ANARCHISM, A LONG PEDIGREE.

       How far back does capitalism go? It has been practised as an economic system for several hundred years, over that time it has developed and refined its procedures and institutions but has failed utterly to eliminate poverty in any one country, even the most developed, America and Britain for example. As it draws wealth to the centre, the periphery suffers, be it city, country or continent, it does not and cannot spread wealth evenly. It is a system that never has and never will see to the needs of all the people. It has been tried and it has failed miserably.

       Anarchism goes back much further, at least to the first century BC. It has only been tried in small pockets on the planet and though where tried, it did see to the needs of all its people, it was always crushed by the power hungry authoritarians. A way of organising society that has persisted for more than 2,000 years, which advocates tolerance and self-sufficiency, is surely worth a try today.

     The earliest  anarchist were probably the Cynics of ancient Greece who scorned all power structures, wealth and adherence to to convention.

     The following is a short extract from Fearless Speech by Michel Foucault, page 120, published by SEMIOTEXT(E)

     There is, however, very little positive doctrine in Cynic preaching: no direct affirmation of good or bad. Instead, the Cynics refer to freedom (eleutheria) and self-sufficiency (autarkeia) as the best criteria by which to assess any kind of behaviour or mode of life. For the Cynics, the main condition for human happiness is autarkeia, self-sufficiency or independence, where what you need to have or what you decide to do is dependent on nothing other than yourself. As a consequence -- since the Cynics had the most radical of attitudes--they preferred a completely natural life-style.  A natural life was supposed to eliminate all of the dependencies introduced by culture, society, civilization, opinion and so on. Consequently, most of their preaching seems to have been directed against social institutions, the arbitrariness of rules of law, and any sort of life-style that was dependent upon such institutions or laws. In short, their preaching was against all social institutions insofar as such institutions hindered one's freedom and independence.

ann arky's home,

A NEED FOR A DEBATE.

Food for thought from AdBusters:

Dear occupiers, jammers, dreamers,

        Three years after the May 1968 uprising that swept the world, the great French philosopher Michel Foucault observed that a key strategy of power is to “appear inaccessible to events.” Power, Foucault argued with a nod towards 1968’s failed insurrection, acts to “dispel the shock of daily occurrences, to dissolve the event … to exclude the radical break introduced by events.”

       Forty years later, in light of Occupy, Foucault’s observation still strikes home. Despite achieving the impossible at unprecedented speed – sparking a global awakening, triggering a thousand people’s assemblies worldwide, and giving birth to a visceral anti-corporate, pro-democracy spiritual insurrection – Occupy is now struggling through an existential moment. Our movement has been dealt a blow: our May 1 and follow-up events have been dissolved by power; the status quo has shown itself to be far more resilient than many of us expected.

         Now a passionate debate is emerging within our movement. On one side are those who cheer the death of Occupy in the hopes that it will transform into something unexpected and new. And on the other are patient organizers who counsel that all great movements take years to unfold.

Continue READING:

ann arky's home.