Posted
by Dave Strano
August 8, 2008 at 4:13 p.m.
Origins
Ever reviled, accursed, ne'er understood, Thou art the grisly terror of our age. "Wreck of all order," cry the multitude, "Art thou, and war and murder's endless rage." O, let them cry. To them that ne'er have striven The truth that lies behind a word to find, To them the word's right meaning was not given. They shall continue blind among the blind. But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so pure, Thou sayest all which I for goal have taken. I give thee to the future! Thine secure When each at least unto himself shall waken. Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest's thrill? I cannot tell--but it the earth shall see! I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will Not rule, and also ruled I will not be! JOHN HENRY MACKAY.In March of 1999, I was graduating from high school. The United States Armed Forces were bombing Serbia. My father was in the Army, assigned to a medical unit that would be attached to the NATO invasion force. I lived in Leavenworth, Kansas, and this would be where I started down the long road to anarchism.I could say firmly that I was against the invasion of Kosovo. The case for war was not there. For Bill Clinton, a president that did nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Rwanda to claim that genocide of ethnic Albanians was a reason to invade Serbia was mind blowing. A strong case for such a claim of genocide never actually materialized. The less than honest intentions of the United States for the further expansion of NATO and political, economic, and social control over a former Soviet Republic shone through the rhetoric quite easily. By the time May rolled around, the only groups actively working against the invasion were strongly in the far-left of the political spectrum, and included organizations with ties to [Marxist-Leninism][1] and anarchism.The Communists were strong supporters of Serbian leader[Slobodan MiloÅ¡eviÄ][2], and this was an immediate indicator that I didn't want to work with them on any level. Their ideas appealed to me in certain respects. I had grown up working class and could identify with their critiques of capitalism, but their support of another dictator that also took advantage of working class people in his own country left a bad taste in my mouth. The critique and analysis being offered by the folks in the anarchist camp definitely made more sense and spoke more fully to what I was feeling.I started to research what exactly anarchism meant. Coming from a military family, and being groomed to attend West Point or at least an ROTC program in college, I came from a background of being damn patriotic. But then I read a book by [ Howard Zinn][3], [A People's History of the United States][4], and my entire world was turned upside down.Zinn was one of the more outspoken critics of the invasion of Kosovo that sat more in the anarchist camp. His words hit me with an electricity I could never imagine. After having read one of his essays about the invasion, I knew I had to find the book that every yahoo-browser search revealed to be his most widely read written work.The book, much like Emma Goldman's biography, transformed my life, and better informed my political and social development. These two books formed the foundation for my adoption of anarchism as a political ideology.So what is anarchism? I guess that was originally intended to be the topic of this post, so I should actually get to that. I've actually spent weeks thinking of how best to address that topic in a blog post. The reality is, nothing I could write on these pages would be as in depth or explanatory as the damn Wikipedia entry for Anarchism is. I'm not a fan of super long blog posts, and I'd rather my writing on here focus on how I try to apply these theories to my life. I like telling stories, not relating the cold definitions of political ideologies that are hundreds of years old. And although I could spend months debating the fact that there is no such thing as "anarcho-capitalism" and that anarchism has historically always been in direct opposition to capitalism, I think the Wikipedia entry is pretty in depth and pretty accurate otherwise.So, here's the link to the [Wikipedia entry for Anarchism.][5]I, and the majority of people I know that are involved with the growing North American Anarchist movement seem to identify with the anarcho-communist tendencies within Anarchism. The major focus of my work for the last 9 years has been on translating an ideology based on collective liberation to an actual movement capable of collective liberation. But first, I had to spend months even defining for myself what the hell collective liberation even means as a concept... and that sounds like a good topic for the next blog.On a related and alarming note, [the conflict in South Ossetia,][6] in which Russia and Georgia have entered into what can only (in my opinion) be described as a war, has developed rapidly over the last 24 hours. NATO is once again readying to be deployed in some way, as Georgia recently petitioned for membership within NATO. Is there a chance that NATO troops will finally see direct combat against Russian soldiers? NATO was created as a Western answer to the [Warsaw Pact][7] in the 1950's but never saw combat until... guess when? ...The U.S. backed attack on Kosovo. I can't stop thinking about what might happen if this conflict expands or spills out of its current confines.We can at least expect natural gas prices to climb, and we'll see how that will affect our already crippled economic reality. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism-... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People's_History_of_the_United_States [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism [6]: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/08/georgia.ossetia/index.html [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact
and 3 others
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
Well, at this point, I not only don't get it, but I can't even figure out what it is that I don't get.
