I was discussing anarchist theory with a friend yesterday and in the middle of the conversation he blurted out, "Damn it! We should start an anarchist political party...the Anarchist Party!" I told him to just join the Libertarian Party instead of trying to start all over but he insisted that there must be an anarchist party claim that LP isn't a viable party because of they've never fielded a good candidate for Congress or the Presidency or even Governor of some state (that I know of anyway).
But wouldn't an "anarchist" political party go counter to the very ideas of anarchism?
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
it seems as oxymoronic as "organized chaos" or "congressional ethics"
but seriously, there's an annual procrastinators club that keeps postponing the date (at least they're practising what they preach ;)
you could move to NH (just saw this in the Samizdata blog):
http://www.freestateproject.org/
The paint a target on your head party. The status quo preferably doesn't understand anarchism.
I'd like to brainstorm some names though. The Market-party, The Radical-liberals, The Revolution in Perpetuity-party, The Property Rights-party, The Due Proces-party, The S*i* Stops Here-party. Ought to make myself a "Slaves vote bipartisan" shirt, and nuisance myself.
Individualism Rocks
How about a "towards anarchism party" ?
Reducing government intervention to a point where they can say "Mission Accomplished" and disband the core.
I think you'd have to join the libertarian party at least until we have a libertarian president, since the anarchist party couldn't put forth a candidate.
There is nothing oxymoronic about an anarchist party president. The constitution of the party would only have to recognize that the office of president is no more important than the office of mayor of a small town.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
actually one could well-argue that a mayor has proportionately greater power than a prez
Depends on where you live. In most cities in Texas the mayor is rather weak. While he presides over the city council he really doesn't have any power but he can wield a lot of influence in the city.
kingmonkey:I was discussing anarchist theory with a friend yesterday and in the middle of the conversation he blurted out, "Damn it! We should start an anarchist political party...the Anarchist Party!" I told him to just join the Libertarian Party instead of trying to start all over but he insisted that there must be an anarchist party claim that LP isn't a viable party because of they've never fielded a good candidate for Congress or the Presidency or even Governor of some state (that I know of anyway). But wouldn't an "anarchist" political party go counter to the very ideas of anarchism?
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
If we are anarchists why would we want to take part in the political process? All the time and energy wasted in politics is time that could have been used educating others about alternatives to statism.
An anarchist party would make us look like kooks. I mean look at the general opinion of Ron Paul..and he is a moderate Libertarian.
kingmonkey:But wouldn't an "anarchist" political party go counter to the very ideas of anarchism?
Depends upon the purpose of the party. Most people assume that political parties are formed to get people elected to office. But if that's the case, then most, if not all, third parties should disband immediately and go home, including the LP. Third parties in the 19th century actually had the chance to become major parties (i.e. the Republican Party), but in the 20th century till now, it's much harder to become a major party. Instead, ideological parties like the LP, or the Greens, or the Natural Law party, exist to influence political debate and change how the major parties handle various issues.
An Anarchist Party could exist as an ideological party, but probably wouldn't do any better than the LP. Instead, perhaps an Anarchist Party could serve to interfere with the poltical process as much as possible: lawsuits, vote watching, protests, frivolous candidates, debates, etc. However, I think a true Anarchist Party wouldn't bother to organize as a party, but instead simply lurked subversively within the major parties to disrupt the process as much as possible. Imagine a group of anarchists, registered as Republican, being delegates at the Republican National Convention.
Still, all things considered, it might be more trouble than it's worth. The political process will not be easily deterred. Instead, politicians are more likely to react to changes in culture and society. Anarchist authors, artists, and musicians might be more worthwhile than anarchist politicians.
Two things that would work against such a concept are these.
1. If you think LIbertarians are a political minority, Anarchists are small in number even compared to vulgar libertarians. Libertarians have to work hard to get candidates on the ballot or even find people willing to be candidates. For Anarchists, it would be nearly impossible. The Internet may make the number of Anarchists look larger because geography is no obsticle in intertubeland. In real-world politics you need to have a certain number of people in a particular geographic area to acomplish anything meaningful.
2. If you think Anarchists are a tiny minority, the number of Anarchists who vote is even smaller. There are anarchist philosophers who promote non-voting out of either practicality or even morality. The anarcho-capitalist philosopher Stefan Molyneux has made the point that the strategy of greater freedom via politics has been tried for over 200 years in the United States and in that time we have gotten less freedom, not more. Perhaps it is time for a different approach.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
The strategy should be multi-pronged. No one action or tactic will topple the concrete and granite with which government surrounds itself.
