Anarchism

[natural disasters]

I would like to learn more about Anarchism. What are some basic books? What are some of the major figures in Anarchism?

Thanks, everyone.

[F9]

Major figures of Anarchism, to name few, Bakunin, Malatesta, Durutti, Kropotkin, Prouhdon ant others!
And maybe this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/must-read-anarchist-t99762/index.html) can help you on some books!I again undoubtedly propose ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman!
Maybe if you have some questions, we will glad to answer you! :)

Fuserg9:star:

[JimmyJazz]

Kropotkin's encyclopedia article on Anarchism (http://www.panarchy.org/kropotkin/1905.eng.html)
Anarchy Archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/)
Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

[natural disasters]

Hey, thank you both very much, the book Anarchism From Theory to Practice looks very interesting. I might have to order it!

[F9]

Hey, thank you both very much, the book Anarchism From Theory to Practice looks very interesting. I might have to order it!

You can find a lot online for free, just go:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=302

[JimmyJazz]

Hey, thank you both very much, the book Anarchism From Theory to Practice looks very interesting. I might have to order it!

Heh, I had removed it from my post before you posted this, since I decided you probably only wanted free stuff at the moment. Here (http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Theory-Practice-Daniel-Guerin/dp/0853451753) it is again.

But yes, it's a great book. Daniel Guérin is awesome. I hugely recommend that book. If you want a good general intro to Anarchism that is not totally dated, you really do have to buy it--because unlike the classics that you can find online, such books are still under copyright. The Anarchy FAQ is a bit long to read as an intro, it's more of a reference resource imo.

[destroy and rebuild]

I think the Anarchist FAQ is a pretty good place to start, it's linked in this thread already. It's kind of long to read through all of it but it covers all the basics and is in pretty simple language. I learned a lot going through it.

[Blackscare]

For Anarcho-Communist economics- The conquest of bread by Peter Kropotkin

For historical material

Nestor Makhno, Anarchy's Cossack By Alexander Skirda
Most people focus on the Spanish civil war, but to me the Makhnovist movement is much more compelling. Not an overall history of anarchism, just an instance where it came to (temporary) fruition.

We, the Anarchists!- Stuart Christie
Fairly new book on the Spanish civil war anarchists, haven't read it yet myself. I plan on getting it soon.

More reading

God and the State- Bakunin
The Struggle against the state and other essays- Nestor Makhno
Fields, Factories, and Workshops- Peter Kropotkin.

[welshboy]

Anarchy In Action by Colin Ward is pretty damn cool

[Black Sheep]

Try to avoid e-books... your eyes will hurt and anarchism will seem the one to blame.

I suggest though a visit to the anarchist faq
http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/

[The Feral Underclass]

I would like to learn more about Anarchism. What are some basic books? What are some of the major figures in Anarchism?

Thanks, everyone.

ABC of Anarchism is the best places to start. After that I suggest picking aspects you're unsure about and reading the Anarchist FAQ, which is extensive

[StalinFanboy]

The ABC's for sure

Also,

http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/

http://www.geocities.com/amurderofcrows1/

[Invincible Summer]

The Anarchist FAQ on Infoshop (as many have already suggested) is a great resource, but it's massive and you will probably lose a lot of sleep trying to read everything.

[ZeroNowhere]

The Anarchist FAQ on Infoshop (as many have already suggested) is a great resource, but it's massive and you will probably lose a lot of sleep trying to read everything.
Also, I would advise skipping all of the stuff on Marx, because it's rather silly. That should also shorten it quite a bit.

[Blackscare]

Also, I would advise skipping all of the stuff on Marx, because it's rather silly. That should also shorten it quite a bit.

Now, I haven't read it, but I have a hunch you said that because there's a lot of anti-Marx content.

If that's true then by no means should you skip the Marx stuff. No malice here, but the Bakunin/Marx split in the international and things related to the differences and ideological struggles between the two forms of thought do a lot to clarify what exactly either point of view is by contrasting it with what it is NOT.

Also, I found that the best way I learned about the real basis of Anarcho-communism (and that it wasn't a contradiction) was in reading anarchist criticisms of authoritarian communism, how they viewed their ideal as a more perfect form of communism rather than some odd offshoot.


