>> But the road Chuck's taking has a dead end, especially in this country
>> at
>> this this time. Anarchism is a tendency, a fluid set of ideas that tap
>> into
>> the basic wiring of political awareness and desire. It flows from left
>> to
>> right and back again.
>
> And here is an example of more nonsense. Anarchism is indeed a tendency
> with fluid ideas, but it ridiculous to suggest that it "flows from left
> to right." Anarchism wants nothing to do with either the left or the
> right. The fact that a few nutballs are trying to meld their right wing
> extremism with anarchism does not mean that all anarchists are interested
> in this marriage. In fact, all anarchists have rejected this bullshit.
This, I think, comes from confusing ideology with something less quantifiable; a general tendency or spirit. The fact is that the impulses towards freedom-- not wanting too much oppression in one's life, a live- and-let-live spirit, a suspicion of government and power, and the desire to be the master of the decisions that affect one's life-- are not aligned with an ideology of left or right.
I don't believe that right-wing separatists and left-wing anarchists are mirrors of one another; there are obvious and severe differences, and I don't think the right-wing variety puts a whole lot of thought into the nuances. But, the impulses I described above do travel across political ideologies, and it's frequently worth finding the common values in order to has out the garbage.
> Speak for yourself, but I don't go around people's yards hectoring them
> about flying the flag. I probably should do more of this, because this
> would be a practical application of my anarchist politics. I'm sticking
> to my anarchist PRINCIPLES, which are something you might have if you
> weren't so busy justifying your liberal, privileged lifestyle. This is
> about principles, about what anarchism is, not about some "pseudo-
> religion."
This is one of the reasons why I've lost a lot of sympathy with the anarchists-- it's the rapid descent into cant and duckspeak, like the galvanic denunciation of one's opponents as "justifying their privileged, liberal lifestyle." Which sort of contradicts Chuck's claim to not hectoring people over things like flying the flag.
As for this denunciation of a "liberal privileged lifestyle" which Dennis is alleged to be spending so much time justifying, well, this is fine evidence that Dennis was _right_ to call this a pseudo-religion. It's the same denunciation of liberalism and modernity that one finds from the fundamentalist Right, or any number of other reactionary factions. At root, Chuck is saying that Dennis is soft, weakened by modernity, has lost the masculine certainty of the True Believer... and this sort of complaint was one of Umberto Eco's signs of ur-Fascism.
As for that "privileged, liberal lifestyle," well, my lifestyle could easily fit that description. I like it. It's comfortable, offers me lots of options, and generally keeps me reasonably healthy and happy. In fact, I could make a good case that such a society would be the one most desired by the most people. It'd be ironic if that's what anarchist principles would leads us to, wouldn't it? Happy families in Suburbia, doing yardwork, fixing their houses, taking the kids to daycare....
> Hey Dennis, take your ageism and go fuck yourself. Anarchism is not
> something that is limited to young people. Perhaps you have become one of
> those irrelevant leftists who erroneously believes that anarchism is a
> "stage of youth" that festy young people will grow out of. That's about
> as stupid as saying that somebody will stop being a socialist once they
> get a nice job and buy a home.
Actually, there's a lot of truth in that-- after all, those are the hallmarks of a "liberal privileged lifestyle," and since you're not counting Dennis among the good guys, I presume that you _do_ believe that people who have those things cannot be called socialist or anarchist.
But there is some empirical truth there as well. These things tend to tie you into the general financial structures more extensively than, say, if one were renting and temping. With a job, the prospect of a career opens up- - one begins to think in terms of how to advance and earn more, _especially_ if you have a spouse who depends on you for half the income and a child who depends upon you for _everything_. With a mortgage, you can't help but use things like homeowner's loans to put the equity into improving your residence. And because it's harder to pull up stakes and move, now, you start to take a greater role in community issues, like cleanups, gardening, policing and Town Watch, zoning, the schools, and much, much more. (Which should fit with anarchist ideals of people taking active roles in the determination of public policy, instead of leaving the decisions up to the powerful.)
This doesn't mean that people stop being socialists. Many people continue to work according to their values and beliefs, and there's no reason why someone couldn't get a job and a home and still work to bring about a more socialist or anarchist society.
> I'm 38, by the way, and find your comments here to be very offensive.
I'm 40, sonny-jim. Treat yer elders with respect.