user preferences

Crash the tea parties!

category north america / mexico | miscellaneous | opinion / analysis author Sunday March 28, 2010 04:04author by anarchist Report this post to the editors

On April 15th thousands of right-wingers will attend rallies in cities and towns across the United States.

The organizers of this nationwide day of protest call it a tea party. This tea party movement that emerged only a year ago is a coalition of conservatives, anti-semites, fascists, libertarians, racists, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, homophobes, ron paul supporters, alex jones conspiracy types and american flag wavers. If the tea party movement continues to grow in size and strength there is a big chance they will dominate this country in the near future. If the tea party movement takes over this country they will really hurt poor people by getting rid of social programs like food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, student aid, free health care, etc. The tea party movement will say these programs must be gotten rid of because hard-working taxpayers cannot afford to pay for these things especially when the economy is in a depression. There are three options we have with the tea party movement:

1. Organize counter-protests against the tea party demonstrations, same time, same place. This is probably the best option. We need to get in the streets on April 15th and show the tea party movement that there are lots of people out there who oppose their agenda.

2. Get individual tea party protesters to leave the right-wing and move to the left politically. That would involve passing out stuff like this at the tea party demonstrations:
http://www.anarchist-studies.org/node/299

3. Ignore the tea party movement. This is the worst option because without anyone opposing them they could easily gain power.

Some good articles critical of the tea party movement:
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16198
http://www.truthout.org/william-j-astore-a-very-america...56201

Tea party websites, so you can spy on them:
http://taxdayteaparty.com/
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
http://www.reteaparty.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests

author by republicanbalck - nonepublication date Sun Mar 28, 2010 07:35Report this post to the editors

No surprise the tea party is really the republican party or what's left of it. Now its a haven for racist and bigot to target political figures. That's it, nothing else. Check out this article on the tea party exploitation of the conservative agenda, its pretty interesting

http://bit.ly/a6Hb9F

author by Sisyphuspublication date Mon Mar 29, 2010 03:50Report this post to the editors

I can not grasp how an anarchist can justify supporting a large, centralized government just because it is doling out welfare checks and free stuff to people. Haven't you read Proudhon? Don't you get it?

As to right and left...

Anarchism promotes the far right wing philosophy of eliminating government. Communism and Fascism are far "left" because they seek total government dominion. The Constitutionalists and most tea party folks are actually political centrists. They seek to limit the government to a small and controlled form.

Don't you realize that no real anarchist would support the existence of a large central power, even if that power was handing out free stuff? Don't you know that you cannot give something to somebody without forcibly taking it from another?

If you are a communist or fascist, you have a right to your beliefs but you should not lie to others about them. But then, most people that I have met that call themselves "Anarchists" wear the title like jewelry while having absolutely no understanding of the philosophy that they are supposedly following. Anarchist groups in Seattle are interconnected with the Communist Youth Brigade and other totalitarian organizations and I have seen them actually counterprotest THEMSELVES. You cant have it all man! If you are an anarchist, you cannot be for Obamacare, or the IRS, or the department of Education, or the FDA, DEA, EPA, SEC, USDA, ATF, FBI etc!

Thats like first semester stuff man!

Anarchism cannot be served by closet totalitarians leading the herd astray to socialism. Not that I care a great deal mind you. Anarchism is a thought exercise, not a viable system because it is not a structure but an absence power.... A vacuum. It is a violent wave of misdirected energy that removes but does not replace power. Historically It is a tool used by power mongers to create vacuum for their own brand of control.

author by lostpublication date Mon Mar 29, 2010 05:23Report this post to the editors

anarchism far right? since when anarchism is ONLY about destroying government? and what about private property mister? Fascism far left? what a fool! You're right, some people wear anarchism as if it was jewelry... go back and read something before talking about stuff you don't quite get!

author by mikepublication date Mon Mar 29, 2010 07:14Report this post to the editors

Anarchy = "without ruler", Absence of government

author by anarchist communistpublication date Mon Mar 29, 2010 07:36Report this post to the editors

Sisyphus, you claim to know what anarchism is; but you base your understanding of it on media slanders of it in the last 150+ years. Anarchism is a form of socialism that developed out of the socialist movement in the mid 1800s. Here are some of the key theorists of anarchism from the 19th and early 20th century describing it:

Peter Kropotkin, Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Ideals
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin....html

Mikhail Bakunin, Stateless Socialism: Anarchism
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/bakunin/s....html

And here is a great reference heavily researched and cited on what anarchism is:

An Anarchist FAQ
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

And here is an excellent book describing that history:
Black Flame: Th Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism
http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/black-flame-...erpt/
Available for purchase here:
http://www.akpress.org/2007/items/blackflameakpress

