Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 04:14:07 -0600 (CST)
From: vespa<vespa-AT-mo.freei.net>
Subject: Re: Anarchism: Two Kinds


At 09:15 PM 12/13/99 +0000, Mumpsimus wrote:
>from elsewhere ...
>
>
>Anarchism: Two Kinds 
>by Wendy McElroy

<snip>

>Clearly, some definition is necessary. The self-proclaimed anarchists
>who proceeded to "direct action at the point of consumption"
>(translation: smash windows and loot) were left anarchists.

There's no such monster.


 >They
>were attacking an abstraction -- the free market - by destroying the
>specific property of individual shop owners.

They were symbolically attacking a very real object, global capital (made up of trans-
national corporations and currency speculators).  The "free market" and "market forces" 
are  abstractions created by organizations representing concentrated capital to dodge 
the acts of self defense brought on by capital's invasiveness. 


> The owners were guilty of
>wrongdoing because, well, they were "owners." 

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  Were this true, small shops would have been pro-
actively engaged much like the outlets of global capital were.  This was not the case.  In 
fact, the  pro-actively engaged symbols of global capital were targeted because of their 
monopolies of land and credit (based on their tremendous concentration of capital 
relative to the locations of their physical plants - whether production or retail), go back 
and re-read your Tucker.  And understand that the invasive force of these concentrations 
of capital rivals and in some respects surpasses that of the 19th century nations your 
beloved writers were living through.


>This is not American anarchism. Individualist anarchism, the
>indigenous form of the political philosophy, stands in rigorous
>opposition to attacking the person or property of individuals.

This is true, however corporations are not individuals.  corporations are instead 
fictitious entities created solely for the purpose of shielding individuals from the 
legal       repercussions of their acts.  As they are both immortal and relatively 
unassailable by virtue of their power (economic in this case rather than militarily), they 
resemble more closely nation states than individuals.


 >The
>philosophy revolves around the "Sovereignty of the Individual"--as an
>early champion, Josiah Warren, phrased it. Whether you prefer the
>term 'self-ownership' or 'the non-invasion principle,' the core of the
>philosophy remains the same.

Actually, on one hand this was symbolic self defense against the invasions of capital 
(again with land and credit monopolies), and on the other hand symbolic defense of 
sweatshop workers for the same reasons.  Therefore, the pro-active engagement with 
the symbols of global capital are non-invasive force.

<snip the rest of the misrepresentations>

Please, if possible, forward this to the writer, and whether or not she agrees with my 
assessment, have her re-read her Tucker.  She's way off base by claiming individual 
anarchists are not socialists.  Tucker tried to make it clear that anarchism was the true 
form of socialism.

cheers,
scott
anarchist individual


Get 100% FREE Internet Access from Freei.Net.  100% FREE, 100% Anonymous, 100% Jam Packed with features.  Check us out at http://www.freei.net.