Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Democracy and Elections

Howard Zinn: Anarchism Shouldn't Be a Dirty Word

By Ziga Vodovnik, CounterPunch. Posted May 17, 2008.


In this interview, Zinn explains why anarchism is often ridiculed as violent and chaotic.
Advertisement

Howard Zinn, 85, is a Professor Emeritus of political science at Boston University. He was born in Brooklyn, NY, in 1922 to a poor immigrant family. He realized early in his youth that the promise of the "American Dream", that will come true to all hard-working and diligent people, is just that -- a promise and a dream. During World War II he joined US Air Force and served as a bombardier in the "European Theatre." This proved to be a formative experience that only strengthened his convictions that there is no such thing as a just war. It also revealed, once again, the real face of the socio-economic order, where the suffering and sacrifice of the ordinary people is always used only to higher the profits of the privileged few.

Although Zinn spent his youthful years helping his parents support the family by working in the shipyards, he started with studies at Columbia University after WWII, where he successfully defended his doctoral dissertation in 1958. Later he was appointed as a chairman of the department of history and social sciences at Spelman College, an all-black women's college in Atlanta, GA, where he actively participated in the Civil Rights Movement.

From the onset of the Vietnam War he was active within the emerging anti-war movement, and in the following years only stepped up his involvement in movements aspiring towards another, better world. Zinn is the author of more than 20 books, including A People's History of the United States that is "a brilliant and moving history of the American people from the point of view of those who have been exploited politically and economically and whose plight has been largely omitted from most histories" (Library Journal).

Zinn's most recent book is entitled A Power Governments Cannot Suppress, and is a fascinating collection of essays that Zinn wrote in the last couple of years. Beloved radical historian is still lecturing across the US and around the world, and is, with active participation and support of various progressive social movements continuing his struggle for free and just society.

Ziga Vodovnik: From the 1980s onwards we are witnessing the process of economic globalization getting stronger day after day. Many on the Left are now caught between a "dilemma" -- either to work to reinforce the sovereignty of nation-states as a defensive barrier against the control of foreign and global capital; or to strive towards a non-national alternative to the present form of globalization and that is equally global. What's your opinion about this?

Howard Zinn: I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization. In a certain sense the movement towards globalization where capitalists are trying to leap over nation state barriers, creates a kind of opportunity for movement to ignore national barriers, and to bring people together globally, across national lines in opposition to globalization of capital, to create globalization of people, opposed to traditional notion of globalization. In other words to use globalization -- it is nothing wrong with idea of globalization -- in a way that bypasses national boundaries and of course that there is not involved corporate control of the economic decisions that are made about people all over the world.

Ziga Vodovnik: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon once wrote that: "Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order." Where do you see life after or beyond (nation) states?

Howard Zinn: Beyond the nation states? (laughter) I think what lies beyond the nation states is a world without national boundaries, but also with people organized. But not organized as nations, but people organized as groups, as collectives, without national and any kind of boundaries. Without any kind of borders, passports, visas. None of that! Of collectives of different sizes, depending on the function of the collective, having contacts with one another. You cannot have self-sufficient little collectives, because these collectives have different resources available to them. This is something anarchist theory has not worked out and maybe cannot possibly work out in advance, because it would have to work itself out in practice.

Ziga Vodovnik: Do you think that a change can be achieved through institutionalized party politics, or only through alternative means -- with disobedience, building parallel frameworks, establishing alternative media, etc.

Howard Zinn: If you work through the existing structures you are going to be corrupted. By working through political system that poisons the atmosphere, even the progressive organizations, you can see it even now in the US, where people on the "Left" are all caught in the electoral campaign and get into fierce arguments about should we support this third party candidate or that third party candidate. This is a sort of little piece of evidence that suggests that when you get into working through electoral politics you begin to corrupt your ideals. So I think a way to behave is to think not in terms of representative government, not in terms of voting, not in terms of electoral politics, but thinking in terms of organizing social movements, organizing in the work place, organizing in the neighborhood, organizing collectives that can become strong enough to eventually take over -- first to become strong enough to resist what has been done to them by authority, and second, later, to become strong enough to actually take over the institutions.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: anarchist, howard zinn

Ziga Vodovnik is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, where his teaching and research is focused on anarchist theory/praxis and social movements in the Americas. His new book Anarchy of Everyday Life -- Notes on Anarchism and its Forgotten Confluences will be released in late 2008.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Democracy and Elections! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ideology is the past, not the future
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 17, 2008 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've seen what twentieth century ideology has brought - fascism, communism, neoliberal economic policies, and neoconservative militaristic policies. Anarchism is ideology. As usual, it is easy to find situations where ideologies become dangerously ridiculous - Aryan race ideology being the leading nasty example from the 20th century, with state communist and corporate fascist ideologies tied for second place.

