ANARCHY!

[serum]

Capitalism

 

RBR: In many ways the left today finds itself back at its original starting point in the last century. Like then, it now faces a form of capitalism that is in the ascendancy. There would seem to be greater 'consensus' today, more than at any other time in history, that capitalism is the only valid form of economic organisation possible, this despite the fact that wealth inequality is widening.

 

Against this backdrop, one could argue that the left is unsure of how to go forward. How do you look at the current period? Is it a question of 'back to basics'? Should the effort now be towards bringing out the libertarian tradition in socialism and towards stressing democratic ideas?

 

CHOMSKY: This is mostly propaganda, in my opinion. What is called 'capitalism' is basically a system of corporate mercantilism, with huge and largely unaccountable private tyrannies exercising vast control over the economy, political systems, and social and cultural life, operating in close co-operation with powerful states that intervene massively in the domestic economy and international society.

 

That is dramatically true of the United States, contrary to much illusion.

 

The rich and privileged are no more willing to face market discipline than they have been in the past, though they consider it just fine for the general population.

 

Merely to cite a few illustrations, the Reagan administration, which revelled in free market rhetoric, also boasted to the business community that it was the most protectionist in post-war US history - actually more than all others combined. Newt Gingrich, who leads the current crusade, represents a superrich district that receives more federal subsidies than any other suburban region in the country, outside of the federal system itself.

 

The 'conservatives' who are calling for an end to school lunches for hungry children are also demanding an increase in the budget for the Pentagon, which was established in the late 1940s in its current form because - as the business press was kind enough to tell us - high tech industry cannot survive in a pure, competitive, unsubsidized, 'free enterprise' economy, and the government must be its saviour.

 

Without the saviour, Gingrich's constituents would be poor working people (if they were lucky). There would be no computers, electronics generally, aviation industry, metallurgy, automation, etc., etc., right down the list. Anarchists, of all people, should not be taken in by these traditional frauds.

 

More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the population is very much open to them.

 

Despite a huge mass of corporate propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty much their traditional attitudes. In the US, for example, more than 80% of the population regard the economic system as inherently unfair and the political system as a fraud, which serves the special interests, not the people.

 

Overwhelming majorities think working people have too little voice in public affairs (the same is true in England), that the government has the responsibility of assisting people in need, that spending for education and health should take precedence over budget-cutting and tax cuts, that the current Republican proposals that are sailing through Congress benefit the rich and harm the general population, and so on. Intellectuals may tell a different story, but it's not all that difficult to find out the facts.

[KaBar2]

I disagree to an extent

 

I do not believe that people are more open to anarchist ideas than ever before. Socialist ideas in general defy the obvious truth that the vast majority of people are motivated almost solely by self interest, and in effect, would much prefer to be rich, powerful and free from any restraint rather than moral, social and voluntarily working for the common good.

 

I spent years of my life as an anarchist, trying to organize, trying to spread the ideas of anarchism and libertarian socialism. So far as I can tell, it had no discernable positive effect, and basically was a waste of time. Nevertheless, I still have a bit of a soft spot for anarchists and anarchism in general.

 

I would be a lot more inclined to support the ideas of anarchism today if anarchists were more moral, more principled and less self indulgent. I got tired to hearing endless yadda-yadda-yadda about "revolution" and "overthrowing capitalism" and "the working class" from people who basically could not even change the spark plugs in their car.

"The working class" doesn't give a flying fuck about anarchism. They want a better job, and a good bass boat. They want their kids to do well in school, in the hope that someday they'll get a better job than their parents have, and will be able to afford better homes, nicer cars and more frequent vacations, to better destinations.

I never met a SINGLE genuine working class person who could be convinced that the capitalist system needed overthrowing. The only thing they would change is the size of their slice of the pie. They wanted to be RICH, and to hell with the rest of the working class.

 

On the other hand, all the anarchists I knew were pretty much spoiled middle-class or upper-class kids who were convinced that they had all the answers and that whatever they learned from their study of political books was vastly superior to the system as presently constructed. Almost all of the anarchists I knew were involved in some sort of deviant behavior--from homosexuality to drug abuse to petty theft and welfare cheating. Their goals were basically infantile--to get by without working by ripping off "the System", avoiding responsibility and by living off the hard work of others. VERY FEW of them ever worked any sort of industrial job. They glamorized people like steel workers and coal miners, but there is NO WAY IN HELL they would have taken a job on a jack-up oil rig, or gone tuna fishing in Alaska, or even done something like driving an 18-wheeler as an OTR trucker. Their idea of a "tough working class job" was something like working as a bicycle messenger, or at a pizza shop. Maybe a liberal, alternative bookstore. They had the persistance and stamina and maturity of a 14-year-old. I think people were correct to consider us to be silly dilettantes--we WERE silly dilettantes. Looking back on it, I wouldn't have trusted us to reliably drive a taxi, much less remake the most powerful economic engine on earth. It was foolishness.

