Russell Pearce's Police State Bill Blasted by Libertarians, House Vote Possible Tuesday

• <p>A couple of last points:</p> <p>(1) On a number of occasions, "Phoenix Insurgent" has left comments vaguely exhorting either the local population or the one south of the border, to unspecified "self-organized" acts. </p> <p>On every occasion that I've asked him to specify these acts, or even to offer general suggestions, he's responded that he can't suggest anything because he's an anarchist.</p> <p>If this were true, then any gathering of anarchists, no matter how large, would be impotent to suggest anything, because suggestions are always and only made by individuals -- groups can only approve or disapprove of suggestions made by individuals -- and what is true for one anarchist is true for each of them. </p> <p>So, henceforward, this will no longer be accepted as an excuse from Phoenix Insurgent for a refusal to commit himself or at least to offer concrete suggestions exemplifying his usually incredibly vague exhortations.</p> <p>(2) One of the things that disturbs me most about "Phoenix Insurgent" (aka P.I.) is the way he constantly tries to sabotage genuine local organizers, such as Sal Reza.</p> <p>In doing so, he habitually portrays Reza and others as undemocratic, simply because they are leaders. However, all Reza has ever done is to organize others using his experience and connections: "Here's my idea, are you in with that?" And anyone Reza asks is free to say yes or no, or to offer suggestions of their own. (And Reza in turn is free to accept or reject those suggestions.) </p> <p>There is no power of the State and no coercion involved. Somebody has to come up with suggestions, and somebody has to take the initiative, because if somebody doesn't, then nobody does: these are necessarily the acts of individuals, not collections of individuals. </p> <p>"Self-organization" inevitably means one or more active individuals organizing others in turn, because you can't "organize" yourself. With his constant attempts to recruit others to his group and to establish the basic parameters of participation, Phoenix Insurgent is himself attempting to organize others as a leader. (It's just that he's very bad at it.)</p> <p>So, why does P.I. smear these community leaders as some sort of would-be dictators? Especially considering the fact that Phoenix Insurgent himself has recently suggested the desirability of organizing a national federation of anarchists to fight a "civil war" and to "crush" all dissent ("currents of reaction"). It seems baffling.</p> <p>One theory is that P.I. is jealous and trying to steal both the limelight and adherents, and since his own organizational skills and connections are minimal, his best bet is to attack other movement leaders using slanders, and hope to pick up a few unsatisfied individuals from their flock for his own. It isn't my theory, but I offer it for the sake of logical completeness.</p> <p>Another theory is that P.I. is trying to undermine effective community leaders for ulterior purposes, as well as to act as agent provocateur to disrupt legitimate events and tar real activists by association. On a number of occasions he has exhorted participants in the events of local movement leaders (like Reza) using the most bloodthirsty -- but carefully nonspecific -- rhetoric, attempting to manipulate the impetuous and the frustrated with taunts of ineffectiveness.<br /> </p>

• <p>P.S. I wrote:</p> <p>"...unverifiable personal anecdotes in which you claim to have personally been a member of or joined every organization from the IWW to the Spanish CNT."</p> <p>I meant to have written:</p> <p>"...personally been a member of or visited..."</p> <p>Even "Phoenix Insurgent" isn't fool enough to have claimed membership in the CNT.<br /> </p>

• <p>"Phoenix Insurgent" wrote:</p> <p>"Likewise, the strike by the Kronstadt sailors, which is generally considered the end of the struggle from the left against the Bolsheviks, demanded release of all anarchist prisoners and an end to Bolshevik attacks on the Soviets."</p> <p>Not quite. The demand in question (one of 15) was for "The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations."</p> <p>Note that anarchists are not mentioned by name, and the emphasis is on POLITICAL prisoners. The Kronstadt rebellion took place in March of 1921, whereas the attacks by the anarchists on the Bolsheviks in the so-called Third Russian Revolution (i.e., blowing up the headquarters of the Moscow Committee of the Communist Party) which ushered in the largest of the mass arrests of anarchists, took place in September, 1919: those arrested were combatants in civil war, not political prisoners.<br /> </p>

• <p>"Earlier, a tin pot-banging, placard-waving, unkempt crew stormed the Winter Palace, er, I mean, the Cronkite School lobby, where a band named the Haymarket Squares sang anti-Joe ballads and contemplated going for the elevators. Ultimately, no one did. But neither the school's security nor the Phoenix cops moved to eject them from the lobby. They ejected themselves, according to witnesses."</p> <p><a href="http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2009/12/joe_arpaios_circus_comes_to_as.php" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2009/12/joe_arpaios_circus_comes_to_as.php</a></p> <p>Mr. Lemons can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that this describes Phoenix Insurgent's group. Note that they neither "took over" nor "occupied" the lobby, but entered only after other anarchist groups had proved to them that it was safe for them. (I guess when you saw a band playing in the lobby under the benevolent if watchful gaze of security, and questioned others entering and leaving, you felt secure enough to "storm" the lobby.) They then left early, and of their own volition, repairing to a bar to drink beer. </p> <p>Yes, ladies and gentlemen, a long hard day behind the barricades, but a happy (hour) ending for our intrepid radicals. Nechayev is rolling over in his grave, but he's not upset: if you listen quietly, you can hear him murmer: "Now, why didn't I think of that? It would have saved me a deuced lot of trouble..."<br /> </p>

• <p>"Phoenix Insurgent" wrote:</p> <p>"Any reactionary currents that rise up, for whatever reason, will be smashed in the civil war that is the revolution. There is no question of rights for fascists and naturally they will be opposed."</p> <p>Treating you, for the moment, as if you were an actual anarchist and sincere, this is rather important. How do you define "fascists"? Aside from actual fascists like J.T. Ready? Are nativists "fascists"? What about ordinary conservatives? What about liberal democrats in general?</p> <p>Exactly who does have rights, and what are those rights? And who says that they have them, and what is their authority, and how do they enforce it? And are those rights revocable, and if so, how easy or difficult is that, and who has the authority to do that? Or is this something that (like nearly everything else) you'll leave until later to work itself out? Note that these are not rhetorical questions: I'd like you to answer each one, if you aren't too big of a coward. Those who forget (or never learned) the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. </p> <p>What about anarchist groups who have fundamental differences with you as to what constitutes a "fascist" and as to what rights you deign to give them, who would stand in the way of your would-be smashing? Would that, ipso facto, make them "reactionary" or fake-anarchists, and strip them of their rights too? Or haven't you stopped to consider these little details? </p> <p>If someone can only be acknowledged as a brother, not because he calls himself an anarchist, but only because he follows the orthodox political line as determined by self-appointed arbiters of correct thinking like yourself, and you feel comfortable imposing your views by force if necessary, does that make you an anarchist, or a Robespierre?</p> <p>Speaking of consensus processes, who authorizes you to speak for the PCWC here? Who writes, or at least approves of, your comments? Is there a formal vote by all members? Has there ever been?<br /> </p>