Someone ought to write a People's History of the Soviet Union, just to compare side-by-side with a People's History of the United States - and guess what? The ideology is bogus window dressing! People in wealth and power manipulate ideologies to maintain their luxurious personal lifestyles.

Howard Zinn: I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization.

"-archy" is a strange word root - it shows up in architecture, and other areas, such as the "heirarchy" - as in "a structure that has a predetermined ordering from high to low."

In the ideology of anarchy, there is "no rule." What does that mean? No laws? Meaning that if someone kills, assaults, rapes, etc., that is okay, because there is "no rule"? After all, anyone who would capture and imprison the murderer would then become "the rule", right?

There is a great intro to the BBC film, "The Power of Nightmares" (available via Internet Movie Archive), which explains these 20th-century ideologies, their fall, and the new replacement: fear.

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed, and today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life.

But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us - from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand - and the greatest danger of all is international terrorism, a powerful and sinister network with sleeper cells across the world - a threat that needs to be fought with a War on Terror. . .


Second:
Howard Zinn: If you work through the existing structures you are going to be corrupted.

Really. Tell that to Dennis Kucinich, would you? I know that Zinn is a darling of the liberal left, but please - the most disturbing tendencies of people on the left (and the right) are to a) be uninformed about global affairs, and b) to engage in mindless hero-worship at the drop of a hat.

The key thing is to be flexible and fit different ideologies to different situations. You are sailing a ship, you need to coordinate with everyone else, so you pick a captain to call out the orders. You could also sail in a small boat by yourself, if you wanted. The strict anarchist principlist would never be able to work with anyone else, as they would spend all day arguing about precedence.

Let's say Howard Zinn gave a big talk, and I, like a true anarchist, decided to walk up to the podium and argue with him face-to-face, as he is no one special (anarchist rules!) and I have just as much right to be at the podium as he does (anarchist clause!) and then, everyone else gets the same idea? Should I listen to the crowd's opinion as they scream and throw things at me? No! - that would be democracy, not anarchy.

Ideologies are dead. What's beyond nation-states? Oh, green grass, the blue ocean, the yellow sun - and maybe you'll find a nice pot plant growing out there if you are lucky. It sure beats discussing Marxist theory with people who still think the Soviet Union wasn't such a bad idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nonsense piled on nonsense. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Most Certainly Not Posted by: pdxstudent
No anarchy no now no ever
Posted by: g50 on May 17, 2008 3:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've decided I am a hierarchist. You would want your intellect and capacity to reason to rule your impulses, no? Otherwise what's the point of any of our attempts to communicate & coordinate our action in accordance with ethics, etc. That's hierarchy. You would want the broader divine forces in the universe to rule the humans, no? Seems like that is a good argument against fascist Supermen. That too is hierarchy. You would want the range of acceptable actions & identities to be consistent with positive moral choicemaking, no? That's freedom, not anarchy. Anarchy? Intellectually stimulating, great way to challenge assumptions, ultimately bunk as a philosophy. Maybe not for the privileged to take on and hold dear, but for most people of course anarchism is privileged indulgence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank You for helping define What Anarchist really means
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 17, 2008 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just as the 'Moral Majority' highjacked the concept of 'Faith' and 'Values' - so did the Radicals who were filled with as much hate and prejudice as their counterparts.
'We the People' is th essence of the True Anarchist ideology. Where it is derailed is when one person (or persons) decides they must anoint themselves above all the rest - for their own 'Good'. BS as soon as one must placate another with concessions regarding Principles to 'Fit ' in to the Group ,the 'Base' supports & creates the reality & direction of the top is lost.
This 'Trickle Down' ideology is what ahs given the 'four horsemen' their Power over US.In religion, commerce, governance and information we are talked down to and Told who is to be 'revered'.this is the mentla plague and ensalvement of mankind.
this is why Obama's mere mention of where th ereal power lies with in society makes this Girl smile. He is ready and comprehends that he is an Agent for US, A Pubic Servant, a mere point to the masses and Our gaols.he is Not the 'leader' and certianly Not the'Decider' he is not 'Mother Knows Best' - he is merely a Tool for ALL of US!
the 'four Horsemen' (Religion, gov't, Industry and Media) had better Remember who not only butters their bread- but Gives them their Bread.All we need do is 'cut of their rations' and they will parish!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anarchy -- a contradiction of the worst kind
Posted by: HughScott on May 17, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anarchy comes from the Greek word, anarchía, which means "without a ruler." Ironically, anarchy expressed through social revolutions, labor strikes, etc., most often results in a ruler.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Castro come to mind.

