Why is the Anarchist FAQ so inexplicably popular and well-renouned?

[Agrippa]

The Anarchist FAQ, which was recently published by veteran anarchist publisher AK Press. Considering the vast amount of far more brilliant material related to the anarchist tradition that remains untranslated and unpublished, I can't help but feel the printing and distribution of this massive tome was a waste of resources.

Furthermore, anarchists on the Internet have an inexplicable love for this text, often comparing it to the works of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatessa, Berkman, and Goldman in the course of reading reccomendations, despite the fact that the FAQ isn't really that good. To cement my point I present examples of selections of the FAQ I find to be particularly embarassing.

For example, their section on "terrorism" (section A.2.18.)


How is it, then, that anarchism is associated with violence? Partly this is because the state and media insist on referring to terrorists who are not anarchists as anarchists. For example, the German Baader-Meinhoff gang were often called "anarchists" despite their self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninism.Furthermore, it says.


It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support this tactic. [...] All in all, the "propaganda by the deed" phase of anarchism was a failureApparently the "Baader-Meinhoff gang" are not anarchists, (and neither is Ted Kaczynski, according to another section, which refers to him as "the Unabomer", continuing the trend of referring to individuals who actually attempt to confromt the state with the derrogitory labels given to them by the capitalist media) but Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill are.



However there is another liberal tradition, one which is essentially pre-capitalist which has more in common with the aspirations of anarchism. As Chomsky put it:
"These ideas [of anarchism] grow out the Enlightenment; their roots are in Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality, Humbolt's The Limits of State Action, Kant's insistence, in his defence of the French Revolution, that freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, not a gift to be granted when such maturity is achieved . . . With the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and extended the radical humanist message of the Enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals that were perverted into an ideology to sustain the emerging social order. In fact, on the very same assumptions that led classical liberalism to oppose the intervention of the state in social life, capitalist social relations are also intolerable. This is clear, for example, from the classic work of [Wilhelm von] Humboldt, The Limits of State Action, which anticipated and perhaps inspired [John Stuart] Mill . . . This classic of liberal thought, completed in 1792, is in its essence profoundly, though prematurely, anticapitalist. Its ideas must be attenuated beyond recognition to be transmuted into an ideology of industrial capitalism." ["Notes on Anarchism", For Reasons of State, p. 156] Chomsky discusses this in more detail in his essay "Language and Freedom" (contained in both Reason of State and The Chomsky Reader). As well as Humbolt and Mill, such "pre-capitalist" liberals would include such radicals as Thomas Paine, who envisioned a society based on artisan and small farmers (i.e. a pre-capitalist economy) with a rough level of social equality and, of course, a minimal government. His ideas inspired working class radicals across the world and, as E.P. Thompson reminds us, Paine's Rights of Man was "a foundation-text of the English [and Scottish] working-class movement." While his ideas on government are "close to a theory of anarchism," his reform proposals "set a source towards the social legislation of the twentieth century." [The Making of the English Working Class, p. 99, p. 101 and p. 102] His combination of concern for liberty and social justice places him close to anarchism.
Then there is Adam Smith. While the right (particularly elements of the "libertarian" right) claim him as a classic liberal, his ideas are more complex than that. For example, as Noam Chomsky points out, Smith advocated the free market because "it would lead to perfect equality, equality of condition, not just equality of opportunity." [Class Warfare, p. 124] As Smith himself put it, "in a society where things were left to follow their natural course, where there is perfect liberty" it would mean that "advantages would soon return to the level of other employments" and so "the different employments of labour and stock must . . . be either perfectly equal or continually tending to equality." Nor did he oppose state intervention or state aid for the working classes. For example, he advocated public education to counter the negative effects of the division of labour. Moreover, he was against state intervention because whenever "a legislature attempts to regulate differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is otherwise when in favour of the masters." He notes how "the law" would "punish" workers' combinations "very severely" while ignoring the masters' combinations ("if it dealt impartially, it would treat the masters in the same manner"). [The Wealth of Nations, p. 88 and p. 129] Thus state intervention was to be opposed in general because the state was run by the few for the few, which would make state intervention benefit the few, not the many. It is doubtful Smith would have left his ideas on laissez-faire unchanged if he had lived to see the development of corporate capitalism. It is this critical edge of Smith's work are conveniently ignored by those claiming him for the classical liberal tradition.
Smith, argues Chomsky, was "a pre-capitalist and anti-capitalist person with roots in the Enlightenment." Yes, he argues, "the classical liberals, the [Thomas] Jeffersons and the Smiths, were opposing the concentrations of power that they saw around them . . . They didn't see other forms of concentration of power which only developed later. When they did see them, they didn't like them. Jefferson was a good example. He was strongly opposed to the concentrations of power that he saw developing, and warned that the banking institutions and the industrial corporations which were barely coming into existence in his day would destroy the achievements of the Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 125]
As Murray Bookchin notes, Jefferson "is most clearly identified in the early history of the United States with the political demands and interests of the independent farmer-proprietor." [The Third Revolution, vol. 1, pp. 188-9] In other words, with pre-capitalist economic forms. We also find Jefferson contrasting these "aristocrats" and the "democrats." The former are "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes." The democrats "identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the honest & safe . . . depository of the public interest," if not always "the most wise." [quoted by Chomsky, Powers and Prospects, p. 88] As Chomsky notes, the "aristocrats" were "the advocates of the rising capitalist state, which Jefferson regarded with dismay, recognising the obvious contradiction between democracy and the capitalism." [Op. Cit., p. 88] Claudio J. Katz's essay on "Thomas Jefferson's Liberal Anticapitalism" usefully explores these issues. [American Journal of Political Science, vol. 47, No. 1 (Jan, 2003), pp. 1-17]


