....LMB: "Newsy News News"....

Okay, a couple of things:

I disagree with voting Democrat (or any political party for that matter) since it perpetuates the need for a state and the sham that is representative government. Corporate rule will still exist either way. Now, if you're talking about Democrats being less war-like than Bush and the Republicans, might I remind everyone of the Clinton-endorsed bombings in eastern Europe, Sudan, AND IRAQ! The liberal elites didn't complain one iota. As much as I hate conservative jingoists, they are right in pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats (ironically the same chauvinists rally behind the Clinton bombings to claim how great America is, the bastards).

The affirmative action issue, particularly the class-based variety is an interesting one. Now, let me say that I oppose affirmative action (gasp!), but for far different reasons than the usual elite conservative rantings involving white fear, reverse discrimination, and the perfunctory "it demeans minorities" bit. As a working-class minority myself, I always get weird looks from my liberal friends (most of whom who are better off finanically) who say, "I didn't think you're a conservative." And then I start pulling my hair out. In a nutshell, I oppose affirmative action because it actually perpetuates state and capitalism. For one, it's another example of needing government to set up laws and enforce them as a benevolent Big Brother. Secondly, all it does is give a false front to corporations who hire a few token minorities to meet diversity quotas and make themselves look good ("Gee look at us, we have minorities!" and I'm not even getting into the glass ceiling scenario). I just think there needs to be a leftist critique (be it anarchist, radical, or socialist) of affirmative action, which IMO, is a fraud perpertuated by liberal statists and capitalists to make phony concessions to working-class and poor minorities and does little to eliminate the roots of discrimination and inequality.

Now some of ths stuff about class-based affirmative action is intriguing, but I still oppose it if it involves government. I think most of us here know how woefully lacking the state is in these matters.

I'm sure some of you disagree, but that's my bit.

As a supplement, affirmative action benefits a few well-off minorities, but does little for working-class or poor minorities or whites. I will also add that conservative capitalists use it to for their own ends too. How to get to the roots of racial discrimination and class inequality would take a dissertation, but I'm all for dismantling state and capitalism (decentralization at all levels and forms) since I think those two forces breeds all that is negative: authority, dependence, racism, classism, divisions, etc.

eric

this is an open question directed to anyone, but somewhat pointed at you. can you tell me exactly what the benefits/negatives are of an anarchist type of state? i know very little about this position, other than the classical definition(which is probably wrong, therefore revealing my ignorance on the subject) of where an anarchist state is just devoid of any form of government be it state or federal.

i'm not saying what you mentioned above is wrong or right. i'm just curious to know what the position of an anarchist-type method of things is and what it really stands for. i look at the simplified definition of an anarachist type state is one without any rules or governing body. but what's the real deal?

your friend,
art

Hi Art,

I'm more of an individualist sympathizer of the anarchist movement, but I agree with its opposition to state and capitalism and try to apply its principles whenever possible.

Anarchists seek to eliminate state and capitalism and replace it with direct self-government (citizens deciding policies for themselves on the community level) and direct self-management and ownership of workers, consumers, tenants, etc. in all aspects of society. There are a wide variety of schools of anarchism (from non-state communism to non-capitalist individualism), but all oppose state and capitalism.

The benefits are just that complete self-determination at all levels. Anarchism has plenty of detractors: liberal/conservative statists and capitalists, Marxists, libertarian capitalists (and so-called anarcho-capitalist). Charges range from "chaos" fear, utopianism, impracticality, forced socialism, etc.

For more info on various anarchist positions of various issues, email me at eray36@lycos.com. Or check out some resources including the Anarchy FAQ - at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931. It's a good, comprehensive guide to what anarchism is in theory and practice.

Eric

P.S. FYI, an "anarchist state" is an oxymoron. It would be more of a collection of societies operating independently of each other.

eric,

that is very interesting. i had a feeling there was more to it than the definition that most people assume it to be.

unfortunately i couldn't get onto that site you linked. maybe its just down or something is wrong on my end of things. i'll have to try it later. so if i ask a question that can be answered in the faq, please forgive me...

so essentially at the end of your post, you describe it as closer to a collection of societies operating under there own rules, wholly independent of each other. sort of like tribes in a sense, with their own rules/customs distince from other tribes...analogically speaking. so my questions are...1)practicality, how practical would it be to see this at a large scale 2)these societies...how large would they be? and how does interaction between each independent society work? is there a basic set of principles all societies would have to adhere to in order for interaction to happen?

art

Art,

Oops, I think it's because of the period. Let's try: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931

Yeah, independent collection of societies is basically right, though I hesitate to use the "tribal" analogy since it sounds primitive. We're not advocating a return to primitive conditions, BTW (though anarcho-primitivists do, but most anarchists do not).

In terms of practicality, again, that would take time to explain. It wouldn't be large-scale in terms of what we might think of a federal government or a nation. Everything would pretty much be localized, but to answer your second question, there would be free association and mutual aid involved between independent societies. Regarding how large they would be, obviously, it would be easier for smaller communities to govern themselves, but in large cities, there could be independent communities within that large concentration.

Yeah, I can't bring myself to support the Democrats either. I can't wholeheartedly buy into any party or ideology, but I'm more anarchist than anything else.

Call me a leftist whacko for identifying with that Chomsky piece, but he really nails it for me towards the end:

"There are two ways for Washington to respond to the threats engendered by its actions and startling proclamations. One way is to try to alleviate the threats by paying some attention to legitimate grievances, and by agreeing to become a civilized member of a world community, with some respect for world order and its institutions. The other way is to construct even more awesome engines of destruction and domination, so that any perceived challenge, however remote, can be crushed – provoking new and greater challenges."