The police shooting death of an Athenian boy has triggered a national uprising and ignited a call to global action.
"We chose this monument to democracy, this global monument, to proclaim our resistance to state violence and demand rights in education and work. (We did it) to send a message globally and to all Europe." — Protestor to Reuters reporter on December 17th, 2008.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Mark Eden
This 'death by cop' -- I use the concept loosely -- the failed 'takes' at the University, and the destructive violence were instances more of Durkheim's anomie (see Morton and strain theory) than of an applied anarchy.
Nice work, Cindy.
Mark
27 - Mark Eden
Merton, that is.
28 - Roger Nowosielski
Wow, Mark. Another fellow sociologist. You mean Robert Merton? Could never get through his Social Theory . . . Such an obtuse language.
Roger
29 - Mark Eden
You mean Robert Merton?
That's the guy.
30 - Roger Nowosielski
Durkheim was cool, though, especially the concept of anomie. In US of course, we don't have any of that. We have consumer goods to keep us happy. Perhaps you have to be an intellectual to be subject to that disease.
31 - Mark Eden
Perhaps you have to be an intellectual to be subject to that disease.
Nah -- I suspect that just as suicide and other destructive behaviors are not restricted to the intelligentsia, anomie is pretty wide spread and just below the surface even in the good ol' USA. Students do seem to make a party of it, though, as in the Days of Rage.
32 - Roger Nowosielski
Yeah, once you realize there ain't no future. But for that, you'd have to reach a higher level of consciousness, no? Of course, there are always pills.
33 - Mark Eden
So, you think that the intelligentsia has a lock on higher levels of consciousness? 'Events on the ground' bring this consciousness that our 'system' has no future for them to lots of people.
34 - Cindy D
Wow, I met Lenin's cheerleaders in Philly.
35 - Roger Nowosielski
No, Mark! I was being somewhat sarcastic. Besides, I was speaking of individuals qua individuals. Personally, I despite "intellectuals," especially in America. Because they're powerless here (compared to Europe, e.g.), they're also irrelevant. It's against the populist tradition anyway. People like Emerson or Whitman, or Twain have always had a greater appeal. But I don't regard them as intellectuals.
36 - Mark Eden
Did they whip everyone into shape?
37 - Roger Nowosielski
Hey, Cindy! You're back. I thought your last piece had exhausted you.
38 - Cindy D
Mark,
I learned something. Never tell a Marxist you have reservations about Lenin. If they wanted to be convincing, they should have not all three, began a passionate defense with clear love in their eyes.
Frightening!
They were awfully nice though. :-)
39 - Cindy D
Ha! NO but they had something great to say.
(Hiya Roger :-)
40 - Cindy D
They said they thought the Greek Communists are falling down on the job. (They are spending time disclaiming the riots and separating themselves.)
They felt if the Communists want to occupy factories they should contribute by doing something, instead of standing aside and criticizing.
41 - Cindy D
It was an Anarchist bookshop. Volunteers run it. Absolutely excellent experience.
I might write a news story tonight as I have news.
42 - Cindy D
I have to send them the quote where Lenin says that a dictatorship of one person works fine as a representation of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Apparently in their extensive reading they never heard of that quote.
(wonders if Leninist's aren't a bit of hero worshipers)
43 - Mark Eden
I might write a news story tonight as I have news.
Yes, please.
44 - Cindy D
hmmmm, anomie strain theory..I just took a look. I'm not familiar with it.
Here is my take, so far. They are putting pressure, pushing in a direction, to counter the pressure by authority.
45 - Cindy D
I met a young woman tonight who had gone there. She says they regularly will take over a building, for some cause., for, say 4 hours. The police don't arrest them. They come, watch, then it's over. She was shocked.
They said, they won't arrest anyone because they don't want to deal with a riot.
46 - Cindy D
They send a message that says, don't kill our children. (you kill immigrants, prisoners, etc.) Never kill our children.
47 - Cindy D
Okay, I'll write the story, after I investigate lol.
48 - Cindy D
Roger,
"Lancelot"??
(thanks for the kudos, you too Mark)
49 - Cindy D
Bah, intellectual snobs :-)
50 - Roger Nowosielski
Yes, Cindy. Perhaps one of the best that Percy had written. It's like a diary of a madman; will remind you somewhat of The Stranger. Anyways, some of my work you have is patterned a bit on that. By the way, "Love in the Ruins" is the one book I couldn't get through; everything else he had written I read. Do also look at the other references I gave you: Nozick's is a counterbalance to anarchistic thought; but the other volume has a great article on autonomy you should read.
Anyways, it's good you're back. You do know that you imbue this site with energy, don't you? So when you're gone for a stretch, I happen to miss it.
Roger
51 - Cindy D
(wonders if roger shouldn't better be spending his time locked away in a fortress far from the internet pondering deep thoughts :-)
52 - Cindy D
Roger,
Do you like Lawrence Block?
53 - Roger Nowosielski
Never heard of him. But what was the penultimate comment - a stream of consciousness.
By the way, I have a new idea for a novel. It had occurred to me only today. I've been dry and uninspired for a year. The BC may yet safe the day, or the life as the case may be!
RN
54 - Cindy D
I recommend this.
Block likes to write about the bad guy that you have to like. Think you can't like a hitman?
His other character is a burglar.
No Roger, not a stream of consciousness. It was an allusion to our first conversation.
55 - Roger Nowosielski
The problem with my writing, even fiction, I can't get insane enough. Even at the depths of depression, I'm rational to the core. It's a curse and debilitating too. I crave for insanity.
56 - Cindy D
lol, here you need a lesson from this woman on youtube. I love this woman she's a stark raving lunatic.
I'm off to write or sleep or read. cya later Roger :-)
57 - Cindy D
Dave,
...I thought I was an anarchist for a while, but on...learning more about human nature [first hand], I realized that anarchism is essentially an ideal which cannot exist in the real world...
Changing your statement, that's basically my experience. So, you rejected it from a reasoned position, whereas I did so simply became disillusioned with people and blamed them.
...anarchism is essentially an ideal which cannot exist in the real world in any form where it does not break down into tyranny, oppression and autocracy.
Some of these may be successful examples of arnachist-like communities. I would add the Inuit social model to that.
Anarchy is not a social system, even though the term is used that way. In reality it is an objective which you can travel towards, but never reach. In that sense I believe in it - society without government - but I realize that we have to be prepared to accept as much freedom and as little government as we can achieve within the limits of practicality and keep working on it.
For me it's a guideline of principles and practices that can be used to create a number of different social systems. I can imagine them taking various shapes. Therefore it is difficult to say what it is that can't be achieved. I could support a number of social systems that follow the guidelines of anarchistic principles, like anarcho-syndicalism. One interesting model is participatory economics (parecon).
As for the specific practice during the cold war of replacing democracies with dictatorships, I understand why it was necessary and see the validity of the reasoning behind it, even if I have concerns about it.
I'm glad you have concerns about it.
Democracy is an...inequitable form of government.
By this, I think you are alluding to the "tyranny of the majority". I don't think this applies as much to anarchism as much as Marxism. Maybe I'm wrong. This is what I think--by eliminating a state and making local communities the focal point of decisions, people could be free to move about to communities with like interests. I'm not opposed to direct democracy.
We could be off conquering and oppressing the world and still allow our own citizens a great deal of liberty. Conversely there are plenty of countries with neutral foreign policies which oppress their own people mercilessly.
I do understand your position. I don't feel like I have a great deal of liberty. I may have more or less liberty than someone in some other government. I can't say it's good enough. I sure couldn't call it freedom.
I think that most people can handle freedom because they understand that freedom comes with certain responsibilities.
I do too.
In any society there is going to be a small element of the population which does not choose to accept the responsibilities which come with freedom and that is why any functional society must have some basic laws and mechanisms to enforce them and protect the liberty of the citizens from potential abuse.
Let's say there always will be these people. Inuit, for example deal with them this way: "The laws which governed the Inuit were simple. The most basic law of every settlement was that 'no one may without reason avoid the struggle for food and clothing. He who does so is not allowed to starve; but he is despised and looked down on by everybody.' " (quote from the link above). We don't really know though, how most people would act under real freedom. There are inclinations created in a non-free environment that might be alleviated by actual freedom. I have found this to be true 100% of the time in my dealings and experience working with children, for example.
Let me ask you a question. In a true anarchist society where there are no laws and no government, what protects the fundamental rights of the individual to live, be free and have property?
In a true anarchistic society there are laws. They may be written, unwritten. No society can exist without rules, no household, no relationship. It is the way the rules are determined that is different. Rule-making is from the bottom-up. Society based on like-minded communities in smaller groups. Some suggest federating upwards as decisions effect a larger portion of the population.
And then what happens when a majority of the population decides irrationally that the practices of a minority group such as homosexuality or judaism is unhealthy or dangerous and must be suppressed?
I can't think of an example where this majority could arise. How could they even become a majority of a free country based on communities organized at local levels? How would they be able to pull this off without a huge propaganda system in place? Since the principles of anarchism (in whatever form) might become an inherent part of such a society there might be a different consciousness. How many freedom loving people would want to join such a group? I cannot imagine that any group that would try to take over wouldn't be put down by the majority of communities. I would relinquish pacifism to protect that kind of freedom.
Keep in mind that humans are not perfect, rational beings. And since they are not, how can you have a society without laws and structure which does not become oppressive? All men are born free, but it takes more than a birthright to keep them free.
Of course again, there are laws and structure. Just no rulers.
---
I was very unhappy accepting things as they are, to the extent that I became a reformist only, in a system I can't tolerate. My nature makes it intolerable. It led me to reject people in general and I eventually got rid of most people I called friends. Now I don't have to. And if even if I don't accomplish much, I think I'll manage to feel human again.
Thanks Dave. I really appreciated your respectful dialogue. I understand a bit more about your view of freedom and liberty.
58 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, more later, but let me make this point.
What you are basically saying is that we can be anarchists if we live like the Inuit. I agree. However, I don't want to live like the Inuit. I like having a society that's larger than family bands and not having to work my ass off just to get enough blubber to keep me warm.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
Dave
59 - Cindy D
Nancy who?
Me neither Dave. No that's not what I'm saying. They were merely an example of a social system had/has(?) anarchistic sort of structure.
I want the same things we have now--technology, medicine, science, and you know--IMAX. I need roller coasters too, I'm afraid
60 - John
Response to the comments:
I've been an anarchist since I was 17, I am now 31, I have drank maybe a handful of times and never done drugs or been into the party scene and worked my way through college. Many people discover new ideas and philiosphies in their teen years because that is the point where we are more mentally capable of thinking, and have more exposure to ideas that would be new (ever meet an anarchist toddler?).
I first started learning about anarchism when I was in high school and reading through my history book (I'm a history buff) and looking more into the Spainish Civil War. The Spainish Civil War (or Revolution) was an example of a working anarchy in the province of Catalonia where the anarchist trade union (CNT) had its stronghold in Barcelona.
Hell we have Noam Chomsky, it can't all be drunken 15 year olds.
61 - Cindy D
Mark,
"...an individual suffering from anomie would strive to attain the common goals of a specific society yet would not be able to reach these goals legitimately because of the structural limitations in society. As a result the individual would exhibit deviant behavior...
Anomie as a social disorder is not to be confused with anarchy. Anarchy denotes lack of rulers, hierarchy, and command, whereas anomie denotes lack of rules, structure, and organization. Many proponents of anarchism claim that anarchy does not necessarily lead to anomie and that hierarchical command actually increases lawlessness..." (source)
Is that sort of what you meant?
62 - Cindy D
John,
I've been an anarchist since I was 17, I am now 31...
The whole time?
Many people discover new ideas and philiosphies in their teen years because that is the point where we are more mentally capable of thinking, and have more exposure to ideas that would be new...
