A couple years back when I was working toward a philosophy major in college, I wrote a rebuttal on the section of The Anarchist FAQ that covers anarcho-capitalism. I removed the rebuttal from the web because I didn't have the time or inclination to continue to maintain it or expand upon it. Three years later, I've come to find myself disagreeing with my old rebuttals and agreeing with the FAQ. What follows is my story.
This article is an attempt to investigate certain problems of the left via the lens of micropolitics and macropolitics, terms first introduced by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (henceforth D&G). Faced with the challenging nature of texts from post-structuralist thinkers like D&G or Foucault, many people make the assumption that they are really motivated by an elitist desire to confuse, intimidate and befuddle the masses and divert theory into useless abstractions, far removed from the concerns of ordinary people for social transformation and liberation from oppression and exploitation.
Very often a scientist’s personal life contradicts all of their theories. But we’re taught that only certain types of arguments can be taken seriously. It’s very similar to economics. In our everyday lives, we do a lot of things because we care about people, or sometimes because we hate people, but which make no sense by economic logic. But when you want to look ‘scientific,’ you have to pretend that everybody’s motivated by rational means. And somehow ‘rational’ means selfishness.
No doubt that workers' control of the means of production would offer a great improvement over today's society, but in An Anarchist FAQ Iain McKay has not properly considered the facts of (pre)history and the origins of hierarchy, and so 1) falls short of his own ideals, 2) lacks the necessary ecological context.
As I watch so many on the “Left” gleefully attacking (and fat shaming) New Jersey governor Chris Christie while ignoring/apologizing for/defending/voting for the corporate funded, ecocide promoting war criminal currently occupying the White House, I couldn’t help but -- yet again -- dig out some truth to be repeated.
Asheville Fm radio, based in western North Carolina, aired a fascinating interview with an anarcho-syndicalist named Denys, from the Autonomous Worker’s Union in Ukraine. In the interview, Denys debunks many of the myths surrounding the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine, and explains motives behind the stories and propaganda being circulated around the protests.
Happy new year! Hope everyone has a good 2014. First post of the year, namely a review of Alex Prichard’s Justice, Order and Anarchy: The International Political Theory of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (Routledge, 2013). As yous will see, I think it is rather good. Hopefully this will see the start of a general better understanding of Proudhon’s ideas in the English speaking world – at the very least, within anarchist circles.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), the first person to proclaim himself an anarchist, is rarely treated with respect. Thanks to various hatchet-jobs (Marx, Schapiro, Draper), if he is mentioned it is often with contempt but usually with incomprehension. The notion that he was contradictory is so well engrained in the secondary literature (itself usually based on repeating previous secondary sources) that what Proudhon actually argued is lost. It is so bad that many people think he advocated ideas he publically refuted holding.
Chomsky said that recent economic doldrums, however, are not isolated phenomena, but rather the product of decades of economic policies pursued by American elites. Some of the major changes included the signing of World Trade Organization treaties, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the deregulation of major industries, he said.