Is it bothering anyone here how the media is referring to many of those at the G-20 protests as "anarchists"? And, I keep hearing them mention "anarchists" and "anti-capitalists" in the same breath.
It's always been that way.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
yeah, a most of them are marxists, rest are anarchists. didnt you see the red flags in the photo
It is bothersome because they are not what I would call true anarchists. They are sometimes referred to as collectivist anarchists . They believe in world wide communism where no one will have more or be better than anyone else, and without some form of government or authority people will just agree to live that way. Somehow it does not seem their idea of anarchy will work for 30 seconds because without massive authority why would people just decide to live completely alike and why would I not collect more rocks than you, and you collect more fish than me if that was what we wanted to collect.
The media refers to them as anarchists because it is simple for people to identify with that thought of anarchy because anarchy is supposed to be chaos instead of an orderly system where people cooperate to get what they want or need. Another reason they refer to them as anarchists instead of collectivist anarchists is because most in the media believe in collectivism and are affraid if people put these goons with collectivism then the media's agenda will be lost.
We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines.
Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive.
Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."
Again, this is why I refer to myself as a non-archist. It avoids the automatic association with socialist scum who violate both the non aggression axiom and property rights.
This post over at the Devil's Kitchen sums up pretty well who are there:
by The Filthy Smoker (nb. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)Put People First - the coalition behind the G20 demonstrations - has provided the biggest bonanza for fake charity spotters since Stop Climate Chaos gathered its forces late last year. Like Stop Climate Chaos, Put People First took to the streets to bang on about global warming and their militant wing were at it again today. Unlike Stop Climate Chaos - who got away with mere sub-zero temperatures - Put People First endured a hail-storm followed by a sleet-storm and then had to listen to Baldrick spouting off about the evils of capitalism. Sounds terrific. Much has been made of the supposedly broad base of support this new coalition enjoys. According to Newsnight: "What's striking about these protests - that started at the weekend - is the sheer diversity of groups and their demands, but all united against a commmon enemy: the government and global capitalism." This claim of "sheer diversity" was immediately undermined by the usual assortment of soap-dodgers, Trotskyists and borderline tramps who were interviewed for the programme. Striking diversity? Only if you consider Unison to be at the other end of the political spectrum to The New Economics Foundation, or if you can't see any ideological link between Greenpeace and the Tax Justice Network.Far from being diverse, the Put People First coalition is overwhelmingly dominated by public sector unions, fake charities and global warming nutters who are worried that a recession will mean less public money for their members, as its website suggests: "A typical government response would be to use the global economic slowdown as an excuse to cut back on public expenditure programmes.Not good enough! Public service must be assured so that the people who did the least to cause this problem do not pay the highest price. Bringing forward public works programmes could also help create jobs and help countries out of recession." Today, as on Saturday, the ghost of the poll tax riots looms large. As one lefty blogger put it: The memory of the miners strike, Wapping, Poll tax lingers long and hard. 2009 is our summer of rage The myth of Thatcher being brought down by the poll tax riots is an enduring one for the men and wimmin of the left, and this fond memory continues to draw socialist throwbacks to Trafalgar Square. It's bollocks, of course, chronologically and politically, but there is a more fundamental difference. The significance of those riots has been much exaggerated but they did represent, in a meaningful way, a clash of extremes. The poll tax rioters would never have voted Tory. They were ideologically opposed to Conservatism and genuinely wanted to destroy it. The G20 protests are completely different. These are lovers' tiffs - family rows - and carefully orchestrated ones at that. The nearest most of the Put People First marchers will come to genuine dissent will be to vote Lib Dem. To get a real equivalent of the poll tax riots you would have to imagine Thatcher funding Class War out of public money and then imagine that the rioters were demanding to retain the poll tax.The Put People First coalition's demands for 'green collar jobs', greater public spending, higher public debt and further regulation have been government policy for some now, so what kind of protest is this? It's just noise and flying fists, and in the confusion, the real scandal - that Brown is on a doomed mission to spend his way out of recession - is forgotten.Does anyone believe that the one-eyed Scottish trouser-snake will be perturbed by having 35,000 marchers call for him to lurch to the left? Does anyone