Is Anarchism left-Wing Or Neither left Nor Right?

[Nosotros]

Class-Struggle Anarchists aim to achieve Anarcho-Communism but thats Anarcho-Communism. Anarcho-Communism combines Socialism with Libertarianism, something that is a trait of the right(although the right are never going to smash the state and never have). Is it fair to say that though we are Communists, our Libertarianism cancels us out of being left-wing and that our Communism means we are not right-wing? Also, is it correct that left and right are parliamentary terms?

[Pogue]

Class-Struggle Anarchists aim to achieve Anarcho-Communism but thats Anarcho-Communism. Anarcho-Communism combines Socialism with Libertarianism, something that is a trait of the right(although the right are never going to smash the state and never have). Is it fair to say that though we are Communists, our Libertarianism cancels us out of being left-wing and that our Communism means we are not right-wing? Also, is it correct that left and right are parliamentary terms?

No, left and right are broad temrs for opposed political ideas with alot of variation within them.

Anarchism is a far left wing, libertarian and revolutionary ideology. We're far left wing because we believe in complete democratic and collective ownership of the world, and libertarian in our means to acheiving this as well as our values on social issues. Thus we are left wing and libertarian, they are each their own axis which go along with each other. I suggest you look up the 'political compass'.

[Forward Union]

Is Anarchism left-Wing Or Neither left Nor Right?

It's left wing.

Close thread. Next question.

[Pogue]

It's left wing.

Close thread. Next question.

oh, you!

[F9]

Moved
Indeed left and right were taken from the positions of the people taken in parliament in France, where it started, though the terms are having a more broad meaning.
Anarchism is clearly a (far) leftist ideology, and the most leftist imo...

Fuserg9:star:

[x359594]

...Anarcho-Communism combines Socialism with Libertarianism, something that is a trait of the right...

The terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" were used with a political meaning by the French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque in 1857. It wasn't until the late 1940s that the terms were appropriated by the right to refer to laissez-faire capitalism.

I wouldn't describe "libertarianism" as a trait of the Right. Rather, it's a tendency on the right that equates laissez-faire capitalism with political freedom. This obviously doesn't apply to fascism, welfare statism, the religious right and various iterations of Right-wing statism.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I've certainly heard it claimed that we're not part of the left, cos the left and the right are both ultimately part of capitalism. This text, f'r instance (http://www.af-north.org/?q=node/22) makes that claim. I think ultra-left/situationist-influenced groups sometimes use "leftist" to mean "not properly communist" as well.

[GPDP]

We began as a left-wing movement, and to this day most of us still consider ourselves as being left-wing. The only people I've heard claim that anarchism is neither left nor right are post-left anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists, but the latter aren't really anarchists, so their opinion doesn't matter.

[Anarkiwi]

Left-wing in my opinion
i was a marxist-lenninist and then became an anarchist
id like to think i havent jumped from left to right.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I think left wing because traditionally the left has supported or fought for improvement in the living standards of workers. However I do believe that the whole "left wing , right wing" stuff is useless since it is often used to describe us as being similar to complete and utter ****s (Obama , Blair etc)

[Dervish]

Anarchism (or Anarcho-Communism, atleast) is a combination of socialism and libertarianism. While there is a libertarian trend within the right-wing, their libertarianism is limited to economic libertarianism, and is in no way socialist.

[Pogue]

Anarchism (or Anarcho-Communism, atleast) is a combination of socialism and libertarianism. While there is a libertarian trend within the right-wing, their libertarianism is limited to economic libertarianism, and is in no way socialist.

Only in the USA is that right wing economic theory known as libertarianism, and they stole it from anarchism. Throughout history libertarian has meant anarcho-communism.

[Misanthrope]

Left-wing in my opinion
i was a marxist-lenninist and then became an anarchist
id like to think i havent jumped from left to right.

You've jumped from right to left.

Right= authoritarian

Left= Libertarian

Anarchism is far left wing.

[Dervish]

You've jumped from right to left.

Right= authoritarian

Left= Libertarian

Anarchism is far left wing.

The Left-Right scale is incapable of expressing the key differences between certain theories and/or ideologies.

Another scale has been suggested, an Authoritarian-Libertarian scale.
Using a combination of both, we can for example say that Marxism-Leninism is at the authoritarian-left, while anarchism is at the libertarian-left.

[Dervish]

Only in the USA is that right wing economic theory known as libertarianism, and they stole it from anarchism. Throughout history libertarian has meant anarcho-communism.

"Libertarianism" is now-a-days commonly used to mean laissez-faire, "classic liberalism".

[scarletghoul]

Anarchism is leftist, because it is socialist/anticapitalist. capitalist ideologies calling themselves anarchism are not really anarchist, because anarchism is against all hierarchy and oppression, including capitalist hierarchy and oppression. Anarchism must by its definition be anticapitalist as much as anti-statist.

[BakuninFan]

Yeah, us anarchists are farther left than Commies.

[RedAnarchist]

"Libertarianism" is now-a-days commonly used to mean laissez-faire, "classic liberalism".

Only in certain countries. When the term was first coined, and in some regions today, the term was used almost exclusively for anarchists.

[Dervish]

Only in certain countries. When the term was first coined, and in some regions today, the term was used almost exclusively for anarchists.

It is true that the term "libertarian" originally referred to anarchists, but I believe that today libertarianism it is understood, all around the world, to refer to what the US Libertarian Party calls "libertarianism".

[BakuninFan]

It is true that the term "libertarian" originally referred to anarchists, but I believe that today libertarianism it is understood, all around the world, to refer to what the US Libertarian Party calls "libertarianism".
I wouldnt say that. I am a libertarian socialist, which just means I am an anarcho-communist. The libertarian prefix merely is a synonym for anarchist, as libertarian means at its most literal "less government".