In my opinion the most laughable and misinformed section is Section A.3.9, the FAQ's take on anarcho-primitivism.


Then there is another, key, contradiction. For if you accept that there is a need for a transition from 'here' to 'there' then primitivism automatically excludes itself from the anarchist tradition. The reason is simple. Moore asserts that "mass society" involves "people working, living in artificial, technologised environments, and [being] subject to forms of coercion and control." [Op. Cit.] So if what primitivists argue about technology, industry and mass society are all true, then any primitivist transition would, by definition, not be libertarian. This is because "mass society" will have to remain for some time (at the very least decades, more likely centuries) after a successful revolution and, consequently from a primitivist perspective, be based on "forms of coercion and control." There is an ideology which proclaims the need for a transitional system which will be based on coercion, control and hierarchy which will, in time, disappear into a stateless society. It also, like primitivism, stresses that industry and large scale organisation is impossible without hierarchy and authority. That ideology is Marxism. Thus it seems ironic to "classical" anarchists to hear self-proclaimed anarchists repeating Engels arguments against Bakunin as arguments for "anarchy"
In short, the "Anarchist FAQ" is muddle-headed nonsense.

[Pogue]

Based on a couple of sections which you seem to have an issue on?

[Agrippa]

I was only giving examples. The text is excessively massive. I can't refute it point-by-point. However, the FAQ's crimes are many, among its most serious are its Euro-centric accounts of "anarchy in action", and the almost-total rewriting of European individualists out of its account of anarchist history.

[Dimentio]

What is really sympathetic about primitivism? Except that their criticism sucked, primitivism in itself already sucks.^^

[YSR]

Err, Ted Kaczynski was/is a miserable fuck who has nothing to do with the liberation of humanity. With all due respect, get that primitivist bullshit out of here. Primitivism, particularly in its extreme formulations by Kaczynski and Zerzan, is a bizarre distopian fantasy predicated upon encouraging the deaths of billions of people to bring about "anarchy." If that's anarchism, I don't want anything to do with it.

Fortunately, as the FAQ points out, it's not.

Also, there's zero question that Baader-Meinhoff were not anarchists. They were the Red Army Faction. They were Marxist-Leninists. That's not even a possibility. There were anarchist terrorist groups in Germany at the same time, but they were not the RAF. The June 2 Movement was one example, who later folded and the anarchists in it that wished to continue fighting gave up their politics and joined the hierarchical RAF.

Furthermore, there's almost zero contention, looking backwards, that terrorism was a succesful strategy. In every instance, every one, where anarchists have picked up terrorism, they have failed. Contrasting, in the instances of successful anarchist communities on wide-spread levels, particularly Mahkno's Ukraine and revolutionary Spain, terrorism was not used. Terrorism is a dead end for anarchists, only through mass struggle can we actually live by and organize for the things we believe in.

[Agrippa]

Err, Ted Kaczynski was/is a miserable fuck who has nothing to do with the liberation of humanity.

Thomas Jefferson, J.S. Mill, and Adam Smith were/are miserable fucks who have nothing to do with the liberation of humanity.


With all due respect, get that primitivist bullshit out of here.

I wasn't advocating primitivism. I was illustrating the AFAQ's muddle-headed logic by quoting their lame attempts to connect primitivism with Marxism.


Also, there's zero question that Baader-Meinhoff were not anarchists. They were the Red Army Faction. They were Marxist-Leninists. That's not even a possibility. There were anarchist terrorist groups in Germany at the same time, but they were not the RAF. The June 2 Movement was one example, who later folded and the anarchists in it that wished to continue fighting gave up their politics and joined the hierarchical RAF.