• <p>(cont. from previous)</p> <p>"Phoenix Insurgent" wrote:</p> <p>"Any reactionary currents that rise up, for whatever reason, will be smashed in the civil war that is the revolution. There is no question of rights for fascists and naturally they will be opposed."</p> <p>You forget that your anarchist revolution is supposedly local and spontaneous, that there need be no civil war, and that local anarchists are independent of others unless they themselves decide otherwise. </p> <p>You can't smash what you have no authority over; you can't smash what exists outside the local borders of your own anarchist group; you can't smash opposing anarchist groups; you can't smash opposing anarchist federations; you can't smash anarchists who refuse to enter into confederation with you or those who don't share your policies; and you can't smash anyone with any organization, training, and weaponry, because you have no security apparatus, no police force, no army, and no anything except hot air and beer.</p> <p>"[You] seem to be motivated by a deep personal hatred of anarchists that you're not willing to take ownership of or explain."</p> <p>You're confused: there is a difference between my seeming to be something, and your suggesting it. The former requires some actual evidence, whereas the latter attempts to substitute assertion for evidence.</p> <p>In fact, I don't hate anarchists, though I do dislike you. A personal dislike for your odious personal qualities does not constitute a bias against an abstract political class. I don't even think that your rhetoric represents most local anarchists.</p> <p>Finally, I don't believe you're an anarchist: as I've said countless times before, I believe that "anarchism" is simply your latest incarnation as an investigator and collector of information on radicals, real or perceived. </p> <p>I believe that you sit in the center of your PWCC Web(site) like a spider, mouthing the kind of idiotic yet belligerent platitudes that will draw extremists, those with a penchant for violence, vandalism, or arson, collecting information and using this to widen the net, then selling the information. Somehow though, despite the extreme rhetoric ("fanatical revolutionary", "class war", "civil war", etc.), your organization never actually involves itself in illegal activities which would subject it to criminal charges or civil lawsuits. Very canny.</p> <p>That is neither here nor there to me: I might thank you for being a nincompoop magnet and sweeping the trash into a convenient dustbin. <br /> </p>

• <p>"Phoenix Insurgent" wrote:</p> <p>"I notice that you never have an answer when it comes to doing something in the real world."</p> <p>My activities are none of your business, and I will not be provoked into satisfying your curiosity.</p> <p>"I also notice that you spent some time on the internet since our last exchange."</p> <p>Irrelevant. I could scarcely reply to your own long-winded (but considerably less substantial) posts without doing so.</p> <p>"I likewise notice that you have yet to cite a single instance of you taking any action in the real world even though you constantly criticize those who do."</p> <p>What actions I do or do not take "in the real world" are irrelevant to a discussion of your political theory. If you are so threatened by an abstract question dealing with a fundamental issue that you lash out defensively, you clearly have no grasp of your own theory: and in that case, any action you take in "the real world" is baseless and capricious. </p> <p>That said, there is no indication that you do anything except run a website, conduct endless beer-drinking meetings, and make a brief, occasional appearance for PR purposes at events where you are safe from both authority and your political enemies. </p> <p>Despite claims of "attacking Nazis" you have never gone beyond heckling (from behind a safe line of police protection). Your "occupation" of the lobby of the ASU school of journalism was nothing of the sort, since it had already been made clear to you that the authorities were not going to arrest or eject protesters.</p> <p>You then appear on the Internet, spending far more time crowing about and misrepresent your acts, than you took with the original acts.</p> <p>"I have to say that only further validates the increasing sense that I have that you are nothing but an armchair internet liberal."</p> <p>I am neither responsible for nor interested in your faulty inferences and presumptions; and if this is yet another attempt to provoke me into revealing information about concrete activities, you have failed yet again.</p> <p>"You seem to want to pretend that anarchist ideas, like other ideas, don't change and develop and advance."</p> <p>You seem to want to constantly build straw-man arguments, putting words in the mouths of your opponents rather than dealing with what they actually say, because you are intellectually lazy and incompetent, and because you are a narcissist you care far more about positioning yourself than about the ideas being debated. </p> <p>You also fail to understand that the personal values you bring to anarchism are neither universal nor binding, and that anarchist political theory, by its very nature, is unwilling to enforce uniformity. </p> <p>You also fail to understand that just because certain contemporary trends dominate in your coffeehouse version of anarchism, it doesn't mean that these trends will dominate in concrete circumstances where neither you nor your school of thought has significant influence, much less control, over others. In other words, not only do times change, but times continue to change. Sometimes they regress, too. Perhaps you're aware of the militia and tea-party movements?</p> <p>In fact, if you want protection of minority rights you need to build it into the system: but you have no system and it's precisely this obvious truth which galls you and leaves you frustrated and helpless (except to charge in with personal attacks against those who dare to ask honest and acute questions about the nature and limits of your (essentially undeveloped) political theory.</p> <p>"I've actually visited the CNT offices in Barcelona and Madrid and talked to comrades there."</p> <p>First you raised historical issues and claims about them. When I pointed out that anarchists per se were a minority in the CNT during the time that your historical example took place, you had no basis for argument: so you switched to the present (not relevant to your original claims) and to unverifiable personal anecdotes in which you claim to have personally been a member of or joined every organization from the IWW to the Spanish CNT. I have no idea what the CNT or IWW may have become, but I wouldn't take your word for anything: if you said that the sun was shining I'd be obliged to look out the window.</p> <p>"I think your big problem here is that you're stuck on labels. You obsess over terminology because you think it can win you arguments."</p> <p>If you make a substantive claim, taking credit for an intellectual heritage and for labor struggles that doesn't belong to you, on behalf of "anarchism", expect those who know better, and care, to correct you.</p> <p>"You know as well as I that libertarian socialist and anarchist are now and have always been essentially synonyms used interchangeably."</p> <p>Not in the least. Libertarian socialism describes a wide range of socialist (but not anarchist) politics, from democratic socialists like Michael Harrington, to diehard Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, neither of which rejected the concept of the State per se. Even the IWW didn't: it simply had a de facto alternative vision of State operation and control (motto: "One big union").</p> <p>(cont.)<br /> </p>