[ls]

I wouldnt say that. I am a libertarian socialist, which just means I am an anarcho-communist.

There are several tendencies one can ascribe to as a "libertarian socialist", it isn't just synonymous with anarcho-communism.

[BakuninFan]

There are several tendencies one can ascribe to as a "libertarian socialist", it isn't just synonymous with anarcho-communism.
i suppose that is true. Let me refrase: "Libertarian Communist"

ie Kropotkin-style Communist

[Dervish]

I wouldnt say that. I am a libertarian socialist, which just means I am an anarcho-communist. The libertarian prefix merely is a synonym for anarchist, as libertarian means at its most literal "less government".

Originally "libertarian" did not mean someone who wants "less government", it meant an anarchist. The US Libertarian party uses "libertarianism" to mean "less government", and that use is the common use of the word now-a-days - though it's not the "historically correct" use.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Originally "libertarian" did not mean someone who wants "less government", it meant an anarchist. The US Libertarian party uses "libertarianism" to mean "less government", and that use is the common use of the word now-a-days - though it's not the "historically correct" use.
I don't think we should just let them steal our word. The common use of the word "Communist" nowadays is to refer to the ideology of state capitalism in Russia and China, but I don't see us dropping the word because of that.

[bricolage]

I don't think we should just let them steal our word. The common use of the word "Communist" nowadays is to refer to the ideology of state capitalism in Russia and China, but I don't see us dropping the word because of that.

Feminists are man haters, Muslims are terrorists, gays are paedos, Obama is a socialist and dubstep invented 2step...

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

Class-Struggle Anarchists aim to achieve Anarcho-Communism but thats Anarcho-Communism. Anarcho-Communism combines Socialism with Libertarianism, something that is a trait of the right(although the right are never going to smash the state and never have). Is it fair to say that though we are Communists, our Libertarianism cancels us out of being left-wing and that our Communism means we are not right-wing? Also, is it correct that left and right are parliamentary terms?

Anarchism has its origin in what's called "the Left," primarily meaning socialists and communists of many colors. You can think about it circa 1872, when the Left's major organization was an anti-capitalist, socialist organization called the International Working Men's Association (excuse the sexist name; it was 1872-they were a bunch of unlearned cavemen). The organization consisted of leftists, all socialists, with a major dividing factor: some saw the option of state-socialism, or a transition period in which the working class became the ruling class, as a viable option. This major faction went with Marx and Engels. The other major faction of socialists went with a guy named Mikhail Bakunin, who believed that there needn't be a transition period to socialism/communism. These individuals were deemed libertarian socialists, and are considered to many to be the framers of the international anarchist movement (you will find "libertarian socialst" synonymously used with "anarchist" often, but many Marxists and other socialists identify with this label as well).

So, the consensus is usually that anarchism belongs in the tradition of what's called the Left. With that said, there are individuals who identify as "post-left" anarchists, i.e., anarchists who believe the Left has too many authoritarian elements (but they are certainly not rightwing). There is also a far-right ideology called "anarcho"-capitalism that has nothing to do with anarchism, since anarchism has always deemed capitalism authoritarian and hierarchical and, hence, being diametrically opposed to anarchism. But in most anarchist's view (and certainly in mine) there is no such thing as a rightwing anarchist; it's like saying "rightwing socialist" (there is not a consensus but I believe, as anarchists, we are socialists first--just anti-authoritarian socialists).

As far as the term "Libertarian," it's pretty ridiculous: up until the 1950's, "Libertarian" was a synonym with "anarchist," a leftwing philosophy. An extreme rightwing economist came up with the term "anarcho" capitalism (Murrray Rothbard) to describe a philosophy that favored abolishing the State and privatizing every square inch of the planet, the kind of world an anarchist would abhor.

So, ever since Rothbard, in America, the term "Libertarian" refers to the far-right. But in reality, it's quite different. I'm sure if you went to Western Europe, where the word has historically meant "anarchist," people understand it, still, quite differently (maybe not-just extrapolating). It's really one of those strange instances where ideologues steal a word a re-define it. But the word "Libertarian," I would argue, has it's roots in the Left, and in the labor movement. I hope this answers your questions. And I hope I'm not being redundant; I decided to just answer your questions without looking at anyone else's response.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchism has its origin in what's called "the Left," primarily meaning socialists and communists of many colors. You can think about it circa 1872, when the Left's major organization was an anti-capitalist, socialist organization called the International Working Men's Association (excuse the sexist name; it was 1872-they were a bunch of unlearned cavemen). The organization consisted of leftists, all socialists, with a major dividing factor: some saw the option of state-socialism, or a transition period in which the working class became the ruling class, as a viable option. This major faction went with Marx and Engels. The other major faction of socialists went with a guy named Mikhail Bakunin, who believed that there needn't be a transition period to socialism/communism. These individuals were deemed libertarian socialists, and are considered to many to be the framers of the international anarchist movement (you will find "libertarian socialst" synonymously used with "anarchist" often, but many Marxists and other socialists identify with this label as well).

That's a pretty good synopsis. Anarchism as a political theory (in other words, what people mean by "anarchism" when they speak of it on this website) is certainly part of the broad left-wing tradition.

[Agrippa]

Count me firmly in the "neither left nor right" camp. I think the conception of anarchism as part of "the broad left-wing tradition" has only served as a tactical limitation for anarchists. (Especially in terms of recruitment)

What more do anarchists hold in common with Social Democrats and "authoritarian" socialists than, say, neo-conservatives or fascists? All groups profess devotion to certain broad goals shared by anarchists - yet none deliver outside the world of rhetoric. Would we say that anarchists are part of "the broad right-wing tradition" because they share Bush's professed devotion to freedom, the U.S. Libertarian Party's professed devotion to liberty, and Hitler's professed devotion to ethnic self-determination?

