Why I take exception to being called "a liberal."

"Liberalism is a half-measure. It sees government and capitalism as essentially sound, just in need of a few tweaks to function properly. Liberals like authority just as much as conservatives, they just believe in a slightly more benevolent authority that has slightly more consent from the governed. Liberals pay lip service to equality and inclusiveness, but are comfortable uncritically occupying positions of privilege.

"All that is well and good. We can work with misguided reformists. The problem is liberals' insistence that everyone else abide by their rules. Their privilege and authority issues ensure that they will try to control every movement they are involved in. They will gravitate to leadership positions (if there aren't any, they will create some), they will insist on controlling the message, and they will denounce any tactics they disagree with.

"Liberals are cop worshippers and politician's boot-licks. They are every movement's wet blankets, trying to push everyone back on the sidewalk and back in line when things are just about to get interesting. They are snitches and backstabbers. They will try to hold us back until we are unstoppable and then they will betray us."

Source

Fundamental change requires education.

"Anarchists know that a long period of education must precede any great fundamental change in society, hence they do not believe in vote begging, nor political campaigns, but rather in the development of self-thinking individuals. "We look away from government for relief, because we know that force (legalized) invades the personal liberty of man, seizes upon the natural elements and intervenes between man and natural laws; from this exercise of force through governments flows nearly all the misery, poverty, crime and confusion existing in society." — Lucy Parsons, in The Principles of Anarchism

Anarchism is not prescriptive.

I thought this was a great comment that addresses a common misunderstanding of anarchism, and breaks down why the question of "what would an anarchist society look like" is a problematic one.

First, I want to tangent a little bit. Anarchy is not a society that we can predict is going to exist. It's not a formula that we follow as a society that will lead us to a utopian existence. Anarchism is at its core a critique of the State, Capitalism, and hierarchical organization. As an ideology, it is the practice of decentralization of political, economic, and social power.

The misunderstanding with anarchism is that it does offer solutions and alternatives to the criticisms it gives, and in doing so it creates an illusion of an end-goal. Instead, each tendency and current of anarchism is a complementary tactic on decentralizing power. For example, Marx criticized capitalism for being exploitative; Kropotkin develops mutualism as a way of allowing workers to take direct control of the means of production and yet maintain the competitiveness of capitalist markets and the freedom to control one's labor. Communism criticizes capitalism for exploiting the workers; anarcho-communism criticizes capitalism for exploiting the workers and the State for perpetuating capitalism and violent social stratification; anarcho-syndicalism solves both of these criticisms as an anarchist tactic. The unions seize the means of production which allows them to decide what to do with their own labor; consensus direct democracy decision making. However, it also doesn't require the state to seize and distribute the means of production. The misconception is that anarchism is an ideology that hopes to spread to reach a critical mass, after which a majority of the working class seizes their own means of production. Instead, during times of revolutionary upheaval such as Anarchist Catalonia, we see glimpses of anarchism because anarchism is the assault on illegitimate hierarchies.

So, you can see a vision of mutualist societies in looking at present-day worker co-ops like Mondragon Corp and Valve (video game). You can see anarcho-syndicalism in the C.N.T. and the I.W.W. Less-so in the liberal trade unions like the AFL-CIO. You can see insurrectionary anarchism in Robin Hood and in bank robbers like Bonnano and the Conspiracy Cells of Fire living as outlaws in direct resistance to the state, or a even a biker gang. Life would differ depending on where you live. If you live in New York City, maybe you'd see taxis and bus drivers as part of a transportation union; you'd see Wall Street turned into some ironic piece of socialist art; if you live in the rural midwest you might see a return of a Wild-West sort of Wyatt Earp/Seth Bullock-type sheriff with a guardian, rather than enforcer, role, (I hope so!) with mostly lawlessness but banditry would be easily beaten by solidarity.

This is a much more in-depth explanation of what I usually tell people, which is that anarchism is not a goal, it is a journey -- it is a never-ending critique of power.

Come on, pal, the clock's running.

Q: All right, let's start with the most basic question there is: Are you a religious man? Do you believe in God?

