From: sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:05:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.011823.22440@midway.uchicago.edu>  
gr2a@quads.uchicago.edu (david rolfe graeber) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.234401.26315@shearson.com>  
pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> >gr2a@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> > >
> >  Going to forget
> >Nock. Hey, you go to UChicago. I might point out that David Friedman
> >in your econ department is an anarchocapitalist, but then I'd be lying
> >because after all no real anarchist could believe in private property.
> 	(and so on and so forth interminably, the froth spewing from
> 		his mouth...)
> 
> 	You know, after reading this reply, I realize I should really
> apologize for that last posting of mine because there was something I 
> wasn't taking into account when I wrote it: something which makes the
> whole argument entirely irrelevent. I didn't realize that I was 
> responding to a person who was totally stupid.
> 
> 	E. Metzger is like a man so incredibly pleased with himself 
> that he's managed to figure out how to get through a very very
> simple rat's maze that he just keeps going round and round and round
> for hours on end and think's he's impressing people by doing it.  
"Lysander
> Spooner was an anarchist; I am an Anarchist; Medieval Iceland was 
> Anarchist; therefore all Anarchism is is the absence of the state;  
Lysander
> Spooner was an anarchist..." and on and on until everyone else gets
> bored and goes away and he figures that must mean he won. 
> 
> 	I know this is pointless, but I might as well give this one
> last spin:
> 
> 	You didn't reply to my main point, which is that while individual
> thinkers have been known to say and call themselves anything, Anarchism
> as a mass movement has always been socialist. That's because you can't.
> Instead you merely list the names of individuals who believe capitalism
> would work more conveniently without the state, some of whom even want  
to be
> called anarchists, and say that their existence compells me to accept  
your
> definition of anarchism. Why?
Why does your statements about the existence of socialistic anarchists  
compell me (or peter or anyone else) to accept your notion that anarchists  
must be socialists? There are many people who call themselves  
anarcocapitalists. It could also be termed a mass movement. Spooner and  
others who wanted to be called anarchists are called anarchists by the  
majority of people. By your own reasoing doesn't that mean his definition  
of anarchy is a legitmate one. > 
> 	The meaning of words does not come from God. It comes from human
> agreement. When you say "anarchism means X and nothing more", what you
> are really saying, though you are obviously too thick to realize it, is
> "I think it would be a good thing for all of us if we agreed to use  my
> definition of this term, for the following reasons..." This is because
> you cannot force people to accept your definition (frustrating though
> you obviously find this). 
No he cannot, but neither can you and you cannot convince the many  
anarchocapitalists that they are not anarchists.
> 
> 	There are a large number of people, millions even over the years,
> who have been engaged in a conversation with each other where they have
> used the word "anarchism" to mean the opposition to all forms of 
> systematic power and coercion between human beings - political,  
economic,
> social, sexual, ANY kind. They have explored the ways all these forms
> of power and inequality reinforce one another, and tried develop 
> alternatives to them. The meaning of anarchism - as they see it (and I
> like to count myself among their number) is a growing, developing thing.
> Then suddenly, Perry Metzger shows up and starts screaming "there were
> a couple of guys in the 1800s who said they were anarchists who didn't
> believe any of that shit you're talking about, 
>
Actually the first time I know of anarchists who opposed government and  
wanted private property were the Levelers of the 1600's. (So people have  
tried to paint them as socialists, but if you read THEIR own writings they   
strongly supported private property)  
>
Xref: sparky alt.society.anarchy:1149 alt.postmodern:2847 alt.zines:381 alt.society.revolution:594