Greensboro writer Liz Seymour has an essay in this morning's New York Times about her life in a "seven-person anarchist collective, run by consensus and fueled by punk music, curse-studded conversation and food scavenged from Dumpsters."
It's an interesting choice to make, and an interesting article. Liz chose this path after splitting with her husband, Bill, who was my senior-year English teacher in high school.


And to think I drive by her house every day.
Anarchists in Westerwood. Who'd have guessed?
Posted by: David Wharton | Mar 09, 2006 at 08:55 AM
Anarchists with long-distance plans even.
Posted by: David Boyd | Mar 09, 2006 at 08:59 AM
We don't get it. And can you be anarchists with a long-distance plan?
Posted by: Gate | Mar 09, 2006 at 09:31 AM
Wi-fi, too.
Why wouldn't anarchists want such things?
Posted by: Ed Cone | Mar 09, 2006 at 09:45 AM
Where is the anarchy in all of this? They are self-governing, but still there is governance
Seems more like an effort at utopian living to me.
Posted by: Danny Wright | Mar 09, 2006 at 09:51 AM
We usually don't associate dumpster diving with utopia, but to each their own.
Personally, we also question letting strangers just show up and stay with a young child in the house. I think it is one thing for an adult to choose to live in such as situation, eating from dumpsters, living with strangers, and so forth, but quite another to have a child in the same environment.
It has been hard, but so far we have avoided calling these people hippies, leftists, communists, or weirdos. We are quite proud of of ourselves.
Whatever happened to good, old fashioned comformity?
Posted by: Gate | Mar 09, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Don’t know what I want but
I know how to get it
I say Greensboro anarchists do the Sex Pistols one better. They know what they want and they know how to get it. Comparison shopping.
Posted by: David Boyd | Mar 09, 2006 at 11:21 AM
The kids and I were listening to that song yesterday morning on the way to school...
Posted by: Ed Cone | Mar 09, 2006 at 11:25 AM
Careful. The next thing you know there'll be an anarchy sticker on the back of the Volvo and a student government association coup.
Posted by: David Boyd | Mar 09, 2006 at 11:39 AM
I do not drive a Volvo, sir.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Mar 09, 2006 at 11:51 AM
I know Liz through her service to the homeless. She's a member of Food Not Bombs and they feed the homeless three times a week. They also did a homeless health fair this year. Liz really cares about people.
Posted by: Cara Michele | Mar 09, 2006 at 01:28 PM
Here are some good links about Anarchism.
InfoShop Anarchist FAQ
Anarchism at Wikipedia
Posted by: Brian R. | Mar 09, 2006 at 02:03 PM
As Cara said, Liz and her family/friends do a great deal of good in our community. Before you start envisioning a house full of Bakunin types it may be important to return anarchism to its historical roots.
William Godwin's "Inquiry Concerning Political Justice" was a best seller in its day. Godwin (1756-1836) said when you have a strong disagreement - then sit down on a log and talk it out.
If you run across someone who has nothing - take some of your stuff (food, clothing, money) and give some to them. His main premise was that people are "good" and government gets in the way of that direct interaction between people.
His ideas were very popular right after the French Revolution but proved not to be the right formula for the spread of global capitalism. Godwin may be even more popular for the powerful women in his life. He married the feminist, Mary Wollstonecraft and their daughter Mary was the author of Frankenstein and married Percy Bysshe Shelley.
Posted by: John D. Young | Mar 09, 2006 at 04:13 PM
Do they feed the homeless with food from their dumpster diving trips?
Say what you want, but they sound like a bunch of hippie communists to us. Conformity is good.
Posted by: Gate | Mar 09, 2006 at 09:01 PM
Gee, Gate, that was even funnier the second time.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Mar 09, 2006 at 09:21 PM
Thanks to good old-fashioned conformity in this capitalist society, many women are forced to pay money to leave their children with strangers in order to work. These women have to work in order to pay these strangers to watch their children. There's something wrong with this cycle, and it's brought on by "conformity."
Just about every child meets a handful of strangers daily in normal life - unless the parents are so terrified they keep the child confined and prevent them from growing. This is brought on by "conformity."
Just because strangers are invited into a home does not mean a child is left alone with the strangers.
It is actually because of today's patriarchal society that it's much more likely for a child to be harmed by "Uncle Bob" or "Grandpa Joe" than it is for a child to be harmed by a stranger. (85% percent of the time children are assaulted by someone they know and trust, often someone who is in charge of them.) You may reference kidshelpkids.net if you would like to research this further.
Oh. And old-fashioned is hyphenated.
Posted by: veronica | Mar 10, 2006 at 01:37 AM
Interesting article. Will these flakes be as likely to live with her in 25 years when she has macular degeneration, the onset of Parkinson's Disease, or other infirmities of old age?
I have to agree with one of the posters above - this all sounds much more like an experiment in group living.
I lived in Portland, OR for seven years and I have to tell you the left coast "Anarchists" are quite a bit crustier and testy, too. More like thugs that just happen to wear a particular uniform, their main daytime occupation seems to be begging for money.
Posted by: Michael | Mar 10, 2006 at 08:34 AM
I think the designation "flakes" is hostile and unproductive, but I too winced when I read Liz say she's tradiing future economic security for life in the moment. In some ways, that's no different from gorging on credit card debt and consumerism in classic boomer style.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Mar 10, 2006 at 08:43 AM
"Thanks to good old-fashioned conformity in this capitalist society, many women are forced to pay money to leave their children with strangers in order to work. These women have to work in order to pay these strangers to watch their children. There's something wrong with this cycle, and it's brought on by "conformity.""
...which we can cure by establishing a basic parental right for free day care?
Posted by: Bubba | Mar 10, 2006 at 09:06 AM
The post about patriarchial society sounds kind of leftist to us as well.
We don't like daycare either. If we had kids we would want our wife to stay home - if she chose to do so. Sounds like you want all women to stay home with the kids as well. Put on your dress and pearls and get to vacuuming.
Got to go and check the dumpster behind Fresh Market for leftovers. Anyone want to join us?
Posted by: Gate | Mar 10, 2006 at 10:48 AM
B: "Thanks to good old-fashioned conformity in this capitalist society, many women are forced to pay money to leave their children with strangers in order to work."
G: "...which we can cure by establishing a basic parental right for free day care?"
Which many families can cure by accepting a less privileged standard of living for a time and having mom stay home and raise her own babies. Your kids won't remember how big your house was, how many cars you had or where you bought their clothes. They'll remember that Mom was always there.
Posted by: Cara Michele | Mar 10, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Cara Michele, two of my colleagues from work and their families have done exactly what you suggest. I am very much impressed by the decision they've made. My wife and I for a while discussed the same idea -- with roles reversed since she is the bread winner -- but for various reasons it wasn't what we decided to do. If (when) we have a second child, we may very well try to work out this type of arrangement. The level of family-life satisfaction for my colleagues is incredibly high, despite the financial challenges they face. That said, I know when I leave and pick up my one-year old from day care how much he enjoys his teachers and his classmates, so he seems to be getting some good socialization at an early age. And he seems pretty happy when he is with us, so we aren't wringing our hands with guilt, though we certainly would love to spend more time with him.
Posted by: Danny Wright | Mar 10, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Gate,
One of my faculty members used to bring me flowers that he fished out of the dumpster behind Fresh Market. He "rescued" food as well.
Posted by: jw | Mar 10, 2006 at 01:00 PM
He obviously did not respect you enough to buy them for you.
Posted by: Gate | Mar 10, 2006 at 07:24 PM
I used to be all for anarchy until I figured out that our current world order sprang from anarchy. I mean, I know the world is pretty screwed up but do we want to repeat all of history?
Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet | Mar 10, 2006 at 09:14 PM
Anyone know if Liz's house has a website? I assumed they did, but I'll be darned if I can find it...
Posted by: Peter | Mar 12, 2006 at 05:16 AM
It is actually because of today's patriarchal society
oh no, she didn't. we couldn't even make it through one thread w/o the patriach police coming out.
Posted by: Peter | Mar 12, 2006 at 05:41 AM
I live in a nearby town with another collective anarchist inspired house. It can be very illuminating to watch people's reactions to it. Some people try very hard to find anything wrong with it and then quickly dismiss it entirely bc it's not 100% perfect. I guess they feel threatened by it in some way. There is a difference btwn pointing out the flaws (and the members of the house love to do it too!) and acting as if you are in some sort of living arrangement competition (which seems pointless.) Live how you like.
I love having the house in the neighborhood- they are fun and good neighbors.
Posted by: Phil | Mar 14, 2006 at 08:34 AM