A: Well, that'll do for openers. I think I can sum up my religious feelings in a couple of paragraphs. First: I believe in you and me. I'm like Albert Schweitzer and Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein in that I have a respect for life -- in any form. I believe in nature, in the birds, the sea, the sky, in everything I can see or that there is real evidence for. If these things are what you mean by God, then I believe in God. But I don't believe in a personal God to whom I look for comfort or for a natural on the next roll of the dice. I'm not unmindful of man's seeming need for faith; I'm for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniel's. But to me religion is a deeply personal thing in which man and God go it alone together, without the witch doctor in the middle. The witch doctor tries to convince us that we have to ask God for help, to spell out to him what we need, even to bribe him with prayer or cash on the line. Well, I believe that God knows what each of us wants and needs. It's not necessary for us to make it to church on Sunday to reach Him. You can find Him anyplace. And if that sounds heretical, my source is pretty good: Matthew, Five to Seven, The Sermon on the Mount.

Q: You haven't found any answers for yourself in organized religion?

A: There are things about organized religion which I resent. Christ is revered as the Prince of Peace, but more blood has been shed in His name than any other figure in history. You show me one step forward in the name of religion and I'll show you a hundred retrogressions. Remember, they were men of God who destroyed the educational treasures at Alexandria, who perpetrated the Inquisition in Spain, who burned the witches at Salem. Over 25,000 organized religions flourish on this planet, but the followers of each think all the others are miserably misguided and probably evil as well. In India they worship white cows, monkeys and a dip in the Ganges. The Moslems accept slavery and prepare for Allah, who promises wine and revirginated women. And witch doctors aren't just in Africa. If you look in the L.A. papers of a Sunday morning, you'll see the local variety advertising their wares like suits with two pairs of pants.

Q: Hasn't religious faith just as often served as a civilizing influence?

A: Remember that leering, cursing lynch mob in Little Rock reviling a meek, innocent little 12-year-old Negro girl as she tried to enroll in public school? Weren't they -- or most of them -- devout churchgoers? I detest the two-faced who pretend liberality but are practiced bigots in their own mean little spheres. I didn't tell my daughter whom to marry, but I'd have broken her back if she had had big eyes for a bigot. As I see it, man is a product of his conditioning, and the social forces which mold his morality and conduct -- including racial prejudice -- are influenced more by material things like food and economic necessities than by the fear and awe and bigotry generated by the high priests of commercialized superstition. Now don't get me wrong. I'm for decency -- period. I'm for anything and everything that bodes love and consideration for my fellow man. But when lip service to some mysterious deity permits bestiality on Wednesday and absolution on Sunday -- cash me out.

Q: But aren't such spiritual hypocrites in a minority? Aren't most Americans fairly consistent in their conduct within the precepts of religious doctrine?

A: I've got no quarrel with men of decency at any level. But I can't believe that decency stems only from religion. And I can't help wondering how many public figures make avowals of religious faith to maintain an aura of respectability. Our civilization, such as it is, was shaped by religion, and the men who aspire to public office anyplace in the free world must make obeisance to God or risk immediate opprobrium. Our press accurately reflects the religious nature of our society, but you'll notice that it also carries the articles and advertisements of astrology and hokey Elmer Gantry revivalists. We in America pride ourselves on freedom of the press, but every day I see, and so do you, this kind of dishonesty and distortion not only in this area but in reporting -- about guys like me, for instance, which is of minor importance except to me; but also in reporting world news. How can a free people make decisions without facts? If the press reports world news as they report about me, we're in trouble.

Q: Are you saying that . . .

A: No, wait, let me finish. Have you thought of the chance I'm taking by speaking out this way? Can you imagine the deluge of crank letters, curses, threats and obscenities I'll receive after these remarks gain general circulation? Worse, the boycott of my records, my films, maybe a picket line at my opening at the Sands. Why? Because I've dared to say that love and decency are not necessarily concomitants of religious fervor.

Q: If you think you're stepping over the line, offending your public or perhaps risking economic suicide, shall we cut this off now, erase the tape and start over along more antiseptic lines?

A: No, let's let it run. I've thought this way for years, ached to say these things. Whom have I harmed by what I've said? What moral defection have I suggested? No, I don't want to chicken out now. Come on, pal, the clock's running.

-- Playboy Magazine Interview with Frank Sinatra, February 1963, Part 1 of 3, with interviewer Joe Hyams