seriously think that Ed Miliband will be upset by having a baying mob demanding higher taxes and more investment for his ludicrous and fictitious 'green New Deal'? Amongst Put People's First's more risible claims is this little gem: The G20 leaders don’t want to talk about climate change; but they must. Beg pardon? Brown, Obama, Rudd et al don't want to talk about climate change?! What absolute twaddle. Not only do they talk about it at every opportunity, they actively solicit public demonstrations to fabricate support for their 'mentalist policies, as the chaps at Climate Resistance pointed out at the time of the Plane Stupid demo: We have nothing against direct action per se. But what sort of direct action is it when the activists target those who are pushing in the same direction as themselves? And let’s not forget that the government quite likes the fact that a few silly protestors are lending some street cred to its own agenda. We recently quoted Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband on the runway protests: "When you think about all the big historic movements, from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid, to sexual equality in the 1960s, all the big political movements had popular mobilisation. Maybe it’s an odd thing for someone in government to say, but I just think there’s a real opportunity and a need here." This is what counts for protest in 2009. Politicians resort to begging for 'popular mobilisation' for unpopular policies and when their natural supporters 'mobilise', the media call it a protest. And that is where the fake charities come in. Even a cursory look at the members of the Put People First Coalition shows well over a dozen contenders for fakecharities.org. It can't be denied that some of them do meet the dictionary definition of a charity by helping "the poor, the sick, or the helpless" to some extent. This at least sets them on a higher moral plain than blatant government front-groups like ASH and Alcohol Concern. But when it comes to politics, they function like every other fake charity. They manufacture dissent and bay for blood just as the government are lining up to give you a good kick in the balls anyway. It beggars belief that public money is being spent on some of these socialist wingnuts. War on Want's agenda, for example, seems to have been taken straight out of Das Kapital: War on Want is leading the campaign for a new system to replace the failed ideology of free market capitalism. We believe that this new system must be based on principles of public benefit not private profit, achieved through democratic control and a redistribution of the fruits of globalisation. Feel like donating to these Marxist dickheads? Too late. You already do. Last year they got £231,592 from the British government and a further £240,068 from the European Commission. And this is the tip of the iceberg. The 13 Put People First members that we have so far added to fakecharities.org relieved the taxpayer of over £60 million last year (most of them have been filed under 'Free Trade'.) They include such organisations as Progressio, who want to create a "new world order" and who rely on the state for 63% of their income. They include International Service, who get 69.8% of their income from the state. All of them meet the first criteria for fakecharities.org in that they receive at least 10% of their income (and/or £1 million) from the state. And by taking part in Put People First's anti-capitalist campaign, they manifestly fulfill the second criteria - that they engage in political activism. Gordon Brown has nothing to fear from these clowns. His real opponents are those G20 leaders who are not far enough through the electoral cycle to engage in scorched earth policies. Even the nihilistic spastics who showed up for a scrap today will only serve to reinforce the illusion that there is passionate public support for whatever Keynesian lunacy Labour has in mind. It is convenient for both sides to pretend that the protestors are embarassing the government but Brown has no desire for them to shut up. If he did, he would stop paying them.
by The Filthy Smoker
(nb. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)Put People First - the coalition behind the G20 demonstrations - has provided the biggest bonanza for fake charity spotters since Stop Climate Chaos gathered its forces late last year. Like Stop Climate Chaos, Put People First took to the streets to bang on about global warming and their militant wing were at it again today. Unlike Stop Climate Chaos - who got away with mere sub-zero temperatures - Put People First endured a hail-storm followed by a sleet-storm and then had to listen to Baldrick spouting off about the evils of capitalism. Sounds terrific.
"What's striking about these protests - that started at the weekend - is the sheer diversity of groups and their demands, but all united against a commmon enemy: the government and global capitalism."
"A typical government response would be to use the global economic slowdown as an excuse to cut back on public expenditure programmes.Not good enough! Public service must be assured so that the people who did the least to cause this problem do not pay the highest price. Bringing forward public works programmes could also help create jobs and help countries out of recession."
The memory of the miners strike, Wapping, Poll tax lingers long and hard. 2009 is our summer of rage
The G20 leaders don’t want to talk about climate change; but they must.
