Church Vandals: This Nietzschean Anarchist Condemns You

In Swanzey, NH, in the space of 2 weeks, a restaurant-turned-bar-turned-church is vandalized in a juvenile, stupid way. And, a cop kills an unarmed man who was trying to get away – *AFTER* the cop had reached in the car and grabbed the guy…The only apparent connection between these 2 incidents is that they both occured in Swanzey, NH. Or, "South Keene", as we locals know it…The Keene airport is owned by the "City" of Keene, but is built on land owned by Swanzey…Anybody else remeber the Swanzey police Chief who had a *VIET NAM* "POW" license plate, but who was never even "in-country", let alone a POW??? The best things about this area are the people. The worst things about this area are the people who think that they are doing a good job "running things"…*RUINING THINGS* is closer to the *TRUTH*…///…BRING ON THOSE BARE BREASTS, LADIES! WE'LL TAZER YOUR FREAKIN' NIPPLES RIGHT OFF YOUR CHESTS 'CAUSE WE'RE THE LAW AROUND HERE…where's Wyatt Earp when ya need him, huh???… //// &yes, Thank-you, Andrew…I sure hope you don't grow up to be like me…*no grin*…

Brilliant letter, Andrew. Great job, and thanks.

There's a guy I grew up with who’s your archetypical leftie anarchist & all he seemed to want to do is just kick against everything & then kick some more.

hmmm, while your interpretation of Nietzsche is correct your assertion that most anarchists have nothing but respect for private property is simply dead wrong. The vast majority of the anarchist tradition has been radically opposed to the existence of private property because, as a necessary corollary to the capitalist mode of production private property is always based on systematic exploitation. Personal property is, arguably, somewhat different if it is the result of the unalienated and unexploiting work of the owner — if you personally build a house then it is, of course, yours.

The broad swath of social thought that is commonly referred to as anarchist, and which includes libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism, green anarchism, and anarcho-feminism is, by and large, completely opposed to the existence of private property within the capitalist system and militantly dedicated to the destruction of all systems of oppression including capital, the state, patriarchy, heteronormativity, and ecological destruction. The 'anarchism' you seem to be describing has much more in common with an Ayn Rand style liberatarianism which, in the end, is nothing other than unmediated class rule by the rich.

-an anarchist from brattleboro (originally)

What REALLYSUBSUMED says is the reason I don't use the term anarchist. Many groups who don't believe in private property at all use the term, as well as groups with a tendency to violence.

Voluntaryist, or at least anarcho-capitalist is preferable. It clarifies that one respects rights and property.

Paul, about post #81322, you're saying "the gov't mucks it up"…"if the gov't were not taxing…"etc… So, not to start an argument, but do we here in America still have "gov't of the people, by the people, for the people"; are we losing that gov't, or are we still working on it???…I'd just like to see what your answers are to these Q'?s…Personally, I think that there is a *LOT* wrong with un-fettered, so-called "free market capitalism"…There are no inherent checks-and-balances without good, transparent, acdcountable gov't. That's my belief. Obviously, "gov't" didn't, & couldn't, have protected Hope Chapel from this idiot vandalism, nor could, or would "gov't" step in and help repair the damage. A bunch of "free-staters" and friends, &etc., showed up to help. *VOLUNTARILY*! I don't see that as "anarchy" at all…///And, since the U.S. Supreme Court created the factitious "reality" of "corporate personhood" ~100 years ago, doesn't the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constituion *REQUIRE*, in light of "corporate personhood", that *PERSONAL INCORPORATION* also be recognized in Law???…sincerely, K.B.E., Inc., a ***REAL PERSONAL INCORPORATION***!….

Good questions. Also, thanks for the civil debate — something that is often rare in ideologically polarized discussions.

Here is a link to a brief article that answers many of the questions on terms:
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

Essentially, anarcho-communism/libertarian socialism adopts a Marxist critique of capitalism and articulates that with a anti-authoritarian critique of the state/patriarchy/colonialism etc.

Capitalism isn't just trading goods, it's an economic system with two basic characteristics:

1. commodities are produced for a profit (in order to be sold) rather than directly for use

2. the vast majority of people work for someone else (a capitalist, a person who owns capital which is invested in production) who owns the place of employment and reaps the profits realized from exchange. In other words, you work, you get paid, your boss keeps the money that you bring in beyond your pay.

These two factors mean that the interests of people who own businesses or stocks in businesses are often in conflict with the people who work for them. It also means that we end up with social and ecological crises (global warming, the current recession) due to the failure of capitalist markets to deal with externalities (something that they cannot ever do except in a piecemeal fashion after the fact).

libertarian socialism emerged in the 19th century during the early period of workers movements. Important figures included Mikhail Bukhunin, Petr Kropotkin, and others. Bakunin famously fought with Marx about how to reach an equitable society, arguing that the abolition of capital by itself would only result in a state dictatorship (exactly what happened in the USSR and China).

