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:Maybe it's not science they hate (Score:2, Interesting)
This would make more sense. It's still just a bunch of morons giving a bad name to anarchism. Proclaiming belief in anarchism and killing people just proves everyone's point that anarchy won't work. The peaceful anarchists, who are subversive through means of civil disobedience and the like, are the ones that actually act out what they preach in a realistic fashion. Most of these "anarchists" or more just obsessed with chaos, which is self-defeating anarchism and ridiculous.
I would consider myself an anarchist by theoretical leaning, honestly. But instigating chaos doesn't help the point. You have to be voluntarily submissive when the rules are right and take peaceful subversion when they're not to really show the good side of anarchy. Fight against chaos with voluntary peace to implement anarchy, not instigate chaos to enforce anarchy.
Re:Just a label. (Score:5, Interesting)
Anarchist is a label for people who refuse to be constrained by society's limits. And one of those limits is not to kill.
Wrong, Anarchism in it's truest form is closer to socialism than chaos. Anarchism and lawlessness aren't the same. Anarchists don't want to abolish government so that they can go push old ladies down the stairs, that's a rebllious teenager's point of view. Anarchists just want everybody to be equal no person above or below any other in terms of power or pull. An anarchistic society would still have rules, but they would be decided by the community, there would be no police because the people of the community are responsible for it, every man, woman, and child. Please don't comment on things you know nothing about.
the last time anarchism was on an uptick (Score:5, Interesting)
was the late 1800s. this was a period of workers demanding rights, as the gilded age saw the plutocrats consume all of the productivity of society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism#The_First_International_and_Collectivist_Anarchism [wikipedia.org]
so now we see another uptick in anarchism, in a new gilded age, as worker's rights sink lower and lower and the predatory make off with vast sums of money
it's a pendulum in history, swinging back and forth
the next step, if we see historical parallels, is the rise of communism again
of course, social darwinistic capitalism, and communism, are both absurd brutal ideologies, on either end of a spectrum. the intelligent ideology is the middle road: socialism with capitalist engines attached, or capitalism with social safety net. but the communist see any sort of capitalism as a vile evil, and the free market fundamentalists see any sort of common sense social policies: healthcare, education, etc., as a vile evil, and so the middle road does not prevail, depending upon the politics of the day. either one or the other extreme leads to suffering, and the pendulum experiences pressure to swing back the other way
so, if the historical parallels play out, anarchism is really just the initial indicator of a change in direction of the pendulum, a sort of groping for some sense, what is the point of civilization? the point according to the predatory corporatists: enrichment of a moneyed class, is obviously not a valid meaning of existence. anarchists don't have the right answer, but they do have the right sense to know what is happening now as plutocrats gobble up everything is not right, the plutocrats enabled by this ridiculous quasireligious faith of free market fundamentalist fools who are blinded to the simple fact that markets without rules leads to dominance by a monopoly/ oligopoly, and society and the common man suffers
the ideal would be a society that locks in some simple rules: social darwinistic capitalism, and communism, are two extremes that both destroy society. therefore, economic and social policies must always hew to a middle road. but we will never get this common sense, as long as the fools who fervently believe in the extremes of capitalism (on the upswing now, in the past dormant) or communism (dormant now, on the upswing in the past, and perhaps the future) are allowed to exert influence. until the fools on either end of the pendulum are clamped down on with governmental rules about the kinds of economic and social policies that can be passed, we will constantly suffer this historical pendulum swing back and forth, back and forth, creating nothing but pain for us all
Re:Anarchists (Score:4, Interesting)
I see where you're coming from, but you've not met many anarchists. We're doctors, lawyers, teachers, parents, and every other group you can think of. We count among our number great thinkers and speakers and writers. You may have heard of Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Noam Chomsky. All are anarchists of one stripe or another, although Thoreau never used the term for himself -- it was quite a while before Pierre Joseph Proudhon took the insult "anarchist" and began wearing it as a badge of honor, in the same way that civil rights pioneers claimed the term "black," which had been treated like a slur for many years prior.
The worst thing about anarchism is that through various avenues, it has acquired an aura of glamor and danger that attracts young people who don't know anything about it, but think it sounds cool. They spend a few years calling themselves "anarchists" before discarding their half-baked notions of what anarchy is, and then I inevitably get stuck talking to their smug, brainless adult counterparts who casually dismiss me and the centuries of thought behind my philosophy with a sneering "I used to be an anarchist, too. Then I grew up!" (They outgrow the anarchy, but not the attachment to unformed opinions and a vague feeling that they ought to be right about things without having to think them through or discuss them with anyone.)
These folks also color the general public's perception of anarchism, and hide us (the actual anarchists) behind a smokescreen of dumb kids who put the circle-A on their denim jacket because they think it'll get them that girl they're interested in, and our ideas get shut out without a fair hearing.
why not read the source? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bakunin pretty much lays it out for you:
(NB: I'm not endorsing Bakunin, just relating what one of the first anarchists had to say about it. Keep in mind that he was reacting to communism, a political system that claims to use scientific principles as the basis of government.)
Re:Why do anarchists hate science? (Score:3, Interesting)
The funniest thing in the world is that people think they know what's going on, while accepting intermediaries for versions of events, that have a vested stake in the narrative. When this is explained to them in any way, the situation is dismissed as "conspiracy theory" or "wingnuttery".
Have you ever considered these "Science Hating Anarchists" to be targeted assassinations by corporate/state actors who choose to smear an "anti-state" movement - which almost doesn't actually exist? :-)
Operation Gladio
Operation Paperclip
Operation Mockingbird
Those are just a few of the "limited hangouts", admissions that hide greater sins. Get yourself at least a little true skepticism!
Re:Why do anarchists hate science? (Score:4, Interesting)
Modern economists are the very incarnation of the term "baffle them with bullshit". It's all lies hidden in complex math that literally no-one understands. You can prove this empirically by asking a set of so called modern economists to predict the future of the economy given the current state of affairs. They will come up with dozens of proposals, and all of them will be wrong. Ask any number of Austrian economists to do the same and you will get a much more unified answer, and it will be right most of the time. Once the event they predicted has occured, you will be able to trace it back to the reasons they used to make the initial claim. This is why Ron Paul was able to talk about the housing bubble in 2002, and why all those "Peter Schiff was right" videos are so popular.