A common misconception I often hear is that anarchists are contradictory in their anti-authoritarianism since they want to force everyone under a particular system, and are thus authoritarian in their own right. From my own experience, this is said not just by “anarcho”-capitalists who claim social anarchists want to force everyone under libertarian socialism but also from those who call themselves “anarchist without adjectives” and “panarchists” who insist that individuals who promote one particular school of anarchism (be it mutualism, collectivism, anarcho-communism, and so on) want to force the entire world under their system. Though it should be mentioned that “anarchism without adjectives” traditionally meant anarchists who were agnostic about which economic system to implement rather than today’s “anarchism without adjectives” which seems to be more of a call for pluralism among all anarchist economic systems, a point I will touch on shortly.
A group of squatters opened their community garden to others in the city for one day. As seen in the video, the event turned out a good number of supporters. Squatting has been officially illegal in the Netherlands since October of 2010, though many squatter communities continue to exist. The squatters featured in this video can be contacted through their blog entitled “Our Media” or their youtube channel SpiritofSquatters.
In Egypt, enraged protesters pelted a police station in Cairo and torched a police vehicle following the death of Mohammad Nasr, a bus driver who was beaten to death by police. Since the ousting of Egypt’s former president Hosni Mubarak earlier this year, abuse by Mubarak’s police who remain in Egypt has been commonplace. Though many times these incidents have been met with angry responses by the Egyptian people, whose newly awakened solidarity motivates them to continue fighting these cases of injustice.
One well-known argument made in favor of landlords and landlordism is that landlords are justified in extracting rent from tenants because they themselves face taxation from the state. The reason this argument holds no weight is because, not only is it a non-sequitur (“does not follow”) but because it does absolutely nothing to prove that the act of extracting rent does not account for oppression or extortion; it simply states that the landlord has to sacrifice a little bit of his or her income to the institution which protects his or her ownership of the property he or she uses to extract rent from you. Regardless as to whom the landlord has to answer to, the fact of the matter remains that the landlord’s control of his or her property is identical to a mini-state.
Now, the consensus from politicians and pundits will be: “See, war works! It really does catch the evildoers! Shut up you stupid hippies!” First of all, what bin Laden did is nothing compared to what politicians, corporations, and the military do every day. McDonald’s and WalMart’s actions in what westerners call the “third world” would make al-Qa’eda’s look like child’s play. Of course, no one is bombing the shit out of this country’s territory in order to find the CEOs of those companies. Second, it took the US military and NATO almost ten years to find this guy (assuming that it’s really him to begin with) and cost taxpayers probably trillions of dollars in military spending. Third, the invasions (they weren’t even “wars” but invasions and occupations) were neither legal by international law standards nor ethical in any sense of the word. Regardless as to whether bin Laden was captured or not, the US had no right to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and must pull the troops out.