what anarchism means to me

It appears that some of our reader base (smart as ever) is confused about the anarchism definition in the corner. I really should explain the "anarchism: act-a-vision activism" thing in the corner. Its nominal definition is pretty vague and its usage in everyday language as "chaos" or something like it is bound to confuse people.

I'd consider myself an anarchist in more of the classical sense of the term (think Mikhail Bakunin). While anarchism could be considered an ideology that advocated the abolition of the state, I'm of the sort that believes it is much more than that. I probably most resemble the anarchists that have the libertarian-socialist ideals, but differ in certain areas. I believe in a more methodological approach to social change. I try my best not to let my ideals get in the way of things; I don't like to burn bridges with people, but on the same note I don't take shit from anyone. I believe that direct action is the most effective way to bring about change.

A lot of progress is hindered when people want to believe things that aren't true and subsequently, many efforts are wasted on bad analysis on all sides of issues. But, there are all kinds of things that lead to bad analysis that I won't really go into (like the absurd amount of specialization in certain fields, which leads to an abstract analysis of real life situations, and a kooky analysis that often has bad implications). So, for these reasons, I don't really belong to any particular doctrine or group of people, but I find the term "anarchist" the most fitting for who I am. I'm anti-capitalist in just about every sense of the word, but I like the work of Austrian Economists for its praxeological approach to economics.

Now I hope you can understand the act-a-vision activism I have up there. To me, it means that we see ways to make the world better and act upon this vision. Kind of cheesy, but whatever. I think it's more rational of an approach than a lot of the left offers. The typical socialist takes a while to get warmed up with all their commitees and whatnot. I'd prefer to just start working and do my job well enough that it catches on.

In response to Robert....

Yeah, uh, that was more rant-like than normal, I should elaborate.

I recall the Ritter interview where the inspectors concluded Iraq was free of WMDs (95% free?) I'm having trouble finding it. And I remember well the typical Z analysis: Iraq was devastated by years of harsh economic sanctions and could not afford to build weapons, also under tight scrutiny; the building of weapons claimed impossible. Of course, I don't know if I've seen a truly objective analysis of the war. Everyone seems to have their own agenda. I should probably take the Zinn/Chomsky/Solomon, etc articles on Znet with as much salt as I would an article from Fox News or something.

The point I was trying to get across was that there is a noticeable pattern in the media. The anti-war movement will denounce the claims of the administration responsible for the war and the mainstream media or whatever will denounce them as cooks. Then, something from the corporate media will come out and is now more "credible," but no one seems to care about it because they're all caught up in some new illusion proffered by an actor of another agenda. Indeed, it would be interesting to look at the evidence that led these people to this conclusion. And who knows what would have happened if the invastion didn't take place? You said that the 500 tons of yellow-cake was a "known quantity" and that efforts to process them into weapons of destruction "would have raised alarm bells". I'd have to agree. Any processing of that material would have been detected promptly and I'd bet money that there would have been more international cooperation in preventing something bad from happening.

Anyways, I think the more important thing is the logic that went into the conclusion. I believe in justice, so I believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" ordeal that seems to be losing popularity in our justice system. Most of the anti-war movement follows this logic. We were not offered credible evidence that there were WMDs and I think they're still having trouble finding it. In fact, I don't think the US has come through on any of the reasons that were given to legitimize the war. The WMD thing didn't go through. Democracy is pretty false. The first thing the appointed interim government did was declare marshall law and soon after, they reinstated capital punishment. The election likely won't take place until well after the latest date the UN requested. I believe the new rhetoric offered is political stability. Who knows where that's going? It's pure speculation from where I'm sitting in suburban Texas thousands of miles away from what's happening. As far as I can tell reading the news, the interim government is incapable of representing most of the population of Iraq with intense relations between different ethnic groups and will be incapable of resolving the turmoil right now. As long as so many distressed people are irritated by military occupation, government corruption, and are not understood by anyone in the West, I don't think any of the problems will go away. Hell, I'm so ignorant that I can barely tell what the problem is.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say in your response, but I'm pretty damn confused and angry, too. I wanna see what's going on, what really happened. Sorry about the lazy journalism, my resources are limited, I'm tired, confused, and I've got homework to do. In the meantime, I'd like to hear more from you. Thanks.

I know some of you read stuff like this like 2 years ago, but...

The BBC put up an article about Iraq weapon's capabilities and the like. Essentially it says what the leftist/activist media had been saying since before the invasion of Iraq based on the whole WMD farce. I know it's been discredited for a while, but I guess it doesn't matter too much because there's always a new excuse. First WMDs, then democracy, now it's peace and stability or some shit like that. Pretty soon it will be "sustainable extraction of natural resources for optimal profiteering" judging by how easily manipulated most people are. Maybe Bush will let slip in his campaigns for improving the economy and creating jobs that he really plans to "accelerate the jobbery of America"? Maybe he'd get away with it? Fuck no.
_ _ _

Just to let you know, school started this week and I'm going to be really busy for a while, especially when swimming starts up. This means around 2-4 updates a week from me as opposed to at least one a day like before. Sorry about that. However, I've added my good friend Athar to the team, which should make things pretty interesting. He'll be posting every now and then. If you really want to post some, just talk to me about it and I'll consider adding you to the team. We can't be much of a circle of solidarity with just one or two people. Word.

Did Allawi go to Yale, too?

It seems like he has similar influences to his diplomacy. He's "getting tough" on other Arabs. This is like almost any US president and most leaders in the Western world for the past 50 years have acted and how the other dictators empowered by the West have acted in the past. He's accused Iran of "arming and encouraging" the militia and sending insurgents across the border. He restored the death penalty. There are signs that "[Allawi] fears losing his tenuous grip on the situation in Iraq." It's all horrible, but I can't help but feel like it fits the pattern here. They prop up a dictatorship that cators to the elite, doesn't care to represent the majority of the people, and they act surprised when there are problems with insurgents? Smells like bullshit to me.
_ _ _

I don't need graphs and numbers to tell me the job market is still going to shit, but of course it doesn't hurt. Well, maybe seeing it does. It hurts a lot of people.