Also, the person quoted maybe/probably didn't have any of what I said in mind, but it got me thinking in that direction. Not trying to put words in your mouth man :p

[ZeroNowhere]

Now, I haven't read it, but I have a hunch you said that because there's a lot of anti-Marx content.
Eh, there's nothing wrong with that, merely that all of the anti-Marx content is a load of bollocks.
Eg. "Decades later, when Marx discussed what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant, he argued (in reply to Bakunin's question of "over whom will the proletariat rule?") that it simply meant "that so long as other classes continue to exist, the capitalist class in particular, the proletariat fights it (for with the coming of the proletariat to power, its enemies will not yet have disappeared), it must use measures of force, hence governmental measures; if it itself still remains a class and the economic conditions on which the class struggle and the existence of classes have not yet disappeared, they must be forcibly removed or transformed, and the process of their transformation must be forcibly accelerated." [The Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 542-3] Note, "capitalists," not "former capitalists," so implying that the members of the proletariat are, in fact, still proletarians after the "socialist" revolution and so still subject to wage slavery under economic masters."
:rolleyes:
Right, because during the anarchist communes in Spain, there was no bourgeoisie... Wrong, they were funding Franco (or, in the case of the Russian bourgeoisie, backstabbing the anarchists). Whoops.
They also reproduce Bakunin's claim about the term 'scientific socialism' being authoritarian, which is just grasping at straws.

Bakunin: "But those elected will be fervently convinced and therefore educated socialists. The phrase 'educated socialism'..."
Marx: "...never was used."
Bakunin: "... 'scientific socialism'..."
Marx: "...was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself; see my text against Proudhon."
Bakunin: "...which is unceasingly found in the works and speeches of the Lasalleans and Marxists, itself indicates that the so-called people's state will be nothing else than the very despotic guidance of the mass of the people by a new and numerically very small aristocracy of the genuine or supposedly educated. The people are not scientific, which means that they will be entirely freed from the cares of government, they will be entirely shut up in the stable of the governed. A fine liberation!
The Marxists sense this (!) contradiction and, knowing that the government of the educated (quelle reverie) will be the most oppressive, most detestable, most despised in the world, a real dictatorship despite all democratic forms, console themselves with the thought that this dictatorship will only be transitional and short." (The bit in italics was added by Marx. :D)
The conclusion, it... Y'know... It just doesn't quite follow...
!!!

"The important, fundamental dissension [between anarchists and Marxists] is [that] . . . [Marxist] socialists are authoritarians, anarchists are libertarians." Ah ha! But modern 'libertarians' are neoliberals! This shows a fundamental flaw with anarchism, as Lenin demonstrated! What, you think it's faulty reasoning? It is, so stop doing it. Kthx.

It's pretty much just, to quote Rubel, "the legend – Bakuninist and Leninist – of a Marx “worshipper of the State” and “apostle of State communism” or of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the dictatorship of a party, indeed of a single man."

[Blackscare]

*removed first part when I realized you weren't criticizing anarchists but rather stating the the elite class existed at the time.

The Makhnovists never allied with the bourgeosie, that's for damn sure. It all really depends on the state of affairs at the time.

Also, the vanguard concept combined with the dictatorship of the proletariat is an easy recipe for an elite minority seizing power in the name of the workers and becoming unanswerable to them.

[ZeroNowhere]

The Makhnovists never allied with the bourgeosie, that's for damn sure. It all really depends on the state of affairs at the time.
I never said that they did.


Also, the vanguard concept combined with the dictatorship of the proletariat is an easy recipe for an elite minority seizing power in the name of the workers and becoming unanswerable to them.
Not really, because that's not the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Blackscare]

Yea should have taken that out too, see my edit above.

Also, explain you're assertion that all modern Anarchists are neoliberals. Just seems like a vague and useless way of trying to discredit a group by trying to make them conform to some ready-made definition that happens to suit your point.