To say "anarchism has its origin in what's called 'the Left'" is not nessicarily correct. Yes, an anarchist fringe has traditonally and persistantly existed throughout the history of the European left. But to assume this anarchist fringe of the European left (and its global descendents) constitutes the whole of "anarchism"is to show a chauvinistic preference for the anti-capitalist resistance of a specific sub-cultural mileu - one primarily defined by the terms and conditions of members of the bourgeois "Englightenment" European intelligentsia.

A large chunk of the Southern-European and Eastern-European anarchist movement's popular constitution, in it's hayday, consisted of folks not drawn to anarchist principles as a consequence of their "Leftist" politics or association, but because corresponded greatly to their traditional, communal, agrarian social values. Similarly, while most "social anarchists" think of anarchism as a mostly European phenomenon rooted in a very specific intellectual tradtion, anarchism can better be thought of as a broad social trend. Thus, during the "classical" period of anarchism, (1850-1945) while many anarchists in Europe were part of the "broad Left" as we think of it, anarchists in China, for instance, were more likely to be ideologically rooted in Taoism and Mahayana Buddhism, African, Polynesian, and American Indian/Latin American anarchists in the indigenous spiritual traditions of their tribes, (which I'm only lumping together out of my personal Honky ignorance) South Asian anarchists in pre-Vedic/materiarchal Hinduism, and Mid-Eastern anarchists in dissident Islamic philosophies such as Sufism, Kharawaj, and Ismael'ism - or indigenous philosophies such as Yezidism, Zoroastrianism, Mandeanism, and pre-Islamic Arabic paganism.

Anarchists must ally with the left in order to effectively advance our agenda in regards to certain political issues. However, in regards to other specific issues such as gun control, "homeschooling" rights, and anti-eminant domain/anti-development struggles, we must also ally with certain segments of the right.

[Kyrite]

I doubt that there are any anarchists on here that would want to call themself 'Right-wing'. Prehaps Anarco-Capitalists but i think they are restricted.

[Agrippa]

I doubt that there are any anarchists on here that would want to call themself 'Right-wing'. Prehaps Anarco-Capitalists but i think they are restricted.

But are the demographics and moderation policies of this message board an accurate judge of the historical character of the global anarchist movement?

The classical anarchist movement in Europe offers a perfectly good example of how the "left-right" paradigm gets vague and ultimately totally breaks down in terms of usefulness. Anarcho-communists are generally considered further "left" than anarcho-syndicalists, (anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists being as "far-left" as imaginable) but, if anarcho-communists go further "left", they suddenly become "right", eg. Max Stirner, the Bonnott Gang, Chernoe Znamia, Renzo Novatore, etc. yet still politically anti-fascist. (and therefore not technically "third position, either)

Thus, I conclude, that although anarchism is incompatable with the "right-wing" as it is generally concieved, the history of anarchism can not be reduced to that of the left

[Misanthrope]

"Libertarianism" is now-a-days commonly used to mean laissez-faire, "classic liberalism".

Only in America. Have you heard Chomsky on this?


The Left-Right scale is incapable of expressing the key differences between certain theories and/or ideologies.

Another scale has been suggested, an Authoritarian-Libertarian scale.
Using a combination of both, we can for example say that Marxism-Leninism is at the authoritarian-left, while anarchism is at the libertarian-left.
So what determines whether it is left or right? Economics?

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

Count me firmly in the "neither left nor right" camp. I think the conception of anarchism as part of "the broad left-wing tradition" has only served as a tactical limitation for anarchists. (Especially in terms of recruitment)

What more do anarchists hold in common with Social Democrats and "authoritarian" socialists than, say, neo-conservatives or fascists? All groups profess devotion to certain broad goals shared by anarchists - yet none deliver outside the world of rhetoric. Would we say that anarchists are part of "the broad right-wing tradition" because they share Bush's professed devotion to freedom, the U.S. Libertarian Party's professed devotion to liberty, and Hitler's professed devotion to ethnic self-determination?

To say "anarchism has its origin in what's called 'the Left'" is not nessicarily correct. Yes, an anarchist fringe has traditonally and persistantly existed throughout the history of the European left. But to assume this anarchist fringe of the European left (and its global descendents) constitutes the whole of "anarchism"is to show a chauvinistic preference for the anti-capitalist resistance of a specific sub-cultural mileu - one primarily defined by the terms and conditions of members of the bourgeois "Englightenment" European intelligentsia.

A large chunk of the Southern-European and Eastern-European anarchist movement's popular constitution, in it's hayday, consisted of folks not drawn to anarchist principles as a consequence of their "Leftist" politics or association, but because corresponded greatly to their traditional, communal, agrarian social values. Similarly, while most "social anarchists" think of anarchism as a mostly European phenomenon rooted in a very specific intellectual tradtion, anarchism can better be thought of as a broad social trend. Thus, during the "classical" period of anarchism, (1850-1945) while many anarchists in Europe were part of the "broad Left" as we think of it, anarchists in China, for instance, were more likely to be ideologically rooted in Taoism and Mahayana Buddhism, African, Polynesian, and American Indian/Latin American anarchists in the indigenous spiritual traditions of their tribes, (which I'm only lumping together out of my personal Honky ignorance) South Asian anarchists in pre-Vedic/materiarchal Hinduism, and Mid-Eastern anarchists in dissident Islamic philosophies such as Sufism, Kharawaj, and Ismael'ism - or indigenous philosophies such as Yezidism, Zoroastrianism, Mandeanism, and pre-Islamic Arabic paganism.

