From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Booklist + What is Anarchy (long)
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:49:41 GMT

triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley) writes:
>>Anarchism is best defined as the belief that it would be best if
>>society were structured without a large organization claiming a
>>monopoly on the legitimate use of force ("The Government").
>
>this is a definition which few contemporary self-defined anarchists 
>i know, have read, etc. would agree with--it's perhaps more accurate
>when applied to 'classical' (i.e., 19th century) folks like
>Kropotkin, et. al., but in the wake of thorough critiques of other
>oppressive institutions (work, school, the family, etc.) which could
>and likely would go on relatively untouched by a mere dismantling of
>'political' authority, many now speak of anarchism as a challenge of
>all oppressive and illegitimate hierarchy and authority (you perhaps
>remember that little catch phrase: 'the personal is political') and
>envision its goal as replacing such institutions and relations with
>voluntary, non-oppressive ones.

Anarchy means, plain and simple, society without government. SOME
anarchists also include into their political belief systems some of
the things you mention, others do not. Claiming your views to be
definitive is to deny that others who also oppose governments are
anarchists.

>>For instance, I'm a propertarian anarchist (read, anarchocapitalist,
>>free market anarchist, voluntarist, or whatever). I'm basically what
>>is now called a libertarian (different from what the old meaning of
>>the word was, as it used to just mean "anarchist"), desiring to see a
>>society in which anyone can do anything they like that does not
>>involve the initiation of violence against others. This would include
>>a free market economy (not what we have now, which is a government
>>controlled and regulated "mixed economy"), with people purchasing
>>security forces on the open market in lieu of having publically funded
>>police and defense forces.
>
>well, see bob black's essay "the libertarian as conservative" on the
>differences between libertarianism and anarchism.  some criticisms:
>"the initiation of violence against others", many would argue, is
>just what hoarding of capital, resources, whatever you call it,
>consists of--you taking all you want  (and then defending it with
>police force? in an anarchist society? : (   ) automatically creates
>the likelihood of severe power disparities which are illegitimate
>and contributes to the kind of fetishization of property/commodities
>which has helped construct the 'iron cage' we find ourselves in in
>the advanced capitalist West.  it's been my experience that
>libertarians i've met mistakenly understand the state as the only
>(or perhaps just the central) oppressive institution/apparatus
>operating on humans and keeping them from freedom, when in fact (as
>black points out in the essay mentioned above) the 'free' market
>they advocate so vociferously is driven by a work ethic and
>occupational regimentation and oppression far more experientially
>repressive than the often-abstract (but of course still real and
>powerful) state apparatus.

Well, I find the claim that one can do without police of some kind
amusing. As a base example, without someone willing to use at least
retaliatory force, who will stop the psychopathic killers of the
world?

Similarly, I find the notion that in a society based entirely on
voluntary mutual exchange (i.e. a propertarian anarchist society) that
one can refer to the market as somehow "oppressive". If one does not
want to participate in it, one is free not to. If 700 followers of Bob
Black decide that they dislike the marketplace and find it to revulse
them they can go off to a farm somewhere and live any sort of
collective lifestyle they choose. Indeed, they can stay right where
they are (assuming they have places to live) and live any sort of
lifestyle they choose that doesn't involve doing violence to others.
You might find working, the "fetishization" of goods and services,
etc, to disgust you, but I'm not aware of any way that I could make
sure that I had enough to eat otherwise. Regardless of their hopes and
desires, I have yet to hear a single concrete idea from a socialist
anarchist on how society could be structured to assure that even
basics like food and the transportation system to assure that that
food got to the people who needed it to survive could be provided for.
However, I think that we all agree on one basic point -- the use of
violent coercion via government as a means for structuring society is
not an acceptable path.
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.