• <p>I notice that you never have an answer when it comes to doing something in the real world. I also notice that you spent some time on the internet since our last exchange. I likewise notice that you have yet to cite a single instance of you taking any action in the real world even though you constantly criticize those who do. I have to say that only further validates the increasing sense that I have that you are nothing but an armchair internet liberal. Quite boring indeed! And generally useless at that. Don't you ever want to put your politics into meatspace?</p> <p>The point about whether any particular anarchist had contradictory ideas is irrelevant. Anarchists are people. Liberals have contradictory ideas, and so have anarchists. Kropotkin supported WWI. So what? It means nothing for how anarchists are today, or even how they were in general at the time. For instance, for quite some time the biggest movement of anarchists in the US were Jews. Now that could contradict your point, but in the end it's meaningless. </p> <p>You seem to want to pretend that anarchist ideas, like other ideas, don't change and develop and advance. You can't demand static ideology in a changing world. The fact is that there are a few key defining characteristics of anarchy and you know what they are. They include, mutual aid, cooperation, rejection of hierarchy, anti-capitalism, free association, anti-state, etc. These are the important things to keep in mind because anarchism is now and always has been a broad tent. And anarchists have disagreed about tactics and strategy. Consider the anarcho-communists versus the anarcho-syndicalists. One says the focus of struggle should be the community in general while the other says it is the workplace. In my opinion, the anarcho-communists were right. Certainly that's what the anarchist women in Spain during the civil war would say. </p> <p>So, it matters not all that much what specific people or specific organizations may have said, done or how they may have been composed or oriented at particular times in terms of what anarchy is now. The CNT at the height of the war imposed a ration card system that was used to attack militants. A few of them joined the government even, when they should have declared libertarian communism immediately. Such things are obvious in hindsight. But it doesn't invalidate them as anarchists because they did it. </p> <p>Likewise, the IWW was never able to call the general strike that would smash Capital and now one big union seems like a bit of an anachronism. So we learn from that. Contemporary in some ways to syndicalist tendencies in anarchist theory was the propaganda of the deed tendency that emerged primarily out of the Italian anarchists in the US. We saw how that went. Learn from that. I mean, that's what struggle is all about: learning and moving forward towards your goals. You really need to be more open-minded. Your narrow academic vision really gets in the way of you seeing the real world.</p> <p>Consider Paris '68. The communist party and union lackeys sold out the striking workers and students who in fact were self-organized generally outside the union bureaucracy. I read something recently in a book on the Spring uprising in which a female worker, surrounded by bullying and badgering union bureaucrats and Maoist party hacks screams in reply to their demand that she return to work and assurances that the struggle will go on after the strike is over: "I won't go back into that prison! No!" That's a great lesson because it shows how mass workers struggle can erupt outside the prescribed territory predicted by syndicalism and that we workers are quite capable of seeing the factory for what it is, not the point of liberation but a point of alienation and exploitation. Quite different from the practical deification of almighty work and workers that we see in the CNT and other workers movements. Are they contradictions? Or have times changed? </p> <p>So, we learn from that. Movements change and learn. You may want anarchy to be stuck in whatever era you find expedient for whatever particular argument you are making at any particular time, but I reject that as completely unrelated to the point about whether movements can learn from past mistakes and adapt to new circumstances. That's the real point.</p> <p>I've actually visited the CNT offices in Barcelona and Madrid and talked to comrades there. They didn't think of me not as an anarchist just because I don't advocate for revolutionary unionism. In fact, a friend of mine was just there at a CNT conference. He's a well-known primitivist anarchist author. He was invited to speak and during the introduction preceding the CNT delegate himself said that times change and so must ideas. Anarchy changes. That's how it should be. You should see what the Greek anarchists are up to. You'd hate them. But my collective just hosted some Greek anarchists on their speaking tour across the US (they spoke at Beer & Revolution, the audio of which is on our site). They were adamant that anarchy changes with time and, importantly, political and social circumstances. I couldn't agree more. This seems obvious but I point it out because you seem to have missed it.</p> <p>I think your big problem here is that you're stuck on labels. You obsess over terminology because you think it can win you arguments. But this is really useless against someone like me because, if you'll just peruse PCWC's recommended reading, you'll see that myself and PCWC in general take our ideas from a vast array of sources.</p> <p>Race Traitor politics, which you seem afraid to engage with probably because it undermines your point (and your cop-like witch hunt against me), in fact has its origins outside of the anarchist milieu. Indeed, their introduction to the anarchist movement in the nineties help contribute to the split of the Love & Rage anarchist federation in North America. I encountered them, however, in a mostly anarchist collective here in town called Bring the Ruckus (which started copwatch) a little more than ten years ago. Indeed what PCWC is founded on is the idea that we take good anti-authoritarian ideas wherever they are. If we must, we translate them into an anti-authoritarian context. For instance, race traitor politics developed in the communist new left, most notably in the Sojourner Truth Organization (you can find a link on our page). This group was in fact heavily Trot influenced. No matter. We dump the trot shit and keep the analysis of white supremacy. No problem. That robably bugs people like you, but we don't care about that.</p> <p>Indeed, the Abolitionists were not anarchists, although they were militantly anti-hierarchical for the most part (especially the Garissonian wing). But they were fanatical and developed a political strategy which reflected it. They changed positions on the war a couple times in fact, first welcoming secession and then reversing themselves and calling for the immediate arming of any black man who would fight. No matter, we can take their fanaticism and use that.</p> <p>We don't demand that people meet some etymological litmus test. Again, there were tons of anarchists in the IWW. The IWW today, of course, is almost entirely anarchist. Still, it's goals are anarchist. It seeks to destroy the wage system, to overthrow capitalism and to do so through a general strike. It now and always has rejected the state. The strike and occupation wave in France in 1968 had a large anarchist participation (Cohn-Bendit, to name one obvious one). The Situationists were heavily anarchist influenced and their theory of the spectacle is very useful. So I can take that and leave the other philosophizing behind.</p> <p>The Soviets, which were at first a very spontaneous reaction of the Russian workers to their situation, re-emerged in 1917. These forms came out of workers struggle. Various conservative forces, from the Bolsheviks to various other left strains, sought to corral and manage them (and ultimately, to destroy them). Nevertheless, they represent an egalitarian form of organization that is worth remembering. So we keep that. Ditch the politicos who tried to use it. It's worth pointing out that the last mass rally allowed by the Bolsheviks was for Kropotkin's funeral. Likewise, the strike by the Kronstadt sailors, which is generally considered the end of the struggle from the left against the Bolsheviks, demanded release of all anarchist prisoners and an end to Bolshevik attacks on the Soviets. Of course, Trotsky smashed them, even though they were the vanguard (in the most egalitarian sense) of the revolution a few years before.</p> <p>See, your nit-picking (which seems to be motivated by a deep personal hatred of anarchists that you're not willing to take ownership of or explain) is pointless. It matters not what particular anarchists did or what definitions you try to put on things so you can squirm out of whether something is or isn't anarchist (libertarian socialist!? C'mon!). For instance, you know as well as I that libertarian socialist and anarchist are now and have always been essentially synonyms used interchangeably. It's like anarcho-communist. Your word games are silly and you should just drop them because they make you look ridiculous.</p> <p>As for your larger question, which I have already addressed and I will now reiterate, the racist character of the population is precisely the facet that will be fought and used to bring about revolution. It will not be ignored and, of course, any reactionary currents that rise up, for whatever reason, will be smashed in the civil war that is the revolution. There is no question of rights for fascists and naturally they will be opposed.</p> <p>It's funny for you to ask anarchists what about minority rights when in fact it is you who should be defending your position. As a staunch defender of democratic capitalism, you are in fact the ultimate excuse maker for the ultimate minority: the capitalists. You ask me what I would do to protect minority rights and I can't help but notice that you defend to an almost criminal extent the rights of a very small minority to run the lives of everyone else, even if they themselves constitute a minority. After all, that is what the dictatorship of capital is (otherwise known as your beloved capitalist democracy).</p> <p>Still, I find it more reinforcing of my increasingly convinced view of you as an armchair internet academic that you seem to get off so much on philosophizing about what may come, rather than dedicating yourself to fighting what is here now. Perhaps fighting in actual physical space the reactionary movements and tendencies that are here now, rather than being constantly pissed off like a little spoiled child that there is an anarchist movement here in town, would demand something that you are not <br /> comfortable with. Namely, action.</p> <p>So, go and sit behind your computer screen. Rant away. It doesn't change the fundamental fact that you have no impact on the real world. If I were you, that would piss me off, especially since there are so many anarchists out there doing what you are yourself afraid to do. So, while appreciate your little novels on here, they matter not at all.</p> <p>What you really ought to do is take me up on my longstanding and more than once repeated offer to have a civil conversation with you in some other format, so we can dispel these conspiracy theories you have and get on to something meaningful. Because, as I have pointed out before, the fact is that we have different political theories. I acknowledge that and organize accordingly (that is, I don't consider you an ally of anything or anyone that wants anything more than a minor tweaking of the system as it is). You, on the other hand, seem personally offended that some people have come to something other than the same bland conclusions you have. I got news for you, Emil. You're just going to have to get over that.</p>

• <p>Incidentally, if you want an example of EFFECTIVE community organizing during the Civil Rights movement (NOT anarchist), the Nashville Sit-ins and the Easter Clothes boycott that followed are especially instructive:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-01-sit-ins-civil-rights_N.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-01-sit-ins-civil-rights_N.htm</a><br /> </p>