 

The most embarrassing thing of all, in retrospect, was our idiotic talk about revolution. When I joined the Marine Corps, I got a shocking and sobering look at the power inherent in military force. I think a single Marine Corps battalion, turned loose to fight against the most publicized, wide-spread social unrest in America (perhaps the Rodney King riots in L.A.) would have required maybe a week to end it forever. We had absolutely no idea--NONE--of exactly how much power and violence could have been brought to bear against us. That the government chose not to do so shows that there really was not much validity to our insistance that "fascism" was running the country. If fascists had been running America, I would not be sitting here typing this, I would be laying in a mass grave on some military base or out in the middle of a test range in Nevada. They treated us with kid gloves. There were very few deaths, very few serious physical injuries. The worst case, Kent State, still only killed four students, and wounded eleven. For all the hoo-rah and publicity, it was a tempest in a teapot. If those National Guardsmen had been serious, those 66 bullets would have killed 66 students, and more. If the government had been serious, captured Weathermen would have been tortured for information. Bernadine Dohrn and Jeff Jones and Billy Ayers would have all been killed, along with the rest of the leadership of the WUO, Progressive Labor, SDS, the Socialist Worker's Party, IWW and all the rest of the Communist, socialist and anarchist organizations in the U.S. They would have been actively hunting and assassinating us. But they were not convinced that we were any real danger, thank God. Annoyed, yes. Angry, yes. Determined to kill us, no.

 

Like Billy Ayers of the Weathermen said, when the Justice Department had to drop charges of carrying out a bombing campaign; "Guilty as sin, and free as a bird." Not in a fascist nation, believe it. Only in America. He was a self-indulgent little pussy, and still is.

[kilgoretrout]

wow...

[kilgoretrout]

If you dont mind my asking kabar, what made you join the marines after bieng an anarchist?

[ClueTwo]

Originally posted by Smart

oh, so, you mean the kind of anarchy where people agree on some ground rules...

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: Three cheers and a bottle o' rum.....

 

Wow, I can see what it's like to be 16 and start using words bigger than your penis and have absolutely no idea about the meaning behind them.

It's tough growing up and having all these crazy ideas floating around. I'm so glad the I didn;t know about 12oz when I was that age. I probably would have shot myself or declared ar on a small country..Anyhooo, I'm outta heeerrreeeeeeee, cuase I'm a cowboy baby, runnin off to my desert hideaway...

[sludgenuts]

http://shop.oldglory.com/catalog/browse/pr...ODUCTID=4se3208

 

now you dont have to go to hot topic or spencers!!!

[Guest mikro137]

Originally posted by some pittsburgh flavor

hey go get a casualties cd and a six pack because that's real anarchy and make sure your socks dont match

 

 

i cant b elieve you gave away the trade secret on the interweb! thats fuckin anarchy duuuuuuuuuuuuude!

[sludgenuts]

dude its obviously on the interweb, its clearly on the casualties website, and anti-flag and we cant forget the getup kids. no doubt. i think casualties even put it in their cd sleeves...oh wait this is anarchy punk rawkaos i mean vynl sleeves!

[KaBar2]

KilgoreTrout

 

I thought a lot about that very question, Kilgore. I was free and clear. I did not get drafted, because I declared as a conscientious objector during Vietnam, and worked for two years in a rehabilitation hospital taking care of paralyzed men and boys. My "military obligation" had been fulfilled for over five years when I enlisted in the Marines. I had a lot of doubts that they would take me, considering my history of anti-war activism and being a C.O. I think I finally just came to the realization that the Vietnam conflict was a very divisive one. A lot of the arguments made by the other side began to weigh on me. There is an element of truth to every side of every argument.

I realized that I really do love my country. And I felt a feeling of obligation, and a feeling that I should have gone ahead and enlisted during the war. I still had some affinity for the ideas and history of anarchism, but I admired very few of the actual anarchists that I knew personally. After having served in the Marine Corps, I can say that I met a lot of good guys in there, a few of which have remained my friends for over twenty years. But there were quite a few jerks, too.

I'm glad I served in the Marines. I'm a lot prouder of my four years of Marine Corps service than I am of the ten or twelve years I spent as an anarchist. We got very little accomplished in the anarchist movement. I'd say that it's biggest drawback is that it attracts people what have a sort of adolescent attitude about life, and have difficulty accepting responsibility. Of course, the same thing can be said of the Marine Corps. Just in a different way.

[rize415]

its on! yay!

www.anarchy4lifeplayaz.com