Anarchists must ally with the left in order to effectively advance our agenda in regards to certain political issues. However, in regards to other specific issues such as gun control, "homeschooling" rights, and anti-eminant domain/anti-development struggles, we must also ally with certain segments of the right.

You strike me as a post-left type. While it's not my thing, I do not completely reject it like some. But I have to say, I disagree with parts of your analysis. You suggest that it is a fringe of anarchists that identify as "leftists." I think this is historically unprecedented, nor true. I also disagree with your analysis of the left as a whole. There are many anti-capitalist strands within the left, not just social-democrats and authoritarian-marxists. There are many different strains of what are called libertarian socialists, council communists, and autonomous marxists. It's not as if the left is simply anarchists, social-democrats, and authoritarian socialists (though this is part of the historical left).

Many of us would argue that Stalin and Lenin were merely state-capitalists, acting analogous to Reagan and JFK, who were of the right, i.e., bourgeois neo-liberals. So, we could argue that so-called authoritarian "socialists" were merely state-capitalists. But it doesn't do any good to defend bad guys whom historically belong to the left; there are dogmatists on the left, certainly. And I think you and I would agree: we shouldn't deify the left. It's not a metaphysical, sacred entity; it's a human paradigm that has some accuracy. I think it would be difficult to defend your stance that anarchism doesn't historically stem from the left, though. After all, it can be disputed that anarchists are merely a different brand of the broad range of socialists; socialism is certainly a "left" concept/theory. It's not as black and white as authoritarian/anti-authoritarian.

A final point: it's hard to qualify social-democrats as "left." I would personally define reformists who do not ultimately seek to dismantle capitalism, or markets, i.e., someone who is not, per se, anti-capitalist, perhaps center-left, maybe even right-of-center since they see capitalism as a viable option. Also, I called those European, 19th century anarchists cavemen, so I don't think I have some hidden Eurocentric hang-up or am being chauvenistic. Again, it would be difficult to deny, though, that anarchism's evolution as a movement did not occur in Europe and Russia. It's like saying that Marxism didn't evolve in Europe. Come on. What do you want me to say? You could make the argument that there is an innate push towards solidarity, cooperation, and mutual-aid, or that egalitarian hunter/gatherer societies were quasi-anarchist, but speaking of the tangible history of what is called "anarchism," it would be dishonest to include the Spanish Revolution, or Bakunin, Stirner, Proudhon, or Kropotkin (whatever you think of them). Just my 2 cents.

[Agrippa]

You strike me as a post-left type.

Not exactly. In my opinion, at least within the context of US anarchism, "post-left" is shorthand for third positionism. (Some examples: Hakim Bey, Bob Black, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed)


You suggest that it is a fringe of anarchists that identify as "leftists."I believe you misread what I wrote. I wrote that a fringe of leftists have libertarian enough politics to be considered anarchists. I also suggested that the majority of folks comprising a global anti-capitalist (and anti-imperialist, anti-patriarchal) resistance are not nessicarily recruits from "the left" or people who have taken their initially leftist political stances to the supposedly logical conclusion.


I think this is historically unprecedented, nor true.But are you looking at global anarchist history, or European anarchist history?


council communists, and autonomous marxists.Those are just various stripes of anarchism in my book.


Many of us would argue that Stalin and Lenin were merely state-capitalists, acting analogous to Reagan and JFK, who were of the right, i.e., bourgeois neo-liberals. So, we could argue that so-called authoritarian "socialists" were merely state-capitalists. But it doesn't do any good to defend bad guys whom historically belong to the left; there are dogmatists on the left, certainly. And I think you and I would agree: we shouldn't deify the left.All these things demand of us to ask ourselves: "Why the Left, then?" Seriously, do we have any more in common with Stalin and Lenin than JFK and Reagan?


It's not a metaphysical, sacred entity; it's a human paradigm that has some accuracy.But does it? Stalin and Lenin have more with JFK and Reagan than they do Makhno. Makhno has more in common with Stirner than he does JFK or Stalin.


I think it would be difficult to defend your stance that anarchism doesn't historically stem from the left, though.At least not "the left" as defined by the parameters of bourgeois politics and bourgeos philosophy.


After all, it can be disputed that anarchists are merely a different brand of the broad range of socialistsHowever just as many anarchists (that includes council-communists and autonomist Marxists) reject the term "socialism". The quote in the bottom of my signature, for example, is from a notorious early 20th century Italian anarchist anti-fascist partisan named Renzo Novatore.


socialism is certainly a "left" concept/theory. It's not as black and white as authoritarian/anti-authoritarian. It's not as black and white as "left-right", either. For instance, the right-wing Nazis claimed (with some degree of accuracy given the working definition of socialism many use) to be socialists, and, initially, neither left nor right.


A final point: it's hard to qualify social-democrats as "left."It's hard to define the "left". Therefore we should think in terms of capitalists and anti-capitalists. (Fascism and other reactionary ideologies getting lumped under capitalism)


I would personally define reformists who do not ultimately seek to dismantle capitalism, or markets

Which isn't a definition of "the left".


maybe even right-of-center since they see capitalism as a viable option.So all of our ideological opponents are "right-of-center"?

I think that's wrong. I think there is a left- and right-wing of capital, and that there is anarchism, which exists outside of and subverts capital.


Also, I called those European, 19th century anarchists cavemen, so I don't think I have some hidden Eurocentric hang-up or am being chauvenistic.you're being slightly more chauvinistic by inaccurately assuming political consciousness has somehow naturally evolved since the 19th century. If anything, it's degenerated with the expansion of electronic mass-media.