I'm well aware of all of this. How does any of this prove that anarchists are not terroristic? It proves the contrary.


Furthermore, there's almost zero contention, looking backwards, that terrorism was a succesful strategy.

Do other strategies, such as syndicalism, have a greater success rate?


Mahkno's Ukraine and revolutionary Spain

Both of those situations involved lots of terrorism. Makhno was such a terrorist, he shot one of his own soldiers for putting up an anti-Semitic flyer. The Spanish anarchists resorted almost exclusive to urban guerilla tactics once they were betrayed by the CNT-FAI leadership and forced underground by the fascist victory.


Terrorism is a dead end for anarchists, only through mass struggle can we actually live by and organize for the things we believe in.

"Terrorism" and "mass struggle" are not mutually exclusive. "mass struggle" is also a meaningless, generic term that appeals slavishly to democratic mob politics and the lowest common denominator.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Not to mention the extremely sectarian and slanderous sections on Marxism where they take quotes out of context or use semantics to prove that Marxists just want to establish a dictatorship over the proletariat. I also think it's funny when they just make assertions like "in anarchy, no one will ever want to hurt someone else" or "no one will ever want to force anyone else to abide by their laws" without attempting to prove them.

[Killfacer]

Not to mention the extremely sectarian and slanderous sections on Marxism where they take quotes out of context or use semantics to prove that Marxists just want to establish a dictatorship over the proletariat. I also think it's funny when they just make assertions like "in anarchy, no one will ever want to hurt someone else" or "no one will ever want to force anyone else to abide by their laws" without attempting to prove them.

I don't think this is the thread for you to make childish statements and commence a flamefest.

[Agrippa]

I don't think this is the thread for you to make childish statements and commence a flamefest.

Don't worry. As the creator of this thread, I don't mind...I may disagree with his position but I don't mind him using my thread to express it. I basically created it with the full knowledge it would become a flamefest. However, there are plenty of Leninist vs. anarchist flamefests on this board, let's mix it up a little.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I don't think this is the thread for you to make childish statements and commence a flamefest.

Please explain how I was flaming or making a childish statement. I can easily back up what I have said.

[Killfacer]

Please explain how I was flaming or making a childish statement. I can easily back up what I have said.

I never said that you were flaming. Simply that you saying that was likely to cause a big fuckign argument.

If the OP is fine with it, then who am i to complain. Go ahead.

[ZeroNowhere]

I never said that you were flaming. Simply that you saying that was likely to cause a big fuckign argument.To be honest, he has brought it up before, and I don't recall it starting up a huge debate. My thread on the subject didn't really start up a debate either. Though, to be fair, it isn't sectarian, it does claim that some Marxists (eg. councilists) come closer to anarchism, and seems to think of them as allies. Of course, it then comes up with some stuff about libertarian Marxists being closer to Bakky than Marx, which is certainly bollocks when referring to the SPGB and us De Leonites. But still, it's not necessarily sectarian.
Anyways, the AFAQ doesn't actually seem to be claiming that Jefferson, Smith, etc, were anarchists, merely close to it. Jefferson was cool, and I suppose that there is some basis for this claim. I do not know about the rest. Though yes, that part comparing primmos to Marxists is crap, and really fails as both a criticism of primitivism and of Marxism. Then again, their section of primitivism was somewhat disappointing, mainly due to not pointing out that primmos are enemies of metal.
Still, the Anarchist FAQ is a good introduction to anarchism in general, and its section on 'anarcho'-capitalim is also pretty good, which is presumably why it's as popular as it is.


Makhno was such a terrorist, he shot one of his own soldiers for putting up an anti-Semitic flyer.That's not terrorism, that's being an asshole.

[Agrippa]

Of course, it then comes up with some stuff about libertarian Marxists being closer to Bakky than Marx, which is certainly bollocks

Precisely. The only reason these people have such an axe to grind with Marx is over sectarianism...


Anyways, the AFAQ doesn't actually seem to be claiming that Jefferson, Smith, etc, were anarchists, merely close to it.Which, from my perspective, is totally wrong. It's like claiming Darth Vader is "close to" being an anarchist.


Jefferson was cool, and I suppose that there is some basis for this claim.What is "cool" about a man who owned a slave-plantation, impregnated (ie: raped) a female slave, advocated castration for "sodomites" and "adulturers", regarded "negros" as an inferior culture, and accepted American Indians only under the condition that they be fully assimilated into European society.


primmos are enemies of metal.No way. All the best metal is primmo. (Burzum, Wolves in the Throne Room)


and its section on 'anarcho'-capitalim is also pretty goodAt the same time, it's casting pearls before swine.