You still haven't responded to my point about the dictatorship of the proletariat. How can a bureaucracy be of the proletariat when such a system employs people full time for administration (alienating them from the real workers)? Doesn't it inherently create a rift between the masses and government? Also, in a truly democratic communism the proletariat would have no need for a 'dictatorship' of any sort to look out for it because the proletariat (not to mention toilers in agriculture) represent such an overwhelming majority.

[ZeroNowhere]

Also, explain you're assertion that all modern Anarchists are neoliberals. Just seems like a vague and useless way of trying to discredit a group by trying to make them conform to some ready-made definition that happens to suit your point.
No, it's just using the same sort of reasoning that the ⒶFAQ uses.


You still haven't responded to my point about the dictatorship of the proletariat. How can a bureaucracy be of the proletariat when such a system employs people full time for administration (alienating them from the real workers)? Doesn't it inherently create a rift between the masses and government? Also, in a truly democratic communism the proletariat would have no need for a 'dictatorship' of any sort to look out for it because the proletariat (not to mention toilers in agriculture) represent such an overwhelming majority.
The dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing to do with a bureacracy. As the Rubel quote I posted earlier indicates, "the dictatorship of the proletariat as the dictatorship of a party, indeed of a single man" is nothing but a "legend."


"Decades later, when Marx discussed what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant, he argued (in reply to Bakunin's question of "over whom will the proletariat rule?") that it simply meant "that so long as other classes continue to exist, the capitalist class in particular, the proletariat fights it (for with the coming of the proletariat to power, its enemies will not yet have disappeared), it must use measures of force, hence governmental measures; if it itself still remains a class and the economic conditions on which the class struggle and the existence of classes have not yet disappeared, they must be forcibly removed or transformed, and the process of their transformation must be forcibly accelerated." [The Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 542-3] Note, "capitalists," not "former capitalists," so implying that the members of the proletariat are, in fact, still proletarians after the "socialist" revolution and so still subject to wage slavery under economic masters." Alright then, you like to talk about the anarchist communes in the Spanish revolution. Did the bourgeoisie still exist? Well, yes, they were funding Franco (well, other than the Russian bourgeoisie, who were backstabbing the anarchists). It would appear that we have a problem here. See, Marx was looking at things from an internationalist perspective. Therefore, the proletariat and bourgeoisie had competing class interests. The bourgeoisie would wish to re-establish capitalism, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in a place after a socialist revolution. On the other hand, it is in the interests of the proletariat to abolish classes. However, unless we are to imagine a revolution that is successful internationally at the exact same time, which is unrealistic, there would be some places in which class was abolished, and others in which it was not. As the bourgeoisie would still exist in the places where it was not, they would still have class interests that conflict with that of the proletariat. Therefore, the places in which the proletariat had taken power, and, as Marx said, "It [the proletariat] can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat," therefore making the place a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', that is, the dictatorship of proletarian interests over the bourgeoisie. It has nothing to do with the former bourgeoisie, now stripped of their property and falling down to the proletariat, who are too much a minority to be a relevant threat. As the Marxist definition of the state is, basically, the enforcement of one class' interests over another's, a proletarian state is basically the enforcement of proletarian interests over the interests of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie being not within the state, but still relevant, as has been shown by previous revolutions. The other function of the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is to establish that it is the entire class, rather than just a minority as envisioned by Blanquists and many so-called 'Marxists'. It was most certainly not created by Blanqui, which is a hoax.

[Blackscare]

A quote doesn't make your position true. Why do YOU believe such a thing as the proletariat being subverted by a party could never happen? Seems to me the Bolsheviks were an outside party, among many, that gained enough support to seize power. They may have had support, but they were an outside force, a third party. And over time (not that much time) they (and the communist party later) had a monopoly on government.

[ZeroNowhere]

A quote doesn't make your position true. Why do YOU believe such a thing as the proletariat being subverted by a party could never happen? Seems to me the Bolsheviks were an outside party, among many, that gained enough support to seize power. They may have had support, but they were an outside force, a third party. And over time (not that much time) they (and the communist party later) had a monopoly on government.
I don't see your point. Do you see your point? ;)

[Blackscare]

My point is the whole concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is flawed. It opens the door for vanguards from without the working class to seize power.

[ZeroNowhere]

My point is the whole concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is flawed. It opens the door for vanguards from without the working class to seize power.
Yes, I don't understand what exactly your point is. An anarchist revolution may end up with a party dictatorship, it doesn't mean that that is anarchy, nor that anarchism thus flawed.

[Invincible Summer]

Perhaps I'm not a good Anarchist (or maybe it's my exposure to Marx before I decided I was an Anarchist), but I always interpreted the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to essentially mean "Defending the revolution from reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries," which seems acceptable no matter if you're an Anarchist or a Marxist-Leninist.

I always thought the main Anarchist point of contention would be with Communist parties (e.g. SPUSA in the states or DKP in Germany) and vanguardism/vanguard parties.

[Diagoras]

My point is the whole concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is flawed. It opens the door for vanguards from without the working class to seize power.

I am an anarchist, but I agree with Zero that many anarchists (including Bakunin) seem to misunderstand what the DotP actually is supposed to be, and while Anarchist FAQ is great for understanding anarchism, it does suffer from misunderstandings of Marx and Marxism. The dictatorship of the proletariat uses the term "dictatorship" in reference to the rule of classes. We are currently under the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"... the rule of a minority over our lives, especially economically. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be an inversion of this... a "dictatorship" by the workers (aka the majority... "democracy") against the autocratic/oligarchic forces of capital while they still exist.

Now, from this, anarchists will continue to critique the state. However, to assert that an actual "dictatorship" in the Leninist sense is what Marx was talking about is simply incorrect.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's not that Bakunin or anarchist misunderstood what the dictatorship of the proletariat is defined. Bakunin used the term dictatorship many times. The point is that how Marxists define the DoP is not the reality of it put into practice.

The centralisation of political authority is the issue and this is how Marxists envisage the DoP. Anarchists call for the decentralisation of political authority - this is the contention. If you want to call decentralised political authority a "dictatorship of the proletariat" then that's fine, but of course it's not what it is.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's not that Bakunin or anarchist misunderstood what the dictatorship of the proletariat is defined. Bakunin used the term dictatorship many times. The point is that how Marxists define the DoP is not the reality of it put into practice.
Right, and socialism in practice is the USSR, therefore socialism is a totalitarian dictatorship? That's actual the logic my history teacher had given me a few years ago for who she called the USSR communist.
Your point is besides the point. The term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was, as I said, a repudiation of Blanqui, not an encouragement. It implies the enforcement of proletarian class interests over those of the bourgeoisie, whatever the fuck Leninists have used it for is irrelevant, just as much as the what the Libertarian Party believes is irrelevant to anarchism.


If you want to call decentralised political authority a "dictatorship of the proletariat" then that's fine, but of course it's not what it is.
If you say so, I suppose. Though really, party dictatorship is in no way a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but a dictatorship over the proletariat. Unless one is to argue that if not for the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat', the Russian Revolution would have been a successful libertarian socialist revolution, which is rather silly.

[natural disasters]

wow. thank you all very much for so much helpful info. hopefully I'll read up on the subject and be able to come back to other threads knowing about what I'm saying instead of coming off like an asshole. lol

[Diagoras]

wow. thank you all very much for so much helpful info. hopefully I'll read up on the subject and be able to come back to other threads knowing about what I'm saying instead of coming off like an asshole. lol

Not that I have noticed you sounding like an asshole personally, but that sounds like a great goal nonetheless ;).

[The Feral Underclass]

Right, and socialism in practice is the USSR, therefore socialism is a totalitarian dictatorship?

No, that's not in anyway what I said.


That's actual the logic my history teacher had given me a few years ago for who she called the USSR communist.Just because it follows that the DoP is centralised in the eyes of Marxists it does not naturally follows that the USSR was communist. That clearly makes no sense.


Your point is besides the point. The term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was, as I said, a repudiation of Blanqui, not an encouragement. It implies the enforcement of proletarian class interests over those of the bourgeoisie, whatever the fuck Leninists have used it for is irrelevant, just as much as the what the Libertarian Party believes is irrelevant to anarchism.My point is actually that it's irrelevant what the theory is. Ideas are not important in and of themselves. What's relevant is how they relate to reality. Ok, so the DoP means class domination over the bourgeoisie, but that doesn't actually address what that means in a practical sense and that's my point.


