PLANT RUDABAGAS, no joke, seriously indestructable tubbers, having been tried and true for starving Europeans during WWII. The WAR is on, why is it that everyone wants to pretend it isn’t? They want you all DEAD, they want the world for themselves, they do not have one humanitarian bone in their carcasses, DO NOT TAKE THEIR MARK.

Anarchy has several different meanings; and yes, there is a right wing anarchism, which involves acheiving an anarchy via massive deregulation, destruction of government, social services, zoning laws, environmental laws, and letting corporations and the mafia rule everything; the rich see this as their own personal “freedom.”

Such poor reasoning being displayed on a website for dissidents IMO is a direct result of the Left’s abandonment of any real anti-capitalist dialogue such as Marxism and replaced with false notions of activism whose forms are mostly diversionary pretentions.

To say that “deregulation” is “right wing anarchism” shows a complete lack of understanding and ignorance of the Capitalist system. Liberals who favoured regulations did so in order to preserve Capitalism by managing crisis which is inherent to the system.

Deregulation in fact didn’t “destroy” government. Capitalists used (and now own) the government to impose greater AUTHORITY by eliminating the regulations they agreed to in order to keep the system stabilized because the rate of profit was falling in the 1970′s. Thus deregulation gave Capitalist MORE power and authority and is a move AWAY from freedom, justice and democracy.

The intransigency displayed by lichen, bozh and especially Max Shields reflect vividly the egoism that was sold to all classes of society to embrace neo-liberal Capitalism. Such egoism is anti-intellectual and in the end misleads people who are seeking answers to some very serious conditions.

In my previous post i have stated that no rule is a rule. To u, “anarchy” means no rule? Is that your position? First of all we do not have anywhere an anarchic state of affairs. So to use a nonexistent entity to prove that somebody is wrong ab. her/his opinions ab. the snark, cannot be correct.

U’re right that we do have a plutocratic rule in US and elsewhere. Nevertheless, i dared call it anarchic because i thought it may wake up some people of what is happening in US.
There may be many people who wld understand my use of the word “anarchic” as being authoritarian. People do say, God, it is anarchy there.
So, i have used the word in its folk meaning, really.

It helps a lot to accept the fact: one uses words; i.e. imbues it with own meanings. Which may be quite dissimilar to how others use it.
Meanings are not in words; meanings are in people. And each person has an inalienable right to use any word as she sees fit.

EG, i wld say to my wife that she`s a bitch, a whore, etc. So what happens? Well, she knows me and the hell with words. Proof that “bitch“ ^mine`^ is not bitch ^hers^ .
Meanings are not in words solely! tnx

Much better to just say what it is that you support and don’t; and include everything, as opposed to overlooking mass things. Actually, all of those old, academic ideologies, transplanted from the 19th century and with room to hide all manner of right wing social views behind, are essentially that.

“Anarchists like chomsky are channeling efforts into mission impossible intead of mission possible: form or join a party. This may be the best way to empower lower classes.
And i do not know whether guidance-elucidation is also excluded from their thinking.
Anarchists also do not take genetics into account. Let’s face it: if indeed one can sustain a brain injury at birth or be born a killer, wife beater, crook, rapist, ’stupido’, etc., such a person shld be s’mhow be cared for.
So some rudimentary system of rule-guidance must exist to be able to look after ‘losers’ as well.
Apsolute selfguidance {which anarchists may or may not insist on} just isn’t possible to achieve.
Obviously, a nonrule means a rule just like no opinion may be the best or worst opinion. No rule may be best or worst rule ever! tnx”

All this does is illustrate for all your complete and utter lack of understanding of what anarchism really is. I’m not even going to address why joining a party isn’t going to make a significant difference, that should be plain enough for all to see. Your generalizations regarding anarchism and anarchists are confouding. We DO take genetics into account, and proper arrangements would be made. You appear to confuse anarchism with a sort of “everyone for themselves” sort of atmosphere, which is simply not the case. In fact, that would be closer to today’s framework. Anarchism (individualist anarchism aside, which I don’t consider consistent anarchism in the first place) is about participatory communities, self-governance, and coming together to agree upon societal rules and customs. There is no delegation of power involved, but delegation of tasks. Anarchism would involve mass cooperation and communication. Again, you don’t seem to have even the slightest clue as to what anarchism really stands for.

@ Bozh: We are not stifling free speech. We are directing your attention to your misunderstanding of the concept of anarchy. Once you fully understand what you are bashing, then by all means, continue to bash it. But until that time, you have no place slandering it and perpetuating an all-too-common misconception in doing so.