That's not terrorism, that's being an asshole.I strongly disagree. Allowing anti-Semites to organize, especially within your ranks, is being more of an asshole. And it is terrorism because it's using fear as a tactic.

[Tomhet]

Makhnos struggle was a realistic one without delving into pointless utopianism. His 'shadow government' was certainly nessesary at the time and place it had occured in.
He was far from perfect, but alas, a truly extraordinary figure leading a genuine peasants movement without intellectual elitism. I'm basing most of this off the writings of Nestor Makhno, and the accounts of Arsenov. Nestor executed said anti-semite indeed, anti-semitism would have comprimised the entire libertarian communist movement, you cannot have anti-semites in your ranks, and expect unity and success.

[Agrippa]

That's the point I'm making. Any realistic political strategy involves making decisions that we would prefer not to make in a Utopian world. When a self-proclaimed anarchist can claim extreme violence is appropriate in one context and inappropriate is another, with no rational or coherent standard of arbitrating such distinctions, that's a form of chauvinism that's no better than Kautskyist bureaucrats trying to tell the masses when the "historical conditions" are and are not right for the masses to revolt, expropriate resources from the bourgeoisie, create the conditions of communism, etc.

[Blackscare]

Thomas Jefferson, J.S. Mill, and Adam Smith were/are miserable fucks who have nothing to do with the liberation of humanity.And that makes Kazinski better how?




I'm well aware of all of this. How does any of this prove that anarchists are not terroristic? It proves the contrary. Propaganda of the deed is an old tactic that was tried and pretty much failed all around. It's no substitute for working-class organization. Especially in today's world, terrorism is not the way to win over people's hearts.



Do other strategies, such as syndicalism, have a greater success rate?Yes.


Makhno was such a terrorist, he shot one of his own soldiers for putting up an anti-Semitic flyer.That's not terrorism. That's not even close to terrorism. What the fuck are you talking about? He killed a reactionary fuck who had no place in a revolutionary army. Also, Makhno was a terrorist before he was sent to prison. When he came back, however, he pursued more sensible tactics that eventually came to be known as Platformism. Propaganda by the deed is a shallow method of agitation, it doesn't build revolutionary organization.


The Spanish anarchists resorted almost exclusive to urban guerilla tactics once they were betrayed by the CNT-FAI leadership and forced underground by the fascist victory.Here's a tip; don't take FOX's definition of terrorism to be the truth. You're equating guerilla tactics with terrorism, which is wrong. As much as reactionaries would like you to believe otherwise, not every form of irregular warfare is terrorism.




"Terrorism" and "mass struggle" are not mutually exclusive. "mass struggle" is also a meaningless, generic term that appeals slavishly to democratic mob politics and the lowest common denominator.The lowest common denominator? I guess you disdain the "masses" then?

Geez, why would you pick a movement like anarchism, which, because of it's rejection of coercion, relies pretty damn heavily on the "mob" to make decisions, if you reject mass struggle?

[Agrippa]

And that makes Kazinski better how?

His philosophical positions, while warped and confused, are less vile and oftentimes more insightful than that of, say, Jefferson's, which basically amount to empty platitudes about "freedom". Also, unlike Jefferson, he actually compromised a good deal of social privilege (by going from being a member of the intelligentsia to a prisoner) by engaging in acts he thought would contribute to the liberation of society. (And most of his targets were enemies of everyone on this board, including M-Ls) Thus he is a slightly better class of hero than Jefferson and Smith, although they are all interesting historical figures.


Propaganda of the deed is an old tactic that was tried and pretty much failed all around.

I disagree. Most of the folks eager to proclaim its failure were "anarchists" who had an interest in reducing conflict between the anarchist movement and the state.


It's no substitute for working-class organization.

The two are not mutually exclusive. They compliment each other well.


Especially in today's world, terrorism is not the way to win over people's hearts.

I don't see what could make "today's world" different enough from the 19th century to have such a drastic impact.


Yes.

Oh yeah, right, I forgot about all those vast tracts of anarcho-syndicalist territory existing today throughout Russia and Spain. :laugh:


That's not terrorism. That's not even close to terrorism. What the fuck are you talking about? He killed a reactionary fuck who had no place in a revolutionary army.

But by doing so he was also using the fear of death as a deterrent for future reactionary fucks. Hence, terrorism.


Also, Makhno was a terrorist before he was sent to prison. When he came back, however, he pursued more sensible tactics that eventually came to be known as Platformism.

To my knowlege he never formally denounced terrorist tactics, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, the "sensible" anarchists such as the Platformists were crushed just as easily as the "unsensible" anarchist terrorists, so the verdict's still out on which is more effective. I think it's ridiculous and naive to assume a social revolution can come about without insurrection.


Here's a tip; don't take FOX's definition of terrorism to be the truth.