We have nothing against direct action per se. But what sort of direct action is it when the activists target those who are pushing in the same direction as themselves? And let’s not forget that the government quite likes the fact that a few silly protestors are lending some street cred to its own agenda. We recently quoted Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband on the runway protests: "When you think about all the big historic movements, from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid, to sexual equality in the 1960s, all the big political movements had popular mobilisation. Maybe it’s an odd thing for someone in government to say, but I just think there’s a real opportunity and a need here."
"When you think about all the big historic movements, from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid, to sexual equality in the 1960s, all the big political movements had popular mobilisation. Maybe it’s an odd thing for someone in government to say, but I just think there’s a real opportunity and a need here."
War on Want is leading the campaign for a new system to replace the failed ideology of free market capitalism. We believe that this new system must be based on principles of public benefit not private profit, achieved through democratic control and a redistribution of the fruits of globalisation.
Gordon Brown has nothing to fear from these clowns. His real opponents are those G20 leaders who are not far enough through the electoral cycle to engage in scorched earth policies. Even the nihilistic spastics who showed up for a scrap today will only serve to reinforce the illusion that there is passionate public support for whatever Keynesian lunacy Labour has in mind. It is convenient for both sides to pretend that the protestors are embarassing the government but Brown has no desire for them to shut up. If he did, he would stop paying them.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Communists are not anarchists, no matter what anybody says. If you read the writings of Marx, he advocated state ownership of ... everything. That is not anarchistic--far from it.
"Anarchists" whose agenda involves ending abolishing religion, marriage, commerce, or meat-eating are not anarchist because they try to force their will on others. That is the opposite of true anarchy (lit. "no rulers").
So yes, libertarians are anarchists. Marxoids and eco-terrorist are not.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Anarcho-capitalism is possibly the worst label we could have adopted. Mutliarchism, non-archism, eklektarchy are all far better labels.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
what if we were called "stench blossoms"?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: what if we were called "stench blossoms"?
That would work perfectly well, and if you wore a shirt declaring that on a train or bus, you would sit alone.
Or how about just 'libertarians', the logical conclusion of which is an entirely stateless, but not lawless society.
Le Master: Is it bothering anyone here how the media is referring to many of those at the G-20 protests as "anarchists"? And, I keep hearing them mention "anarchists" and "anti-capitalists" in the same breath.
Bakunin gave the exact definition we ought use: "blind tools". I think we need to not to go any further than this.
Le Master:Is it bothering anyone here how the media is referring to many of those at the G-20 protests as "anarchists"? And, I keep hearing them mention "anarchists" and "anti-capitalists" in the same breath.
What bothers me are that these syndicalist anarchist, who compose the majority of anarchist activity, honestly think that they made a difference in society with their idiocy. They continue to be delusional on how insignificant they are in the political scene, and look down on other schools of anarchism who could be allies.
They need to read their Proudhon and focus on building the new society, rather than futilely trying to smash the old.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
The broken window fallacy, anyone? At least, now some of the newly printed money will go to some local glass cutter who performs productive work, rather than to Black-Hole-of-Eternal-Losses Inc.
GilesStratton: Anarcho-capitalism is possibly the worst label we could have adopted. Mutliarchism, non-archism, eklektarchy are all far better labels.
YES! And now is the time to brand a new name, because we're going from almost nothing (in the minds of people) with some wind in the sails. Seriously, a good label would be very valuable going forward. You should register corresponding url:s. And this movement isn't larger than making it possible to change its name. If one could come up with something more catchy, and maybe pertaining to the human being or free will, which many still think are good things. And maybe something not so greek or -ism, then it'd be great!
It's not fascism when the government does it.
“We must spend now as an investment for the future.” - President Obama
YES! And now is the time to brand a new name, because we're going from almost nothing (in the minds of people) with some wind in the sails. Seriously, a good label would be very valuable going forward.
Agreed. An anarcho-capitalist sounds like some kind of wealthy trouble-maker.
Well, someone has to provide Youtube fodder by starting street brawls with neo-nazis, right?
Anything with "Austrian" in it gives off a really erudite, sophisticated connotation, without sounding pseudointellectual.