• <p>P.S. Note that the website linked to above states that: (1) "...few IWWers considered themselves anarchists" (certainly in the historical, pre-WW I IWW); (2) Anarcho-syndicalism...is, historically, the most "Marxist-influenced" form of anarchism..."; (3) "Many revolutionary syndicalists, in fact, no longer considered themselves anarchists".</p> <p>The first and third remarks are matters of objective historical fact, whereas the inclusion of anarcho-syndicalism even "historically" as a form of anarchism is a subjective classification from a Marxist perspective (the website is a Marxist site, in case that wasn't perfectly obvious at first glance); and Marxists tend (there are exceptions) to be ideologically rigid, even doctrinaire, especially with respect to the classification of ideologies ("if it's not Marxism then it ain't legit") -- and anarcho-syndicalism is too footloose and fancy free for them to regard as "real socialism". (Also, the website responds to anarchist theory, and anarchists have, wrongly, attempted to expropriate anarcho-syndicalism for their own propaganda purposes.)</p> <p>As a non-Marxist socialist, I can recognize the compelling objective reasons for classifying anarcho-syndicalism as a form of revolutionary libertarian socialism rather than anarchism (e.g., most members of the IWW and the Spanish CNT did not consider themselves anarchists; the organizational structure of the movements; the leadership structure; the emphasis on industrial unionism; and so forth (see my previous remarks).<br /> </p>

• <p>(cont. from previous)</p> <p>"But beyond that, it's a funny question from someone who has had ample opportunities to get in the street to attack actual Nazis, as anarchists here (including myself) have done many times."</p> <p>First, that's a non sequitur: a fundamental question about anarchist political theory has nothing to do with whether you have or have not attacked Nazis. </p> <p>Incidentally, Proudhon, the "father of anarchism", appears to have been a rabid anti-semite, racist, and misogynist:</p> <p><a href="http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/draper_0.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/draper_0.pdf</a></p> <p>Side note: Also see this quote from the website's home page:</p> <p>"The IWW in the USA [before WW I] and Australia was also "revolutionary syndicalist", though few IWWers considered themselves anarchists."</p> <p><a href="http://www.workersliberty.org/node/9735" rel="nofollow">http://www.workersliberty.org/node/9735</a></p> <p>"As for the protection of minority rights...there are many ways. Free association is one..."</p> <p>In other words, minorities whose rights are violated are free to leave and seek other associates!</p> <p>"...but consensus processes is another."</p> <p>The consensus of a racist majority does not protect minority rights.</p> <p>"Also, anarchists have generally used delegation in decision making. Federation, as the anarchists use it, for instance, devolves power to the lowest order rather than the highest."</p> <p>If that were true, a single individual at the bottom could dictate to the mass above it: obvious not the case. In fact, what federation does is allow those at the bottom to elect delegates to a larger body; but in anarchism this does not give the higher body the power to dictate to the lower bodies with regard to local decisions, so again, it does not protect minority rights. There is also no mechanism in anarchism by which to force federation upon local groups of anarchists, so all the racists (for example) need to do is refuse to participate in order to thwart any resolutions of the larger body.</p> <p>Before I forget, let me say that I don't believe you've ever attacked any Nazis, if by "attack" you mean physical assault. You certainly didn't in any video evidence presented here, with respect to recent marches, for example.</p> <p>I'm almost out of time, so I'm going to leave it there for now.<br /> </p>

• <p>"Phoenix Insurgent" wrote:</p> <p>"Oh, Emil. You have not a leg to stand on."</p> <p>You spend quite a lot of time editorializing this way, apparently because it's easier for you to assert your claims than to demonstrate them.</p> <p>"Secondly, have you looked up what the prefix "anarcho-" means?"</p> <p>Obviously so: see my recent posts. Have you looked up "syndicalist"? Are you aware that the prefix "anarcho-" is an adjective modifying the noun syndicalist? They're not called syndico-anarchists, but anarcho-syndicalists.</p> <p>"Thirdly, your example of anarchy is a post-nuclear holocaust world. This is not anarchy in the political sense. It bears no resemblance whatsoever. Anarchy as anarchists use it is a state of co-operative relations that is oppositional to capitalism, the state and all kinds of hierarchy. You're example is worthless."</p> <p>This at least is a substantive point, if erroneous. In fact, a post-nuclear or post-plague world (in which the State has been destroyed) was not posited as anarchy -- since any political systems at all might be set up there, including miniature kingdoms -- but merely as the hypothetical setting for it. There is nothing at all to stop anarchy as a political system from developing in such a setting, so the hypothetical stands. It also remains unanswered by you. There is as yet no indication as to how anarchism could guarantee or maintain minority rights (racial, ideological, political) or how it could remedy violations of such rights.</p> <p>Incidentally, neither your endless beer-drinking meetings nor your naive, inflated rhetoric will abolish the state, so I posited something that might, just conceivably, for a time and in some areas.</p> <p>"Fourthly, I can't help but point out that your post-holocaust world will not be brought about by luddite anarchists, but by techno-philiacs like you."</p> <p>Maybe, but on the other hand it might be brought on by the pre-industrial Nature you adore, in the form of a pandemic. Or, perhaps an anarchist will give it a hand, by vandalizing a research facility and then fleeing prosecution by plane to other countries.</p> <p>"By refusing skepticism of technology it puts you in the position of defending nuclear war, industrialized war, the drudgery of the assembly line, genocide and all the most brutal manifestations of the techno-state. Defend nuclear war, then. That is the net result of your uncritical love of technology."</p> <p>This is too absurd to warrant reply. I justed wanted to highlight it, because it says a lot about you.</p> <p>"Fifthly, you still have not addressed how your beloved liberal capitalist democracy will end racism. So far it hasn't and yet you cast aspersions where none are deserved."</p> <p>I don't see how any system is going to END racism, in and of itself. I didn't even ask how anarchism would "end racism" -- I asked a much simpler question: how, in theory and practice, could it protect minority rights, when it posits complete autonomy to independent anarchist collectives regardless of scale, and when there are no higher administrative or judicial bodies to appeal to, nor mechanisms for enforcing decisions by them (e.g., the federal military in Alabama)?</p> <p>I don't see how asking you to answer fundamental questions about the political system you advocate, constitutes "casting aspersions". Nor do I know what "slurs" I have made in this discussion. Perhaps you could specify?</p> <p>"Because you have yet to do anything to show me that you are anything other than just another armchair wikipedia liberal on the internet."</p> <p>Show me the Wikipedia reference in my comments in this thread. </p> <p>(cont.)<br /> </p>

• <p>I suppose that everything has to be spelled out for "Phoenix Insurgent". The racial tolerance of the Wobblies (IWW) said nothing about anarchism vis a vis the issue of race, because the Wobblies were NOT anarchists. Their motto was "One big union" for crissake! They were revolutionary libertarian socialists (anarcho-syndicalists), similar to the Spanish CNT. </p> <p>As long as Phoenix Insurgent is trying to abscond with half the intellectual history and labor struggles of socialism, let's set the record straight on a few of his other frauds and thefts:</p> <p>The Russian workers' soviets (e.g., in the 1905 revolution) were largely organized and led by Mensheviks (non-Leninist Marxists) and by revolutionary industrial and trade unionists (not anarchists). The biggest and most influential of these, the St. Petersburg soviet, was virtually led by Leon Trotsky (himself a Menshevik at that time and until 1917 when he joined the Bolsheviks).</p> <p>The Paris student riots and wildcat factory strikes were influenced in the main by New Left socialists, though it's true that anarchists -- as well as right-wing libertarians and communists -- joined the disruptions and tried to capitalize on them for their own purposes.<br /> </p>