Fox's definition of terrorism is "anything that Fox percieves as a threat to America". Under that definition, competing imperialist states such as Iran are "terrorists". What gave you the impression that was the definition I was working under?


You're equating guerilla tactics with terrorism, which is wrong. As much as reactionaries would like you to believe otherwise, not every form of irregular warfare is terrorism.

Then what is "terrorism", by your definition? To me the "terrorists" denounced by "social anarchists" such as Bookchin, Dolgoff, and the authors of the Anarchist FAQ more often than not do seem to be anyone that resorts to guerilla tactics and other forms of "irregular warfare".


The lowest common denominator? I guess you disdain the "masses" then?

No, but I'd rather have a dense, tightly-knit but smaller movement of loyal, trustworthy people than a larger movement with more loosely-knit, casual, and less intimate connections, less ideological cohesion, and flakier members.


Geez, why would you pick a movement like anarchism, which, because of it's rejection of coercion, relies pretty damn heavily on the "mob" to make decisions, if you reject mass struggle?

I'm not really the type of anarchist who realistically thinks "the mob" is going to get together and decide anything, or at least anything beyond rioting. An anarchist society of hundreds of thousands of millions would by nessecity have to be split up into social groups of a smaller size. The democratic idea, that decisions that effect everyone can be successfully made by a majority-vote of large mobs of people who may be totally situation, is, in my opinion, bourgeois, particularly the way it emphasizes an alienated experience exclusive to capitalism.

[Blackscare]

Oh yeah, right, I forgot about all those vast tracts of anarcho-syndicalist territory existing today throughout Russia and Spain. :laugh:

Yes, they eventually were crushed. At least they were able to form a coherent movement and struggle, while terrorism does nothing to actually build up the ability for large-scale opposition to the state.


But by doing so he was also using the fear of death as a deterrent for future reactionary fucks. Hence, terrorism.

So any punishment for anything is terrorism? Sorry, but in military and especially revolutionary situations, there needs to be discipline among the fighters.



Anyway, the "sensible" anarchists such as the Platformists were crushed just as easily as the "unsensible" anarchist terrorists, so the verdict's still out on which is more effective.

Actually, they weren't crushed "just as easily" at all. They fought like bastards and held out for years, making the only significant showing for anarchists during the whole episode. The Makhnovists were some of the last of the Bolshevik's opponents to be crushed, and only after they had used them to break the back of White offensives twice. There is absolutely no comparison between the two. The verdict is not out.



I think it's ridiculous and naive to assume a social revolution can come about without insurrection.

Ok.... so do I. What's your point? I happen to think it's silly and naive to think that propaganda by the deed will somehow just cause revolution. Even if it did inspire people, which it rarely does, it's positive effect would be that it would get people to take part in organizations that embrace mass struggle! What do you think the goal of propaganda by the deed was?






Then what is "terrorism", by your definition? To me the "terrorists" denounced by "social anarchists" such as Bookchin, Dolgoff, and the authors of the Anarchist FAQ more often than not do seem to be anyone that resorts to guerilla tactics and other forms of "irregular warfare".

Terrorism would include things like assassination, intentionally bombing civilians, etc.

Irregular warfare between combatants is not terrorism.




No, but I'd rather have a dense, tightly-knit but smaller movement of loyal, trustworthy people than a larger movement with more loosely-knit, casual, and less intimate connections, less ideological cohesion, and flakier members.

Ah, so you're a Leninist? Or a Blanquist? Some sort of vanguardist at any rate. Certainly not an anarchist (by objective definitions, not your own).



I'm not really the type of anarchist who realistically thinks "the mob" is going to get together and decide anything, or at least anything beyond rioting. An anarchist society of hundreds of thousands of millions would by nessecity have to be split up into social groups of a smaller size. The democratic idea, that decisions that effect everyone can be successfully made by a majority-vote of large mobs of people who may be totally situation, is, in my opinion, bourgeois, particularly the way it emphasizes an alienated experience exclusive to capitalism.

Well duh. Democracy doesn't = capitalist representative democracy. There are many forms. Of course democratic practices would have to be de-centralized. In fact, none of those "types" of anarchists that put faith in simple-majority large-scale elections exist.

[Agrippa]

while terrorism does nothing to actually build up the ability for large-scale opposition to the state.Yes it does. When a subject of popular resentment (be it a public figure, a location, etc.) is chosen as the target of a terrorist attack, and the responsibility for that attack is claimed in the name of an ideological movement, it helps win popular favor for that ideological movement. If a target is picked that's deserving, but lacks popular resentment, it can still be a useful tool for publicizing whatever motivations existed for choosing the target, which generally contributes to creating interest in and discussion of a revolutionary movement. Remember that "propaganda of the deed" is propaganda. (But it also doubles as a means of concretely disrupting the material basis of our enemy's forces, especially if conducted on a large enough scale)


So any punishment for anything is terrorism? Sorry, but in military and especially revolutionary situations, there needs to be discipline among the fighters.Why is it right to punish one of your own subordinates but wrong to punish a mass-murdering capitalist politician?


