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.
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.
Are Libertarians ‘Anarchists’? by Murray N. Rothbard
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:
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.
I agree. It’s sad that essay went unpublished, so the term never really had a chance to catch on. It’s too bad the infantile ‘anarchists’ cant see that their version of ‘anarchy’ would mean death and misery for billions of people. Best not to associate ourselves them with, ever.
I heard a snippet of Rush Limbaugh where he mentioned one thing the protesters were chanting was the banning of money. Totally consistent with the anarcho-statists of Spanish Civil War vintage.
Anarcho-capitalism is possibly the worst label we could have adopted. Mutliarchism, non-archism, eklektarchy are all far better labels.
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.
Bakunin gave the exact definition we ought use: “blind tools”. I think we need to not to go any further than this.
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.
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.
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!
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.