To belittle those who oppose anarchy shows how arrogant anarchists can be-- "intellectuals" like Zinn, a multimillionaire author who claims to understand the misery of poor people whom anarchists manipulate for their own egotistical, power-hungry, profit-motivated ends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A better definition from David Graeber. And some words on anti-ideology.
Posted by: Coleman on May 17, 2008 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anthropologist and non-boring writer David Graeber provides a working definition of anarchism - and a brief history of recent social movements - in his long essay "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology" which is available for free here.

The main idea is that anarchism is an ethics of political practice. One of its maxims might be: Act in such a way that you advance the cause of a free society while avoiding coercion. Another might be: maximize those aspects of society that operate on free association between individuals and groups.

Critics understandably point to the apparent contradiction between anarchism and organization of any sort. It seems implausible that a large, complex society can avoid coercing anyone. However on this issue anarchism isn't in any more intellectual trouble than democracy itself. Huge portions of so-called democracies are actually not democratic at all, but the people who believe in (for instance) liberalism recognize this and work for reform. The institutions humans create will not perfectly embody our ideals, but the ideals still matter. Anarchism is in some ways allied with democracy, and in other ways has some things to learn from it, and in still other ways could teach us a lot. It taught me a lot.

Today, there is a popular notion that ideals don't matter, that we live in a post-ideological world. Instead, so it goes, we ought to let the experts administrate those things that they specialize in. If, for instance, health care is best/efficiently managed within the state, then let's keep it there. If car manufacturing is best kept in the private sector, then let's keep it there. The notion of post-ideology seems to be the ultimate truce between capitalists, the state, and citizens/workers. A basic standard of health, welfare, and human rights would (someday) hold this consensus together and make the truce agreeable for all. The workers get some standard of living and the corporations and the state get to work toward greater efficiency without fearing either each other or the masses.

I think that this notion is problematic. First, ordinary people have heard it before. If you haven't noticed, Americans don't have an 8-hour workday anymore (what those Haymarket guys were agitating for). And the beautiful gizmos that industrial society gives us in many cases increase our dependence on both the state and owners of capital. The automobile is a great example of that. We end up working harder as individuals to maintain them, and paving over our ecosystem in the process.

Corporate capitalism is itself a utopian promise that cannot deliver. The vast majority will toil for their whole lives at jobs that need not exist in the first place. Just because Starbuck's is an efficient, well-administered, and profitable entity doesn't mean that we have to have 5000 of them on every corner, air-conditioned, staffed by hundreds of thousands of people. This is the perfect picture of human potential in chains. This is the closing off of the earth's precious space for useless activity. [And yes, I do love coffee]

Second, I don't believe ideology is dead because I see it reproducing itself in the young people I teach. The vast majority of the beliefs they inherit are beliefs that (mysteriously) coincide with political passivity. They're taught that the ultimate manifestation of political action is voting. And, growing up in the suburbs, they're literally nowhere to go except the goddamn shopping mall. In this country, if you're not in a national park, a car, or a zone designated for consumption, you're probably trespassing.
And, finally, in mainstream discourse, the idea that things could be different is in every case equated with Soviet Communism!? Don't tell me that we're post-ideological.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of several buzz words
Posted by: Last Chance on May 17, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many years ago, right after the end of WW2, an Army Captain gave a little speech in our Town Hall and said "Beware of isms" and went on to explain how treacherously people behave when involved with any sort of extremist ideology. But it took me a long time to realize how right he was.

It's fine to give people your best advice based on your many years of experience, but the instant you identify it with some sort of organized code of ethics and strategy that cannot possible apply to all situations and has a long record of self-defeating violence, you defeat your purpose and destroy your influence.

It's great to study the works of various revolutionary writers, but remember that no human, nor any group of human beings, can possibly have all the answers. So, help the people as best you can, but don't spout a lot of highfalutin theories they may not understand or agree with.