• <p>Oh, Emil. You have not a leg to stand on. The funny thing is, I was for many years a member of the IWW. Your silly attempts to tell me what I am is a waste of time. That's for starters.</p> <p>Secondly, have you looked up what the prefix "anarcho-" means? I wonder... That alone would resolve the problem.</p> <p>Thirdly, your example of anarchy is a post-nuclear holocaust world. This is not anarchy in the political sense. It bears no resemblance whatsoever. Anarchy as anarchists use it is a state of co-operative relations that is oppositional to capitalism, the state and all kinds of hierarchy. You're example is worthless.</p> <p>Fourthly, I can't help but point out that your post-holocaust world will not be brought about by luddite anarchists, but by techno-philiacs like you. I must say that the opposition of the techno-skepticism (or in your terms, "luddism") that you accuse me of, brings up an interesting question because by refusing skepticism of technology it puts you in the position of defending nuclear war, industrialized war, the drudgery of the assembly line, genocide and all the most brutal manifestations of the techno-state. Defend nuclear war, then. That is the net result of your uncritical love of technology.</p> <p>Fifthly, you still have not addressed how your beloved liberal capitalist democracy will end racism. So far it hasn't and yet you cast aspersions where none are deserved. The clearing of the continent. This is your legacy. And you demand answers from me? Hilarious! Especially considering that PCWC's politics are specifically aimed at attacking white supremacy. In essence, your position amounts to 'how could a movement that attacked white supremacy and then accomplished its revolutionary goals avoid racists organizing'? Do you see how the answer is tied up in the question?</p> <p>But beyond that, it's a funny question from someone who has had ample opportunities to get in the street to attack actual Nazis, as anarchists here (including myself) have done many times. Why don't you go face down a Nazi goon once in your life and then you can ask me that question. You can accuse American anarchists of many things, but not standing up to Nazis and racists is not one of them.</p> <p>As for the protection of minority rights, if we start from the understood position that you have no answer for this (as the situation in Arizona highlights the ongoing failure of capitalist democracy to resolve this problem), there are many ways. Free association is one, but consensus processes is another. Also, anarchists have generally used delegation in decision making. Federation, as the anarchists use it, for instance, devolves power to the lowest order rather than the highest. All these offer possible answers depending on circumstances. But the thing is, there is no need to prescribe them before hand. One thing we know for sure is that the goal of anarchy is the destruction of political power, so there will be no state sitting around for a small clique of racist goons to put their hands on. That isn't true in the case of liberal democracy, which you defend.</p> <p>You're quite backward! And, as I pointed out before, you are the revisionist here, not me. I am solidly within the tradition and contemporary understanding and practice of anarchy. And you are solidly within the bourgeois liberal democratic capitalist tradition (at its worst, I must say). </p> <p>Thus our problem. You merely refuse to admit that other ways of analyzing and intervening in politics are possible so you revise history and make up little conspiracies to justify yourself so you can feel better in your inaction. I, on the other hand, recognize our differences and act accordingly.</p> <p>But, in the end it doesn't really matter. Because you have yet to do anything to show me that you are anything other than just another armchair wikipedia liberal on the internet. You like to argue and criticize and to defend what you see as your turf and to pretend to be the smartest guy on the block (which is why you get all butt hurt when anyone of different politics who knows their stuff shows up), but you are somehow physically and mentally incapable of projecting any of your thoughts and ideas into the real world.</p> <p>I, on the other hand... so you can see why all your nonsense on here really means nothing. You're just running your mouth and spinning your gears. Why don't you try getting out and doing something for once instead of attacking those who do? I dare you. I don't think your capable of it. Probably scared to expose your ideas to the real world.</p>

• <p>"Phoenix Insurgent" wrote:</p> <p>"The IWW is a particularly troubling example for your argument because they were one of the only unions to accept people of all races into their ranks at the time. This further goes to undermine your point about racism. . .Of course, the way such things as racists organizing (they wouldn't be anarchists if they did) would be avoided would be, of course, to organize in anarchist ways, which have always and everywhere been anti-racist."</p> <p>Hiliarious! The fact remains that there is nothing intrinsic to anarchism which implies either anti-racism or racism: so the existence of anti-racist strains are not a counterargument; and by DEFINING racists as ipso facto non-anarchist you are merely indulging in wordplay. </p> <p>Just imagine that tomorrow, a plague or nuclear conflagration destroyed the State. There are isolated bands of individuals who are free to organize and, having done so, reach any democratic concensus they wish, including enshrining virulent racism against any minority present. Each band is independent, because anarchists have no hierarchy and give complete local autonomy to each social group. </p> <p>And remember, I'm not JUST talking about racism when I ask about the protection of minority rights, so even if it were somehow, magically true that anarchism prevented racism (tell that to the Russian peasant anarchists who hated Jews!), it still wouldn't address my actual criticism.</p> <p>"Every scholar and anarchist militant considers anarcho-syndicalism a part of the anarchist tradition."</p> <p>As do I. It's also part of the socialist tradition, and part of the democratic tradition. That doesn't change the truth of what I wrote. Nor does it change the fact that anarchist scholars (like Stuart Christie) -- and, of course, anarchists in general -- tend to exaggerate the importance of their minority ideology within the broader anarcho-syndicalist movement. </p> <p>You remind me a lot of another commenter here, Slavyanski, who used to quote revisionist Stalinist scholars as if their views were both mainstream and universal. It's not my fault if Stuart Christie sees everything through the rose-tinted lenses of anarchist revisionism.</p> <p>As for the FAI, it was created as a hardcore anarchist minority within the CNT with the intent of influencing the larger group to uphold anarchist values. It's true that in certain parts of the country where they had most influence, half a dozen of the FAI's most ruthless leaders ruled "like a politburo" -- though that doesn't sound much like anarchism to me. <br /> </p>

• <p>"Phoenix Insurgent" wrote:</p> <p>"Emil mistakenly imagines that there was only one current being pursued by the civil rights movement (and that there was _only_ a "civil rights" movement)".</p> <p>Nothing of the sort. This is a straw-man argument intended to distract from your inability to address my criticism: that the federal government's intervention was critical in the protection of the rights of minorities in Alabama and elsewhere in the South; and that under anarchism the absence of any hierarchical structure means that there is no body to appeal the violation of minority rights to, no body with authority over lower bodies who violate those rights, and no practical means of forcing recognition of those rights.</p> <p>"History shows us that despite his wishful retroactive thinking, the struggle against white supremacy continued long after Eisenhower or even Johnson sent in the Federal Troops. This historical fact actually undermines his case a great deal."</p> <p>Obviously the struggle against White supremacy continued -- to this very day. Who said otherwise? How does this undermine, much less address, my point?</p> <p>"First, if we really look at his supposed problem with "anarchy", what we see is that he is really describing the problem with the state. You see, what we have now is not a problem of a lack of state or hierarchical authority."</p> <p>No, my problem assumes that no state exists and that anarchy is the replacement. How will anarchy protect minority rights? Never mind your ideals for the movement: I'm talking about a concrete if hypothetical situation.</p> <p>"Looking to history for non-state solutions to white supremacy, and just to name a few, we have the Underground Railroad. We have the Abolitionist Movement. We have John Brown's insurrection. We have all the Native resistance to colonialization. We have the general strike. We have the sancutary movement."</p> <p>Neither the Abolitionist Movement nor the Underground Railroad ended slavery or Jim Crow or segregation: those were ended, first, by a civil war taking place between statist forces (North and Confederacy), second by federal military force (and the threat of it) in the 20th century, and third, by federal court jurisdiction backed up by the threat of federal action. (John Brown's insurrection failed, incidentally, as did the Native resistance to colonization.) </p> <p>All of these movements took place within a statist context and many of the most influential (e.g., the Abolitionists) looked to the state for resolution of the problem, though using agitation, propaganda, and direct action to shame and goad federal authorities into action. Both the Underground Railroad and the Sanctuary Movement sought to provide a (necessarily) highly limited assistance to victims of rights violations (i.e., escape or sanctuary for a tiny fraction of victims), not to remedy those violations.</p> <p>None of this is relevant to my question because, under anarchism, each local body is independent of the others. There is nobody to appeal to, no higher authority with the authority to intervene, no means of intervention. If the local majority sees fit to violate minority rights the minority can either flee or attempt a (perhaps foolhardy) insurrection. Under anarchism, there is no general political principle, organizational arrangement, or administrative body capable of guaranteeing minority rights, even in theory.<br /> </p>