You wrote:

“Alexis,
I deliberately used the word “anarchic” to limn what plutos do. I know that label may mislead people and lead them to certain conclusions.
However, anarchy appears utopian just as much as living in US under equal protection by laws written by the ruling class.
To the degree that laws are written by them, to that degree one is living under an anarchic rule: one just makes laws one wants or thinks one needs.
I also realized that by describing US as an anarchy, people wld wake up to what’s going on in US. My apology to all i may have misled! tnx”

There are so many errors in this convoluted post I don’t even know where to begin… If by “plutos” I’m to assume you mean plutotracies, we’ll start there. Plutocracies cannot be anarchic in any way for a number of reasons. First off, a plutocracy would imply capitalism, and all branches of anarchism oppose capitalism. Secondly, a plutocracy would require a ruling class, which cannot exist within an anarchic system. Living under laws imposed by a ruling class does NOT imply any sort of utopia whatsoever, and it is entirely beyond me how you could have deduced that this societal structure would be even desirable. If laws are imposed from above, then hierarchy exists which alone eliminates any possibility of “anarchical rule” (an oxymoron in itself, if I may point that out). I could go on about this at length, but I’ll instead simply end in pointing out that the U.S. is no where NEAR anarchical. Having arbitrary laws imposed by above does not imply anarchism, it cancels out the very possiblity of anarchism. You’re confusing societal rules and customs agreed upon by all with societal law imposed by the ruling class on whim. In a truly anarchistic society, no single person can have any more power than any other single person, which is the opposite of what we’re seeing in the U.S. today. Worldwide, at that.

Anarchists like chomsky are channeling efforts into mission impossible intead of mission possible: form or join a party. This may be the best way to empower lower classes.
And i do not know whether guidance-elucidation is also excluded from their thinking.
Anarchists also do not take genetics into account. Let’s face it: if indeed one can sustain a brain injury at birth or be born a killer, wife beater, crook, rapist, ‘stupido’, etc., such a person shld be s’mhow be cared for.

So some rudimentary system of rule-guidance must exist to be able to look after ‘losers’ as well.
Apsolute selfguidance {which anarchists may or may not insist on} just isn’t possible to achieve.
Obviously, a nonrule means a rule just like no opinion may be the best or worst opinion. No rule may be best or worst rule ever! tnx

How inanarchical anarchists can be, deadbeat and alexis exemplify it: they blame person for saying s’mthing. Thus, stifle free speech. So much for their egalitarianism while promoting meritocracy and apsolute correctness.

Bozh you were WRONG and your ego doesn’t permit you to admit that so not you rather throw out smears — a rather reactionary tactic — rather than LEARN from your mistake.

Also lichen’s use of the phrase “right wing” anarchism is an oxymoran. The right seeks to impose more authority not less.

Rather than ridicule Alexis and me it would behoove you to LEARN from the link that Alexis kindly supplied to you. Click on the link in his reponse and educate yourself.

Thx
DB

To inded be an egalitarian one cannot blame people for being wrong in their eyes. We are all fallible. Nobody can be right all the time. We all live in a meritocratic and inegalitarian society.
Those with less schooling, with more false knowledge taught to him/her wld naturally be more often wrong.
And these anarchists blame the victims of the plutocratic education and rule.
So, when will u practise what u preach? Above all let the free speech flow freely.
Please stop attacking not only people but also their ideas; else u’d speak-behave just like plutocrats. tnx

If u do not understand some of my ideas, it has its causes. Now even, a simplicity such this one, might not be understood by everyone. Sometime the cause may be a typo, inaccurate syntax, a word left out; at other times it might be reading to quickly, answering to quickly, previous thoughts or attitudes by the reader, relying on memory, or conditioning to answer in a blitz of time, like on TV. tnx for ur comment

I also realized that by describing US as an anarchy, people wld wake up to what’s going on in US. My apology to all i may have misled! tnx

2) If corporations rule it might be considered an oligarchy or plutocracy – but these are pretty much 180 degrees away from anarchy.

3) As one poster suggested on another thread, mom should just take the bus down to the health food store, and come home with all manner of local grown produce. Better yet, all starving kids should move to downtown Seattle.

Anarchism is egalitarian, anti-capitalistic, and anti-authoritarian by nature. Regardless of the school of anarchism, it always comes back to equity.

Read The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin; anarchism would ensure food for all, NOT force people through a life of privation, least of all children. Or better yet, sift through this site:
http://infoshop.org/faq/

Great article, though. I disagree that working within the existing system for reform is going to have significant impact (or that it’s even necessarily a step in the right direction); all the same, it was a well-written report.

James Hansen and does this have anything to do with feeding children, oh yes it sure does.