I can advise people to work together to form a continental network of eco villages that farm for family and community and carefully surround themselves with miles of healthy wilderness, but if I label it with this or that ideology, or this or that religion, or this or that philosophy, I may as well save my energy for a walk around the Park. If Saving the Earth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm an Archist
Posted by: PaulK on May 17, 2008 12:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe in government. However, that's like someone saying they're a Deist. Which god or gods in particular?

I expect people, my neighbors, to form governments in order to provide for our common wealth and social happiness. This doesn't mean that I believe in massive electoral bribery, in pogroms against minorities or in tyrants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is anarchism? Has it ever existed in the past?
Posted by: nightgaunt on May 17, 2008 1:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anarchism is personal sovereignty. What does that mean. Think of yourself as a country that has boarders,resources and a seat of control--the brain. As long as you don't directly harm anyone else you can do what you want to yourself. The same with everyone else. It also means that groups can be created ad hoc as needed. I am willing to have a certain amount of gov't,just not too much as we have now. Too many laws can ruin a country creating so many more criminals than existed before. Just look at the USA at this time.

The islanders of the Carrabean where Columbus landed had a lassiez fair existance without any real central gov't. Or many laws and very few crimes. Columbus was "advanced" and found these kind indolant people to be ripe for plucking and he did. He and his kind of civilization killed millions in just decades of slavery and their work till dead ethic of Chrisianity.

I would be satisfied if we just had gov'ts that protected us by courts and a militia made up of us.All military training see Switzerland today.
Also the Nederlands too for certain elements of freedom that do not exist here in the 'land of the free.' A slogan growing more empty by the day. The 9th amenment covered this which is why it is ignored by all legal bodies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's ANARCHISM.
Posted by: Longdream on May 17, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anarchism is the political movement. Anarchy is the state of being without a central ruler--not as bad a state as we would think.

I've been around the Catholic Worker all my life. My parents were great supporters of the Worker, and we knew Miss Day, who when she wasn't on Staten Island, lived in the house on the lower east side.

Anarchism isn't an all or nothing idea. We all benefit when we act on archistic principles. For instance, there are Catholic Worker houses all over the world. The people who live there care for the homeless and people in need. They serve two or three meals a day to whoever wants to come and have them, and give beds to people on an ongoing basis. They take nothing from any government or any institution. In order to support the poor, they beg, as Jesus did.

There's also nothing "Catholic" about the Worker. You don't have to hear a tract or be anything or do anything except be civilized enough to live and let live in order to live there, eat there or work there. Miss Day came from the Catholic tradition, but she founded the Worker for everyone.

Catholic Workers are anarchists. I'm not going to say "we", because I'm just a supporter now, but they do what they do without a nod from any government, and they have no ruling authority except a desire to follow the principles that Miss Day set out, because they work.

Here's another example. There's a man named Jaime Lerner, who is now a professor of urban planning and architecture at Universidad Federal do Parana do Brasil. During the seventies and eighties, Lerner was elected both governor of the state of Parana, and mayor of Curitiba, a poor city on a floodplain in southern Brazil. He was a tireless planner and applied enormous creativity to Curitiba's problems. Rather than build an expensive levee system for the floodplain, the city purchased it and made public parks. When he couldn't afford to have the parks mowed, he called on the state's shepherds to have their sheep graze them, and then bought municipal sheep and hired the shepherds, who contribute the wool to be sold for children's causes. To clean up garbage-strewn slums which could not be reached by municipal garbage services, he exhanged groceries and transit passes for bags of garbage brought in by the people. To clean up Curitiba's bay, he paid fishermen by the pound for garbage they brought in. His rapid transit system which links the city's parks and their nearby museums is a showpiece, and he is consulting with the Chinese on their new system. He brought Curitiba from a dirty little downtrodden city to a clean, urban industrial center, making alliances with people and getting things done.

Jaime Lerner is an anarchist if ever there was one, thinking only of what is needed and what he and the people can do to get it. It is a lifelong ambition of mine to meet him one day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Urban Acupuncture Posted by: Longdream
Free Howard Zinn talks, mp3 format
Posted by: fanny666 on May 17, 2008 2:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Free Howard Zinn talks, mp3 format

My personal favorite is probably "The Myth of the Cold War"

This is an activist-run website, and so sometimes you have to be patient! If the links are not working, check back to Radio4All.net some other time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brief comment of the "anarchism" debate
Posted by: fanny666 on May 17, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of posters here are making the same mistake, which is to assume what the end-result of "anarchism" will be. This was also Marx's mistake, I believe. He (more so Lenin) thought that the end would justify the means and anarchist philosophers like Bakunin predicted exactly what would happen- what he called a "red bureaucracy".