Again, it would be difficult to deny, though, that anarchism's evolution as a movement did not occur in Europe and Russia. It's like saying that Marxism didn't evolve in Europe."Marxism", by definition, is any philosophy derived from Karl Marx, a European philosopher.
"Anarchism", by definition, is any philosophy that rejects political magistrates. You're thinking of "anarchism" as "a specific group of people who decided to adopt a French/English conjugation of a Greek word, starting with Godwin and Proudhon". I think that's a very limited and quite Eurocentric concept of anarchism


but speaking of the tangible history of what is called "anarchism,"The word Englsh word "anarchism" is not usually used in other languages, even by the anarchist movement, which usually uses equivilant words in other languages. The only anarchists are people who used a certain Greek-derived word?


it would be dishonest to include the Spanish Revolution, or Bakunin, Stirner, Proudhon, or Kropotkin (whatever you think of them). Just my 2 cents.I assume you mean to say it would be dishonest not to include these people and events. Where did I ever give the impression I disagree? All I'm arguing is that it is dishonest to ignore the equally important people and events living and occuring at the same time as Bakunin, Stirner, Proudhon, Kropotkin, and the Spanish anarchists - people and events that contributed as much to the libertarian project, but on continents besides Europe.

And while we're mentioning Stirner, can he really be accurately described as a "Leftist"? Yet left-anarchist demagauges insist on including him in the "social anarchist canon", so to speak.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

This is breaching towards what could be viewed as a sectarian argument. I think you seem to have good intent, and we are mostly differing over semantics.



Not exactly. In my opinion, at least within the context of US anarchism, "post-left" is shorthand for third positionism. (Some examples: Hakim Bey, Bob Black, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed)

While I've read aforementioned folks and publications, they strike me as religiously post-left. Ironically, their quest to move on from ideology has become an ideology (this is at least my perception when I read their work). Plus, while I'd be lying if I didn't say some of his essays are entertaining, Bob Black is so goddamned sectarian it's disgusting. I perceive post-left anarchists as also simply being anti-authoritarians who see no meaning in the ancient right-left paradigm (I think there is some merit to this).


I believe you misread what I wrote. I wrote that a fringe of leftists have libertarian enough politics to be considered anarchists. I also suggested that the majority of folks comprising a global anti-capitalist (and anti-imperialist, anti-patriarchal) resistance are not nessicarily recruits from "the left" or people who have taken their initially leftist political stances to the supposedly logical conclusion.

I mean, the term "libertarian," I would argue, was simply used (and still is in some cases) as a synonym for "anarchist," a la "antiauthoritarian." This is what I mean when I say we're having semantic differences. I do think that there is a libertarian-left tradition: see Erich Fromm, Rosa Luxembourg, Howard Zinn, Staughten Lynd, etc. None are per se anarchists, but I would consider them comrades ideologically.


But are you looking at global anarchist history, or European anarchist history?

There is a rich, global tradition of anarchism, but I would still say that the tangible, "anarchist" tradition has its roots in Western Europe, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. Godwin is usually accredited as the first anarchist, sometimes Stirner, while Proudhon is accredited as the first to proclaim himself an anarchist. No one owns the term, though. I'm not suggesting that the 101 of anarchism should be "There were these brilliant white men in Europe that gave rise to the social theory known as anarchism. People of Color, women, and Queer people had nothing to do with the evolution of the movement." I don't think it's Eurocentric to suggest that those people of privilige were the first to call themselves anarchists.

They weren't the first anarchists. I think we'd agree, as anarchists, that there is a latent, innate human instinct towards anarchism. Children innately defy their parents. Workers feel naturally alienated and usually do not want a boss. People would make "ethical" decisions without rulers. ETC. ETC. So, many societies that preceded the Grandfathers of Anarchism had anarchistic tendencies (I think this is something proponents of anarchism all agree upon).

Those are just various stripes of anarchism in my book.


All these things demand of us to ask ourselves: "Why the Left, then?" Seriously, do we have any more in common with Stalin and Lenin than JFK and Reagan?

As I said, I don't sanctify the left, but I see meaningful symbiosis in worker's movements, libertarian Marxists, etc. My only comrade is not the anarchist; that would be silly. I only cherry-pick. There's plenty of rotten dogma on the historical "left." I still am comfortable with being called a "leftist," so as long as it means anti-capitalist, from ability to needs, communism, socialism, etc.




At least not "the left" as defined by the parameters of bourgeois politics and bourgeos philosophy.

Well, yeah. In this semantic example Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are "leftists." That's the parliamentarian paradigm. I pay it no attention. They're all capitalism-enabling, party-of-business loyalists, and more than a little homogenous.



It's not as black and white as "left-right", either. For instance, the right-wing Nazis claimed (with some degree of accuracy given the working definition of socialism many use) to be socialists, and, initially, neither left nor right.

Tyrants have to use words like "liberty," "equality," and "democracy." While I think all of those words are meaningful and have merit (there's a whole plethora of debate about the meaning of democracy), as does the word "socialism." The NAZIs were using the word to appeal to the masses, just as the neo-cons speak of freedom. We shouldn't abandon every concept that leaders use when they go Orwell on us and use words like "democracy" and "socialism" to justify atrocities.

It's hard to define the "left". Therefore we should think in terms of capitalists and anti-capitalists. (Fascism and other reactionary ideologies getting lumped under capitalism)






you're being slightly more chauvinistic by inaccurately assuming political consciousness has somehow naturally evolved since the 19th century. If anything, it's degenerated with the expansion of electronic mass-media.