Anarcho-syndicalists were most prominent in the early American Labor movement having been famously blamed for the Haymarket affair in Chicago while working for laws to enforce 8 hour work day. The Industrial Workers of the World also were, and still are, a radical union based in anarcho-communist philosophy. These groups want society organized through decentralized cooperative ownership of the means of production. This is different from American libertarianism/market anarchism because it recognizes that private ownership within free markets leads to monopoly as the most competitive/driven/ruthless members of society out-compete those who are not driven by profit. This is a state of unfreedom. Therefore, economy needs to be reconstructed so that it serves human needs including community, ecology, family, etc rather than having society serve economy.

I've posted a few links below to some essays that explain what capitalism is and why those committed to freedom should oppose it.

http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-…

also check out links to the Institute for Social Ecology in VT
http://www.social-ecology.org/

and to infoshop and indymedia for news and views on contemporary Left anarchism.

http://www.infoshop.org/ http://www.marxist.com/what-is-marxism-economics-…

Hi elkfart,

I'll do my best to answer your questions, let me know what you think, or if anything's unclear.

<blockquote cite="elkfart">
… do we here in America still have “gov’t of the people, by the people, for the people”; are we losing that gov’t, or are we still working on it???

It depends what you mean by "people". King George was a person after all . I suppose "people" usually means the majority. I don't think the majority has the right to act like King George either, and violate the rights and property of the minority. So, if three of us live on a street, and my buddy and I take a vote to steal your stuff, it's still immoral for us to do so, even though we're a majority. It's no different with a nation.

But, if you're asking, do average people wield more power, or do banks, big corporations, big labor Unions, etc have more power, I think the answer is certainly the latter. The government as it exists today is a tool of the powerful and well connected to take advantage of the average person. This is especially true at the higher levels of government.

<blockquote cite="elkfart">
There are no inherent checks-and-balances without good, transparent, accountable gov’t

Actually, I think there are far more checks and balances without government. Now, if the police or courts become abusive, or the government starts using tax money for purposes you find immoral, you have no choice but to continue funding them.

If, however, there were different options for protection services, fire, etc, if one became abusive, or expensive and inefficient, you could just switch to another. This is why the price of computers, for example, keeps going down. If a company charges too much, you'll go to another. Not so with government — they can provide an inefficient, expensive, poor school system, for example, and we all just have to keep paying into it anyway. There's no motivation to improve, because we're not allowed to try alternatives.

<blockquote cite="elkfart">
Obviously, “gov’t” didn’t, & couldn’t, have protected Hope Chapel from this idiot vandalism, nor could, or would “gov’t” step in and help repair the damage. A bunch of “free-staters” and friends, &etc., showed up to help. *VOLUNTARILY*! I don’t see that as “anarchy” at all

Well, this goes back to the definition of anarchy. I prefer the term "voluntaryism", because it comes with less baggage. Here's the basic principle of voluntaryism — you can figure out the stance of a voluntaryist on almost every issue based on just this:

It is immoral to initiate force against another person or their property.

In other words, if there is an acceptable use of force, or violence, it is only in self defense, or defense of innocents. People in government violate this principle when they takes tax money from people by force, for example, or enforce regulations, or victimless crimes. It's using force in an aggressive way, against those who have not harmed others.

So, the painting of a church is a good example of the way things used to work a lot more often in this country — people coming together to help each other, without the government having to steal money from people to pay for it. Actually, almost all of the ways we interact with each other on a daily basis (unless you're a mob enforcer or something), can be considered voluntaryist .

<blockquote cite="elkfart">
And, since the U.S. Supreme Court created the factitious “reality” of “corporate personhood” ~100 years ago, doesn’t the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constituion *REQUIRE*, in light of “corporate personhood”, that *PERSONAL INCORPORATION* also be recognized in Law???…sincerely, K.B.E., Inc., a ***REAL PERSONAL INCORPORATION***!….

I disagree with the idea of incorporation in the first place. People should just be able to trade goods and services as they choose. If both parties agree to a loan which need only be paid off if a particular business succeeds, they can. If they want to make a loan which must be paid off even if it fails, they can do that too.

Government is far too involved in the process — and far too often ensure that their friends succeed, at the expense of others. It's big business that can afford the lawyers to handle government regulation, which are often taylor made for their benefit — small business owners and potential competitors often get wiped out.

…still thinking…."VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENT"….Hmmmm…later!

Elkfart, what do you mean by government?

