Alright, sorry to sound like the pessimist but lets be honest here, the Anarchist Movement is dead as a door nail. No body takes it seriously, except other anarchist who act like they have a stick up their butt and I don’t mean you guys so much as the social anarchist, there is too much infighting, an unprecedented amount of self-rightesnous and self-importance, and the fact, again more for the social anarchist, it is based on faulty economic theory. I mean does anybody know of effective organisations that don’t reside on the college campus or are unions? How many of those people do you think will retain those beliefs once they’re out in the real world? I’m not saying that I am no longer an anarchist, but the “movement” is in my opinion DEAD. What’s your take?
is the mises insitute closing down?
Libertarianism doesn’t have the upper hand, that’s for sure …
The one thing I can say about us though is fact that we realise it. The social anarchists are blissfully unaware; perhaps that is nature being kind towards them. They aren’t exactly good at being realistic.
No.
score one for the anarchist movement then eh?
you’re alive arent you? shall we make that two ?[:P]
cheer up.
I’m fourteen, your argument is invalid.
Anarchism is a relic of the 19th century.
Freedom is eternal.
I’m curious Stranger, what do you indentify as politically i.e minarchist or AnCap? Also excellent point.
I’m a liberal.
I’ve always hated using the term “anarchist,” because anarchism is a movement dedicated to the destruction of the free market and little else. I’ve just about stopped using the term altogether, even with the “individualist” qualifier before it. @#$% the anarchist movement and their stupid/wrong economic views.
Big-name, left-wing “anarchists” like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have been apologists for just about every mass murdering Communist regime in history (even Pol Pot, Mao, etc). Aside from the Pinochet (supposedly the worst dictator of all time, according to the Left), is there a single tyrant they don’t cuddle up to?
The State appears to be the only hierarchy they aren’t critical of.
I find that those who hold the Orwellian description of Libertarian Socialist are usually a bit off.
I’ve conversed with them plenty, and can assure you that they fit nearly every stereotype they’re accused of. While not all of them defend tyranny as openly as Chomsky and Zinn, they want a far more massive state to keep capitalism in check until the commie utopia kicks in. Anti-capitalism is their #1 issue, even if it takes exteme statism.
I don’t know if that is necessesarily true for the individualist set, but for the collective group it is a known fact! There is this one anarchist philosopher, his name is Peter Lamborn Wilson, and he is controversial for his extreme individualist beliefs and has been attacked by the collectivist, specifically Murray Bookchin, as a “lifestyle anarchist”. Anyway I take it that you are now going to use the the label agorist or autarchist to describe yourself, am I correct Cork?
LOL good point. But on serious note, do we really want to align ourselves with delusional people like Mr.1001Nights and others that will never fully accept us?
That’s a really good question. I’ve been calling myself an individualist anarchist for some time, although even that label has been tarred with the “anti-usury” idiocy. But the social anarchists tend to keep the individualists on a short leash–any talk that sounds too “capitalistic” can get them “purged” from the movement. They have capitalist witch-hunts over at Infoshop all the time…it’s like McCarthyism in reverse. 
I may just call myself an anarcho-capitalist, while considering anarcho-capitalism a branch of libertarianism rather than a branch of anarchism. It sounds goofy, but it is kind of the “official” name.
LOL good point. But on serious note, do we really want to align ourselves with delusional people like Mr.1001Nights and others that will never fully accept us?
Exactly. I don’t want anything to do with these goofballs.
My frequent visits to sites like RevLeft.com quickly convinced me that the vast majority of “anarchists” are closet Marxists who share almost none of my views.
Good, anarchism deserves to die.
Non-archism, anarcho-capitalism however is on the rise. Real Liberty is on the come back trail, the remnant is forming. Take a look around.
[H]
Brilliant, so when are we going to stop using the term.
History tends to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. The last century was shaped by state-communism, national socialism, social democracy and neoliberalism. Ah, and a little warmongering monarchy at the beginning. So, what do you expect? We have an elephant and want a mouse. That’s going to take a while, but on a happier side note, we can probably accelerate the process thanks to modern information technology.
Just look how often Ron Paul and Peter Schiff now appear on mainstream television. A year ago, who was Ron Paul? A kook. A fringe right-winger who was for some tax cuts, or wasn’t he? Liberty seems to be in demand again, and that’s a good development. My biggest concern right now is that this momentum will be absorbed by conservatives and misused for anything but libertarian goals. Look how Limbaugh and Hannity talk these days. If anything, they know how to smell the Zeitgeist change. And we need to be there before them.