From: gr2a@quads.uchicago.edu (david rolfe graeber)
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Summary: why did I bother?
Reply-To: gr2a@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:18:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.234401.26315@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>gr2a@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>I'm getting rather tired of fellow anarchists telling me "oh, you are
>>>a free marketeer -- you can't possibly be a Real Anarchist(TM)...
>>> Anarchism just means opposition to the state.
>>
>>	Says who? First this guy complains of other people wanting to
>>enforce their definition of anarchism on others, then he goes and makes
>>these flat-out statements about what anarchism "is", and expects other 
>>people to go along with them. What gives E. Metzger the right to say
>>what a word means?
>>
>>	I suppose you could make some kind of etymological argument, like
>>the Greek word anarchism is derived from meant "no state" but if I'm
>
>I think you misunderstand. I make no etymological argument. My
>argument is strictly from usage. Men who believe in both private
>property and the abolition of the state have been calling themselves
>anarchists for quite a long, long, long time.
>
>>	Then again, I suppose you could make an historical case: anarchism
>>means what most people over history who have called themselves anarchists
>>thought it meant. But if so, Mr. Metzger still isn't an anarchist, because
>>while you're always going to be able to find individuals in history
>>(eccentrics or visionaries depending on your point of view) who have held
>>pretty much _any_ radical idea you can come up with, just because some
>>guy tried to set up a private mail service once that doesn't make a mass
>>movement.
>
>Gee, I thought it would come to this. Pretty soon you'll not only be
>arguing that Lysander Spooner wasn't an anarchist, but that Benjamin
>Tucker wasn't an anarchist, either. Going to renounce Proudhon next,
>my friend? He had some propertarian ideas himself.

	Propertarian ideas that can be summed up by the line he is most
famous for: "property is theft".

	
 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?

	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). 

	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, so stop saying that's
what anarchism is; I got a really loud voice and I'm willing to post till
I'm blue in the face and I'm gonna stand here and blabber on and on and
on until you agree to only use the word the way I want you to..." 

	You know, MOST people who are taking part in the conversation
you seem to be a part of call themselves "libertarians". They also have
not one but if I am not mistaken two different newsgroups all for their
very own to carry out their conversation in over the Internet. This is
at the moment the only one we have. I suppose you do know that your
lumbering around in here is having the effect of driving away probably
hundreds of people who would otherwise be interested in taking part in
this conversation or at least listening. I suppose you don't care.
Actually, come to think of it I suppose you really get off on it, it
probably makes you feel macho and important. Or maybe you think people
like you deserve three or four newsgroups and we don't deserve any at
all. 

	Me, I feel stupid even for having taken the trouble to write
this, so let me tell you now: if you really insist on replying to this,
you will definitely get the last word because I am certainly not
going to waste any more bandwidth on P.Metzger. I apologize for having
wasted as much as I have.

	Take care y'all