Red Bureaucracy

A Finnish translation from a interview with Noam Chomsky:

INTERVIEWER: A number of people have noted that you use the term 'libertarian socialist' in the same context as you use the word 'anarchism'. Do you see these terms as essentially similar? Is anarchism a type of socialism to you? The description has been used before that “anarchism is equivalent to socialism with freedom”. Would you agree with this basic equation?

CHOMSKY: The introduction to Guerin’s book that you mentioned opens with a quote from an anarchist sympathiser a century ago, who says that “anarchism has a broad back,” and “endures anything.” One major element has been what has traditionally been called 'libertarian socialism'.

I’ve tried to explain there and elsewhere what I mean by that, stressing that it’s hardly original; I’m taking the ideas from leading figures in the anarchist movement whom I quote, and who rather consistently describe themselves as socialists, while harshly condemning the 'new class' of radical intellectuals who seek to attain state power in the course of popular struggle and to become the vicious “Red bureaucracy” of which Bakunin warned; what’s often called 'socialism'.

I rather agree with Rudolf Rocker’s perception that these (quite central) tendencies in anarchism draw from the best of Enlightenment and classical liberal thought, well beyond what he described. In fact, as I’ve tried to show they contrast sharply with Marxist-Leninist doctrine and practice, the 'libertarian' doctrines that are fashionable in the US and UK particularly, and other contemporary ideologies, all of which seem to me to reduce to advocacy of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny.

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

HAASTATTELIA: Moni on huomannut, että sinä käytät termiä 'libertaristinen sosialismi' samassa yhteydessä kuin sanaa 'anarkismi'. Näetkö että nämä kaksi termiä ovat olennaisesti samankaltaisia? Onko anarkismi sinulle yksi sosialismin muoto? Määritelmää jonka mukaan 'anarkismi on yhtä kuin sosialismi vapauden kanssa' on käytetty. Oletko samaa mieltä tämän perusmääritelmän kanssa?

CHOMSKY: Tämä mainitsemasi johdatonto Guerin kirjaan alkaa sata vuotta vanhalla lainauksella, joka on peräisin eräältä anarkismiin myönteisesti suhtautuneelta henkilöltä. Hän sanoo 'anarkismilla on leveä selkä, se sietää mitä vaan'. Yksi keskeinen elementti siinä on ollut niin kutsuttu 'libertaristinen sosialismi'. Olen yrittänyt selittää tuossa johdannossa ja muualla, että mitä minä oikein tarkoitan tällä termillä, tähdentäen että se on kaikkea muuta kuin omaperäinen.

Minä lainaan ideani anarkistisen liikkeen johtohahmoilta. He johdonmukaisesti määrittävät itsensä sosialisteiksi. Samalla he kuitenkin jyrkästi toimitsevat 'uuden luokan' radikalistit, jotka pyrkivät valtion johtoon populaarin kamppailun avulla. He pyrkivät häikäilemättömäksi 'punaiseksi byrokratiaksi', josta Bakunin meitä varoitti. Tätä kutsutaan usein sosialismiksi.

Olen aikalailla samaa mieltä Rudolf Rockersin kanssa siitä, että nämä (melko keskeiset) anarkismin ominaisuudet ovat peräisin parhaasta osasta valistuksen aikaa ja klassista liberalistista ajattelua, mutta vielä paljon syvemmälti kuin mitä Rockers esitti.

Olen yrittänyt näyttää, että nämä ominaisuudet eroavat merkittävästi marxilais-leninistisestä perinteestä. Ne eroavat myös niistä 'libertaristisista' perinteistä, jotka ovat muodissa erityisesti jenkeissä ja Iso-Britanniassa. Sekä yleensä muista vastaavista tämän päivä ideologioista. Ne kaikki näyttävät minusta pelkistyvän jonkilaisen perusteettoman hallinnon, tai jopa tyrannian, suosimiseen.