Regarding the ends of anarchism, yes we want to abolish the state; but since the 1860s the vast majority of anarchists have worked to build a mass movement from below comprised of the popular classes that can force the elite classes to make concessions that benefit us as we build our capacity, consciousness and solidarity as popular class movements. Eventually through the class struggle, we aim to destroy all heirarchical relations of power, expropriate the elite classes of the means of production and in its place organize the economy and society through popular institutions of direct democracy and socialism (or for most of us communism) without the state or the capitalist classes governing us from above.

author by Theascen - N/Apublication date Mon Mar 29, 2010 08:20Report this post to the editors

Anybody that starts this out calling anyone a flag waver is communist, socialist or fascist. (Not American) Their time will come. Calling someone homophobic is the same as saying they are heterophobic. Someone who doesn't like guns are afraid of them and rightly so does not deserve one then. It Goes both ways. Anti-Tea party rhetoric taunting the Tea Party group by calling them these names on the web are no more right! It seems to me they are being blamed for your/others slanderous statements without proof. No where are there blogs with Tea Party slandering you or being as detailed as you have been. So call the kettle black.

author by Sisyphuspublication date Mon Mar 29, 2010 18:20Report this post to the editors

I appreciate the information and will digest it fully over time. I apologize for the veering off topic but I am fascinated with this discussion. If there is a forum that we could move this to, I would enjoy continuing in greater detail.

I am curious to see if the philosophy can resolve the issues that I understand it to have. My core belief is in the primacy of the individual which prevents me from accepting philosophies of slavery, but I am keen to explore all subjects and viewpoints.

On the surface, proposing socialistic anarchy seems like saying you want to have sex for virginity. On the actual political spectrum, (not the media/pundit spectrum), Communism and Fascism are both forms of totalitarian socialism and sit on the absolute left. Individual liberty on the other hand is absolute right. I am a minimalist or centrist in that I see an ideal government having a narrow set of responsibilities and powers that are explicitly delineated to safeguard the lives and liberty of the people.

Either you want a small group of people deciding how to run the show with your property, or you do it yourself. When you empower a small group to direct the resources of the masses, you create oligarchy.

The ideal we share is to have no establishment of a ruling class. You cannot have socialism without a ruling class because the concept of collectivist regimes is to have centralized control of resources through planning. The oligarchy controls the planning through its functional wings: the ministers, industry controllers and central bankers. Like it or not, these guys are not on the side of the unwashed masses. They are on their own side, pursuing their own interests and agendas without your input or consent.

The concepts of 'collective rights' and 'collective property' are oxymorons. If the right or the property are not in your direct individual control, they are in somebody else's direct control and in fact, become somebody else's prerogative and property. Throwing in the democratic process only exacerbates the situation through creating class warfare and other divisive means to play the votes. Democracy ends up being tyranny of the majority and devolves into proverbial anarchy. Of course the vacuum is always filled by oligarchy.

The most horrific aspect of socialism to me is the elimination of the individual's property ownership. This eliminates the peoples self determination and eliminates private production. A system where people cannot save resources and produce the works of their own imagination is slavery. In this system you cannot choose your career, your home or your own way of life.

I cannot buy the whole "property is theft" argument when the obvious outcome of the elimination of private property is theft from the individual. The core of property ownership is the ownership of yourself. If you cannot own property, you cannot own yourself. If you do not own yourself, somebody else owns you.

author by lostpublication date Tue Mar 30, 2010 00:22Report this post to the editors

Mmmm... Sisyphus and Theascen seem to believe anarchism is some form of vague philosophy that fits any capricious and whimsical idea one wants to put forward. But anarchism more than a philosophy is a social movement and no matter how wonderful your ideas may be (which I don't agree with) anarchism has developed as a working class revolutionary movement for 150 years and this is the starting point for any definition of the movement. As such anarchism is not just the denial of government, but the denial of all forms of oppression and one of the most unjust forms of oppression is individual property over the means of production. We can discuss if this is right or not, but anarchism HISTORICALLY has denied both government and capitalism, in spite of marginal figures like Tucker who defended private property and called themselves anarchists -now, that's an oxymorron!

I recommend you folks the links provided by the anarchist communist friend in a previous comment.

Finally, isn't it an irony that Sisyphus starts his first comment by saying in an authorative fashion "Haven't you read Proudhon?" while he finishes his second comment stating "I cannot buy the whole "property is theft" argument when the obvious outcome of the elimination of private property is theft from the individual"?

Now Sisyphus... have you ever read Proudhon?

author by anarchist communistpublication date Tue Mar 30, 2010 02:09Report this post to the editors

While I disagree with your political spectrum (Facism has always been associated with the far right and anarchism with the far left), I think that we could discuss it further on these forums: http://anarchistblackcat.org/. If you register for an account, I'd be happy to discuss it further with you.