If you say so, I suppose. Though really, party dictatorship is in no way a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but a dictatorship over the proletariat.I don't really know what you think I'm arguing.


Unless one is to argue that if not for the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat', the Russian Revolution would have been a successful libertarian socialist revolution, which is rather silly.You've lost me. I don't quite grasp what you're trying to argue against. I'm specifically aruging agaisnt the semantic arguing about the words...

[RebelDog]

Right, and socialism in practice is the USSR, therefore socialism is a totalitarian dictatorship? That's actual the logic my history teacher had given me a few years ago for who she called the USSR communist.

Socialism is not the dictatorship off any class. It is the right of people to determine and control their own lives in society in proportion to how that control effects them and others and society as a whole, therefore the right to not be controlled and exploited, ie, self management of the economy and the community by those who engage in it. To rational observers the USSR was clearly not an example of this.

[More Fire for the People]

I'm really affacionado when it comes to anarchist thought. My favorite works are the classics like ABCs of Anarchism, Anarchosyndicalism, Anarchism and Other Essays and these just so happen to for beginners and available online. I also like, on a more aesthetic level, the anarchist theory that the 60s and 70s churned out: Angry Brigade, Situationism, operaismo, autnomia, Os Cangacerios, etc.

And even if you discover that you're not an anarchist, personally as a Leninist I find anarchist literature refreshing and has the same potential to open up dimensions in the class struggle. For instance, I tend to view unions in the same light as Rocker and I tend to agree with the advances in social analysis made by situationism and autonomia.

[natural disasters]

So, I want to thank you all again for your help.

I have another question to ask.
What about movements and political collectives that are anarchist in nature?

[Invincible Summer]

So, I want to thank you all again for your help.

I have another question to ask.
What about movements and political collectives that are anarchist in nature?

What about them? You're not asking for anything really specific.

[natural disasters]

What about them? You're not asking for anything really specific.
sorry. I was just wondering what were some major ones. i know of only one in Spain the CNT I think...

[Invincible Summer]

sorry. I was just wondering what were some major ones. i know of only one in Spain the CNT I think...


The IWW can be seen as anarchist in nature - it seeks to eliminate wage slavery, promote "deliberate acts of inefficiency" in the workplace as a direct action strategy, and is organized in a supposedly quite democratic nature (although I don't know how it works in practice).

There's also RAAN (which lots of people label as a bunch of hooligans) which I don't know too much about - they seem to be focused on direct actions

[Tjis]

A lot has been written about anarchist organisation. If you want to know more about organising in an anarchist way in general, a good starting point would be "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists", better known as the Platform. It was written by a group of Russian exiles in France in 1926, after the bolshevik coup. What makes it particulary interesting is the debate it sparked in the anarchist movement. The Platform was (and is) a controversional document, and the debate about it, more so than the Platform itself, could teach you a lot about anarchist organisation.
http://nestormakhno.info/english/index.htm (which was already linked I believe) has the Platform itself and also various extra elaborations and critics about this document.

[revolution inaction]

sorry. I was just wondering what were some major ones. i know of only one in Spain the CNT I think...

The main anarchist organizations in the UK are Anarchist Federation (http://www.afed.org.uk/), SolFed (http://solfed.org.uk/), Liberty and Solidarity (http://libertyandsolidarity.org/) and Classwar (http://www.londonclasswar.org/newswire/index.php?blogid=1)

[StalinFanboy]

The IWW can be seen as anarchist in nature - it seeks to eliminate wage slavery, promote "deliberate acts of inefficiency" in the workplace as a direct action strategy, and is organized in a supposedly quite democratic nature (although I don't know how it works in practice).

There's also RAAN (which lots of people label as a bunch of hooligans) which I don't know too much about - they seem to be focused on direct actions
Our main focus is to be as sexy as fucking possible.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/culture-red-anarchist-t99893/index.html?t=99893
http://poisonedcandy.com/RAAN/principles.html

Both of those links offer more information on what RAAN is.