy in practice.

Don’t give me the old “But it hasn’t been tried by the right people yet!” horse-pocky, either. Socialism went there and did that, with the result of over a hundred million graves to show for it.

Nice to see the world “liberal” used as a commendation and not a condemnation for a change.

Look, all political theories are great in theory. But they always fuck up to some extent or another in practice.

When Marx and Engels set out to free the proletariat from the tyranny of the market, they didn’t see the disgusting fuckup of Stalinism or Maosim coming.

The POUM et al in Spain also started with the best intentions and not with any plan to end up shooting eachother in the head. In the shattered Europe after WW1, that futurism-inspired Italian invention, faciism, seemed like welcome stability and bright new future to many.

And while capitalism is the most efficient algorithm yet for allocating resources, I’m sure what’s left of Bhopal would like to have some serious discussions about cost-benefit ratios with Union Carbide.

The fact a great writer, (Joe Conrad), choose to make an anarchist the villain (The Secret Agent) during a time in human history when the mass media was coming of age, didn’t help any more understanding of that political philosophy.

All political theories are just that. Great in theory but as Goethe said, “Life is green and theory grey”