The interesting history they don't teach in schools
April 20, 2015 at 11:44 am
(This post was last modified: April 20, 2015 at 11:53 am by nihilistcat.)
In "The General Idea of Revolution" Pierre J. Proudhon writes:
"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
He was an early to mid 19th century socialist thinker, who was the first to call himself an anarchist.
In "Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice" Rudolf Rocker writes:
"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon parliaments from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the employers always try to nullify every concession they had made to labor as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the workers' organizations, so governments also are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance. Even in those countries where such things as freedom of the press, right of assembly, right of combination, and the like have long existed, governments are constantly trying to restrict those rights or to reinterpret them by juridical hair-splitting. Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace. Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary Opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution."
I am sympathetic to the ethical ideals espoused by anarchist and anti-authoritarian thought, but I avoid ideological labels for the simple reason that I like the flexibility to cherry pick good ideas, no matter their ideological origin. But I think Noam Chomsky best outlines the fundamental premise of anarchism:
"Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times."
I myself have gone through many gyrations of thought when contemplating what approach could offer us a better system with more robust protections against corruption. I've oscillated between strands of libertarian thought and progressivism. I've also entertained anarchism, the approach endorsed by Murray Bookchin (libertarian municipalism), traditional Marxism, newer branches of socialism (such as market socialism), etc.
Anarchism has enjoyed brief periods of success. For instance, during the Spanish Civil War (1933-36), anarchists held Catalonia and were the first to fight the fascist powers (Hitler and Mussolini). George Orwell joined what was called the international brigades and fought alongside the anarchists in Spain during this period (he writes about it in his book "Homage to Catalonia"). Here's a youtube video that briefly describes this period in Spanish history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXrc5Y6RBuQ
Today, anarchists again find themselves on the front lines against the fascists of ISIS. Here's an article detailing this Kurdish movement:
http://roarmag.org/2014/08/pkk-kurdish-s...-autonomy/
The new PKK, or Kurdish Workers Party, has adopted a form of anarchism called libertarian municipalism (mentioned above). They, along with fighters from the YPG (the Peoples Protection Units), an arm of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (another left-radical Kurdish group) have successfully fought off ISIS advances in Kobani. Well known for integrating women into their fighting force, and practicing horizontal democracy, complete with anarchist and feminist ideology (and religious egalitarianism), these fighters (aided by western air strikes) have been the most effective ground forces in the fight against ISIS (or ISIL).
IMHO the history of anarchism is one of the most interesting bits of history that they'll never teach in schools. Curious to hear the thoughts of my fellow atheists on this movement and ideology?
"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
He was an early to mid 19th century socialist thinker, who was the first to call himself an anarchist.
In "Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice" Rudolf Rocker writes:
"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon parliaments from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the employers always try to nullify every concession they had made to labor as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the workers' organizations, so governments also are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance. Even in those countries where such things as freedom of the press, right of assembly, right of combination, and the like have long existed, governments are constantly trying to restrict those rights or to reinterpret them by juridical hair-splitting. Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace. Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary Opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution."
I am sympathetic to the ethical ideals espoused by anarchist and anti-authoritarian thought, but I avoid ideological labels for the simple reason that I like the flexibility to cherry pick good ideas, no matter their ideological origin. But I think Noam Chomsky best outlines the fundamental premise of anarchism:
"Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times."
I myself have gone through many gyrations of thought when contemplating what approach could offer us a better system with more robust protections against corruption. I've oscillated between strands of libertarian thought and progressivism. I've also entertained anarchism, the approach endorsed by Murray Bookchin (libertarian municipalism), traditional Marxism, newer branches of socialism (such as market socialism), etc.
Anarchism has enjoyed brief periods of success. For instance, during the Spanish Civil War (1933-36), anarchists held Catalonia and were the first to fight the fascist powers (Hitler and Mussolini). George Orwell joined what was called the international brigades and fought alongside the anarchists in Spain during this period (he writes about it in his book "Homage to Catalonia"). Here's a youtube video that briefly describes this period in Spanish history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXrc5Y6RBuQ
Today, anarchists again find themselves on the front lines against the fascists of ISIS. Here's an article detailing this Kurdish movement:
http://roarmag.org/2014/08/pkk-kurdish-s...-autonomy/
The new PKK, or Kurdish Workers Party, has adopted a form of anarchism called libertarian municipalism (mentioned above). They, along with fighters from the YPG (the Peoples Protection Units), an arm of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (another left-radical Kurdish group) have successfully fought off ISIS advances in Kobani. Well known for integrating women into their fighting force, and practicing horizontal democracy, complete with anarchist and feminist ideology (and religious egalitarianism), these fighters (aided by western air strikes) have been the most effective ground forces in the fight against ISIS (or ISIL).
IMHO the history of anarchism is one of the most interesting bits of history that they'll never teach in schools. Curious to hear the thoughts of my fellow atheists on this movement and ideology?
