Capitalism ≠ Anarchism

In recent years a ridiculous notion has been promoted in the United States. It's the idea that the philosophy of anarchism is compatible with the principles of capitalism. Proponents of this proposed ideological merger call themselves anarcho-capitalists, market anarchists, or agorists. And while anarchists around the globe may not believe in the seriousness of those proposing the merger of these philosophies, I remind them that the proponents we are talking about are primarily people within the borders of the United States of America. This is the same land that has also concocted the notion of “national anarchism” which promotes racial segregation. These are concepts from “the land of the free” – where more people are imprisoned in total numbers (and per capita) than in any other nation. So, as absurd as it is, I assure you that the idea of “anarcho-capitalism” is a real thing.

The Media's Spin On Anarchists

There has recently been a growing and disturbing trend whereby right-wing idealogues, organizations, and terrorists have been presented in the media as being “anti-government” or even anarchists. This effectively serves to confuse the public about the philosophy of anarchism and what anarchists actually stand for. And this practice will, undoubtedly, have negative consequences for actual anarchist communities.

This inaccurate media portrayal of right wing extremists really caught my attention after the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin – when Amy Goodman subsequently interviewed a former DHS analyst on the subject of “right-wing extremists.” In that interview her guest dismissed the idea that Timothy McVeigh was a racist and no mention of his Christian fundamentalism was put forward. He was described primarily as being involved with “anti-government” militias. This despite the fact that McVeigh constantly praised the Turner Diaries (a novel that romanticizes a race war), which he sold below cost at gun shows, and despite the fact that he was associated with the fundamentalist Christian Identity movement. And, actually, McVeigh was not really anti-government. Rather, he was merely opposed to certain aspects of the government currently in charge. So, while I am a frequent member of DemocracyNow's audience, I think Ms.Goodman dropped the ball in this particular interview and should have been a little more challenging with her questions.

More to the point along these lines... a prominent headline in the news recently has been about a supposed “anarchist” cell within the U.S. military which was allegedly planning to carry out political assassinations, blow up dams, and poison Washington state's apple orchards. However, despite numerous headline's referring to them as “anarchists,” when one looked a little deeper it was discovered that these "anarchists" were actually just “true patriots” who were essentially looking to take the country back. Later it was revealed that the alleged ringleader of the group was an usher at the RNC in 2008. Like McVeigh, this group seems to be comprised of fairly typical right-wing militants – who are not really "anti-government" and certainly not anarchists.

There is a difference between a declaration of martial law and a draconian crackdown...

I would like to challenge everyone to examine more closely what martial law actually is, and then... consider what has effectively been declared with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 -- especially when taken together with previous legislation like the Patriot Act.  I won't condescend to explain here what the NDAA or the Patriot Act is (follow the links), but I'd really like people to take a moment for consideration about the implications of this growing body of overtly authoritarian, and even totalitarian, legislation.  While most cities and towns don't have tanks rolling through their streets every day, and while curfews are rare, I'd suggest that there are more subtle factors to martial law than these things.  Additionally, while a widespread crackdown and purge of assorted "radicals" hasn't occurred yet, I'd like to point out that the legislation in question allows, and paves the way, for precisely that.  This legislation is, effectively, a declaration of Martial law by the U.S. government.  While arguably few people have been subjected to the worst effects of this legislation, the declaration has been made and many people are, basically and technically, existing in violation of current U.S. law.  If you are living within the borders of the United States of America, you are living under martial law at this very moment. 

Finally, while I don't want to argue too much about definitions... the U.S. has more prisoners per capita (and in total numbers) than any other nation on Earth.  Wiretapping and other broad surveillance measures have been codified by the state.  American citizens can now be arrested by the military, detained, and imprisoned indefinitely without the right to a trial.  All of this amounts to the very definition of a totalitarian police state.

Orwellian Surveillance, Spies & Infiltration

In George Orwell's world of 1984... were a billion people suffering from the effects of malnutrition?  Was a full seventh of that fictional population hungry?  Obviously things were rough in that fictitious world, but was it really that bad?  Was it hard for billions of people to find potable water to drink?  Were the oceans surrounding Oceania full of plastic?  Was the primary fuel source of Eurasia leading to a negative feedback loop in the climate (which consequently might raise the planet's temperature by several degrees within the next century)? 

I recall in the book that the proles were rationed low quality cigarettes along with imitation chocolate, and I know they were spoon-fed manufactured pop culture to keep them content... but did they really have it that bad?  I mean... compared to the reality of our world today -- in the U.S.A. and beyond. 

Chris Hedges advocates monkeywrenching?!

I stand by my criticism of Hedges for a previous article he wrote, but I've always been a fan of his work. And this time I think he's managed to hit one out of the park with his most recent Op-Ed for Truthdig: Power and the Tiny Acts of Rebellion.

At the very least, this article will make you think. And if more prominent lefties start moving in a more radical direction like Hedges has... human beings might not wipe themselves out after all.

He offers a somber and sobering look at humanity's current situation and he calls for acts of resistance to take place for the sake of personal dignity and a sense of self-respect -- if nothing else. He's not terribly explicit with his calls for sabotage in the closing paragraph, but it does seem to subtly appear in the text -- and that's a rarity for this time and place (as most prominent academics and journalists are only covering their own asses and trying to make a buck). Check the article out and see what you think he's getting at. It seems fairly obvious and quite aggressive to me.

Kudos to Chris Hedges for another excellent piece!

It was dehumanizing... completely.