prizzle (Paul Rosen) says…
While I acknowledge the fact that power structures are designed solely keep their own power intact, am I the only one that sees the irony of organized anarchists?
daveyjoe (Dave Strano) says…
prizzle, anarchism doesn't mean chaos, nor disorder, but in fact organization. Instead of top-down power relationships, it relies on horizontal structures, where everyone has an equal say.The political definition of anarchism has never been inclusive of a lack of order or organization, but instead dismissive of coercive forms of organization, with top-down models where power flows from the top of the social, political, and economic ladder.Dotdot, I realize this post wasn't the best way to explain most of the positions that contemporary anarchists share, but I've been really trying to figure out a good way to do that through a blog. It's a lot easier to sit down and talk to someone in person, and hear their concerns, ideas, and aspirations, and talk to them about mine and where I come from, than to write a definitive statement that is all explanatory. The wikipedia article at least gives some historical background and some foundation for where I stand.So, bare with me as I get used to this, and hopefully it'll make more sense, even if you disagree, as I'm able to actually write about topics that are important and timely, and add some analysis and critiques from an anarchist perspective.
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
Dave: No disrespect intended, but perhaps you could tell your story a little better by ... telling your story. Linking us to a (dry and nearly unreadable) Wikipedia page that describes various strains of anarchism isn't what I'm looking for from you in this series -- I could Google that myself.What I'm interested in -- and what you kind of get at at the edges here -- is something a little more biographical. Not for sensationalism's sake. But flesh out the story: How did a military brat end up an anarchist? We kind of jump from point A to point D without getting a clear idea of what, exactly, appealed to you. You tell us the ideas appealed to you. You don't tell us which ideas, really, nor why. (I've read Howard Zinn. Probably a lot of the people reading here have. But you shouldn't make that assumption.)Don't give us the Story of Anarchism. Give us Dave Strano's Journey to Anarchism. It'll be easier to grasp the former, for most of us, if we can get it packaged to us in the latter.
daveyjoe (Dave Strano) says…
Joel... that is definitely where I want to be heading, and it's good to know there's interest in that. I guess I feel like past comments on this blog have made me hesitant to get amazingly personal or in depth because of the vulnerability involved with that. I just need to get over it and do it. Thanks for the encouragement.
