Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Trying to Untangle Anarchist Attacks On Scientists

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the when-all-the-nonconformists-look-alike dept.

Biotech 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."

cancel ×

333 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why do anarchists hate science? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602503)

Because they are idiots. My proof? They wouldn't be Anarchists if they weren't mentally challenged.

Re:Why do anarchists hate science? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603275)

Why do anarchists hate science? (Score:-1)
Because they are idiots. My proof? They wouldn't be Anarchists if they weren't mentally challenged.

Parent troll is not entirely wrong. There is a stream of anarchist philosophy about the benefits of living without a government. That philosophy is completely ignored by the vast majority of people who call themselves "anarchists".

Anarchists in fact, as opposed to theory, are violent braindead hooligans who are only interested in destroying whatever mainstream society finds beneficial, either as a protest against the very notion of trade or just to show how tough they are. "Anarchy" has become a tribal identity of war against the people for no specific cause, with the claimed cause fluidly changing to whatever is trendy at the moment. "Anarchists" happily wave Communist flags, endorse Islamic fascist movements like the Palestinians and the Iranian government, promote foreign state-controlled media as "alternative", and shout totalitarian slogans without any sense of cognitive dissonance. "Anarchists" protest the social influence of megacorporations by smashing the windows of locally owned coffee shops and Chinese restaurants. "Anarchists" oppose it when the police lawfully and peacefully arrest people who commit crimes, because their "FUCK DA POLICE" attitude requires them to oppose anything the police do whether it is good or bad. "Anarchists" oppose the notion of copyright but get angry if anybody republishes information from Wikileaks or takes GPLed code closed-source. "Anarchists" support the "occupation" and destruction of Berkeley's research into sustainable, organic, non-GMO farming, and if you ask why the hell did they do that, they'll say they destroyed the organic farm to promote sustainable, organic, non-GMO farming.

Ever seen an anarchist protest? Ever read an anarchist website? It is all agitprop rhetoric and questionable or easily disprovable facts. They're idiots.

"Anarchists Are Idiots?" Get The Popcorn, Sally... (3, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603915)

They're idiots.

Of course they are. (Actually, anyone who uses the word "hacktivist" with a straight face pretty much is as well, but I digress...) But ever since Alan Moore made mass murder romantic with a comic book and iconic Halloween mask, geeks have had a soft spot for confused and cowardly killers who hide in crowds. So this discussion -- Anarchists Hate Science! -- promises to be an entertaining one.

It'll be kind of like a discussion on "Religious Fundamentalists Found to Be Early Open Source Adopters!"

 

Anonymous is against scientists now? (0, Offtopic)

Rtrtr (2681193) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602517)

Sorry, but that crosses the line for me. Sony rootkit and all that was fine, but attacking scientists? No support from me.

Re:Anonymous is against scientists now? (2)

linuxgeek64 (1246964) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602583)

anarchists != Anonymous.
Where in TFA does it mention anonymous?

Re:Anonymous is against scientists now? (1)

Rtrtr (2681193) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602633)

Well if anyone can be Anonymous, then Anonymous can attack scientists...

Re:Anonymous is against scientists now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602875)

dumb ass

Re:Anonymous is against scientists now? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602727)

Anonymous are anarchists, thats kinda the whole point. However, you are correct that not all anarchists are "Anonymous."

Re:Anonymous is against scientists now? (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603631)

All hot chicks are crazy, but not all crazy chicks are hot.

Re:Anonymous is against scientists now? (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602793)

anarchists != Anonymous.

Where in TFA does it mention anonymous?

They're not even real anarchists, anarchists want to deconstruct government, not science. These are actually bat-sh!t loonies.

Re:Anonymous is against scientists now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603095)

Anarchist is a worthless term except to attract attention on fliers. Ancap, ancom, ansoc, syndacilists, mutalists, illegalists, they all have claims to be anarchists. Historically ansocs and ancaps have the best claim to the term with ansocs foaming at the mouth and calling ancaps heretics whenever they call themselves anarchists without adjectives. It's all rather hilarious. Though, I will weigh in and say that ancaps seem to be the less zany and ancoms are completely disconnected from reality.

Just a label. (1, Troll)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602591)

"Anarchist" is just a catch all label for a whole range of people. Lets not forget all the Christians, Jews, and Muslims that don't agree with some kind of tech/science and protest/legislate against it.

Re:Just a label. (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602641)

Anarchist is a label for people who refuse to be constrained by society's limits. And one of those limits is not to kill.

Re:Just a label. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602969)

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.

Re:Just a label. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603079)

So, everyone sits down and decides stealing from weaker people is bad. I choose to disagree, and as no-one is above me, decide I have every right to do so. If you stop me, you are deciding *your* rules are more important than mine, and you have therefore set yourself above me, in a hierarchy that you claim does not exist. Anarchists really do not understand what they are talking about, other than fluffy clouds and unicorns.

Re:Just a label. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603153)

no...a community is deciding that they're communal rules are more important than yours

Re:Just a label. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603239)

Yes, which goes against the concept of "opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations". You can weasel-word it how you like, but if the community over-rules the individual, you just have a different form of hierarchy.

Re:Just a label. (4, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603415)

While classical anarchists were considered close to socialism, that was in a time when everyone who didn't want monarchy was called leftwing. In fact, they were kicked out of the First International fairly quickly. In practice, anarchists are basically very radical liberals. True, that is a rebellious teenager's ideology, but most anarchists are teenage punks so I don't see a contradiction.

Re:Just a label. (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603665)

In other words you view of Anarchism is the same for everyone? You use that as a Label to explain your vision of a Utopia...

There is a fruit tree, I climb the tree and get the last piece of fruit. I now have a piece of fruit and you don't have a piece. I am hungry so I plan to eat the fruit. You are hungry too. We are no longer equal.
I currently have more power over you.
Now the choice you have?
1. Ask for the fruit from me. You are now in a position where you conceded power or pull and asking for mercy from me.
2. Steal the fruit from me. To accomplish this you will need to assert more power then I have to take the fruit... I may fight back and assert additional power too. So we end up fighting.
3. Bargain for the fruit. Now you will need to convince me that you have something that I will value more then the fruit. This may be something else of scarcity, that gives you additional power. Or you choose to be subservient for some period of time (hence relinquishment of your power to me)
4. Go Hungry.

For me I have more power. I have something you want.
1. I can choose to share.
2. I can give it to you.
3. I can fight you
4. I can choose to accept or reject your bargains.
5. I can just leave you to go hungry.

Say I choose options where I still maintain the power of having the fruit. I have eaten it and it has gave me more energy. This extra energy may be used to help me find more fruit, and give myself the means to have more power over other people.

Now we have a community to determine what we should do?
If they say I must share. (A Tax) Then we need to take into account that I was the one who did the work and got the Apple.
If they say I must give it away. Then I have expended energy in a fruitless endeavor (Pun indented) and the community has pulled power away from me.
If they say that you must steal it from me, and I have to fight to keep it. We are both using extra energy and we both loose.
If they say I must accept particular bargains, if these are not fair then I will go underground (Black market) or hoard fruit.
If they say I can do whatever I want. Then I have more power then you.

Now if I decide to break the community rules. People who are physically stronger then me, or in some other ways who have collective more power then me will need to find a way to stop me. Being that these people over time will be good at stopping people who break the rules, they will be compensated for doing such actions as it causes them from doing other things they may need to do.

But right now we live in a world of rules. People who feel these existing rule, and the people who follow them, are unfair, will try to exert more power to get what they want. Anarchist who live in a world that is different then from their ideals, is under a lot of stress and would like to change it. Murder is often effective.

Re:Just a label. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603843)

You're both wrong. Anarchist is a label to try to instil fear and give some false sense of an organized group of people with the same motives. It's just people pissed off for one reason or another that don't really have any sort of common ideology other than a rejection of "something".

The article is stupid in trying to group all "self labelled anarchists" together into one group, as if they have conventions, vote on what "the anarchists should do next", or are organized. All these people have in common is a label, and possibly an attitude. That's pretty damn flimsy connections to be worth considering. The news media wants to sell eyeballs, an "anarchists" always make good press because you can basically make up the story as you go along since the whole this is illusory to begin with.

Re:Just a label. (5, Insightful)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602675)


Anarchist = left-wing Libertarian
LIbertarian = right-wing Anrachist

Re:Just a label. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602925)

lolwut?

Re:Just a label. (5, Insightful)

ZankerH (1401751) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603175)

Libertarianism is anarchism for rich people.

Re:Just a label. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603263)

Why is this modded Funny? Because it's true?

If you look at people who march at anti-war rallies and claim a label of "anarchist", they are almost always allied with communists. Libertarians are usually holding down good jobs and looking for alternatives to the GOP as opposed to the Democrats, and you'll find a lot of claimants to the Libertarian label on radical right-wing sites.

Re:Just a label. (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602879)

There is a rather big difference between protesting and legislating against something with which one disagrees, and shooting people with whom one disagrees. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who disapproves of technology (read, disagrees with you) is evil.

Re:Just a label. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603071)

The difference could be between the one that understand a bit what science is and talks loudy against it and the violent bonehead that hears him, believes everything that always say, and acts.

Maybe it's not science they hate (4, Insightful)

JohnFen (1641097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602645)

Perhaps the thing they hate isn't science, but corporatism. That would seem more in character than some general "hate science" rationale.The Genoa shooting was of the head of an energy company, not a scientist. Even nonprofit research labs are often funded and influenced by powerful corporations. Corporate control of science gives corporations a great deal more power, both directly and indirectly, than many other areas of interest.

Re:Maybe it's not science they hate (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602835)

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:Maybe it's not science they hate (3, Insightful)

timholman (71886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602861)

Perhaps the thing they hate isn't science, but corporatism.

I'd say it's even simpler than that. People hate things they fear or don't understand, and science is definitely one of them. A corporation engaged in scientific research just provides a convenient aggregated target. The difference is that an anarchist is more likely to act on his or her fear and ignorance than your typical man on the street.

Re:Maybe it's not science they hate (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603011)

I'd say it's even simpler than that. People hate things they fear or don't understand, and science is definitely one of them. A corporation engaged in scientific research just provides a convenient aggregated target. The difference is that an anarchist is more likely to act on his or her fear and ignorance than your typical man on the street.

I'd say it's even simpler than that. It's not a fear of all science they don't understand, but a fear of nuclear research and operations.

Re:Maybe it's not science they hate (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602955)

Perhaps the thing they hate isn't science, but corporatism. That would seem more in character than some general "hate science" rationale.The Genoa shooting was of the head of an energy company, not a scientist. Even nonprofit research labs are often funded and influenced by powerful corporations. Corporate control of science gives corporations a great deal more power, both directly and indirectly, than many other areas of interest.

This.

They don't hate/fear science itself, but rather the way that said science will be implemented by the fascists who run the world.

Re:Maybe it's not science they hate (2)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602979)

And let's not forget government control of science. If a "scientist" isn't employed by a corporation, they are probably funded by the government either directly or indirectly. Even private colleges tend to run on government research grants and subsidies. There are very few Rube Goldbergs [wikipedia.org] out there anymore; doing independent research and then selling the result.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Maybe it's not science they hate (4, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603013)

Perhaps the thing they hate isn't science, but corporatism

Exactly. Think GMO foods - and most of the anger towards it goes towards basically one company - Montsanto. Especially when it affects something that's basically a necessity, people get really emotional about it. Montsanto basically hasn't helped their case either with their onerous licensing terms that you don't have to sign to be affected by.

It's not anti-science, it's anti-corporation, and science just happens to be in the way because corporations stir up feelings of doing it purely to make a profit off people. And it stirs up such strong emotions because the corporations are seen as uncaring profit machines (rightly or wrongly, that's a different debate) hell-bent on turning people into slaves dependent on everything from food to luxuries.

Enough so it's impossible to have a truly honest debate about such topics like GMO food, climate change, oil, etc. People are cynical - the future promised by science and technology has instead become a dystopia - they're working harder and longer for less pay which seems to be caused by all the scientific and technological progress.

Stockholm Syndrome: (1, Troll)

Hartree (191324) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602647)

TFA talks about establishing: "anarchist science" to make science conform more to what the anarchists can identify with.

This sounds like having the scientific community embrace "creation science" in order to conform more to what the creationists can identify with.

Anarchists (3, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602651)

Could be that 'anarchist' is just one label that stupid, uneducated, violent people who are nonetheless bright enough to want to label themselves as being something better than 'garden variety scumbag'?

I've lived in some rough inner city areas in my time, and if I had a dollar for every "bohemian", "artist", or "anarchist", I'd be a rich man.

I've never met an "anarchist" who hasn't been a drug-fucked high school dropout.

Re:Anarchists (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602959)

I used to know an "anarchist" at school. No rules, no laws, etc. When I asked him what he was going to do when someone bigger and more violent took all his stuff, and as there were no rules, there would be no-one to stop it but him, he changed his mind.

Re:Anarchists (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603247)

And what exactly has government done about the richest .1% of the population taking the wealth of the rest of the country?

Re:Anarchists (2)

LDAPMAN (930041) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603353)

"wealth" is not a zero sum game. It can be created. There are many ways wealth can be created or accumulated that are both ethical and legal. The government does attempt to stop theft, fraud, extortion, and other methods that are illegal. What legal means of acquiring wealth would you like them to stop?

Re:Anarchists (0)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603645)

What legal means of acquiring wealth would you like them to stop?

Shucks, we can't even get them to stop printing fiat currency, which the Constitution prohibits. They always give it to their politically-connected friends first, before the price increases caused by the monetary inflation take effect.

Heck, low-interest loans from the Fed account for 77% of JP Morgan's profit last year. Can I get some of that? Of course not, that wouldn't be 'ethical'.

Re:Anarchists (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603739)

> Can I get some of that?

Buy some JPM stock if you want a piece of the action.

Re:Anarchists (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603797)

The government does attempt to stop theft, fraud, extortion, and other methods that are illegal.

Only when it gets caught.

Re:Anarchists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603859)

Blah blah blah. Why are these "means", especially those employed by banks etc, not illegal? You go on like ordinary people had any say whatsoever in what's legal or not.

Just flush yourself down the toilet, you corporatist piece of shit.

Re:Anarchists (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603933)

The government does attempt to stop theft, fraud, extortion, and other methods that are illegal

When can I expect indictments against Lloyd Blankfein, John Corzine, Jamie Dimon, Angelo Mozilo, etc?

Re:Anarchists (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603597)

And what exactly has government done about the richest .1% of the population taking the wealth of the rest of the country?

Concentrated the wealth to create more power for themselves and the oligarchs (reciprocally), exactly as Hamilton had designed it to do.

Marking 'works as intended' (faerie tales they tell children about it, notwithstanding).

Re:Anarchists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603487)

Sounds like he was one of the kids I described in the latter part of this post. [slashdot.org]

  Had he known what he was talking about he would have spoken about solidarity, the non-aggression principle*, and ended by saying "then I'd call on the local militia/private defense force/what-have-you"** and the aggressor would either surrender the stolen goods or get his ass killed. Thieves and bullies don't prosper under anarchy, they die. Quickly.

* The non-aggression principle is a fundamental tenet of nearly every strain of anarchism. It states simply that one must never initiate aggression against others. (This includes threatening and coercing.) As a corollary, you have the right and duty to defend yourself and others against aggressors.

** The exact mechanism for dealing with violent and dangerous people varies from one kind of anarchist setup to another. It's all down to preference. An anarcho-socialist system might have a milita drawn by lot from the populace to avoid the kind of institutional corruption of individuals that leads to abuse of power, while a market anarchist would probably have private defense firms paid by your insurance agency to protect your area, in basically the same way police operate now, except they'd get fired in the blink of an eye if they shot someone or beat them up without a really good reason. Other systems work along other lines, and most of these are interchangeable and can work right alongside one another.

Re:Anarchists (0)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603747)

I used to know an "anarchist" at school. No rules, no laws, etc. When I asked him what he was going to do when someone bigger and more violent took all his stuff, and as there were no rules, there would be no-one to stop it but him, he changed his mind.

The US government as it is right now, is basically what you're describing. It's a system that permits a small number of people to take the lunch money of a large number of people.

Re:Anarchists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602963)

This theory would seem to run parallel to ideal military and militia recruiting practices during wartime. Less intelligent people seem more willing to not question orders to commit inhuman acts of violence and barbarity.

One can parallel this by comparing violent crimes commited by people effected by high dosages of chemicals like amphetamines that negatively impact rational judgement and coherent thought processes.

IE one would wait significantly longer for a "jib-head" to complete long division than one would wait for a "jib-head" to attack you with a lead pipe and steal your potato chips.

It seems safe to say that anarchists in their most commonly encountered form are rather low IQ.

I believe a university educated Anarchist is actually called a terrorist or possibly a "suupa villian" .

Re:Anarchists (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602993)

I've never met an "anarchist" who hasn't been a drug-fucked high school dropout.

Than you've never met an Anarchist.

Re:Anarchists (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603493)

That's a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Re:Anarchists (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603919)

I don't think it counts as a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to suggest that some anarchists might not be "drug-fucked high school dropouts."

Re:Anarchists (4, Insightful)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603021)

Could be that 'anarchist' is just one label that stupid, uneducated, violent people who are nonetheless bright enough to want to label themselves as being something better than 'garden variety scumbag'?

It could be that stupid, uneducated, and educated people label political radicals they don't like as anarchists.

Re:Anarchists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603223)

Anarchists are not defined by violence. The amount of bad mouthing the government gets on here could be viewed as anarchistic to certain people. Further pot smokers and occupy could be viewed as anarchists by a certain group. The people described in the tfa are probably not anarchists since the hate is not towards the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Re:Anarchists (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603255)

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.

Re:Anarchists (1)

ppentz123 (2515298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603291)

I agree... I've seen much of the 'Free Keene' folk who are supposedly anarchists, and they all seem to be society drop-outs, who expect to be allowed to do as they please. And yes, drugs seem to be a big part of their movement.

Least stable (3, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602661)

Anarchy is the least stable form of government. As soon as one person says "Hey, let's...(x,y.z)" and some others say "OK", it's broken; there is now a leader and followers.

Re:Least stable (3, Insightful)

timholman (71886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602785)

Anarchy is the least stable form of government. As soon as one person says "Hey, let's...(x,y.z)" and some others say "OK", it's broken; there is now a leader and followers.

Not to mention the fact that our own evolution has programmed us to be followers. We are behaviorally predisposed to follow a charismatic leader, because doing so provided enormous survival advantages for the tribe (if not necessarily for individual members) in human pre-history.

Anarchists have always struck me as a bunch of frustrated closet leaders who are all operating under the implicit assumption that things will be run their way one day. The only thing that unites them is their desire to tear down the existing power structure. If they ever succeeded, they would immediately turn on each other.

Re:Least stable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602975)

It's basically like the Sith in star wars, back in the old republic days. A bunch of arrogant power-hungry assholes who all want to be the one who is in charge. Then when a chance arises for someone to be in charge, they all kill each other to be the one.

Re:Least stable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603037)

"Not to mention the fact that our own evolution has programmed us to be followers. We are behaviorally predisposed to follow a charismatic leader, because doing so provided enormous survival advantages for the tribe (if not necessarily for individual members) in human pre-history."

Not saying you're wrong necessarily, but citations please.

Re:Least stable (3, Insightful)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603913)

Not to mention the fact that our own evolution has programmed us to be followers. We are behaviorally predisposed to follow a charismatic leader, because doing so provided enormous survival advantages for the tribe (if not necessarily for individual members) in human pre-history.

Evolution has also permitted us to pummel our charismatic leader to death when he abuses his position or leads us to ruin. Now, when power is abused, you can do nothing. You are no longer following a charismatic leader. You're following a master. You're an unwilling servant...a slave.

Re:Least stable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602803)

Anarchy immediately* degrades into warlords. If you get lucky, the warlords set up a useful government. Usually they just rape and steal.

*immediately in this case means 'as soon as two people talk to each other'

Re:Least stable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602927)

The moment the third ape started walking upright a conspiracy was hatched against one of them.

Re:Least stable (1)

fmaresca (739871) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602887)

Anarchy is the least stable form of government. As soon as one person says "Hey, let's...(x,y.z)" and some others say "OK", it's broken; there is now a leader and followers.

Anarchy by definition is NOT a form of government. Or, if you prefer, is the self government of each individual over himself.
Paraphrasing J. L. Borges, "perhaps one day we deserve no government". That's anarchy.
And mind you, not any form of organization is a government one.

Re:Least stable (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603373)

It's a government as soon as the organization asserts control over others.

Re:Least stable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603057)

This is the least stable form of argument. As soon as someone points out that "no central government" doesn't imply "no organization of any form anywhere" it's broken.

Leading "some others" to some specific purpose is not quite the same as seizing control of the state.

Re:Least stable (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603433)

Anarchy is the least stable form of government. As soon as one person says "Hey, let's...(x,y.z)" and some others say "OK", it's broken; there is now a leader and followers.

It's not a government until some others are forced to participate. People work together better when there is consensus instead of coercion. Anarchism is simply this observation writ large. Nothing about this prohibits organization or leadership.

Battle against Skynet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602667)

We have to save the future from Skynet!

Not Anarchists (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602671)

Because they're Luddites, not anarchists. They call themselves anarchists because it sounds cooler and they probably don't know what a Luddite is.

Re:Not Anarchists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603151)

I'll kind of second that. Luddites quite often have anarchist tendencies. Not easy to tell them apart. Here's a quote from Ted Kaczynski. "The anarchist too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations."

Re:Not Anarchists (1)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603339)

Do you really know who the Luddites actually were and what they wanted? According to the fact that almost everyone here seems to believe that "anarchists hate science" I have my doubts...

Hint: the answer is not just "they hated machines"....

Anarchy is a conspiracy... (4, Funny)

dingo_kinznerhook (1544443) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602757)

In "The Man Who Was Thursday" by G.K. Chesterton, a detective infiltrates an anarchist meeting and finds out that he is a more persuasive anarchist than the anarchist leaders, and gets elected leader. He goes on to find out that most of the other anarchist leaders are also undercover cops, trying to infiltrate the organization.

So... since fiction is always true, I contend that anarchy is probably just a bunch of people who are trying to infiltrate anarchy.

Complex Subject (1)

BiophysicalLOVE (2650233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602765)

This subject was covered most exhaustively earlier in the year by nature: http://www.nature.com/news/anarchists-attack-science-1.10729 [nature.com] . I think that both articles miss a point. Although these attacks may seemed linked, or claimed to be linked, I doubt it. This violence may be carried out by as few as two people - a motorcyclist and a gunman, yet both articles paint this as a huge sideswipe by an organised Anarchist (paradox alert) movement. For all we know these attacks may be carried out by a handful disgruntled ex-employees claiming an antiscientist rhetoric to intimidate their former employer, or, in a fit of self-delusion, jump on the anarchist bandwagon to give some sort of paper-thin reasoning for their violence tendencies. "The Olga Cell", "sorcerer of the atom" "LONG LIVE THE CONSPIRACY OF CELLS OF FIRE"? Surely anyone who has a few Anarchist cliches and stereotypes to call upon could write this stuff?

you fFaIl It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602775)

VIs th3 ultimate

If I had to guess... (1)

GT66 (2574287) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602781)

If I had to guess why anarchists hate science, I'd say it is likely because science is increasingly being used by governments and corporations against the people. Ultimately, government and corporations are what anarchists really hate and who's got all that expensive and massively patented science on their side anymore? Certainly not regular folks.

Anarchists don't hate science (1)

Sean (422) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602817)

These illiterate fools just don't know what anarchist means.

Science brings order into chaos (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602847)

Anarchists thrive on chaos. Therefore, they don't like science. Apart from chemistry of explosives, of course, but this is an example of science that is designed to bring forth chaos anyway.

Re:Science brings order into chaos (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603287)

Anarchists like order just as much as anyone. We only recognize that order enforced by violence is no order at all.

Jacques Ellul - La technique (1960) (2)

ftfsis (2681207) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602931)

He got it. He just missed the other ingredient: capital. Welcome to the era of techno-economical enslavement. Another thing: the man who got shot in Italy is a manager for a company (Ansaldo) tied to Finmeccanica (weapons). He's not a scientist despite his technical background. Again: people who shot the guy claimed themselves anarchists. Is it true? Or there's a message between the lines, considering the importance of the soon-to-be privatized companies?

Re:Jacques Ellul - La technique (1960) (1)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603401)

There's another message between the lines: The need for a pan-european police state to bring down the "Euro-Anarchist" terrorist threat that mostly Italian law-and-order-feaks keep hallucinating about...

Too funny (1, Funny)

kiriath (2670145) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602943)

I find it most amusing that the Anarchists have an organization... In point of fact it is tough to really wrap my brain around Anarchists becoming united against anything.

Re:Too funny (1)

NEW22 (137070) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603413)

I'm guessing that is because your definition of Anarchism is different than the definition held by the people you are talking about. Under your definition (apparently the "Everybody does what they want! No rules!, No Hierarchy! Yay Chaos!" definition), their act of organizing would be absurd and un-anarchist. Under their definition, it is likely an ideology (or group of ideologies, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.) you can see some points to here and there, but just generally disagree with.

"The "hate science" line is just a line..." (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 2 years ago | (#40602957)

And yet he uses it, adding the myth that all anarchists hate science to the myth that all anarchists advocate violence.

"Why are are journalists jerks?" Don't be offended: I am under no illusion that all journalists are jerks. It's just a line.

anarchists just dont blindly follow science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40602987)

they support science that makes peoples lives better, they dont support science that makes corporations more exploitative.

Its just a cover claim... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603067)

for governments killing off scientist who are solving real world problems, so governments can continue fabricating their own dictatorships technology is undermining.
Or that's one facet of application of the abstract word/term anarchist. For others see MSM

Key phrase "self described" (1)

ka9dgx (72702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603075)

These people don't know what Anarchy really means, and they're just using it as cover for their own ends.

If they would just describe themselves as Republican, they'd be a lot more accurate.

Think of all the grief we hackers have taken over the past 30 years because of self-described "hackers"

Scientists are anarchists (1)

PiMuNu (865592) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603077)

I always thought scientists *are* anarchists. I mean, science is set up with small groups or individuals coming together to do stuff and then breaking up and doing other interesting things. Occasionally they come together to do big cool stuff (LHC), occasionally they lurk around doing wacky research into nonsense (philosophy (joke)), occasionally they do wacky research into nonsense that turns out to be useful (lasers)...

Re:Scientists are anarchists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603343)

I always thought scientists *are* anarchists. I mean, science is set up with small groups or individuals coming together to do stuff and then breaking up and doing other interesting things. Occasionally they come together to do big cool stuff (LHC), occasionally they lurk around doing wacky research into nonsense (philosophy (joke)), occasionally they do wacky research into nonsense that turns out to be useful (lasers)...

You nail it.

Check out Paul Feyerabend's "Against method" [wikipedia.org] , I think you would enjoy it.

Shooting in Genoa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603137)

The "non-fatal shooting in Genoa in May of the head of a nuclear energy company" had nothing to do with science! I believe that it might be related to trade unions, to the business of Ansaldo. Ansaldo Energia is up for sale. It's certainly not an attack against science.

First the anarchists (2)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603191)

Came for the nanotechnologists,
And I did not speak out because I was not a nanotechnologist.
Then the anarchists came for the computer scientists,
And I did not speak out because I was not a computer scientist.
Then the anarchists came for the machinists,
And I did not speak out because I was not a machinist.
Then the anarchists came for the blacksmiths,
And I did not speak out because I was not a blacksmith.
Then the anarchists came for the farmers,
And I did not speak out because I was not a farmer.
Then the anarchists came for the people who whittled pointy sticks,
And I did not speak out because I did not whittle pointy sticks.
Then the anarchists came for the people who used rocks,
And I did not speak out because I did not use rocks.
Then they came for me,
Which was okay because my cold dark cave was getting kind of boring anyway.

Just say no to ocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603231)

A Technocracy just as bad as a Theocracy (if not worse) as the control structure that would be exerted could be absolute.

the last time anarchism was on an uptick (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603235)

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:the last time anarchism was on an uptick (0)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603749)

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

Yes, those poor American workers are richer than at any time in history, but the pendulum just keeps swinging back and forth... in your imagination.

Who says they're anarchists? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603283)

Who says they're anarchists? The dude in Genoa could easily have been shot by his wifes secret boyfriend. The only way to get ALL the money is if he's killed... but they needed to make it look like some crazy people killed him... oh, I know... anarchists!

Please define your terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603363)

Many of these comments seem to indicate a similar problem: not really knowing what an "Anarchist" is. Obviously it's a catch-all term for a wide variety of different ideas all loosely described as anti-establishment. Under this we could fit nihilism, armed revolt, and chaos, but we could also probably fit being anti-social, rock and roll, Ghandi's early years, and whenever a soldier refuses to follow orders.

I don't think the term is meaningless, but it's similar to how "hacker" in the popular press applies to a very broad spectrum: some could be best friend and some you should avoid like a disease.

Let's call terrorists 'Hackers'! (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603489)

Why not, it would make as much sense (except it doesn't serve a current political agenda).

If you want to read what actual anarchists think, try here [whiskeyandgunpowder.com] .

Personally, I think it's a stupid term, but there are some who cling to it.

why not read the source? (3, Interesting)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603641)

Bakunin pretty much lays it out for you:

Science in the true sense of that word, real science, is at this time within reach of only an insignificant minority. For example, among us in Russia, how many accomplished savants are there in a population of eighty million? Probably a thousand are engaged in science, but hardly more than a few hundred could be considered first-rate, serious scientists. If science were to dictate the laws, the overwhelming majority, many millions of men, would be ruled by one or two hundred experts. Actually it would be even fewer than that, because not all of science is concerned with the administration of society. This would be the task of sociology – the science of sciences – which presupposes in the case of a well-trained sociologist that he have an adequate knowledge of all the other sciences. How many such people are there in Russia – in all Europe? Twenty or thirty – and these twenty or thirty would rule the world? Can anyone imagine a more absurd and abject despotism?

It is almost certain that these twenty or thirty experts would quarrel among themselves, and if they did agree on common policies, it would be at the expense of mankind. The principal vice of the average specialist is his inclination to exaggerate his own knowledge and deprecate everyone else’s. Give him control and he will become an insufferable tyrant. To be the slave of pedants – what a destiny for humanity! Give them full power and they will begin by performing on human beings the same experiments that the scientists are now performing on rabbits and dogs.

We must respect the scientists for their merits and achievements, but in order to prevent them from corrupting their own high moral and intellectual standards, they should be granted no special privileges and no rights other than those possessed by everyone – for example, the liberty to express their convictions, thought, and knowledge. Neither they nor any other special group should be given power over others. He who is given power will inevitably become an oppressor and exploiter of society.

(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.)

"hates science" is not a line, it's propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603673)

Here's a clue: X doesn't hate science. X hates CERTAIN [applied] sciences. So do you. You simply hate different [applied] sciences than X.

Perhaps you hate the applied science of chemical warfare, but not enough to kill someone who just created breathable dick-scabs to drop on your hometown. Maybe you hate the applied science of high-speed stock trading, but not enough to write a virus to stop it. Maybe you hate the man who can use science to allow the government (or worse -- a false religion) to compel your neurons to obey them (one that doesn't exist yet, except for the paranoid), does that mean you hate SCIENCE? No -- it means you hate what some men are using science to do. Some eager beavers are willing to kill and die for that hatred. Likely, there are things you are willing to kill/die for, because you are human. These men honestly believe that nuclear power, nanotech, etc. are legitimate threats to mankind, and will stake their lives (and, unfortunately, the lives of others) on that belief.

The minute someone says "X hates science", stop listening to them. They are attempting to manipulate you, and they are likely being manipulated.

Selective anarchy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603743)

A few weeks ago Obama made a trip to New York courting business executives for donations. There were no protests.

A few days ago Romney was in Connecticut courting business executives for donations. Occupy and MoveOn organized protests. Any surprise that these "anarchist" organizations that are funded by George Soros only turn out at Republican gatherings?

Moronic question (1)

Pond823 (643768) | more than 2 years ago | (#40603873)

Here, let me fix that for you. Why do *some* anarchists hate *some* science. The original question was in a similar vein to : why do slashdotters hate sausages?

A History (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40603905)

Anyone who has read the writings of Derrick Jensen or the Unibomber will understand the feelings these people have towards technology. Namely this feeling is a love for nature, the natural world, or the way things used to be. They fear that science will transform the world into something unrecognizable or worse, something irreversible.

It may or may not be a coordinated movement, but it is a coordinated ideology. Look at oil drilling, fracking, nuclear power plants, and other scientific endeavors that have changed our landscape and have the potential to ruin many habitats. These are not simply "anarchists" but something different altogether. These are radical and militant environmentalists.

They use technology as a means to an end, rather as an end in itself. They appear to "embrace" technology because it is more useful to use the tools of the master to dismantle the master's house, so to speak.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?