http://struggle.ws/pdfs/rbr2.pdf

Pink Soap

"Marketing executives at 20th Century Fox faced difficulties in marketing Fight Club and at one point considered marketing it as an art film. They considered that the film was primarily geared toward male audiences because of its violence and believed that not even Brad Pitt would attract female filmgoers. Research testing showed that the film appealed to teenagers. Fincher refused to let the posters and trailers focus on Pitt and encouraged the studio to hire the advertising firm Wieden+Kennedy to devise a marketing plan. The firm proposed a bar of pink soap with the title "Fight Club" embossed on it as the film's main marketing image; the proposal was considered "a bad joke" by Fox executives. Fincher also released two early trailers in the form of fake public service announcements presented by Pitt and Norton; the studio did not think the trailers marketed the film appropriately. Instead, the studio financed a $20 million large-scale campaign to provide a press junket, posters, billboards, and trailers for TV that highlighted the film's fight scenes. The studio advertised Fight Club on cable during World Wrestling Federation broadcasts, which Fincher protested, believing that the placement created the wrong context for the film. Linson believed that the "ill-conceived one-dimensional" marketing by marketing executive Robert Harper largely contributed to Fight Club's lukewarm box office performance in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_Club

Social Reform

Snakes alive! The frog is pictured getting as helping hand from the snake in the swirling floodwaters of Queensland.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348600/Australian-floods-Snake-gives-frog-piggy-escape.html#ixzz2JM16MTwl 

Threat From Kings

"Herein, Vyagghapajja, whatsoever wealth a householder is in possession of, obtained by dint of effort, collected by strength of arm, by the sweat of his brow, justly acquired by right means — such he husbands well by guarding and watching so that kings would not seize it, thieves would not steal it, fire would not burn it, water would not carry it away, nor ill-disposed heirs remove it. This is the accomplishment of watchfulness." 

"Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta: Conditions of Welfare" (AN 8.54), translated from the Pali by Narada Thera. Access to Insight, 14 June 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html .

In reality there's no legitimate reason for any government to claim authority over an individual. This authority is only a convention. In Buddhist terms, it's a delusion. The power of the government doesn't originate from moral superiority, but from threat and force.

The Death of Thomas Becket

From BBC documentary 'A History of Britain'

How many I need?

300 A.C. Brahmanism started to absorb Buddhism

From Theatre of Spiritual Entertainment, Wat Suan Mokkh, Thailand.

The historical Buddha was an anarchist

By reading the traditional account of the Buddha's life in the Pali Canon, it can be argued in many ways, that the Buddha was an anarchist. For example, this can be seen in the way he went about searching freedom from suffering. Another example is the way he set up his renunciate ministry, otherwise called the Sangha.

Not satisfied with the mere comfortable live in the palace, the bodhisatta (anarchistic being) left home in search of something more profound. He abandoned, not only the comfort of wordly life, but also submission to the structures of society. Despite numerous attempts by his father to get him to come back home, he never did.

Because of this uncompromising anarchistic approach to live, he did in fact end up finding complete freedom from the world, Nirvana.

The Buddha knew that he had a charismatic personality. He was not satisfied with the attainment of personal freedom. He knew that he could help others to reach the same goal. Out of that knowledge grew the Buddhist Sangha.

Towards the end of his life, the Buddha encountered a significant episode, that highlights his anarchistic approach in running of his renunciate ministry:

"With his secret desire to gain control over the community of Buddhists, Devadatta, one of Shakyamuni’s chief disciples, urged his aged teacher to relinquish his responsibility and spend the rest of his life in leisure. Devadatta made the proposal twice and was rejected. Devadatta then asked Shakyamuni a third time in a public assembly: “Lord, the Lord is now old, worn, stricken in years…It is I who will the lead the Order of monks”

Shakyamuni replied: “I…would not hand over the Order of monks even to Sariputta and Moggallana. How then could I to you, a wretched one to be vomited like spittle?”

(The Book of the Discipline: Vinaya-Pitaka Cullavagga, vol. 5, trans. I. B. Horner, p. 264)"

It's well known and accepted in the early Buddhist schools, that the Buddha never appointed a successor. He refused to give that position to anyone. Not even to one of his most brilliant disciples.

Therefore it becomes evident, that the Buddba established the Sangha by the principles of anarchy.