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
For my part, Dave, I'm also interested in your viewpoint and how you got there. Interested because I find the basic premise of anarchy counter intuitive. I guess I can't imagine a world in which idiots like me have an equal say.Things do get blurty around here, and that's partly my fault due to my inability to accept (perceived?) condescension. Something to do with my mommy, probably.Wade through that, and the fact that these comment sections turn easily into snark rehearsals, and you'll be fine. Tastes a little bitter time to time, but these are all good people.This post pretty much sets the stage for me, because anarchy is a blur. Anything you say to bring it into focus will be valued.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
I second the Dots*, anything you have to add would be valued. He's also correct that these are good folk. I've met more than a few and every one of them has been top shelf. There are some that I still need to meet before I can die happy, however. "I've been really trying to figure out a good way to do that through a blog..."The lazy man's way, rather than explaining anarchism in the abstract, is to apply it to an issue. Just pick something and explain why you, as an anarchist, tend to view the problem or propose a solution a certain way.And don't be afraid of being jumped on, rather relish it. There's nothing more frustrating than writing a blog post that is completely ignored, because you don't know if everyone agrees with you, everyone has given up on you, or no one knows what you're talking about. Blogs should engage others. The difference between a blog and a diary is not that one is hidden in a dresser.Unlike Joel, I'm a jerk when it comes to ideas**; I like to poke them and prod them and turn them over and squeeze them like a tube of toothpaste until they run all over everything, not because I want to "win" an argument - I'm a libertarian, and so I don't really care if people agree with me or not so long as they don't try to pass a law making me do whatever - but because I think ideas are the most important assets we as humans have. Any animal can build a nest or enjoy lying in the sun, it is thinking that makes us human.And I know that it's often said here that arguments don't change anything, that people's opinions are made up and can't be modified by words on a screen. I could not disagree more, and look forward to you bringing the ideas from a perspective that is unique on this site.* As usual, I'm lazy and prefer to let him do my thinking for me.** Not that Joel's a jerk when it comes to other things, he's not. My broadsides against the press are often, at least mentally, asterisked by an "except Joel." But being a 'people person' he's just more interested in personal journeys than I.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
I third or fourth the encouragement to explain by using personal inforfmation. Being a blogger is a form of exhibitism. So don't do it if you can't take people's wanting to see you. Most of the lawrence.com folks are very nice people, not eager to tear someone up just for the sake of being an internet troll. Perhaps that is why so many people here use their real names. It is much less easy to be mean if it's not anonymously done. I admit to not getting anarchism at all. I may not want to follow too many people (in my personal or public life), but when I have found a good leader, and it happens, it has been a good relationship. Of course, some leaders are good for some people, but not for others. E.g. While I would follow my husband or Elborak's rules in most areas of my life, their style might not suit most people. But having a leader is sometimes the only way to avoid utter chaos. Unless, of course, you favor chaos. Some people do. In my youth I might have thought it was a good idea to rebel against any and all structures, but in my old age I have come to rely upon some structures to keep me going. In my youth, I was enamoured of all things communal and embraced a "share and share alike" attitude. As I have aged, I have accepted that far too many people who are eager for me to share with them are not able or willing to reciprocate; meaning I'm the giver and they're the taker. To the detriment of all concerned! So I have become more like Bill. Happy to let other live the way(s) they choose adopting whatever theories or rules suit them, just so long as they (a) do not impose their lifestyle and rules on me and (b) do not negatively impact me with their conduct. So by all means, share with us what you think and why. We may not agree with you, but we'll try to be respectful in our responses!
measles (anonymous) says…
I must admit I'm a libertarian as well, even a minarchist if you will. And while I agree that explaining how to apply an ideology to a given problem is not the same as explaining what it is, I also understand what it is to grapple with those who can hardly conceive of what it is you're trying to explain to them. Nonetheless, understanding what experiences and revelations lead you to believe as you do is sure to be an interesting adventure, if that is indeed the path this blog takes. And with all due respect, linking us to this particular Wikipedia article in response to the question"What is anarchism?" is like saying: I am a dog, and if you want to know what a dog is, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog What I'm trying to say is...what kind of anarchist are you? And most interestingly, do you consider yourself a collectivist or individualist? (Considering your leaning towards anarcho-communism and disbelief in the existence of anarcho-capitalism, I'd guess the former?)And remember, if it seems like we're picking on you, it's only cause we like you.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Dude?
billy (Billy Keefe) says…
Hey Dave! Keep at it. Folks will come around. If it makes you feel better I believe in armed anarchy, an even harder sell. (Now I will have to update my blog as well with my 'personal experiences' of meeting the NEA four, watching FBI observers at art lectures identify themselves - while I wonder how many homeland security agents failed to - and having to show 'valid' photo ID every time I enter a college, university, high school and even many libraries in the NYC area).