They fought like bastards and held out for years, making the only significant showing for anarchists during the whole episode. The Makhnovists were some of the last of the Bolshevik's opponents to be crushedBut "terrorist" anarchists also fought the Soviets to the bitter end. For example, the dude in my avatar, Lev Chernyi


Ok.... so do I. What's your point? I happen to think it's silly and naive to think that propaganda by the deed will somehow just cause revolution.No one tactic will "just cause revolution" but assassinations, insurrectionary bombings, etc. are an unfortunate unavoidable consequence of the exasperation of contradictions within capitalist society, especially the primary contradiction, the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the working-class.


Even if it did inspire people, which it rarely doesConsidering the masses are frequently inspired (to the point of writing folk songs, etc.) by acts of apolitical violence, (such as the exploits of pretty criminals) I think you're overestimating the pacifist inclinations of the people.


Terrorism would include things like assassination, intentionally bombing civilians, etc.Are you honestly comparing the illegal execution of a capitalist tyrant to the indiscriminate slaughter of random people? This is a good example of those who denounce "terrorist" tactics conflating and lumping together a wide array of tactics. I am also opposed to political violence that targets random people, because it is totally counter-productive in every way, but I think that's different than assassination and property-violence.


Irregular warfare between combatants is not terrorism.Couldn't asssassination of President McKinley, Henry Clay Frick, Tsar Alexander II be easily classified as the former, rather than the latter? Your distinctions seem totally arbitrary....


Ah, so you're a Leninist? Or a Blanquist? Some sort of vanguardist at any rate. Certainly not an anarchist (by objective definitions, not your own).OK, but if we're going to use that as the "objective" definition ("objective" meaning your subjective opinion) of anarchism, than Bakunin would be a "Leninist" and a "Blanquist" as well.


Democracy doesn't = capitalist representative democracy. There are many forms. Of course democratic practices would have to be de-centralized.But that wouldn't be democracy, in the Athenian, Jacobian, or Jeffersonian sense. It would be social mode unrelated to democracy. It would be communism. "Direct democracy" is just an intellectually dishonest way of saying "communism". Communists such as Rosa Luxemburg, who used the term "democracy" in a positive sense, to refer to de-centralized, libertarian societies, were not reclaiming the word or returning it to its original meaning. They were attempting to appropriate the word from its original owners, an attempt that, I think, was a failure and is doomed to failure. It's allowing our bourgeois opponents to set the terms of debate.

[welshboy]

No way. All the best metal is primmo. (Burzum, Wolves in the Throne Room)
I'm sure you're aware that Varg Vikernes of Burzum is a Nazi. SO... all the best Nazi's are Primmo's or all the best Primmo's are Nazi's?
The Unabomber did not want to 'liberate' humanity, unless you see some sort of warped liberation that only comes through death.
Ted K, like Zerzan, Jensen et al, is NOT an anarchist. Primitivism has got zip to do with anarchism and more to do with, at best, Nihilism and, at worst, all sorts of odd spin offs of blood and soil nationalism.
How the fuck are you not restricted to OI? You're a fucking primmo and therefore have fuck all to do with the movement towards an egalitarian world where all can share in the wealth of civilisation.

[Tomhet]

Burzum are my favorite artist, it'd be silly to judge the music of vikernes based off of the character who created it.
(off topic)

[Sasha]

bollocks, you cant seperate the two. its like the people who try to sepperate triumph des willens from its nazi orgins. Although i'm willing to admit that reifenstahl made very well made, cinamagraphic groundbreaking and eastaticly pleasing nazi propaganda, its still nazi propaganda.

(burzum is just shit by the way)

[Die Neue Zeit]

When a self-proclaimed anarchist can claim extreme violence is appropriate in one context and inappropriate is another, with no rational or coherent standard of arbitrating such distinctions, that's a form of chauvinism that's no better than Kautskyist bureaucrats trying to tell the masses when the "historical conditions" are and are not right for the masses to revolt, expropriate resources from the bourgeoisie, create the conditions of communism, etc.

As if workers are politically ready to establish the DOTP (read my sig)... :glare:

[Agrippa]

I'm sure you're aware that Varg Vikernes of Burzum is a Nazi. SO... all the best Nazi's are Primmo's or all the best Primmo's are Nazi's?