Forming an Anarchist party might appeal to our senses, but using words like Anarchy only marginalizes our ideas. We understand what we are saying, but the average person has been conditioned to recoil at the notion that public government is not required. This way of life has to be presented in an entertaining and powerful way. Our government and marketing experts use propaganda techniques to modify our value system. We should do the same in defense of our ideas. The difference is that we would be connecting positive imagery with a truly positive message.
Property rights save lives, protect homes, reduce pollution, promote freedom, and encourage business to make teddy bears for children.
I have to agree with the multi-pronged thing. The statist have been using that tactic against us for 200 years. Today we have Fox News, Rush Limbaugh the New York Times, Democrat and Republican parties and all of their think tanks as well as celebreties telling us what to think.
I do see a need for the Libertarian Party, the LvMI, even Cato and other organizations. It would be good if we had some libertarian radio show host that could get nationally syndicated. We also need a good grassroots organization with dedicated members that will spend the money and energy to educate people about anarchy and what it really stands for.
kingmonkey: It would be good if we had some libertarian radio show host that could get nationally syndicated.
There are some. Free Talk Live is a show that has at least one anarcho-capitalist host. There are others as well.
http://freedomkeys.com/radio.htm
We must also not forget about podcasts as a way of spreading the message. I have learned quite a bit from the LvMI podcasts. Long term these podcasts may actually be more important. I think that "radio" in the sense we use use the term now is on the way out - partly because it is a victim of FCC regulation but also because it must now compete with new technologies.
GoRonPaul:The strategy should be multi-pronged. No one action or tactic will topple the concrete and granite with which government surrounds itself. Everyday people need to be educated about freedom and responsibility. Our ideas must become mainstream. Powerful political parties need to contain people like us (people who would to use the power of government to reduce the power of government) People like us need to form businesses that turn around and fund the expansion of organizations like the Mises Institute and DownsizeDC.org. As disgusting as it sounds some of us even need to get government jobs in order to bring about the change we wish to see in the world. Forming an Anarchist party might appeal to our senses, but using words like Anarchy only marginalizes our ideas. We understand what we are saying, but the average person has been conditioned to recoil at the notion that public government is not required. This way of life has to be presented in an entertaining and powerful way. Our government and marketing experts use propaganda techniques to modify our value system. We should do the same in defense of our ideas. The difference is that we would be connecting positive imagery with a truly positive message. Property rights save lives, protect homes, reduce pollution, promote freedom, and encourage business to make teddy bears for children.
Vulgar libertarianism at its finest.
kingmonkey:I was discussing anarchist theory with a friend yesterday and in the middle of the conversation he blurted out, "Damn it! We should start an anarchist political party...the Anarchist Party!" I told him to just join the Libertarian Party instead of trying to start all over but he insisted that there must be an anarchist party claim that LP isn't a viable party because of they've never fielded a good candidate for Congress or the Presidency or even Governor of some state (that I know of anyway).But wouldn't an "anarchist" political party go counter to the very ideas of anarchism?
Every party is already the anarchist party; its just a matter of what kind of anarchy. There is really no need to start a new party over it.
Anarchism is not a form of government. It is a discription of the nature of the distribution of political power. All humans begin life without political power. At some point, they gain the political power that is theirs by right (this corresponds with voting age I guess). The politician can gain additional political power for himself by convincing others to use their rightful, inalienable power to bestow upon the politician the limited right to lead. Does this make anarchy go away? No. The power still belongs to its rightful owners as it is inalienable. Government is a facade control. Reduction in instances of random acts of violence does not prove that anarchy has been subverted; instead the inability of government to completely erradicate random acts of violence constitutes proof that anarchy is the natural and base state upon which 'government' is founded. As such, all governments are inherently unstable. You may be an anarchist and still favor one political candidate over another. But if you want the government to be compliant to the fact that anarchy is the most primal relationship of man to man, then the right to secede must be acknowledged. But even if it is not, that won't stop man acting on his rights to attempt to secede if it represents his interests. That's why democracy is so powerful. It has slowly replaced monarchies all over the globe. It is more compliant to the nature of reality - anarchy.