• <p>Actually, Emil, since you're no scholar of anarchism and, likewise, not even able to wrap your brain around PCWC's politics, I will point out the obvious: every scholar and anarchist militant considers anarcho-syndicalism a part of the anarchist tradition. You are the dissident to the extreme on this point. </p> <p>Indeed, as luck would have it, I just re-read Stuart Christie's aptly titled "We the Anarchists: A Study of the Iberian Anarchist Federation". The (FAI) was the ideological core of the CNT, the national anarchist workers federation, and which basically ran eastern Spain for much of the revolution. Christie, of course, as with all scholars, supports my position on this question. And I think he would know -- he was imprisoned in 1964 for attempting to assassinate Franco.</p> <p>So, despite your slurs (which is all you have left these days) PCWC, and myself in fact, does support workers self-management. And there is more than one way it can happen. One could be anarcho-syndicalism. Another could be soviets. Another could be the factory occupations in Paris of May-June 1968. So, that's another point you're wrong on. It should also be pointed out that, like the Black Bloc, anarcho-syndicalism really can be better understood as a tactic rather than its own tendency. The IWW here in the US is an example of anarcho-syndicalism, for instance.</p> <p>In fact, it's worth considering both the IWW and the anarchist CNT-FAI (the main anarchist union in the Spanish revolution). Both maintained space for dissident workers -- that is those who opted no to work in the factory system (bums in the case of the IWW and even what we would call now "primitivist anarchists" in the case of the CNT).</p> <p>The IWW is a particularly troubling example for your argument because they were one of the only unions to accept people of all races into their ranks at the time. This further goes to undermine your point about racism.</p> <p>Of course, the way such things as racists organizing (they wouldn't be anarchists if they did) would be avoided would be, of course, to organize in anarchist ways, which have always and everywhere been anti-racist. In particular, PCWC's strain of anarchy, which focuses on the race traitor tendency, specifically sets apart attacking white supremacy as THE strategy for bringing down capitalism and the state. So, you can see that any revolution that organizes that way necessarily deals with the problems you claim would afflict an anarchist world.</p> <p>But, here's the kicker! The problems you describe are actually problems we have now in the liberal capitalist democracy that you love! To demand that anarchists answer for this allegation (something that has never happened ever, as I said) is quite backwards to say the least. Why don't you answer what forces prevent racist genocide under liberal capitalist democracy? I'd like to see that one. I'm sure about a million dead Iraqis would be interested in that as well (just for starters).</p> <p>And, as always, if you need further schooling on anarchism, you are welcome at Beer and Revolution any time! But for the time being, I recommend you avoid attempts at anarchist scholarship and stick to things you do know, whatever that may be.</p>

• <p>I've a little more time now, so back to the interesting case of Spain. The short answer is that the Spanish movement was, in the main, anarcho-syndicalist, not anarchist.</p> <p>Anarcho-syndicalists were essentially, not anarchists, but revolutionary libertarian socialists: "syndicalist" expressing the organized, large-scale industrial unionism through which the socialist revolution was to be effected by means of general strikes; "anarcho-" reflecting anarchist anti-statist tendencies as well as militancy and spontaneity. </p> <p>The anarcho-syndicalists encouraged significant (though not absolute) local autonomy in industrial actions. They had a definite though democratic organizational hierarchy and leadership. The anarcho-syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, Wobblies) in early 20th century America were similar to the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists.</p> <p>Rather than attempt to re-invent the wheel, in what follows I'm going to use a combination of direct quotation and close paraphrase from Gerald Meaker's essay "Anarchists versus Syndicalists: Conflict within the Confederation Nacional del Trabajo" from the essay collection "Politics and Society in Twentieth Century Spain" (ed., Stanley G. Payne):</p> <p>Anarchism embodied an austere ethic nearly totally critical of bourgeois industrial society, and a puritan longing for a return to an uncorrupted pre-industrial age; by contrast, syndicalism evoked the modern vision of a worker's world, rationally organized, industrialized, and productive; anarchism connoted an extreme emphasis on spontaneity and localism in the revolutionary struggle; syndicalism implied a greater concern with organizational preparation, planning, and centralized direction; anarchism was a blend of peasant negations; syndicalism, with its less categorical rejection of authority and its faith in organization, was the ethos of the urban proletariat.</p> <p>In Catalonia where the polarity was most evident, the Cenetista militants fell into three not very clearly demarcated groups: (1) a minority who remained almost wholly anarchist in character; (2) the majority, who were essentially anarcho-syndicalists, exhibiting all the ambiguities of their creed; (3) another minority who were almost wholly syndicalist.</p> <p>* * *</p> <p>It's easy to recognize "Phoenix Insurgent" in the description of the anarchist minority: the neo-Ludditism, the negation with no positive plan of action, the antipathy to leadership and organization. Too bad for him that the Spanish case doesn't support his arguments: he's merely trying to piggyback his doctrinaire ideology onto a considerably different and more practical mass socialist movement.<br /> </p>

• <p>I see that "Phoenix Insurgent" hurdled over my basic criticisms of anarchism, but didn't answer them. Contrary to his claim, there is nothing to stop independent groups of anarchists from organizing on racist principals. The American working class has no shortage of racial and other biases and animosities (who is the primary audience for right-wing talk-radio?) so the mere emphasis on the working class in anarchist theoretical circles is no guarantee of the rights of minorities.</p> <p>And incidentally, I'm not just talking about racial minorities -- I'm talking about anyone with a view different from the local, regional, or national majority.</p> <p>The case of Spain is interesting but requires more time to deal with than the 10 minutes remaining to me in the current online session.<br /> </p>

• <p>But, let's now consider the post-revolutionary world (which, I must admit, it is a bit disingenuous for him to bring up since he doesn't want a revolution to begin with!). He's generally quite satisfied with the lives we all lead today. To say it handicaps his imagination when it comes to the post-rev world is an understatement indeed! Still, since any revolution in the US must necessarily attack white supremacy head on as a pre-requisite, we would be living in a post-white supremacist world. Likewise, we would be living in a world that existed absent the state and Capital. We would be living a world with a different ethic entirely -- especially if this had been an anti-authoritarian revolution. In Spain, for instance, how anarchists settled these problems was to collectivize industry through a workers, democratic federation. The workers ran the factories themselves and redistributed wealth and resources without the need for the biases imposed by the state. The collectives in the cities operated in conjunction with collectives amongst the peasants on an ethic of mutual aid, sharing manufactured goods with the peasants in exchange for their sharing of food. It was a to each, from each kind of thing. There's one example amongst many.</p> <p>But, let's see what anarchist theory has to say about the problem of self-organization after the revolution, since fact alone is probably not enough to convince Emil (it never has been!). Let's consider, for example, a little book called Bolo Bolo. In fact, Bolo Bolo (the first part of which you can find online at PCWC's recommended reading list), posits just the solution that Emil is looking for. It's not alone amongst anarchist theory, but I bring it up because it is relatively recent and really answers this question quite solidly. In a post-revolution world, social relations are turned on their heads. The power of the state and Capital (amongst others -- including, for instance, the power of patriarchy and white supremacy) to define our lives has been eliminated through successful revolutionary struggle. So what do people do now?</p> <p>In Bolo Bolo, what the theorist proposes is a re-organization along lines of affinity. New cultural associations become available, it turns out, in such a situation. People are able to find communities based on affiliations (perhaps diet, for instance, or sports, or hobbies, or organization, or sexual tastes, or music, or whatever you can imagine) and so new ways of associating emerge. These associations (since this is post-rev), depend on just a couple key agreements, but the most important of them is the right to travel (so you can find your niche) and the obligation to put up travelers for a limited amount of time (so they can find where they fit in). This solves Emil's post-rev problem quite nicely, in fact. It reduces his supposed contradiction to merely the "relative visit versus fish rule"; that is, hopitality versus wearing out your welcome. We all do this already in our normal lives, it turns out. Not a problem at all and quite easily solved once we destroy political power.</p> <p>Lest this seem like a fantasy, it turns out that in fact we are constantly trying to reorganize our lives against the puritanical notions of Capital and the state (just like the state and Capital are constantly trying to narrow our imagination). Nowtopia, a recent book by Chris Carlsson, does a great job of showing how many modern movements are in fact fights to redefine ourselves on our own terms rather the stale, corporate identities shoved down our throats by the powers that be. Perhaps Emil would do well to read that book. It sure was inspirational to me. Actually, now that I think of it, PCWC distributes the book, so we can sell it to you, Emil, if you want to read it. Just come to one of our events and I'll even make sure you get a skeptics discount!</p> <p>Find the first section of Bolo Bolo here:<br /> <a href="http://firesneverextinguished.blogspot.com/2008/01/recommended-reading.html" rel="nofollow">http://firesneverextinguished.blogspot.com/2008/01/recommended-reading.html</a></p>

