From: cannon@scs.unt.edu (Dustin Cannon (Lab 3460))
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Rebuttal of Brief Comments on ``The Anarchy Paradox''
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:26:21 GMT
Organization: School of Community Service, UNT

>>Now at this point, the people of this anarchy have two choices.  They can 
>>grab the little bugger and kill him or they can stand by and watch.
>
>Are  these really the only choices available? How about intervention in the
>fight  to  prevent  further  violence? I've seen it happen and have done it
>myself.

This is a very noble attribute of yours, and I too have seen it done.  
However, I have also seen it not done and as long as it is not done once, I 
think my point still stands.  People enjoy seeing violence.  That is 
evident: professional fights, wrestling, football,television, the gulf war, 
etc.  In fact, how many societies can you name that do not have some form of 
ritual violence? To insure that in an anarchy ALL fights were broken up, I 
would imagine it would require a large amount of socialization.  To do this 
you need either a government or a religion (same thing:mind control).

>
>>Now B is the tricky part.  After the seventh or eighth gang revolt is 
>>thwarted, I would bet that one of the people would suggest that something 
>>needs to be done to stop gangs from forming.  Perhaps an 
>>organization.  They could call it The Organization for the Preservation of 
>>Anarchy.
>
>This  I  think  is  misleading,  in that I view anarchism as something best
>thought  of  as  a social tendency, rather than a fixed system, by its very
>nature.  That is, anarchism (as I see it) recognizes the human potential to
>change  (and  change  radically)  and therefore will change itself as human
>needs  change.  I  would  doubt  that  an authentic anarchism would seek to
>preserve  itself  in  a  certain  form or another, but would seek to answer
>questions  such  as  how  to  best represent the interests and needs of the
>entire  community,  founded on certain principles such as respect for human
>rights,  equality  of  opportunity, freedom, etc.

A very nice speech.  Allow me to ask a few questions. How do we convince 
everyone that they should work for the 'good' of the community?  Who defines 
the needs and interests of the community?  Who defines human rights and why 
should we respect them?  What is equality?  What is freedom?


> Rudolph Rocker noted that
> anarchism is not
>     a  fixed, self-enclosed social system but rather a definite trend
>     in  the  historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with
>     the  intellectual  guardianship  of all clerical and governmental
>     institutions,  strives  for  the free unhindered unfolding of all
>     the  individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a
>     relative,  not  an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to
>     become broader and to affect wider circles in more manifold ways.
>     For  the  anarchist,  freedom  is  not  an abstract philosophical
>     concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being
>     to  bring  to  full  development  all the powers, capacities, and
>     talents  with  which  nature  has  endowed  him, and turn them to
>     social  account.  The  less  this  natural  development of man is
>     influenced  by ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more
>     efficient  and harmonious will human personality become, the more
>     will  it  become  the  measure of the intellectual culture of the
>     society  in  which  it  has  grown.[1]


Whatever.  What if nature decides to endow a man with stupidity?  How does 
he benefit soicety?  What about the insane?  Where do they fit in.  Perhaps 
a man feels that his ability to be an excellent serial killer was endowed to 
him by nature and that through his killings he is benefiting society.  Are 
we to censure him?  On what basis?


>
>The  way  I see it, this sort of situation (growth of noxious groups within
>an  anarchist  society)  poses no special ``paradox'' for anarchism. Within
>any  society,  anarchism  included,  there  are forms of justified coercion
>which  are necessary to ensure that certain basic rights remain intact. The
>question  to  pose  is  (pertinent  to  any  society): ``Is it justified to
>repress  a  group  which  seeks  to  gain  power  over  others?'' This is a
>difficult  topic,  no  doubt,  but  my opinion is that one has the right to
>resort  to violence to protect oneself, and if a group of Nazis arose which
>actively tried to put Jews (for example) into gas ovens, society would have
>a  right  to  act collectively (with violence, if necessary) to defend it's
>citizens.  How  to  collectively  organize  defense  would  be something to
>debate, but I think the central principle is clear.

Let me pose this question.  What if the Nazi's actually believed what they 
were doing was right?  What if they genuinely felt that what they were doing 
was a good act and best for all?  How do we know they are wrong?
Before you answer "Murder is always wrong!".  Think about how many animals 
in our society are slaughtered each year so we can have a BigMac.  Why isn't 
that a holocaust?


>
>However,  I think this discussion misses the central point of anarchism and
>its potential, though I think it is important and I apologize for not being
>able  to  address  it  more satisfactorily. I think the central issue is to
>free  ourselves  from  the  bonds  of  ``economic  necessity''  of  renting
>ourselves  to  those  who  own  the  country  and  in whose name society is
>operated.  Bakunin  put  it  well  when  he said in _Federalism, Socialism,
>Anti-Theologism_  that ``In antiquity...slaves were, in all honesty, called
>slaves.  In the Middle Ages, they took the name of serfs; nowadays they are
>called  wage  earners.'' To free ourselves from this slavery, and to put in
>place other institutions based on community interests, rather than those of
>the powerful few, is the central task.

Once again, who are you to decide that the rich shouldn't be rich and that 
your community can do it better?

>
>[1] Rudolph Rocker, _Anarchosyndicalism_, (London: Secker & Warburg, 1938),
>p.31.  Found  in  Noam  Chomsky, ``Notes on Anarchism,'' in _For Reasons of
>State_ (New York: Pantheon, 1973).
>
>By  the  way,  I  have transcribed the above essay by Noam Chomsky and have
>received  permission  from  Chomsky  to  publish  it  on the net (which has
>already been done in misc.activism.progressive). If anyone is interested, I
>could post it to this group for discussion.
>
>
>Bill Lear (rael@ll.mit.edu)
_________________________________________________________________
Dustin W. Cannon      "Just because some of us can read and write
University of          and do a little math, that doesn't mean we
North Texas            deserve to conquer the universe."
                                                -Kurt Vonnegut
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy