In2-MeC

Prague, Czech Republic
17 August 2004

To complete what I mentioned here yesterday about my waiting in Prague for a Ukrainian visa, I did receive it--a visa good for 3 years, in fact. Tomorrow I am scheduled to depart Prague for Wroclaw, Poland.

From the Internet:

Anarchists' Convention Debates Voting

ATHENS, Ohio--A group of anarchists is taking an unusual step to make its political voice heard-�going to the polls.

Anarchists generally pride themselves on their rejection of government and its authority. But a faction of them fed up with the war in Iraq say they plan to cast anti-Bush votes this fall.

The voting debate was just one of the topics explored at the three-day North American Anarchist Convergence, which brought about 175 participants to Ohio University.

Some attendees rejected the voting proposal.

"Ultimately, those who are voting are either bad anarchists or not anarchists at all," said Lawrence, a "Californian in his mid-40s" who declined to give his last name. "No one can represent my interests. We reject political professionals. "

Others said they are embracing their right to engage in the political process, and plan to vote for John Kerry, Ralph Nader or anyone who can underscore their opposition to the Bush administration.

Susan Heitker, 32, of Athens, believes that the U. S. government is neither legitimate nor democratic, but she still plans to vote.

"To me, at least, it's important to vote," she said. "There was a time when I was not going to vote, but I really dislike Bush. "

Howard Ehrlich, of Baltimore, also embraces his right to "engage the political system. "

"I will certainly vote against George Bush because he is leading the nation to further violence and eroding civil liberties," said Ehrlich, who is editor of Social Anarchism, a 3,000-circulation magazine.

----------------

What's interesting about anarchism from the Krsna conscious perspective is that it is a form of idealistic negationism, like Mayavadi philosophy. Even though he may try to deny it, a strict anarchist is defined by what he is against, not what he is for. As you can plainly see from the above news report, as soon an some anarchists came out for voting in the upcoming US election, other anarchists were denouncing them as bad anarchists or no anarchists at all.

On an anarchist website, I found the following attempt by an anarchist to refute the idea that anarchists are only "anti" and never "pro".

Is anarchism purely negative?

Caplan, consulting his American Heritage Dictionary, claims: "Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing, namely government, is bad and should be abolished. Aside from this defining tenet, it would be difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold. "

The last sentence is ridiculous. If we look at the works of Tucker, Kropotkin, Proudhon and Bakunin (for example) we discover that we can, indeed list one more "belief that all anarchists hold. " This is opposition to exploitation, to usury (i. e. profits, interest and rent). For example, Tucker argued that "Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man. " [cited in Native American Anarchism--A Study of Left-Wing American Individualism by Eunice Schuster, p. 140] Such a position is one that Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin would agree with.

In other words, anarchists hold two beliefs--opposition to government and opposition to exploitation. Any person which rejects either of these positions cannot be part of the anarchist movement. In other words, an anarchist must be against capitalism in order to be a true anarchist.

Moreover it is not at all difficult to find a more fundamental "defining tenet" of anarchism. We can do so merely by analysing the term "an-archy," which is composed of the Greek words an, meaning "no" or "without," and arche, meaning literally "a ruler," but more generally referring to the principle of rulership, i. e. hierarchical authority. Hence an anarchist is someone who advocates abolishing the principle of hierarchical authority--not just in government but in all institutions and social relations.

Now, if you look carefully at how the author of the above quotation attempts to prove that anarchists hold to positive rather than only negative ideals, you will see that every evidence he offers entails "opposition to" something (e. g. government and exploitation). He shows nowhere that anarchists are "for" anything. So although he starts off objecting to a definition of anarchy as being purely negative, his own arguments only reinforce such a definition.

Prabhupada had a word for this: utopianism. I've explained previously in In2-MeC that "utopia" comes from Greek; it means "no place. " Hence a negative idealist like an anarchist or Mayavadi, who defines his beliefs only in terms of what he or she is against, ends up nowhere.

Being utterly anti-government, anarchism ends up advocating a society in which no one has rights at all. . . and this in the name of complete freedom! If government is abolished, then there is no law. If there is no law, then someone can be enslaved, someone can be murdered, all without worries for the enslaver or the murderer. A criminal can do anything he wants, because there is no such thing as crime in anarchy.

Without law, people will form packs, like those in which wolves prey upon other animals. They will hunt the weak and unprotected. The stronger the mob, the stupider and more violent it will be.

In a world of anarchy consumer products could not be produced. Business could not be done. Without law to protect people's rights, who could do anything that resembles civilized human behavior? There would be no peace nor safety for anyone. In short, anarchy can never work. Anarchists are servants of deranged, impractical notions hatched from minds that are too disturbed by frustration with an imperfect society. They have a very slipshod grasp of the realities of human nature. Ultimately their vision of ideal freedom is a vision of complete animalism.

 

<< Back