I think that "capitalism" is a good name for it, for us. It is a very strong brand name because everyone has heard of it. Even in the most primitive of brains, it balances socialism and therefor doesn't seem very "extreme". Nor is it new. And its historic track record of (relative) application is brilliant, even by most utilitaristic "measurements".
Let's all call ourselves capitalists from now on! Then no window smashers will want to mix themselves with us, and nor will journalists make any connection between us and them commies, the guys who hate us and what we stand for the most.
ProudCapitalist:YES! And now is the time to brand a new name, because we're going from almost nothing (in the minds of people) with some wind in the sails. Seriously, a good label would be very valuable going forward. You should register corresponding url:s. And this movement isn't larger than making it possible to change its name. If one could come up with something more catchy, and maybe pertaining to the human being or free will, which many still think are good things. And maybe something not so greek or -ism, then it'd be great!
I still think we should just call ourselves agorist.
Cork:
I like that.
I actually think it was the BEST name that could have been adopted for the hardcore.
The socialists corrupt EVERYTHING, 'Liberalism' then 'Left-Libertarianism' yada yada. The way I see it, we have anarcho-CAPITALISM (Haha, I can't see the left calling themselves Capitalists all of a sudden) It's a natural propellant.
Anarcho-Capitalism is basically the root, the hardcore. But when we fraternize with the enemy / masses, we are able to use other labels that are less affronting. "Classical liberal" "Constitutionalist" "Voluntaryist" etc.
Conza88: I actually think it was the BEST name that could have been adopted for the hardcore.
I think anarcho-capitalist is great, if only for the hilarious reactions it gets from left anarchists. "You're stealing our terms from us!"
You'd almost think they consider it their... property, or something.
Byzantine: wombatron:They need to read their Proudhon and focus on building the new society, ... That would require discipline, child-rearing, belief in something beyond one's self, and of course, marketable skills. Only racists and fascists care about those sort of things.
wombatron:They need to read their Proudhon and focus on building the new society, ...
That would require discipline, child-rearing, belief in something beyond one's self, and of course, marketable skills. Only racists and fascists care about those sort of things.
There you go spouting that conservative nonsense again.
Nick Ricci: Conza88: I actually think it was the BEST name that could have been adopted for the hardcore. I think anarcho-capitalist is great, if only for the hilarious reactions it gets from left anarchists. "You're stealing our terms from us!" You'd almost think they consider it their... property, or something.
There is an argument to make in favor of using different terms for different crowds.
This. Many people on RPF confused an-cap-ism with anarchy. Anarchists have historically been anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists.
Daniel: This. Many people on RPF confused an-cap-ism with anarchy. Anarchists have historically been anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists.
Yeah, so? Things change; different schools of anarchy emerge.
Anarchist either reject coercion or leadership, we reject neither.
I'm curious, how do you justify coercion (if our definitions of coercion match)?
Sphairon: I'm curious, how do you justify coercion (if our definitions of coercion match)?
I think you're definion coercion as synonomous to aggression, whereas I simply mean violence when I say coercion.
GilesStratton: I think you're definion coercion as synonomous to aggression, whereas I simply mean violence when I say coercion.
Now I'm even more confused. The archetype of an anarchist is a guy wrapped in black garments causing mayhem and destruction. Aren't you, as a conservative, vehemently opposed to this?
Sphairon: GilesStratton: I think you're definion coercion as synonomous to aggression, whereas I simply mean violence when I say coercion. Now I'm even more confused. The archetype of an anarchist is a guy wrapped in black garments causing mayhem and destruction. Aren't you, as a conservative, vehemently opposed to this?
Of course, but I don't see how that has anything to do with my definition of coercion. Any private defense agency will have to resort to coercion in order to sustain itself, as useful as it is social ostracism is not sufficient. Most anarcists, however, are utopians that believe once we get rid of property we will get rid of coercion and indeed all other social problems.
Mises denounced anarchists for all the right reasons, yet at the end of the day there's not all that much difference between the conclusions reached by Mises and the conclusions reached by Hoppe, Rothbard and other "anarcho" capitalists.
I know. I was replying to Conza.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
[email protected] | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap