General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTeabaggers are, by definition, Anarchists
The literal definition of anarchists are people who despise government in any form and want it's demise.
Please read this Wikipedia definition of Anarchism and let me know if this is not an exact definition of teabagging Republicans?
Although Wikipedia associates Anarchists with the Left, politically speaking, the actual definition, in association with contemporary American politics, defines teabagging to a "T" (pardon the pun).
Link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)They don't mind when Big Brother forces religious morals on people.
Libertarianism is more closer to anarchism. And there are right-wing libertarians and left-wing libertarians. The opposite end of the scale is authoritarian. And likewise there are right-wing authoritarians and left-wing authoritarians.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)They just don't like liberals.
louis c
(8,652 posts)and default, including SS and Medicare.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)The vast majority of Tea Party supporters - 70% - oppose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, a new McClatchy-Marist poll found.
The results are somewhat in line with the feelings of registered voters as a whole - 80% oppose proposed cuts to those entitlements.
But it is something of a surprise for Tea Partiers, whose political platform is built on the principles of slashing government spending.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/majority-tea-party-supporters-oppose-cuts-medicare-medicaid-poll-article-1.113567#ixzz2H3Tu5CVr
But the grass roots TeaBagger just wanted to make sure no "undesirables" would benefit from Obama's ACA.
I have another poll that shows 80%.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(at least when people who don't look like THEM commit crimes).
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)They're all lock 'em up and throw away the key types that seem to want to prosecute everyone that looks at them cross eyed, but let them get a traffic ticket or other civil fine and they scream bloody murder about tyranny of the state.
My actual view of them is that, very soon the first pronouncement of their movement by that Santelli douche, they're just a re-branding of the far right of the republican party.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Any time they see something that makes them uncomfortable, be it left-wing Occupiers setting up camp, minorities demanding they be treated with basic respect, or same-sex couples holding hands in public, their reaction is to use force - guns, jails, beating the crap out of people to get their way.
The Tea Party is America's Nazi Party, and they must be stopped AT ALL COSTS!
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)All they want to see is the world burn.
Lex
(34,108 posts)
OccupyManny
(60 posts)They are all nazis and would put us in death camps if they could.
Remain vigilant!
patrice
(47,992 posts)I'm not an expert, but the anarcho-syndicalists may be somewhat different to the extent that there is some organizing core principle other than the destruction of government/order that is supposed to evolve out of chaos, but it would also be similar with other types of anarchy in its motive toward chaos.
Like any ideology, I find anarchy somewhat suspect, practically speaking in regards to its effect upon the lives of the power-less or disadvantaged in an anarchy.
I understand the attraction of the idea, but I doubt the authentic functionality of "whatever will be, will be" and whatever that will cost anyone is worth it.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I suppose even far right anarchists do as well in that they worship total freedom, but Anarchy has a long rich and thoughtful tradition that stresses cooperation and community. Anarchy as it has been both advocated for and practiced since the mid 19th Century is literally a social theory - not hyper individualistic. It builds on the concept of solidarity and respect for the equal rights of all, and it's hallmark is bottom up rather than top down decision making. Todays Tea Party members would be far more likely to tar and feather a true anarchist than associate with him or her.
patrice
(47,992 posts)But my strongest concerns have to do with how I guess that anarchists would not be particularly supportive of NATIONAL health care in any form. Though I understand and agree that some level of anarchy is good for people, and it isn't something that we can just turn on and then turn off, it should be more present than that, I don't know how you get from anarchy to (preferably Single Payer) Health Care for everyone, except through many many many many cycles from the bottom up, and many of us don't have that kind of time.
I actually do favor the concept of anarchy, but I think our occupy was pretty dominated by a bunch of people reading the tea-leaves about cannabis legalization, so that made us a strange brew with Rand Paul-style gun advocates, and Tea Party racists, thrown in amongst poor-to-upper-middle-class anarchists, Constitutionalists, street people, what subsequently became emo progs, IWW, students . . . camp and the GAs tended to be dominated pretty easily, by whomever, for whatever. It was toooooooooo anarchic. Not good for people.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)From what I understand the closest we have seen to that coming about was in Spain where a robust anarchist movement worded at the grass roots level for decades before a self governing system came to fruition in large parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. Obviously Anarchy can't be imposed op a people, it's values can be taught (and were taught at the town level in Spain) but it has to be embraced by the people in order to take root. When that happens things begin to function differently. Health care I suspect would be recognized as a human right at the community level and the community would support institutions and professionals who provided it for those in need in a manner akin to addressing all other basic human needs such as education food and shelter.
In our current culture we can only practice using the tools that anarchy develops in isolated cooperative settings - this society as a whole is not prepared to function in those ways.
tama
(9,137 posts)Long after the civil war, people remembered and still remember what anarchism is about. There was a bus doing it's usual round, when the driver stopped, said "Fuck this" and walked away. Passengers sat quietly wondering for a while, then old woman rose from the back seat and started driving the route until the bus came to her stop, where she left, and another passenger took over, etc.
And as said, according to anthropological study most human cultures are egalitarian anarchies, the main exception to the rule are class societies called "civilizations".
tama
(9,137 posts)health care for all who need it is very anarchistic idea. Occupy camps were dominated by free health care clinics, free food, new (temporary) homes and other support for homeless, which is the same as what Occupy Sandy is doing. Those with time and resources are helping those in need. Through bonds of friendship and solidarity and basic human compassion (which is THE anarchist credo) untwisted by power hierarchies and forced competition and other forms of artificial psychopathy, people can trust that they receive help when in need.
As for practical examples of forms of anarchic self-organization, co-ops are not size limited and can be based on gift economy, barter and own money system and any combination of. There is no need for top down universal one-size-fits-all solutions, as there is great richness and evolutionary wisdom in variety, much wiser than putting all eggs in same basket and monoculture solutions.
And yes, if you want to develop cooperative communities based on social capital and networks of mutual aid, you build inclusive movements that are open and accessible to all willing to cooperate regardless of their ideological and theoretical belief systems. Not exclusive movements of ideological purity.
tama
(9,137 posts)are a very very bad idea, given what human potentials they are based on and strengthen.
Anthropological study has found that great majority of human cultures - so called "primitive" societies are anarchic, egalitarian societies. The exceptions to the norm are agrarian societies that developed complex power hierarchies and class systems. We call them "civilizations".
Classical Western Anarchism, like Marxism, is based on the idea and ethics of liberation from class society. Difference is that Marxists believe that the route to classless anarchy-communism goes through working class taking over the state apparatus, anarchists say that that will lead to becoming corrupted by the power. Historical examples of Soviet Union etc. support the anarchist warnings.
If you consider families, groups of friends and horizontal decentralized networks as "chaos" instead of natural bottom-up and holistic social organization, I don't know what to say.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)Did you read the definition?
"Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable"
The OP says that teabaggers, BY DEFINITION, are Anarchists.
You may disagree, but my opinion is far from absurd.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)an astro-turf funded group of bigoted, religious, conservative tax dodgers with egalitarians who oppose hierarchical authoritarian oppression does a disservice to anarchists.
louis c
(8,652 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)There would be the mother of all mass conniption fits.
No, Teabaggers aren't anarchists, they just want to make sure the government helps no one but them, they are worthy, everyone else is unworthy.
"Keep the government out of my Medicad" is not the cry of an anarchist, it is the cry of a moran.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)The posers waving flags and taking their marching orders from the Koch Brothers and claiming Obama is a socialist, Kenyan, Muslim, anti-Christ, Nazi, fascist, pacifist, radical are just that, posers.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)That would be Mussolini's definition of Fascism: The merger of State and Corporation. "Smaller" or no government only means here that corporations do away with pesky regulation, hindrances to profit. It's trading the visible governing system for the man behind the curtain. End result: governance.
An astute DUer posted that the Koch brothers' industry is up for massive upgrade demands this or next year due to EPA regulations. Makes sense that they'd spend a pittance in comparison, to purchase politicians who would simply weaken and eliminate the EPA.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Libertarians are Anarchists without the balls to commit.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Dumb post all around.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)That's not anarchism, that's just willful ignorance (putting it charitably).
They love government programs that benefit THEMSELVES, but they don't like "welfare" or "Food Stamps", for really transparent reasons.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)But break it down and they depend more than most people on what the government provides for them.
Republicans, to me, are corporate anarchists, and they've been living large in the anarchy.
They want a "business can do whatever it wants" USA and they've got it. And we all suffer as a result, because they privatize the profits, but make our society - and tax dollars - pay for the fallout of their "anything goes" corporate philosophy.
When each Walmart costs society millions in Food Stamp benefits for slave wage WalMart's WORKERS, we have a serious corporate anarchy problem...
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)from the political right to the left.
Just because teabagging is a form of Anarchism, doesn't mean all forms of Anarchism are the same as teabagging.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It seems contradictory, but it's true.
http://phys.org/news/2011-08-reveals-cultural-characteristics-tea-party.html
August 22, 2011
American voters sympathetic to the Tea Party movement reflect four primary cultural and political beliefs more than other voters do: authoritarianism, libertarianism, fear of change, and negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, according to new research to be presented at the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.
"Our findings show that the Tea Party movement can best be understood as a new cultural expression of late 20th century conservatism," said Andrew J. Perrin, an associate professor of sociology in the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill's College of Arts and Sciences, and lead author of the study, "Cultures of the Tea Party."
And here's the scholarly article this news story talks about.
http://perrin.socsci.unc.edu/perrin-tepper-caren-morris-cultures-of-the-tea-party-asa-2011.pdf
Andrew J. Perrin
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Steven J. Tepper
Vanderbilt University
Neal Caren
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Sally Morris
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Abstract:
Using data from a telephone poll conducted in the summer of 2010 in North Carolina (n= 1,164)
and Tennessee (n=1,295) and a follow up poll from the fall of 2010 in the same states (total
n=561), we examine the political and cultural dispositions of Tea Party movement (TPM)
supporters. Our data reveal four primary cultural dispositions that suggest TPM support is
correlated with the Republican party but can best be understood as a new cultural expression oflate 20th century conservatism. These four dispositions are: authoritarianism, ontological
insecurity, libertarianism, and nativism. We also utilize short interviews conducted at a TPM rally
in eastern NC to bolster our polling results and comment on the syncretic cultural work being
done by the TPM to mobilize popular support. In a third survey conducted in the Spring of 2011
(n=[x]), we find that Tea Party supporters had become more conservative on politicized issues,
while attitudes on other issues did not change.
A movement that defines itself as pro-constitution movement is very much for "constitutional government". And they want state mechanisms of violence to protect their privatized property against "mob rule". What they want is nationalistic fascist state without any of the "socialist" and "labor" of the National Socialist German Labor Party.
Statists like liberals, socialists and even commies make accommodiationist deals with statist fascists all the time. Real anarchists never.
kydo
(2,679 posts)Anarchists are for no rules for the most part and the other part is chaos as it is a mass of different ideas clumped together as a group. Pretty much like everything else in the world.
Like teabaggers. They are part of the conservative movement we tend to call republicans or at least thats how they want to define themselves. I still define them, (teabaggers that is), as bat shit crazy people. Sometimes I change my mind and call them racists and bigots. But that's really their leaders. But their followers really are just bat shit crazy people. 
But I do think an Anarchist might be offended that you are comparing them to teabaggers. The baggers love rules. They love making rules for everyone but themselves. Rules one who can marry, having kids, having sex, using drugs, guns, land, food, money, etc etc. But they don't like taxes and I think that might be one thing they share with anarchists.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Many of them are against abortion and gay marriage.
Many of them support the wars.
They're not anarchists, they are Republicans. There is a really big difference between the two. There is a bigger difference between Republicans and anarchists then there is between Republicans and Democrats.