Could you'll clarify how I didn't answer your questions well, and explain specifically what you mean? I'd be happy to try to do a better job of addressing them.

Well, OK andrew. Sorry, I didn't mean to mischaracterize what you wrote

Although I don't think my comments are irrelevant since they weren't intended in the first place to debunk you, but rather to start conversation between views that are often elided but rarely articulated.

I think there is a strong case for anarchism against religion based largely on a critique of hierarchy in the abstract and against the concrete oppressive aspects of much religion (patriarchy and homophobia being prime examples). If religion, through it's active intolerance of homosexuality or its active suppression of women through restricting church leadership to men, advocates and perpetuates structural violence against these groups, then religions should be the target of anarchist critique and action.

for example, check out the group 'bashback' who are making just such and argument.

Remember the classic anarchist call "No Gods, No Masters!"

Subsumed–

Welcome Good to see another Social Anarchist posting here. That said, I can't bring myself to agree with everything you have said, or would at least to try and clarify the basis of what you have into more anarchistic and tenable positions.

1. The vast majority of the anarchist tradition has been radically opposed to the existence of private property because, as a necessary corollary to the capitalist mode of production private property is always based on systematic exploitation

This isn't quite accurate– the anarchist "tradition" started initially with an opposition to property gained through expropriation facilitated by the State and Large Firms (corporations, businesses, whatever you want to call them– but essentially, organizations that receive privilege from the State) alike. When Proudhon penned the words "Property is Theft", he also followed them with "Property is Impossible", and "Property is Liberty"; all too often are his words taken out of context, considering it a wholesale rejection of property, but he was merely indicating his rejection of the view that property acquired through force, fraud, or fiat title is property at all.

It seems to me that you're conflating private property with exploitation, and are treating them as if they are mutually exclusive– but they aren't. While it is most truly true that some truly fucking twisted "humans" (I can't bring myself to call some corporate shill and his bureaucrat chums human) will use private property as an excuse to repress labor and the free flow of information and capital (most notoriously within the dystopic notion of "Intellectual Property"), I think this simply isn't enough to warrant a condemnation of private property on the whole. We should be careful to distinguish between private property that has been justly acquired (which you did somewhat nod at) and property acquired because of privilege.

2. The broad swath of social thought that is commonly referred to as anarchist, and which includes libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism, green anarchism, and anarcho-feminism is, by and large, completely opposed to the existence of private property within the capitalist system and militantly dedicated to the destruction of all systems of oppression including capital, the state, patriarchy, heteronormativity, and ecological destruction.

I don't know if I can say all of this is reflective of anarchist thought in a traditional sense without more clearly defining terms.

For starters, capital isn't the means of oppression, but rather a tool that once cartelized or monopolized by an firm operation on externalities can function to suppress labor, much in the same way a gun isn't inherently bad– but once either is put into the hands of a monopolist, can be a lethally regressive step for mankind.

Moreover, it seems to me that you're again conflating abolishing privilege with abolishing property, which I don't think there is a strong enough case to be made for.

3. The ‘anarchism’ you seem to be describing has much more in common with an Ayn Rand style liberatarianism which, in the end, is nothing other than unmediated class rule by the rich

You're not all too off the mark on this one– Anarcho-Capitalists can be awfully apologetic of the contemporary power structures within large firms and believe the power of firms right now to be a given in a freed society. I think this patently absurd, given the amount of privilege they gain from the four big monopolizations of tariffs, money, land, and IP, and the two big subsidies of transportation and communications. If I could sum it up best what some AnCaps seem to think a free society would look like, it would be a paraphrasing of Sean Gabb– Wal-Mart minus the State.

But that is why I'm here– to educate them ;p

4.If religion, through it’s active intolerance of homosexuality or its active suppression of women through restricting church leadership to men, advocates and perpetuates structural violence against these groups, then religions should be the target of anarchist critique and action.

How are we defining religion here? Because I would posit that the only places you can see these things are within organized religion, with a few notable exceptions, and aren't intrinsic to the belief in a god or deity. Now, I personally think that the excuse of a boss in heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, but so long as people keep their shit to themselves and don't fall down that easy slippery slope to repression that religion all too often teeters on, I really don't give a shit about the sky wizard you believe in.

@Wiles

What’s really interesting to me is that voluntary anarcho-syndicalist (”libertarian socialist”) communities/firms are possible in a voluntaryist society, whereas the anarcho-syndicalist would be opposed to someone voluntarily opting to be a “wage slave”. If syndicalist corporations are so much better, why wouldn’t these firms take the lead in the market?