It's doubtful that it "naturally evolved." People know when they are being oppressed. I doubt that it's entirely degenerated, as many atrocities which were once justified politically are not anymore due to organized movements of oppressed people pushing back at power structures. There is a long list of examples. Certainly globalization and electronic mass media creates homogeneity, whilst capitalism alienates individuals. And the level of people's complacency is enabled by corporate media and a state/capital agenda. I certainly think in many ways it has degenerated, but in many ways it has evolved. I don'tthink that we can classify the las three centuries as being a complete devolution of political consciousness.

I gotta continue this later. Out of time.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

you're being slightly more chauvinistic by inaccurately assuming political consciousness has somehow naturally evolved since the 19th century. If anything, it's degenerated with the expansion of electronic mass-media.

"Anarchism", by definition, is any philosophy that rejects political magistrates. You're thinking of "anarchism" as "a specific group of people who decided to adopt a French/English conjugation of a Greek word, starting with Godwin and Proudhon". I think that's a very limited and quite Eurocentric concept of anarchism.

I think we're headed towards the land of circular argumentation. But I wanted to add: I really think you're straw-manning me with the charge of chauvinism and Eurocentrism. You're defining anarchism for me; thank you. We were talking about anarchism vis-a-vis the left; I wasn't asked by the thread-starter to define anarchism. Defining anarchism in regards to a certain continent, dialect, or language would be chauvinistic. I will define the roots of the modern anarchist movement, and with Europe being a place that arguably had the most successful anarchist revolution in history (Spain), I do not feel as if it requires Eurocentrism to mention this. I'm not accrediting any one of these individuals as being the "inventor" of anarchism; in my last post, I mentioned I perceive anarchism to be latent and innate in humans. And I jokingly called the members of the International Working Men's Association cavemen in regards to the exclusionary name leaving women out. They were products of their time.

You could clearly attempt to use use ad-hominem blurbs against my name, but as I've mentioned on other threads, it's a joke. Anarchists don't have high-priests (at least they shouldn't). I'd argue that there's no such thing as a Kropotkinist. But labeling me a chauvinist because I mention European anarchists or the movement is a little absurd, and as I perceive it, a straw man. I've said my piece, comrade.

[Agrippa]

This is breaching towards what could be viewed as a sectarian argument. I think you seem to have good intent, and we are mostly differing over semantics.

Oh, I agree. But are we at least having fun?



they strike me as religiously post-left. Ironically, their quest to move on from ideology has become an ideology (this is at least my perception when I read their work). Plus, while I'd be lying if I didn't say some of his essays are entertaining, Bob Black is so goddamned sectarian it's disgusting.

Of course I agree, and I actually think you're sort of understating the problem. Self-proclaimed anarchists who fixate on or over-emphasize the importance of being "post-left" tend to drift fairly rapidly into the realm of right-wing third positionism, as evidenced by the inflammatory racist, misogynistic, and anti-Semitic comments Black has made frequently throughout the past, both in private and in public, and by Hakim Bey's misogynistic anti-abortionism and admiration for Gabriele d'Annunzio. (There's also the issue of Black, Bey, and Anarchy all advocating NAMBLA-style "child-love" politics)


I perceive post-left anarchists as also simply being anti-authoritarians who see no meaning in the ancient right-left paradigm (I think there is some merit to this).

It's not that there's no meaning. If there was no meaning to the left-right paradigm, we'd be allying with Nazis. Rather, I feel that it's understanding that the left-right paradigm is a semantic shorthand, a generalization that doesn't fully encompass all the nuanced positions and relationships that exist on the political spectrum. It's also being as critical of groups that call themselves "Left" as those that don't.


I mean, the term "libertarian," I would argue, was simply used (and still is in some cases) as a synonym for "anarchist," a la "antiauthoritarian."

I agree. I was never arguing the history of the term "libertarian".


I do think that there is a libertarian-left tradition: see Erich Fromm, Rosa Luxembourg, Howard Zinn, Staughten Lynd, etc. None are per se anarchists, but I would consider them comrades ideologically.

Yes, but From, for example was the ideological protege of quasi-Nazi Karl Jung, so relationships between the "right" and "left", are, unfortunately, more complex and sordid than we Leftists are usually willing to admit.


There is a rich, global tradition of anarchism, but I would still say that the tangible, "anarchist" tradition has its roots in Western Europe, which is why I mentioned it in the first place.

See, I strongly disagree. And I feel this is more than a semantic or sectarian debate.


Godwin is usually accredited as the first anarchist, sometimes Stirner

Dr. Arnold Kegel is usually accreddited as the discoverer of Pubococcygeus muscle exercises, even though records of such exercises exist in Ayurvedic texts that are thousands of years old. The brilliant and sage Dr. George Washington Carver, an intellectual pioneer in his own right, is usually accreddited with inventing peanut butter, something the Incas had also been making for thousands of years. Thomas Edison is usually accredited with inventing the lightbulb, when in truth all he was is a patent thief. My point? The folks who are "usually accreditted" with inventing certain things are not always the ones who truly did.


while Proudhon is accredited as the first to proclaim himself an anarchist.

According to the Anarchist FAQ and Wikipedia, neither of which can really claim to be exhaustive scholastic studies. In order to definitively decide who was the first to declare herself an anarchist, an exhaustive search of the entire classical Greek literature would need to be conducted, given the etymological roots of the word.


I don't think it's Eurocentric to suggest that those people of privilige were the first to call themselves anarchists.

But, as I pointed out, people in other languages use other words that roughly translate to "anarchism" - words that are usually taken by French, English, and German speaking anarchists, translated into the word "anarchism", and those people who speak other, non-European languages are then claimed as anarchists. Therefore, we cannot decide who is or isn't an anarchist, or part of the historical anarchist movement, based on who uses the specific word "anarchist". If we did, Stirner and Godwin would both be disqualified as you yourself admit.