• <p>Actually, there are several problems with Emil's point here. First, if we really look at his supposed problem with "anarchy", what we see is that he is really describing the problem with the state. You see, what we have now is not a problem of a lack of state or hierarchical authority. What we have is the opposite. Thus, the problem Emil poses is one that precisely arises from the context of the racist, colonialist state. To pose it as a problem of anarchy is to get it backwards. In a way, what he offers as a solution is in fact more of the problem. After all, white supremacy is a manifestation of the capitalist state. That is, it's a political relationship, not a set of bad attitudes. White supremacy is nothing without the state and capital. Post-revolution, to imagine these things would still exist or have anywhere near the power that they do now is in fact to negate one's own example since to overthrow the capitalist, racist state, one would necessarily have to deal with these two fundamental problems. In fact, that is precisely how PCWC frame's its attack. So, in truth, Emil should be quite happy with us. I suppose I could leave it there.</p> <p>As an aside, Emil has (big surprise!) misunderstood what anarchists mean by self-organization. I don't suppose he's the biggest reader of anarhcist theory. When we talk about self-organization, we don't mean the Klan, or whatever hierarchical fantasies he has in mind. What we mean when we say such things is the self-organization of the working class on a non-hierarchical basis -- that class that is under attack by Capital will organize itself based on anarhcist principles of mutual aid and egalitarianism. Indeed, what I am describing is that class that produces Capital and then has it stolen from it by the state and the capitalistists. Of course, anarchists believe that, once we smash Capital, etc, all sorts of ways of organizing ourselves will emerge that defy the conventional authoritarian tendencies that Emil defends. In fact, American history backs this theory. The women's movement has emerged in force twice from crises of white supremacist capitalism. The queer movement likewise. Even vegetarianism in both cases. And on and on. It turn out that when you put that system in crises, all kinds of new ways to organize emerge into the space that is freed by that struggle. Think of white supremacy, capitalism and the state as a dam blocking our natural creative tendencies to self-organize and affiliate in creative ways. Smash that dam and all sorts of new ways of relating emerge. This is a historical fact.</p> <p>Still, we can imagine all kinds of non-state solutions to Emil's "problem". Looking to history for non-state solutions to white supremacy, and just to name a few, we have the Underground Railroad. We have the Abolitionist Movement. We have John Brown's insurrection. We have all the Native resistance to colonialization. We have the general strike. We have the sancutary movement. Et cetera. In fact, quite a tool box is available to us if we in fact reject another false premise of Emil's world view (that the state exists to solve problems rather to perpetuate them). Actually, when we presume the state as our saviour, as Emil does, we have a much reduced tool box to achieve our much more limited ends.</p> <p>In Emil's world view, the state has intervened to fix "wrongs" just because they are "wrongs". He thinks, for instance, that the state intervened to stop segregation based on being presented a moral case, for instance, rather than being forced to intervene by militants and grass roots organizing who were throing the system into crisis. In fact, the state often reaches into movements that would otherwise be non-hierarchical and elevates leaders. One can see why they do this. This is the problem with politicians. Likewise, Emil mistakenly imagines that there was only one current being pursued by the civil rights movement (and that there was _only_ a "civil rights" movement). He imagines that because the state wound up working with one section of the movement and attacking the other, that he can now erase from history the other sections of the movement. Not only is this fraudulent thinking, but actually, history shows us that despite his wishful retroactive thinking, the struggle against white supremacy continued long after Eisenhower or even Johnson sent in the Federal Troops. This historical fact actually undermines his case a great deal.</p>

• <p>This leads to consideration of what I perceive to be a major weakness in anarchist political theory: if social norms are determined solely by the concensus of self-organized bodies how does anarchism protect the rights of the minority? By what mechanism is this accomplished, both in theory and in practice? </p> <p>Those who say that government is never the solution have forgotten the lessons of history (e.g., the intervention of the federal government at the height of the Alabama school segregation crisis).</p> <p>The problem is even greater than it might appear at first glance, because it exists at all levels of anarchist "self-organization": anarchism claims that at each level of social cohesion, individuals have the right to self-organize, and that this self-organization is independent of all other levels. </p> <p>There is no federal government to intervene when states violate the constitutional rights of national citizens. There is no state government to enforce the rights of citizens against local suspensions of those rights. There is no local government to enforce the rights of individuals in isolated neighborhoods. Each group or clique of self-organized anarchists is independent of all others: if there were a hierarchical organization of power, it would not be anarchy. </p> <p>What is to stop any such group, at whatever scale, from indulging any biases of race, religion, or anything else, which appeals to them? To what higher body can minorities appeal? Who will intervene? Even if such a higher body existed, how will it force the lower body in the hierarchy to recognize its authority and to implement its decision? There is no army and no police, remember?<br /> </p>

• <p>"Phoenix Insurgent" wrote:</p> <p>"Would one's position on returning escaped slaves to the slavocrat hinge on the cost incurred in doing so? I would hope not...Humans should be free to travel without considering the consent of the state or capital, both of which are constantly at war with our desire to organize ourselves to our own benefit."</p> <p>Interesting comment. It's certainly true that, even in the context of the modern nation-state (since the Renaissance), immigration has largely been free and open, except for the period since WW I.</p> <p>The remark about slavery nicely exemplifies the truth that in every case where the laws of the majority violate the natural rights of the minority, the minority has a moral right to resist regardless of the law. The question, of course, is what constitutes a natural right. </p> <p>"Society" can be defined as "people self-organizing for their own benefit", but scattered populations divided by natural geographic barriers like mountains, oceans, or deserts, or by space, or by social barriers like language and customs, do not constitute a single society, because their development is largely independent. So, the question becomes, what happens when members of one society want to participate in another society, but wish to set their own terms for participation? What are their natural rights? </p> <p>When you say that the right to travel is fundamental, in the context of immigration, what you really mean is that the right to residency, along with all that residency entails in a particular society, is fundamental; and you mean that participation in that society is a fundamental right even if the society itself arrives at a self-organized decision to exclude or limit or set conditions (time and place, inspection, etc.) on the entry of newcomers from other societies. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong, I just want that point to be crystal clear.</p> <p>(Note that counterarguments about what constitutes "self-organization" in a societal context are not relevant, because a hypothetical can still be posed regardless of the conditions set.)<br /> </p>

• <p>Pearce's bills have just killed tourism, new business and decent place to live. </p>