Technically Varg isn't a national socialist, he's just a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic asshole. (So was John Lennon) Which is irrelevant to discussion his musical merits, since he doesn't sing about ethnicity, sexuality, etc. in his songs. Regardless, his songs would not be improved by the inclusion of lyrical references to alluminum smelters, cement pavement, skyscraper-sized hydroponic greenhouses, airplanes, and giant hydro-electric dams.


The Unabomber did not want to 'liberate' humanity, unless you see some sort of warped liberation that only comes through death.

I never claimed the Unabomer wanted to "liberate" humanity. As far as I know he was motivated by feelings of personal frustration and angst, not lofty political ambitions. I wasn't arguing for the Unabomer, just pointing out the blatant hypocricy of rushing to condemn him (or Marxist-Leninists such as the RAF) over petty ideological differences while at the same time glorifying the lives of individuals who were just as willing to dispense death to further their goals (Makhno, Berkman, etc.)


Ted K, like Zerzan, Jensen et al, is NOT an anarchist. Primitivism has got zip to do with anarchism and more to do with, at best, Nihilism and, at worst, all sorts of odd spin offs of blood and soil nationalism.

Far from being a "blood and soil nationalist", Jensen is always willing to contribute an excessive amount of Leftist PC whining and belly-aching to any discussion of the history of European nationalism. I don't give a shit about Zerzan, since his psychotic new-age philosophy has nothing to do with my brand of primitivism. Ted K is the most intelliegent out of the three, which is telling considering he's a beligerant third positionist. That other primitivists may be nihilists and right-wing nationalists, I cannot dispute, however the radical Left has always had the problem of attracting nihilists and right-wing entryists, that can hardly be blamed on primitivism alone....

From my perspective, indusrialist indeologies such as Marxist-Leninism are the epitome of nihilism


How the fuck are you not restricted to OI?

Because I'm a revolutionary Leftist and I actually try to contribute constructively to the debate instead of just lobbing out ad hominem insults.


You're a fucking primmo and therefore have fuck all to do with the movement towards an egalitarian world where all can share in the wealth of civilisation.

"Egalitarianism" is a bourgeois social ideal creeated as a liberal democratic substitute for the Christian god. However, I believe in total solidarity among ememies of all permiations of bourgeois control, including fascism. What legitimate reason would you have for suspending my posting priviliges?

I believe in sharing "the wealth of civilisation" to a very good extent, I just don't believe in maintaining the organs of class-rule and capitalist social alienation.

[Agrippa]

bollocks, you cant seperate the two. its like the people who try to sepperate triumph des willens from its nazi orgins. Although i'm willing to admit that reifenstahl made very well made, cinamagraphic groundbreaking and eastaticly pleasing nazi propaganda, its still nazi propaganda.

Many of my favorite artists are fascists. For example, Ezra Pound, Richard Wagner, W.B. Yeats, Frank Miller, Knut Hamsun, H.P. Lovecraft.

In terms of other genres of music, much of the hip-hop that I love was written by right-wing black nationalists, or just apolitical pimps and gangsters.

Similarly, many artists I love are Marxist-Leninists and Social Democrats, yet I am neither of these things.

Were my brain mailable enough for me to become a fascist just by listening to music created by a fascist, I would feel sorry for myself indeed.


(burzum is just shit by the way)

I wouldn't trust the aesthetic opinions of someone who has a Madagascar penguin as her/his usericon :tt2:

[welshboy]

So you agree with solidarity with Fascists? What the fuck?

[Agrippa]

So you agree with solidarity with Fascists?

Hell no. When did I say that?

Edit: You may be referring to what I said here:


I believe in total solidarity among ememies of all permiations of bourgeois control, including fascism.

Fascism is a permeation of bourgeois control.

[welshboy]

I believe in total solidarity among ememies of all permiations of bourgeois control, including fascism. What legitimate reason would you have for suspending my posting priviliges?
There

[welshboy]

oops, should have finished reading your response.
Thing is you are a primitivist, have expressed a liking for right wing, racist music so how else was i supposed to read that? you seek an end to civilisation, you express a willingness to die in this pursuit and you like Varg fucking Vickernes!!!
These are reasons I would have you relegated to OI. Primitivists are, by definition, opposed to revolutionary activity, they simply want to destroy civilisation and revert to some mythical primitive utopia.

[redSHARP]

i thought it was boring to read, but a valuable resource.

[Sean]

Generally because it appeals to common sense and is accessible without in depth theoretical knowledge. Thats always been the double edged sword of anarchism. It gathers a lot of people, but when you look for an anarchist academic they are short on the ground.

[welshboy]

But Sean there's loads of Anarchist Academics! There's even an anarchist academics network. I can think of probably half a dozen that I know personally.