They weren't the first anarchists. I think we'd agree, as anarchists, that there is a latent, innate human instinct towards anarchism.

Word.


Children innately defy their parents.

Only if they have bad parents.:lol:


Workers feel naturally alienated and usually do not want a boss. People would make "ethical" decisions without rulers. ETC. ETC.


So, many societies that preceded the Grandfathers of Anarchism had anarchistic tendencies (I think this is something proponents of anarchism all agree upon).

To me this hits too close to the Marxist-Leninist attitude that "primitive" and "fuedal" communists such as the Levelers has a kernal of liberatory and progressive potential, but were doomed for failure and obsolescence because the conditions of communism can only be created in an industrial society.


Those are just various stripes of anarchism in my book.

Agreed.


I see meaningful symbiosis in worker's movements

But Italian fascism originally started out as a (purportedly) Leftist worker's movement. So we must be careful not to uncritically accept all members of a nebulous "worker's movement" as allies.


libertarian Marxists

Given the entirely petty origins of the Marxist-Bakuninist sectarian divide, I'm not entirely prepared to even place too great of an importance on the allegedly vast ideological divide between "libertarian Marxism" on the one hand and "Godwin-Proudhon-Bakunin-Kropotkin anarchism" on the other. In my book, "libertarian Marxists" are anarchists. Marx was more of an anarchist than Godwin, Proudhon, and Kropotkin ever were. Just as libertarian Marxists are anarchists in my book, so are libertarians from other ideological traditions.


I still am comfortable with being called a "leftist," so as long as it means anti-capitalist, from ability to needs, communism, socialism, etc.

That's not always what the term means, though, especially in mainstream political parliance.


Well, yeah. In this semantic example Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are "leftists." That's the parliamentarian paradigm. I pay it no attention. They're all capitalism-enabling, party-of-business loyalists, and more than a little homogenous.

But to pretend like there's no practical difference between FDR and JFK on the one hand and Napoleon Bonaparte and Franco on the other, is naive and unscientific. There's definitely a left- and a right-wing of capitalism.


Tyrants have to use words like "liberty," "equality," and "democracy." While I think all of those words are meaningful and have merit [...] The NAZIs were using the word to appeal to the masses, just as the neo-cons speak of freedom.

The same is true, however, of Kautsky, Lasaille, Robespierre, Lenin, etc.


(there's a whole plethora of debate about the meaning of democracy)

That's a pointless debate for another time. ;)


as does the word "socialism." We shouldn't abandon every concept that leaders use when they go Orwell on us and use words like "democracy" and "socialism" to justify atrocities.

I just don't have as much emotional attachment to terms like "Leftist", "socialist", "democracy", etc. Given the history of those who tend to use them, I usually end up using them more as pejoratives than anything else.

It's hard to define the "left". Therefore we should think in terms of capitalists and anti-capitalists. (Fascism and other reactionary ideologies getting lumped under capitalism)


I certainly think in many ways it has degenerated, but in many ways it has evolved.

I tend to be more pessimistic.


I don'tthink that we can classify the las three centuries as being a complete devolution of political consciousness.

Not entirely, but there's more biological dependency among the human masses on heirarchical modes of production than ever before, especially among the segments of the working-class once heralded as the most progressive. (Such as industrial workers in "developed" countries)


I really think you're straw-manning me with the charge of chauvinism and Eurocentrism.

I'll 'fess up to that. However...


I will define the roots of the modern anarchist movement, and with Europe being a place that arguably had the most successful anarchist revolution in history (Spain)

Why do you feel as if Spain was "the most successful anarchist revolution in history"? Is it because Spain is romanticized by mostly-European, modern-day anarchists. Such a title would be difficult to quantify, but throughout the early 20th century there were vibrant anarchist movements in China, Africa, India, Latin America, the Mid-East, etc. I wish I knew more on the subject, it's one I intend to research for the rest of my life, but I would be reluctant to declare a "most successful anarchist revolution" without having more knowlege of the subject. I certainly think that although Spain is an inspiration, it was also a profound failure in many ways.


But labeling me a chauvinist because I mention European anarchists or the movement is a little absurd

There's a different between mentioning European anarchism and believing that the anarchist movement is "rooted" in Europe. The writings of the Godwins and Proudhons and Bakunins of Africa, Latin America, and Asia may not survive today, for obvious reasons. In Europe, vast amounts of the written anarchist intellectual canon were lost forever, destroyed by capitalists and reactionaries, and such a situation is doubly true of a reigon suffering from the height of colonial oppression. If the writings of the Proudhons and Bakunins of Africa, Latin America, and Asia still exist in some fragmented form, which I'm certain they do, then they continue to flounder in obscurity amongst the Euro-American anarchist mileau, due to our own lack of education and international solidarity. (Something I'm as guilty of as you are)

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

Oh, I agree. But are we at least having fun?




Of course I agree, and I actually think you're sort of understating the problem. Self-proclaimed anarchists who fixate on or over-emphasize the importance of being "post-left" tend to drift fairly rapidly into the realm of right-wing third positionism, as evidenced by the inflammatory racist, misogynistic, and anti-Semitic comments Black has made frequently throughout the past, both in private and in public, and by Hakim Bey's misogynistic anti-abortionism and admiration for Gabriele d'Annunzio. (There's also the issue of Black, Bey, and Anarchy all advocating NAMBLA-style "child-love" politics)



It's not that there's no meaning. If there was no meaning to the left-right paradigm, we'd be allying with Nazis. Rather, I feel that it's understanding that the left-right paradigm is a semantic shorthand, a generalization that doesn't fully encompass all the nuanced positions and relationships that exist on the political spectrum. It's also being as critical of groups that call themselves "Left" as those that don't.



