Trying to Untangle Anarchist Attacks On Scientists 333
bricko writes with an analysis at New Scientist of recent violence by self-described anarchists against scientists or scientific establishments, including the non-fatal shooting in Genoa in May of the head of a nuclear energy company. That attack "was the latest in a series of alleged anarchist attacks on scientists and engineers, including the attempted bombing of nanotechnology labs in Switzerland and Mexico. This wave of politically motivated violence has raised the question: why do anarchists hate science? Beyond the unsubtle threat of brute force, there are deeper issues that merit attention." The "hate science" line is just a line; the author is under no illusion that there is a single conspiracy, or that all who claim the "anarchist" mantle have identical (or even similar) views of science. "Despite the recent attacks and propaganda, anarchists actually have a complex relationship with science and technology. Some leading figures from anarchist history were scientists, notably Russian biologist Peter Kropotkin. Many hacktivists are anarchists who embrace technology; fiction authors sometimes look toward a future 'technotopia' based on anarchist ideals."
Re:Anarchists (Score:1, Informative)
I've never met an "anarchist" who hasn't been a drug-fucked high school dropout.
Than you've never met an Anarchist.
Re:Least stable (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know where people come up with these kinds of claims. Anarchy isn't an opposition to organization (in fact anarcho-communists are all about organization). Depending on the form of anarchism it's about the opposition of violence and coercion or hierarchy all together.
Those in the former group oppose the state (what is commonly referred to as the government) because it is necessarily violent. Everything it does is backed by the threat or actuality of violence. For example, failing to pay your taxes will result in your kidnapping and being tossed into a cage or your property stolen. If you resist any of these actions by the state they will use physical force against you and, if you resist sufficiently, even go so far as to kill you.
Anarchists in the latter category oppose any single individuals having power over another. In the case of the state they oppose the fact that state agents have power over non-state agents. Members of this group also oppose capitalism and the idea of landlords because they believe the capitalist has power over the workers because without the wages paid by the capitalist the employees would be unable to acquire the basic needs of survival (food, water, clothing, shelter). They also oppose landlords for the same reason, the landlord can toss out renters leaving said renters without shelter.
The former group generally has no issue with hierarchy so long as it's voluntary. They have no problem with somebody working for an employer, renting living space, or being a member of any organization that has created a set of rules for members of follow (Slashdot, for example, has rules that must be agreed to and those who disobey said rules can be kicked out).
While the latter group opposes hierarchy they don't oppose organization. In general they believe decisions should be made by the applicable communities. Workers at a factory would vote on policies regarding the factory, members of a community would vote on the rules of that community, and so on. Because each person is viewed as having an equal voice no single person has power over another.
It would do you well to research the philosophies of anarchism before making erroneous claims regarding them.
Re:Just a label. (Score:2, Informative)
Anarchist is to libertarian as Communist is to socialist. Libertarians want less government in both realms of society (personal and economic), where anarchists want ZERO government. Intelligent anarchists realize that even in the absence of government, society remains ordered. It is just that the order is now emergent and non-violent. Those who produce rise to the top, those who fail fall to the bottom. Those on top can not oppress those on bottom because their only power is voluntary exchange. People fear such a system for some reason. Probably because all they have even known is the somewhat hidden violence and oppression by the state.
Re:Anonymous is against scientists now? (Score:5, Informative)
The ancom line against property is hardly even really radical, historically. They have basically the same view that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin had: that personal possessions are natural property in a sense, but beyond that, e.g. when we're talking about owning hundreds of acres of land as an absentee landlord, "property" is a social construct that can only exist through the power of the state, and should be judged by its effects.
Here's Benjamin Franklin, one of the more prominent early American scientists, with the view that you allege "grates on common sense to such an extent that no sane person can realistically believe in and subscribe to it":
It's interesting that this was already evident to people who thought carefully about the matter in the late 18th century, before Proudhon and the more in-depth anarchist critique of property even came on the scene.
The main differences between Franklin and anarchists are on policy grounds, not philosophical grounds. Franklin was basically a moderate liberal, who thought that, although property is a state-created fiction, it's a useful fiction to a certain extent, so long as we ensure that it's instituted for the benefit of the general public. Whereas, anarchists think it's a harmful fiction.