Part of the problem here, Wiles, is that we don't think wage slavery is a natural out-put of a free market, and that is made possible only by the restriction of capital created by the State and Large Firms. Because of the unnaturally imposed regulations to the flow of capital (made possible by a monopoly on money) and information (made possible by institutionalizing hierarchy and enforcing intellectual property), Labor is unable to maximize their potential and exercise an option to work for their own person, instead of being employed. On the other hand, if you are a Worker-For-Hire, a worker who is by and large self-employed, but you want to make some extra resources, you would be free to do this– but that is wholly removed from wage slavery, in which your choices are nearly completely out of your hands.

There is no such thing as “exploitation by the rich”. It’s about the progress that is made in technology and productivity driven by a competitive free market. Nobody had a car in 1800. Now almost everyone in a developed country has one. Same with TVs, radios, etc. Prices fall on a free market.

And here we have the aforementioned apologetics.

First, you really ought to stop conflating this market –or any market in the past– with a free market, because you're only shooting yourself in the foot when having discussions like this. By equivocating the results of a contemporary paradigm of State granted privilege with the results produced by a free market, you're only giving the detractors of free markets more ammunition. The Free Market never has been, and still isn't.

Second, you seem to be missing the all to obvious disconnect in what you're saying regarding the accessibility of something like the car– which I would contend only came to the point it has because of massive road subsidization (how quickly this is forgotten by the Misoids!) in the form of the interstate highways and internal highways developed by the State. None of what we see today is the product of a free market– true, some light might shine through the darkness, but this is hardly indicative of a full blown free market which you seem to be equivocating the past 200 years with.

Finally, I hope you do realize "the rich" are more often than not the people pushing for regulations and the cartelization of industries as a means to keep out smaller, more efficient firms. Or that they can and will sometimes destroy livelihoods through an abhorrent use of Intellectual Property.

anarchojessie,

thanks. I have to disagree with you on some points though. The main weakness of Proudhon and the other early anarchists, including Bahkunin et al, was there misunderstanding of the nature and operations of capitalism as a system. While they were correct in their antagonism against the state their analysis of capitalism and economy was insufficient. Bahkunin recognized this when he acknowledged that Marx was the one who really understood capital — even if he didn't understand fully the state.

http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM3-Baku…

Capital is not a neutral tool. It is not the 'means of oppression' either. Capital is itself a social relationship based on the systematic exploitation of workers by capitalists. Capital is not a thing, it is a process whereby the labor of some people is converted into wealth for other people. We must be very careful to separate capital as a process from something like 'surplus', which you seem to be gesturing at. Capital is a process through which the labor of some is expropriated by another who then reinvests in reproducing that exploitation. Money is not always capital, only when it is 'money operating in the production of more money'.

I would not make a categorical statement that any and all religious beliefs are contrary to emancipation because there is no rational way to separate religious beliefs from other varieties of belief. Such a determination must always be made based on the social suppositions and consequences of each belief system.

An anarcho-syndicalist would think it a bad idea for someone to voluntarily be a wage slave and might wonder if that person really understood their own situation, but free association is a central predicate of anarchism. However, an anarcho syndicalist/communist would be opposed to the existence of capitalist employers in general because employing someone (rather than working together with others as part of a cooperative) is always exploitative (this is where profit comes from, the worker produces more value than he is paid, the rest is taken from him by the capitalist). The solution to this is generally to try to organize workers as a revolutionary union capable of self-management. There are many examples of anarcho-syndicalist organizations that are quite succesful, the most famous industrial example being the the Mandragon group in Spain, also, food coops, housing coops, etc.

Yes, loads of people have cars right now, they also have dishwashers and DVD players and all kinds of junk. In order to buy this junk they work long hours and have huge credit card bills. They are also on anti-depressants, their families are dysfunctional, they are fat and sick, and they spend hours each week sitting in traffic. Capital as a system requires the continual expansion of needs. The growth of technology is persistent, but is not always a good thing. Technology that is made primarily to realize a profit may or may not actually be in the social interest, it may not be a good thing. Capitalism has produced a flood of relatively useless goods whose only value lies in their ability to make some money for someone — meanwhile we drown in an ocean of refuse.

I think that private property is bad insofar as it is:

A) produced through an exploitative system (if producing that property entailed exploitative practices then it is bad)

B) reproduces an unequal and oppressive social system through its exclusionary character. Personal property is a different matter. Property that exists for individual or collective use value is good. Property that exists for the realization or production of exchange value through exploitative practice is bad.

If only VT and NH could both secede, I'd be curious to see your capitalist paradise — but much more excited to see my new libertarian communist green mountain collective

…um, uh, what "ism" were we talking about here???…OH!…anarchoMarxolibertariaynrandianism! YASSUH!…i lust juve my chell specker!…we sut my ween!…oh no!,…*FRAIN BART*…AUGGHHhhhhh!…(grin)…