It is frustrating how the mainstream media has always managed to avoid discussing any fragment of any political-philosophy. It's especially evident with the latest anti-globalisation protests. They nurture the impression that anarchists believe in a violent, chaotic society without any form of law or morals and that all communists believe in a Stalinist totalitarian state. The average person who only uses mainstream information sources is going to have an automatic and irrational fear by default. Keeping people in ignorance is the only way to protect themselves, I'm just glad that organisations like the IMC exist. People need an alternative and as long as the option is there I think that eventually people will wake up a realise that they are lied to systematically.

If anyone is interested in the issue of the community-scale anarchism and communism that developed Spanish civil war they should take a look at 'Homage to Catalonia' a book by George Orwell. It is a first hand account of his experiences as Militia member in the Spanish civil war and he documents the temporary development of a revolutionary societies that developed during the early stages of the war.

I nearly choked on my coffee here in British Columbia this morning when I read Rick Salutin's brief article in our national daily discussing anarchy without grossly misrepresenting and distorting it. Why? 'Cos the Globe and Mail is Canada's answer to the Daily Torygraph, The Times, etc. -filled the usual convergent corporate media-empire drivel. How Mr Salutin managed to slip this piece past the editor/publisher amazes me... I fully expect that Rick Salutin will somehow be punished for this outrageous act - I'll keep you guys posted over the next few days over the response from the media bosses; I think he'll get fired over this one!

Cheers,

Richard
Vancouver BC

Hence, many feel that "anti-capitalist" is not only good umbrella for the authoritarian+anti-authoritarian factions, but ALSO it is recognised that "anarchy" has been rather successfully stripped of any relevant meeting in the mainstream.

I myself only discovered I was an anarchist by sheer accident, hitherto have absolutely no understanding of the term and vaguely assuming it meant something akin to nihilism.

I think Chomsky said it all when he pointed out that if you asked most people the withouth mentioning the A word, they would agree already with the principals of anarchy.

So, one tends to ask oneself if the Black Bloc and a heap of other people as just the puppets of the state employed to ensure the concept of anarchy is associated with random violence and disorder and not the wish to improve the quality of live for everyone!

We do believe in something! we are democratic! We are pacifist! We are intelligent!

If that makes us revolutionaries, enemies of the state, targets, then so be it! But, surely our principals are bigger and more important than labels??? Labels that the state has ensured to equate a modern day Satan and hinder the masses from understanding the message!

It may seem like "qubbling semantics" but considering the tenacity of the unabashed and accomplished liars we are up against, does it not make sense not to make their job easy for them in their alienating of the "general public"?

I think the general public are in a state to be receptive no a new way of life.. hey, if I hear a continuity announcer of Channel 5 segueing "The Candidate" with the comment "Well, that was back in the days when people still voted!" and we look at the lack of faith in parliamentary democracy in the West ( The G8: is any of them enjoying true public support??? )... all in all, there is a palpable disgust for the state.

People want to hear, but have been trained to switch off when the hear key propaganda words!

:-)

U don't think the Black Bloc is that bad an idea.I mean it only uses violence against property and usually this is the property of corporations that have exploited people poorer and less powerful than themselves.I wouldn't necasserily loomat the damaging of huge transnational corperations as wrong.Anyway I'm only 15 so if someone can give me an argument against Black Bloc tactics I'll happily take it onboard.

On the subject of violence against property versus violence against people, which is a fascinating one. Property, of course, doesn't feel pain, which should make it OK to throw a brick at it. But I think that any true pacifist (I am not good enough to be one, sadly) would concentrate on the emotions behind an act of violence. If you are feeling violent, then does it really matter what you direct it against? You are being violent, full stop. Unless you can throw a brick peacefully, which is a bit of a utopian ideal. Instead, the act of destroying property while on a march causes a climate of fear around everyone, and, of course, seemingly justifies increasingly violent responses from the forces of "law and order". These then escalates until there's a pitched battle again. Having met so many loving peaceful protestors, I can't help feeling that their way is the way to go, since the police have obviously given up the moral high ground. "Seek not to overcome evil with evil, seek only to overcome evil with good" as one protestor at Mayday was proclaiming. She wasn't a Christian, but she liked the idea.

violence against property, where is the problem?

have we gone crazy when we wish to protect the very symbols that we wish to destroy?

violence against a violent police force, protecting the state and globilisation, where is the problem?

move beyond your middle class pacifism.

i do not want to be part of a bourgeois reformist movement.

protect your parents wealth at your peril.

do not expect people to follow you just because you happen to be middle class.

the middle class achieved their revolution through violence (the guillotine), then try to deny anyone else the same political expression; i wonder why?