The point of anarcho-syndicalism of the modern left is to focus on the VALUES of socialism and anarchism and apply them to current political problems, rather than to imagine an end-point and try to get there.

So, right now, we focus on the values of socialism (the true meaning of the term, not the meaning of those who use it for their own ends) which are solidarity, sympathy, sharing, etc. For now we focus on the VALUES of anarchism, as they are supposed to be which are mostly to be skeptical of the legitimacy of centers of power and capital, to be skeptical of any system of dominance coercion and control, and if they prove to be illegitimate: dismantle them.

OK, now bring on all the examples of leaders who have misused the terms "socialism" and "anarchism" as badly as Bush misuses the terms "democracy" and "freedom" ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Never mind - GLOBAL WARMING will level the 'playing field'
Posted by: Cathyc on May 17, 2008 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget about all the pedantic-semantic "isms". The wreckage we humans have en masses already done to the planet - the Earth on which we ALL depend - will indeed "level the playing pitch".

Make the most of what you've got already, because it ain't going to last for much longer!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good!
Posted by: arclight7 on May 17, 2008 7:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then let's start in Israel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a few grassroots movements
Posted by: e rice on May 18, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the kkk

neo-nazis

born agains

anti-abortion

to assume that in societies created by militaristic patriarchies, monolithic monotheistic religions, and mass ignorance any local organization is automatically going to work for the common good is, at best, naive.

to assume that societies beset with the untreated and misunderstood effects of trauma, abuse, and drugs (including ergot rye, that had great effect in europe in the 15-17th c.) are magically going to recocgnize what is needed for the common good and work for it is incredibly unrealistic.

to expect people who don't know how their electricty is created and supplied, who don't know where their water comes from, who have no idea how food is produced, to create a functioning alternate society is, again, incredibly unrealistic.

the basic causes of our failed societies are not miraculously going to change into commonsense and altruism.

ignorant, irresponsible, damaged people aren't going to create anything much different from what we have now. no matter what you call it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a few grassroots movements Posted by: Longdream
» RE: a few grassroots movements Posted by: antiapathy
» RE: Heh heh Posted by: Longdream
Nation States are Immature Forms of the State
Posted by: pdxstudent on May 18, 2008 5:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howard Zinn is a smart guy, which is why I am surprised at how naively he supposes that the dissolving of nation-states is replaced by lovely little collectives. The dissolution of the nation-state is currently being replaced by a greater social antagonism between the global south (including China) and the rest of the world.

In any event, nation-states are not the epitome of the state-form, because for Christ-sake they emerged out of nationalist revolutions. The world is on the brink of witnessing the global capitalist state, which is not defined by national borders or anything less than the global economy itself. These are the ultimate conditions of the over-throw of Capitalism, which had to saturate and transform every last human community on Earth before they could react to it, not the thoroughly nationalist motives still operating in the early 20th Century.

If anything, we're just seeing more of "all that is solid melts into air." It's the accelerating and global reification of Capitalist contradictions. All anarchist analyses of ideology, capitalist or otherwise, I have read or heard are shallow because they neglect the interplay between material conditions and ideological formations. In Zinn's case, he takes the nation-state as given as readily as any Capitalist ideologue, rather than see them historically, and sees the only alternative to it to already be some sort of utopia---while the capitalist ideologue supposes any alternative to be nothing less than apocalypse. Both lack any vision or will for change that arises from this world we ALL live in here and now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Idealists I Know... Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: The Idealists I Know... Posted by: Quannah
democracylover
Posted by: democracylover on May 18, 2008 5:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I too disagree with Zinn in this regard. Although I feel a bit intimidated arguing with the great and powerful Zinn, I cannot help but wonder how his philosophy differs (aside from the violent imagery) from that of Grover Norquist, who wants to shrink government to a size small enough to drown in a bath tub? How does Zinn's philosophy differ from the neo-cons who despise all government?

And I wonder what Zinn thinks about universal health care? Or Social Security? Affirmative Action? Or for that matter, paved roads?

