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.
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.
posted by sdskyle at 1:23 PM
3 Comments:
You say your thinking resembles that of "libertarian-socialism," which is highly curious to me since, having studied both of these ideologies quite a lot, I know they are almost diametrically opposed. Could you give me an example of a libertarian-socialist ideal?
I know many self-styled anarchists are very anti-capitalist, which has always confused me. While anarchists (like Bakunin) express an extreme dislike of the state, the anti-capitalist program actually requires extensive state involvement. They may counter that capitalism requires the state, which is true, but only for very minimal functions (rule of law, contract enforcement, property rights, etc.) I see capitalism as the economic expression of free people. In other words, when the state is very minimal and liberty reigns, capitalism results.
You say that you favor a methodological approach to social change, but also say that direct action is the best method (which I presume is why you don't call yourself "progressive" or "socialist"). The two seem contradictory. Could you give me an example of methodological direct action?
Most people I think have ideas on making the world better. The question that divides them is how. Some, for example, say that poverty can be eliminated or reduced via a radical redistribution of wealth, while others say that the same thing can be accomplished via the unleashing of wealth-creating forces. I would submit that it's your approach to generally acknowledged problems that helps define your label; not the fact that you have an approach (or vision). To put it in another way, fiscal conservative, pro-market think tank wonks could claim to be an "act-a-vision activist," but obviously their approach to change is much different than yours.
I can see why you'd think the doctrines would be conflicting if you think of socialism as having production and distribution done by a centralized government, however, there is also socialism in which the means of production and distribution are done collectively. I'm thinking solidarity, not authoritarian. Libertarians, simply put, believe in minimizing state power and maximizing individual freedom. I don't really see how those conflict with one another.
Libertarian-socialiss is a pretty poor choice of words. In reality, it's really just anarchism with a name that some people find less offensive.
And I don't see how methodology and direct action conflict with each other, either. According to Dictionary.com, direct action is "The strategic use of immediately effective acts, such as strikes, demonstrations, or sabotage, to achieve a political or social end." Methodology is the "body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; a set of working methods." Direct action is essentially the anarchist's methodology. It is a series of processes that lead to a goal that is freedom and solidarity: a world where people work together, wealth distributed more equitably, all that good stuff.
oi oi poooloi !!
I think this cartoon answer alot of the confusion on anarchism (O.o)
http://www.home.voidcrafted.net/images/C0MIC_ANARCHI5T_R4LLY.jpg
Post a Comment
<< Home