The article above raises a number of issues I'd like to comment on:

Concerning the media coverage and the public reception of the term Anarchism and people declared Anarchists is only natural taking into account what they - the ones in power - are facing: A model of a society which will have no need for them whatsoever, a concept which has - contrary to communism - never discredited itself by disastrous failures to provide a way of living that is agreeable for all who are participating. In fact, as the article correctly states, all Anarchist communities in history were successful in organizing themselves in a way that was beneficial and agreeable to all who participated. Even today we find similar examples in squatter movements.
Thus it is no surprise, that those in power will do anything to discredit, marginalize, criminalize and destroy each and every Anarchist initiative that remotely looks like it could succeed.

As for the historical references, I'd like to point out, that the communists played a major role in the destruction of the Anarchist movement during the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s. It was them who systematically disarmed former comrades in arms and even killed them for no other reason than their unwillingness to submit to communist doctrine and collectivism.

Following this statement of historical fact, I would like to remind all of you out there, that communists are questionable partners on the way to a revolution. Most of them adhere strictly to a doctrine of anti-individualism expressed by their constant emphasis of (working)class rule and the submission of individual notions under the class collective, not to mention the general unwillingness to see other participants in the struggle than the working class, despite the fact that neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin or Trotzky were members of that working class. Stalin however was the son of a peasant (clearly working class) ... make of that whatever you want.

Still, we need to commit ourselves to solidarity with all those forces, as we do with environmentalists and even christians when they are part of a movement against the ruling class, but we have to be mindful of their - in my opinion - causal tendency to form their own kind of repressive regime ... be it as much based on the support of whatever formerly suppressed class as it may, the regime of the majority is still a form of rulership and has to be overcome!

Finally I'd like to add a few words concerning the nature of Anarchism.

As stated in the article above, Anarchists are _not_ by default unorganized, chaotic and violent. They are of course lawless, because law is nothing but the transfer of personal responsibility to an abstract entity like the state.
We can see clearly every day how laws do not deter people from stealing, robbing, maiming and killing. They just deem such practice unmutual and set up a framework of punishment for transgressors.
The most insiduous way laws work though, is that they hinder people from developing their own way of interacting reasonably with the world around them. By stating that killing someone is illegal, the authority of the state deprives each individual of the necessary development to realize that killing others is in itself a sociopathic behaviour ... thus murder might even become a statement of insurrection against state authority as seen in many terrorist organisations.
Only if there are no laws, can people mutually agree on a code of conduct beneficial for all of them. We can see that happening in every situation not governed by any law.

Sociological analyses of so called 'deviant behaviour' (particularly organised crime) show that such codes are indeed set up and work most of the time.
I don't want to speak out for organized crime in any way here, but use the example as a means to make a point. That being: Humans do not need laws to organize, to live together and to work towards a common goal.

Each and every one of you out there is practically an Anarchist in every social or other interaction where you do not draft a contract, act along the lines of the law or follow an order from an authority. Think of it and you will realize how many times a day that's the case.

In the end you will only face one very important question: Do I need laws or police to make me respect and not attack on someone else's life, health, freedom, belief or whatever?

If the answer is yes, you still need to reflect on your personality and your ethics

If the answer is no, then what are you waiting for?
Join the movement!!

We at the new Rightist and British patriotic student fanzine 'Student Resistance' find this debate very interesting.

The Anarchist (not only the 'Black Block' i would hasten to add!) elements within the 'anti-capitalist/globalisation' movement have only one aim in mind. They aren't concerned with the destructive social effects of free market capitalism upon the worlds population, exploitation of the third world, the economic stranglehold and the cultural dominance of global multi-nationals or the so called 'branding' of society by companies such as Nike, GAP, McDonalds (etc etc etc....basically they hate any company...multi and trans national or small businesses). They want to cause as much violence as possible..regradless of who they hurt or kill (including innocent people) or how much destruction they cause to public property.

It has nothing to do with ideology,removing the 'state' and state institutions from our society or replacing it with this wonderful anarchist existence (which in reality is nothing more than mob rule and intimidation and fear from violent thugs). It is all about violence for the sake of attention.

>right wing student libetarians
don't you have a lecture to go to?
or can you only manage to go on line and write the drivel you did above?