But just briefly, "right" and "left" came out of france in the 18th century. "Right" was associated with the aristocracy, monarchs, royalty and elites, while the "left" was associated with the popular masses. And I think that the class struggle has been the defining feature of left an right, though it gets real muddled at times. Usually right libertarians argue for getting rid of all of those features of government that protect the poor and working classes from the wealthy and elite classes; but uphold all of those features of government that allow the wealth and elite classes to continue to dominate. Usually the "freedom" that right libertarians talk about involves the freedom to dominate and exploit others (for example in capitalist enterprise). Bakunin and others argued that neither State Socialism or Capitalism would be desirable: "Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, but socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality". Free socialism is bringing democracy to the economic sphere, like a public library system accountable to directly democractic control.

Anarchists want to bring direct democracy (without an oligargichic group or bureacracy or elite class control) to not only society in general but to the economic sphere as well. We argue that dictatorship in the economic arena makes as much sense as it does in the political arena: none. We argue for an ending to all forms of illegitimate hierarchical relations, domination, exploitation and oppression.

Again I'd refer you to: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html that answers a lot of the issues you bring up regarding the historical anarchist movement; in particular, I'd suggest reading through section B.1.2 Is Capitalism Hierarchical: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB1.html#secb12
but we can also continue discussion if you want to go to the forums I suggest.

author by Hugh De Payenpublication date Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:51Report this post to the editors

Most of the known KKK members in government in the past have all been Southern democrats....

author by Superbadpublication date Fri Apr 02, 2010 04:45Report this post to the editors

So...you're ORGANIZING counter protests? Uhm, doesn't having a leader for organizing the protest COUNTERACT being an "anarchist?" Just saying...

author by nestorpublication date Fri Apr 02, 2010 16:17Report this post to the editors

Superbad, the whole point of anarchism is that we don't need leaders to organize things for us... People all over the world are perfectly capable of organizing themselves to do whatever it is they need to do.

author by lolabullpublication date Thu Apr 15, 2010 06:54Report this post to the editors

This really is like trying to have a conversation with a two year old. Ok, let me explain this for the enth time.....Tea Partiers are made up of Republicans, Democrats, and independent voters. Why anyone would want to "infiltrate" a group of peaceful people with solid and understandable issues concerning government is beyond me. I guess I'll assume that those who have a problem with Tea Party protestors also take issue with movements such as the anti-war movement of the late 60's/early 70's, SEIU, ACLU, PETA, Greenpeace, gay rights and ACORN protests as well? And by utilizing such silly shinanigans of which Rules for Radicals is responsible for only increases separation and divides us all the more further. Why do this unless that's precisely the intent?

author by John Marengo - Unemployed guy in housepublication date Sat Apr 17, 2010 03:41author email john42m at charter dot netReport this post to the editors

left right guy , what the hell are you talking about? You must Be fascist. Realy, thats right wing. Maybe you live in the Parallel universe but things are backwards.

author by John Marengo - unemployedpublication date Sat Apr 17, 2010 03:50author email John42m at charter dot netReport this post to the editors

In these days, baggers would be called isolationist.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
“ The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

author by John Marengopublication date Sat Apr 17, 2010 04:03author email john42m at charter dot netReport this post to the editors


Todays right wing.

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/fascism.html

author by John Marengopublication date Sat Apr 17, 2010 04:28Report this post to the editors

Ananarchist, rebels against established ruling power. i.e. Tea bagger. Tea baggers are not the ruling party and never will be! I will not allow my great nation to go fascist. I'd rather fight than switch!!

Number of comments per page
  
 
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
Revista "Socialismo Libertário" num. 2

Latest News

North America / Mexico | Miscellaneous | en

Mon 21 Apr, 10:04

browse text browse image

textCanada: Anarchists scapegoats for RBC arson 00:53 Sun 23 May by Common cause 0 comments

healthpamphletcover.png imageA New Center of Trauma? 19:40 Sat 01 May by s. nappalos 0 comments

textCommon Action General Assembly Report 12:40 Wed 30 Sep by Common Action External Secretary 0 comments

textSan Francisco Transit Fight 09:19 Wed 07 Sep by Tom Wetzel 0 comments

textDemonstration against the Capitalists! 06:24 Thu 09 Jun by neo 0 comments

Opinion and Analysis

imageThe Illusion of Choice Oct 02 by Lorsen 0 comments

imageSome Objections To Occupy May 1st Apr 24 by Juan Conatz 1 comments

textSome remarks about Obama & Co. Jan 23 by Kevin S. 1 comments

textCanada: Elections: all we can hope for? Nov 25 by Scott Neigh 0 comments

imagevideoChomsky - the Vote in USA Elections Oct 28 by Dermo 2 comments

more >>
© 2005-2014 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]