I agree. I was never arguing the history of the term "libertarian".



Yes, but From, for example was the ideological protege of quasi-Nazi Karl Jung, so relationships between the "right" and "left", are, unfortunately, more complex and sordid than we Leftists are usually willing to admit.



See, I strongly disagree. And I feel this is more than a semantic or sectarian debate.



Dr. Arnold Kegel is usually accreddited as the discoverer of Pubococcygeus muscle exercises, even though records of such exercises exist in Ayurvedic texts that are thousands of years old. The brilliant and sage Dr. George Washington Carver, an intellectual pioneer in his own right, is usually accreddited with inventing peanut butter, something the Incas had also been making for thousands of years. Thomas Edison is usually accredited with inventing the lightbulb, when in truth all he was is a patent thief. My point? The folks who are "usually accreditted" with inventing certain things are not always the ones who truly did.



According to the Anarchist FAQ and Wikipedia, neither of which can really claim to be exhaustive scholastic studies. In order to definitively decide who was the first to declare herself an anarchist, an exhaustive search of the entire classical Greek literature would need to be conducted, given the etymological roots of the word.



But, as I pointed out, people in other languages use other words that roughly translate to "anarchism" - words that are usually taken by French, English, and German speaking anarchists, translated into the word "anarchism", and those people who speak other, non-European languages are then claimed as anarchists. Therefore, we cannot decide who is or isn't an anarchist, or part of the historical anarchist movement, based on who uses the specific word "anarchist". If we did, Stirner and Godwin would both be disqualified as you yourself admit.



Word.



Only if they have bad parents.:lol:





To me this hits too close to the Marxist-Leninist attitude that "primitive" and "fuedal" communists such as the Levelers has a kernal of liberatory and progressive potential, but were doomed for failure and obsolescence because the conditions of communism can only be created in an industrial society.



Agreed.



But Italian fascism originally started out as a (purportedly) Leftist worker's movement. So we must be careful not to uncritically accept all members of a nebulous "worker's movement" as allies.



Given the entirely petty origins of the Marxist-Bakuninist sectarian divide, I'm not entirely prepared to even place too great of an importance on the allegedly vast ideological divide between "libertarian Marxism" on the one hand and "Godwin-Proudhon-Bakunin-Kropotkin anarchism" on the other. In my book, "libertarian Marxists" are anarchists. Marx was more of an anarchist than Godwin, Proudhon, and Kropotkin ever were. Just as libertarian Marxists are anarchists in my book, so are libertarians from other ideological traditions.



That's not always what the term means, though, especially in mainstream political parliance.



But to pretend like there's no practical difference between FDR and JFK on the one hand and Napoleon Bonaparte and Franco on the other, is naive and unscientific. There's definitely a left- and a right-wing of capitalism.



The same is true, however, of Kautsky, Lasaille, Robespierre, Lenin, etc.



That's a pointless debate for another time. ;)



I just don't have as much emotional attachment to terms like "Leftist", "socialist", "democracy", etc. Given the history of those who tend to use them, I usually end up using them more as pejoratives than anything else.

It's hard to define the "left". Therefore we should think in terms of capitalists and anti-capitalists. (Fascism and other reactionary ideologies getting lumped under capitalism)



I tend to be more pessimistic.



Not entirely, but there's more biological dependency among the human masses on heirarchical modes of production than ever before, especially among the segments of the working-class once heralded as the most progressive. (Such as industrial workers in "developed" countries)



I'll 'fess up to that. However...



Why do you feel as if Spain was "the most successful anarchist revolution in history"? Is it because Spain is romanticized by mostly-European, modern-day anarchists. Such a title would be difficult to quantify, but throughout the early 20th century there were vibrant anarchist movements in China, Africa, India, Latin America, the Mid-East, etc. I wish I knew more on the subject, it's one I intend to research for the rest of my life, but I would be reluctant to declare a "most successful anarchist revolution" without having more knowlege of the subject. I certainly think that although Spain is an inspiration, it was also a profound failure in many ways.



There's a different between mentioning European anarchism and believing that the anarchist movement is "rooted" in Europe. The writings of the Godwins and Proudhons and Bakunins of Africa, Latin America, and Asia may not survive today, for obvious reasons. In Europe, vast amounts of the written anarchist intellectual canon were lost forever, destroyed by capitalists and reactionaries, and such a situation is doubly true of a reigon suffering from the height of colonial oppression. If the writings of the Proudhons and Bakunins of Africa, Latin America, and Asia still exist in some fragmented form, which I'm certain they do, then they continue to flounder in obscurity amongst the Euro-American anarchist mileau, due to our own lack of education and international solidarity. (Something I'm as guilty of as you are)

Cheers Agrippa. I mostly agree with you and, yeah, it's fun. On a separate point, I agree with you that Europe's first anarchists, as mentioned, were not the first. And I, as well, am certainly guilty of being ignorant about parallel anarchist movements occurring in the 19th century in, say, China, or in Africa. And I agree with you about why we do not have much tangible history of those movements. This is why the main point that I was trying to make about anarcho-history, and I should perhaps have been more clear, is that this is the first tangible history of something labeled as a sociopolitical movement called anarchism. Maybe there we will never agree. But keep me posted on your studies in all seriousness. I, the Eurocentric Anarcho-Chauvinist ;), need to be enlightened. I'll look into it myself. Have you read Black Flame yet? I'm about to dig in and apparently it discusses Latin American and African anarcho-history.