• <p>Just wondering.</p> <p>Has anyone asked if this ridiculous and (as said earlier) Orwellian proposed law applies to Europeans, Africans, Chinese, Japanese, etc. ? </p> <p>There have certainly been people from those parts of the world that have entered the USA illegally also. </p> <p>What do you think Russell Pearce's viewpoint is on that question?<br /> </p>

• <p>Sure, there's Emil's pragmatism on the one hand, but then there's also the fact that free people ought not to have to defer to the whims and interests of the state when traveling regardless of the cost or economy of the regulation. Would one's position on returning escaped slaves to the slavocrat hinge on the cost incurred in doing so? I would hope not. This is the problem with the moderate position on the border -- it can be easily overwhelmed by budgeting. </p> <p>We ought to demand much more: free movement for free people (with the likewise equal assertion of freedom from dislocation on the other hand). Humans should be free to travel without considering the consent of the state or capital, both of which are constantly at war with our desire to organize ourselves to our own benefit. The liberty to travel is fundamental and should be defended. And those who do defend it (most prominently in this case, migrants and Native peoples) should get our support in their fight against systems of regulation and domination.</p>

• <p>Has anybody (independent analysts) done the math about the costs of this bill? </p> <p>According to the Arizona Republic "The Joint Legislative Budget Committee said in a report that the bill's fiscal impact could not be determined because there is no way to know how many people would be arrested under the bill's provisions" but that's suspiciously evasive, since all they need to do is estimate the fiscal impact for a single arrestee and then extrapolate over a reasonable range. </p> <p>It may well be that the bill will cost the state significant funds, and the Republicans in the state legislature are reluctant to put a price-tag on it.</p> <p>There's the cost to litigate it. </p> <p>There's the cost to state and local government to jail all those undocumented workers (remember, there are half a million estimated to be in the state, and the bill REQUIRES police to determine the residency status of anyone they come in contact with whose status is even so much as suspect).</p> <p>There's the cost to prosecute them all (court costs, prosecutor costs, public defender costs).</p> <p>There's the opportunity cost resulting from overloading the police, courts and jails with a frivolous, unfunded mandate to enforce federal civil law and nail every landscaper and dishwasher possible with criminal trespassing charges under state law, at the expense of more serious duties.</p> <p>The only revenue this bill generates is court fines for trespassing, but does it mandate fines, or permit them, and how much? And how collectible will they be (especially if the law is challenged)?<br /> </p>

• <p>"Moreover, comparing a mass e-mail advising legislators of what's in a bill to domestic terrorism is absurd, and should give you an indication of the extent to which Pearce has a problem with freedom of speech and other civil liberties."</p> <p>Pearce just gets wackier and wackier. First hanging out with neo-Nazis and emailing a portion of their propaganda to his supporters; recently referring to firefighters as parasites who "live off taxpayer dollars" simply because the Professional Firefighters Association is a major contributor to the pro-Proposition 100 (one-cent state sales tax increase) cause; and now labeling Hancock's information campaign (whatever its merits) politically lobbying elected officials as "domestic terrorism". </p>

• <p>Just a comment/something to think about.....</p> <p>This Russel Pearce situation is exactly why many libertarians/agorists/objectivists, etc. believe in building "single issue coalitions" in order to leave politics and partisanship out of whatever you're trying to accomplish. </p> <p>Perfect examples of these are: </p> <p>- Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeau joining Camera Fraud in the fight against the speed cameras. Personally, I think the guy's pretty much a fascist but I 100% agree with him on this ONE issue. </p> <p>- The Tea Parties</p> <p>- Border/Immigration issues</p> <p>- Anti-war Demonstrations</p> <p>- Oath Keepers</p> <p>- 9/11 Truth Movement</p> <p>These single-issue coalitions are successful and effective when they stick with one issue and don't become politicized. </p> <p>People don't need to agree on every subject in order to come together to accomplish a single objective, they only need to agree on that one. This, in my experience, is the best way to bring about any type of REAL change. </p> <p>You see, generalized collectives never work (except at the end of the barrel of a gun) because they get co-opted by those with more money and bigger agendas EVERY SINGLE TIME. </p> <p>For example, look at how the Tea Parties have been treated by the establishment. The bloated and dying Democratic Party and mainstream media have pulled out all the stops in order to vilify the Tea Partiers, and the bloated and dying GOP has tried to co-opt them as their own.</p> <p>Why? Because the Tea Parties started out as just a bunch of concerned citizens getting together to make their voices heard, and it was powerfully effective. In fact, it shook the entire establishment into utter turmoil. </p> <p>Sure, there are always a few bigoted dullards and other assorted rotten apples in every bunch, but you can't let those people, the government, or the media spoil the message or objective.</p> <p>Mahatma Gandhi once said:</p> <p>“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”</p> <p>In closing, keep fighting the good fight....one issue at a time. </p> <p> </p>

• <p>Can the poster using the moniker of the "No to 1070/HB 2632!!" stick to a single legitimate screen name? If you are "Concerned Citizen" just stick to that name alone instead of phrases, its so annoying. Thanks.</p>

• <p>Is this where Pearce is leading Arizona?</p> <p>(FinalCall.com) - A new American slave trade is booming, warn prison activists, following the release of a report that again outlines outrageous numbers of young Black men in prison and increasing numbers of adults undergoing incarceration. That slave trade is connected to money states spend to keep people locked up, profits made through cheap prison labor and for-profit prisons, excessive charges inmates and families may pay for everything from tube socks to phone calls, and lucrative cross country shipping of inmates to relieve overcrowding and rent cells in faraway states and counties. Comparing the 'rights' of detained criminals to the on-going tragedy of slavery is about the lowest comment that could be made on this issue? NO, it's right on point. </p>

• <p>"4409's" video is a wake up call. A call to arms if necessary. It tells of the impending doom to our Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties as law abiding Americans of this antequated state. If this Bill doesn't concern you as an American regarding your basic Rights. Then I don't know what will. However, I am still opitimistic that this traitorous Bill will not pass into law. And if it does, then God help us.</p> <p>And btw, I love that quote by Sinclair Lewis. And I wholeheartly agree with that statement. </p>

• <p>Isn't newly elected District 18 Representative Cecil Ash a lawyer? What am I missing here when he excuses some of the bill's language by saying that "all officers of the court (including police officers) have this protection."? </p> <p> Does the language in the bill mean that any police officer or the state will not be held accountable or liable if and when a cop screws up? <br /> For example, when he sees what appears to be a hispanic (that's what it's all about, isn't it?) in work clothes getting into a cab....and kapow! Cabbie gets cited because cop has "reason" to believe cabbie's fare is an "illegal immigrant," the rider doesn't have proof of citizenship on his person, therefore the cabbie's rider is detained and arrested, and the cab gets impounded. </p> <p>Pearce could not have written anything more Orwellian, and he doesn't give two hoots about his bill's constitutionality and the legal ramifications and costly litigation to come if this is enacted. </p> <p>What an embarrassment for all of us who live in Arizona. </p>

• <p>Stephen, Thanks for staying ahead of the pack with helpful information. We're paying attention!!</p> <p>"I tell you [Pearce's bill] is really not about immigration," Shelton correctly concludes. "It's about expanding police powers."</p> <p>Too many Arizona Republicans have been so blinded by their desire to do away with illegal immigrants, that they are ready to shred the very constitutional rights we all hold dear."</p> <p>Enough with overzealous law enforcement, prosecutors with their friends who write the laws for them. THEY have the guns, badges and laws to steamroll over the people and have taken advantage of that to the detriment of innocent people and families -- NO DUE PROCESS, NO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN ARIZONA. </p> <p>It's time to write laws to PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THEM!!</p> <p><br /> </p>

TotalComments: 34