Furthermore, I am confused by his call for anarchists to "organize" to fight government and tyranny. Aren't all organizations of people miniature governments of a sort? Zinn admires the decentralized nature of the civil rights movement, but even that movement had its leaders. You can't even have a meeting unless somebody take on the responsibility of scouting out a time and place to meet. Besides, our current government also has decentralized power-in the form of state and local governments- which has served us well.

Like other commenters responding to Zinn's article, I also must regretfully say that Liberals too often tend to idolize leaders and assume that they are always right about everything. With all due respect to Mr. Zinn, anarchy may have seemed like a good idea in the 60's, but today it appears that less government is harming us all in serious ways.

No one wants to be "governed." But it is the price we pay for a civilized society. Government is not set up to control ordinary people. It is set up to control criminals and sociopaths. In a properly functioning democracy, even a representative democracy, WE are supposed to be the government.

It is government's failure to act appropriately that has loosed George W. Bush on the world to wreak havoc. We need more government not less. We need a civilized impeachment and incarceration of Bush- and NOT a bloody revolution. It was deregulation that caused the Housing bubble crisis and savings and loan debacle, and the Enron melt down. It is a lack of regulation in Iraq that allows Blackwater to rape and pillage with impunity.

Besides, what about the rest of the real world we live in? If the U.S. were to just disband, would China go along with our Utopian vision?

I hope that Mr. Zinn realizes that anarchy is not possible at this moment or even in the next few years. I hope he realizes that it is at best a long range goal. If he does, then he should say so, and he should realize that modern democracy is probably the best bridge from monarchy toward the goal of anarchy.

The founding fathers may have had their flaws, but to me democracy is still the best system possible. Anarchy by its very definition is no "system" at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: democracylover Posted by: Quannah
» RE: democracylover Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: democracylover Posted by: Quannah
No one solution fits all.
Posted by: Sojourner on May 18, 2008 10:45 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anarchy, in my experience, is something that one talks about while accepting the benefits and perils of political society. Like Lennon's "Life is what's happening while you're busy doing other things."

"To everything there is a season" the old scripture tells us. A time to resist, and a time to cooperate. A time to dream and a time to work. As much as I admire Zinn for the good work he has done, I found little in this bull session of any value. How about "a time to retire"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's Anarchism. Posted by: Longdream
Open source culture
Posted by: Sum Won on May 19, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Centralized bureaucracies of government, unions and corporate management are all dependent on an industrialized workforce to justify their existence. It is in their interest to support and maintain the industrial model and wage slavery in the same manner that the aristocracy did feudalism and the serf. Howard Zinn proposes we organize ourselves "in a way that represents in miniature the ideal of the future egalitarian society."

The intermediaries that currently function as a ruling class to manage the current economic and political systems could be substantially reduced by embracing open vs closed systems. In an ironic twist the ruthlessness of capitalism should not be constrained to only eliminating the mass industrial workforce. Why not eliminate the remaining expense of the intermediaries between the means of production and the individual consumer? Do they contribute sufficiently to justify the disparities and scarcity that result. What if instead of the current banking fiasco, where profits have been capitalized and losses socialized we had had open system banks?


Could knowledge technologies combined with open source culture be considered the beginnings of an anarchist model that provides communities with the tools by which one can become more self sufficient and less dependent on wage slavery?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Open source culture Posted by: Dboy
We don't always need leaders.
Posted by: tatamchwh on May 21, 2008 10:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a bumper sticker common on cars owned by authoritarian personalities, "lead, follow, or get out of the way". My response is, "we don't always need leaders, we don't always need followers, and it's not always your way." Anarchism doesn't mean no rules, it means no rulers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But.......................... Posted by: oceanwaves99999
mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Jun 3, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, there are males, and given that reality, there will always be those who, after getting over the shock of not being born as gods on earth, and not even having the godlike ability to bring forth life, do the next best thing: wage war.

And given that we will always have war, the rest of us will try to defend ourselves. It isn't as though people can get together and build walls around a city or some such; the world is now exceedingly complex in its power structures and equipped for utterly unconscionable ways to wage war on others. The CIA alone has developed stuff the would curdle your mind....literally.

That being so, agreements, treaties, and all the rest of it would come into play, and before you know it there's another State.

It would help if there were an international law that a State could be only so big and have only a certain amount of the world's wealth, but that will never happen. Greed and the lust for power would prevent that's ever being accepted. What would happen worldwide, oh say, with the trafficking of women and children, is that it would be even more prevalent that it is now. If not actual murder, then soul murder, if only for a moment's pleasure. Among other things

Anarchy? I don't think so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]