That's a good point. And, I wasn't a party person either. And worked to go to college.
My nephew (almost 16) adds grown-ups have forgotten what's important.
63 - Cindy D
Noam Chomsky :-)
64 - Roger Nowosielski
Cindy,
Did you get answer from Dave re: Nancy. I'm looking through the thread but can't find no reference to any such person. Nancy who?
65 - Cindy D
He forgot my name, got distracted, etc. He meant my post.
66 - Roger Nowosielski
No Cindy,
He's got my synopsis and a couple of chapters. It's slip of tongue. Apparently, I messed with his mind.
I be darned!
67 - Cindy D
Baronius,
Everyone wants later bedtimes and free beer. By the early 20's, most people figure out that life is hard and actions have consequences...
My nephew just wants to not have his creativity killed (his words). Wants people to stop denigrating him about his hairstyles. Wants to be a fair-minded person. Wants a world without racists. Loves justice. Wants not to be labeled ADD, with the huge burden that comes with.
He doesn't drink. His parents love him. And yet, he reached a point last year (thankfully briefly) where he couldn't imagine this is a world he could want to live in. So, about life being hard. I think anyone who has some empathy or stands up for anything their peers don't value, already knows life is hard.
I never hung with the party-hardy frat people. I'm not sure what values they have. If they are touched by injustice or much of anything. Maybe they dream in dollar signs. It's no wonder they don't feel angst though.
68 - Cindy D
Roger!
Unbelievable. That is too funny.
69 - Roger Nowosielski
No, Cindy,
I kid you not! He must be exercised by it. By the way, I myself picture you along similar lines.
You haven't asked me, I wonder, about the book project I had in mind. I know you were sleepy or spent by yesterday's rally, so it's all forgiven.
70 - Cindy D
Roger,
I don't think you knew Nancy much better than you know (with limited view) me.
Tell me about your book project. I have a project in mind now too. I hate writing. Ughhhh.
71 - Roger Nowosielski
Well, at least we had person-to-person. To truly know the other you've got to live with them a long while and even then there are always surprises.
By anyway, I was thinking of imagining the voices I hear on BC, dress 'em up, imbue them with flesh and blood, to make them into real persons. I think it;s kind of hilarious. All we have to go by is a written page. But who are they, really? It's not only hard to tell. The results, I'm willing to bet, would be quite surprising. And would we be responding differently once we knew who we were talking to. I wonder.
72 - Cindy D
To truly know the other you've got to live with them a long while and even then there are always surprises.
That sounds true. But, even b4 that, I think one has to be able to see what someone else is, not what one desires them to be.
I think that sounds like fun. Do you think you'll do it?
73 - Roger Nowosielski
For sure. My problem with NG we never got to the point so I did't have much of an option other than to picture her in my own liking, like Pygmalion and Galatea.
As to your other question, I'm not sure whether it's feasible. It would take a great deal of imagination but I think it's worth a try.
I'm disturbed however by what I perceive as certain resignation, about knowing the other person, that is. I've never had that problem in my personal life, although it's always been a bumpy road, live and learn.
But in light of what you seem to be implying, it's like a lost cause. What good are all our communications in terms of ideas, improving the society, making things better, if underneath it all there's no person-to-person knowledge. I find it depressing. And if that's mind-to-mind, consciousness-to-consciousness is all about, it's not good enough for me. There's got to be a point to it all, a climax of sorts, coming together.
Sharing of consciousness and no personal knowledge? It's not my idea of bliss. It's not only sterile but also futile.
74 - Roger Nowosielski
I'm done for today.
Talk to you tomorrow.
75 - Cindy D
But in light of what you seem to be implying, it's like a lost cause.
You think so? I don't think so. People are not necessarily what one needs them to be is all. Imagining they are only makes it impossible to actually know them.
Relating to one's imagined, desired, or projected image of another, blocks the view of the other. It can get one in trouble too.
This is all abstract stuff. I'm sure I missed your point.