[Agrippa]

have expressed a liking for right wing, racist music

The vast majority of white North American anarchists are inexplicably obsessed with hardcore punk, a musical scene that, especially in the US, encouraged sexual abuse, racism, drunken nihilistic vandalism, and worst of all, total disregard for the cultivation of any musical skill. This is all well-documented in American Hardcore (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419434/), a film that's entirely sympathetic towards hardcore punks. (One veteran of the hardcore scene relates in the film how great it was to have belonged to a sub-culture that tolerated date-rape) My father, who also lived through the DC hardcore punk scene, tells me that there was extreme animosity between the (mostly-white) punks and working-class blacks, to the extent that they wouldn't even enter each other's neighborhoods, and would attack each other on site.

So how do the vast majority of white North American anarchists account for their interest in music as racist, sexist, homophobic, nihilistic, self-destructive and utterly politically incorrect as hardcore punk?

Also, for a well-written synthesis of Marxian anti-capitalism and anti-industrialism/anti-modernism, I recommend Time, Labor and Social Domination (http://books.google.com/books?id=o9tOs5Oau1wC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=Postone+Time+Labor+Social+Domination&source=bl&ots=O7_tVeKRn0&sig=zr16GEiFsp24SQCbEfRAtsB23dA&hl=en&ei=p0tBSt2OMdKelAfQo9zrCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4) by Moishe Postone, who happens to be one of the most vocal and intelligent critics of anti-Semitic third positionist tendencies within the left. So before you go accusing me of fascism, please at least make an effort to educate yourself on my perspective, and where I am coming from.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The vast majority of white North American anarchists are inexplicably obsessed with hardcore punk, a musical scene that, especially in the US, encouraged sexual abuse, racism, drunken nihilistic vandalism, and worst of all, total disregard for the cultivation of any musical skill. This is all well-documented in American Hardcore (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419434/), a film that's entirely sympathetic towards hardcore punks. (One veteran of the hardcore scene relates in the film how great it was to have belonged to a sub-culture that tolerated date-rape) My father, who also lived through the DC hardcore punk scene, tells me that there was extreme animosity between the (mostly-white) punks and working-class blacks, to the extent that they wouldn't even enter each other's neighborhoods, and would attack each other on site.

So how do the vast majority of white North American anarchists account for their interest in music as racist, sexist, homophobic, nihilistic, self-destructive and utterly politically incorrect as hardcore punk?

'Cos it's awesome? Then again, Welshboy hates punk but loves country & western, it takes all sorts.

[welshboy]

Yeah but country isn't known for racism or homophobia!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u4CXlIYjyE

[Agrippa]

'Cos it's awesome?

Well, there you go. The only explanation needed. Personal musical tastes have little to do with political orientation, and someone's political positions should not be assumed based on the music they like. Maybe if the only music someone listened to was Ad Hominem, Screwdriver, and Prussian Blue, and claimed not to be a Nazi, I would be skeptical, but that's obviously a different case.

I can totally understand why so many Leftist punks admire the musical accomplishments of Ian MacKaye, even though he wrote the incredibly racist anthem "Guilty of Being White". (which has since been covered by several Neo-Nazi groups if I am not mistaken) Similarly, Bad Brains frontman H.R. has made statements advocating genocide of homosexuals and glorifying AIDS while on stage, during a performance. That doesn't negate the fact that the Bad Brains are musically brilliant, have an amazing, innovative sound, and eloquantly address numurous socially relevant issues.

Considering Vikirnes has never advocated racist or sexist or homophobic ideas in any of his recorded songs (he's never played live) lyrical themes, (his lyrics almost entirely revolve around reverence for nature, indigenous European spirituality, anti-Christianity/anti-materialism, and fantasy fiction such as the Lord of the Rings) I think I should be granted the same exemption of serious judgement and assessment of my political ethos based on my musical peculiarities.

In fact, what I love most about Burzum is that it totally rejected the trends in heavy metal towards corny death metal, commercially accessible pop-thrash such as Metallica, and airy, Classical-influence technical/speed metal such as Yngvie Malmsteen, and, with his dark, minimalistic sound, essentially helped steer metal back in the direction of its Blues roots. Given Vikirnes' intense racism, this was unlikely a conscious decision on his part, but that is only of relevence if you believe a piece of sublime art is merely a reflection of the conscious efforts of the individual artist alone.


Then again, Welshboy hates punk but loves country & western, it takes all sorts.

:laugh: I am also a big fan of country & western music. I even love right-wing country & western such as Merle Haggard and Toby Keith. (although both of them are tongue-and-cheek to an extent) So since I am a fan of Burzum, Dead Prez, and Toby Keith, does that make me a Neo-Nazi Marist-Leninist-Maoist Republican? :D