Not something I usually do, as the site's vast bias leaves me cold, but I thought I'd venture into the pit and have a look at some of the comments made about the articles being published.
Thankfully, the screaming paranoia and self-righteousness rampant in the submitted articles isn't followed through in the comments, with a mix of eyewitness accounts and analysis bringing a balanced air to the pieces.
One article I looked at in particular was the events following the Anarchists Bookfair in London recently, where an incident in a pub after the Fair led to some heavyhanded riot police arresting a number of said Anarchists.
The original article reads as if the peace loving and mild mannered poor little people were being randomly attacked by viscious and bloodthirsty heavily armed police thugs.
The comments afterward paint a different picture, where what seems to have happened is that a couple of idiots took a ghettoblaster into a Wetherspoons pub, got themselves into trouble and left when someone smashed one of their speakers. By then, it seems someone had pressed a panic button or phoned the police, as the landlord closed the bar, which pushed a couple of hundred disgruntled Anarchists into the high street, where riot vans were waiting for them.
As one poster mentioned, putting Anarchists and Police in close proximity is just begging for a riot.
There seem to be a few people on Indymedia who hold the belief that we should not be held responsible for our actions, that one can do whatever one likes without fear of the consequences.
Luckily, there are also plenty of people who do take the "personal responsibility" ethos seriously.
I carried on from there to look up a definition of "anarchist" and found a dull but informative essay written some years ago by a University student. It includes definitions of the various disparate forms of anarchy and non-anarchy, including one I found fascinating and enlightening:
Libertarianism: Libertarians are often confused with anarchists and do, in fact, overlap in many respects. Both share an emphasis on individual freedom and the desire to do away with the state. Many libertarians assign primary importance to the individual and emphasize the principle of enlightened self-interest. Many anarchists tend to focus more on mutual aid and efforts to improve the circumstances of all members of the community. Libertarianism is most often characterized by its economic viewpoint, which places maximum value on unimpeded free market capitalism (some proponents call themselves "anarcho-capitalists"), condones the use of force in the defense of private property, opposes any governmental interference that impedes efforts to maximize personal economic gain, and discounts values that can not be measured in economic (typically monetary) terms. While libertarians are anti-state, they often are not opposed to domination and hierarchy in all its forms (there is often a strain of "survival of the fittest" or "[economic] might makes right" in the libertarian philosophy), and do not seek to radically alter societal power relations, especially those based on economic power. Anarchists tend to have a more socialist perspective, and favor doing away with any system in which the wealthy can achieve disproportionate benefit while the less fortunate suffer undue hardship. While anarchists value individual initiative, intelligence, and creativity, it is recognized that those who possess such talents to a lesser degree should still be treated with respect and justice. Objectivists are an extremist type of libertarian. The Libertarian Party is relatively moderate, and tends to focus on issues like electoral reform, abolishing drug laws, and reducing governmental regulation. Many libertarians are "minarchists" who believe that some form of government is necessary but that it should be as minimal and unobtrusive as possible. The question of what type of economic system would exist in an anarchist society is an open one. Some anarchists believe that all forms of capital and the market economy must be abolished, others favor a system that promotes worker ownership and full participatory democracy within a market economy, and still others believe that a variety of economic systems can co-exist as long as they do not try to impose their systems and values on each other.
Just to be absolutely clear on the part that fascinated me - "Libertarianism is...characterized by its economic viewpoint, which places maximum value on unimpeded free market capitalism, condones the use of force in the defense of private property, opposes any governmental interference that impedes efforts to maximize personal economic gain, and discounts values that can not be measured in economic terms."
When I was growing up, we called them Yuppies.
Here's the Wikipedia entry on libertarianism. It goes on at length about how libertarians believe in the free will to go about whatever business they desire, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone elses' free will.
A long time ago, I dabbled with this philosophical idea - the idea that you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you don't affect anyone else. I found that it was largely unworkable as whatever you do has an impact on someone, somewhere.
Libertarianism also stands for the abolition, to a larger or greater degree depending on the person, of Government control - which includes the cessation of state-funded healthcare, education and social security, preferring instead that a totally free private market economy take care of these issues.
It mystified me how anyone seriously thinks this kind of society is desirable or workable. Then I started thinking about the world we live in, and everything I know about what's going on in the world around us. It occurred to me that the only people who could gain by living in this libertarian society were people who had enough money to do whatever they wanted, the libertarian world order would ensure that the rich got vastly richer while the poor got ignored and sidelined, impeded from improving their lives by the central liberterian principle of non-agression. And then something very disturbing occurred to me.
The libertarians are in control. The society I've just described is - in broad terms - exactly how society is being run at this very moment.
And that is the scariest thing I've ever realised, because a world run according to libertarian politics is a world that inherently rejects everything I stand for and believe.
But anarchy is not the answer. At least, not the anarchy propounded by the likes of Indymedia. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think I might work on it.
