non class-strugglist anarchists? [Archive]

Blake's Baby

14th July 2009, 23:24

I think the term is used to seperate the anarcho-socialists (what people in Europe understand as Anarchism) from the anarcho-individualists (which is more of an American phenomenon). Essentially, Bakunin v Tucker (both of whom admired Proudhon).

Basically, to be an anarchist is to oppose the state. But you don't have to oppose the state and capitalism, it's just that probably 95% of anarchists see that capitalism and the state go hand in hand.

In the end, some anarchists reject the notion of class; they think that only the individual has any meaningful existence, and class is just another abstract category that we allow ourselves to get caught up in.

Not all individualists would consider themselves anarcho-capitalists at all however. The followers of Most (a German individualist around 1900 I think) definitely saw themselves as being allies of the 'social anarchists' even though they had different ideas about the necessity of eg workplace organisation.

I suspect (no more than this at present, but I'm considering it) that in America anarchism connected to a pioneer-mentality, HD Thoreau-loving back-to-nature type "authenticity", a form of escape from corruption; in Europe, with an older working class drawn from the ruined artisanal small producers, anarchism connected with millennial desires for the cleansing fires of the righteous to purge corruption. This I suspect is why European anarchism is more socialist than American anarchism (traditionally, at least).

h0m0revolutionary

14th July 2009, 23:25

I have some doubts about it's goal, a revolution in which capitalism is overthrowned (as in ain't gonna happen).

Then why are you here?

Stranger Than Paradise

15th July 2009, 00:08

These people are by definition not Anarchists. Anarchism stands for Liberty and Equality. Those who aren't class struggle Anarchists are directly opposed to these two principles.

Jack

15th July 2009, 00:13

Blake's Baby

15th July 2009, 00:27

... Lack of education: this usually applies to the punk rockers, those who call themselves "anarchist" yet know nothing of what such a label entails, and label themselves "anarchists" out of style.

Proudhon wasn't a socialist. And yet, he was the first self-proclaimed anarchist.

Perhaps, in fact, all subsequent anarchists have misunderstood this fact.

Stranger Than Paradise

15th July 2009, 00:28

Proudhon wasn't a socialist. And yet, he was the first self-proclaimed anarchist.

Perhaps, in fact, all subsequent anarchists have misunderstood this fact.

I am sure Benjamin Tucker and William Godwin would call themselves Anarchists. It does not mean they are.

Jack

15th July 2009, 00:30

Proudhon wasn't a socialist. And yet, he was the first self-proclaimed anarchist.

Perhaps, in fact, all subsequent anarchists have misunderstood this fact.

I would barely consider Proudhon to be an anarchist, I'm sure we can dig up some philosopher centuries before him to call himself an anarchist, but the anarchist movement has nothing to do with Proudhon and he had nothing to do with it.

ComradeOm

15th July 2009, 00:31

(Any anarchist should feel free to correct me on the below. I'm coming at this from a historical, rather than ideological, viewpoint so may have misinterpreted some aspects)

Oh the difference between "class struggle anarchism" and other variants is much more than the simple difference with anarcho-capitalists. Essentially back in the 19th C lacked a strong anchor to the working class. For sure, there were always anarchists who expressly identified with the proletariat, but early anarchism lacked the inescapable attached to the working class that so marked Marxism. Hence the tendency of many early anarchists to ignore mass movements in favour of individual acts of terror. Propaganda of the deed is not underpinned by any real study of class struggle

Of course it wasn't long before currents such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism emerged to rectify this but there remained some 'pure' anarchists (or 'anarchists without adjectives') who rejected such explicit ties/organisation. Plus of course some holdovers, such as mutualism, that no longer had much of an impact

Now an interesting question, and one that I'm not placed to answer, would be just when Marx's works on class struggle and the economy were adopted by those that now call themselves 'class struggle anarchists'. I have a feeling that it was only in the last decade or two of the 20th C but could well be wrong

Then again there does seem to be an upsurge of 'post-left' anarchists today. Green anarchists, individualists, etc... they have no connection to the revolutionary movement. A throwback perhaps to the 19th C

Blake's Baby

15th July 2009, 00:35

Stranger Than Paradise

15th July 2009, 00:35

(Of course it wasn't long before currents such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism emerged to rectify this but there remained some 'pure' anarchists (or 'anarchists without adjectives') who rejected such explicit ties/organisation. Plus of course some holdovers, such as mutualism, that no longer had much of an impact

One correction to make, I think you would be referring to Insurrectionist Anarchism. Also I believe around this time that the Anarchists main influence was in the labour movement and that it was a minority who believed in the tactic of propoganda of the deed.

Stranger Than Paradise

15th July 2009, 00:37

Godwin wouldn't (didn't).

Not sure if Tucker did; but he was an admirer of Proudhon.

My point is that Proudhon was the first person to call himself an anarchist. But, apparently, he was wrong, because some people much later claimed you can't be an anarchist without also being a socialist. Stupid old Proudhon, he should have known that 150 years after his death people would change their minds about the word he used.

What I am trying to illustrate is that Proudhon was not a true Class Struggle Anarchist, therefore he is not a true Anarchist. Just as Tucker and Godwin weren't yet they still called themselves this.

Blake's Baby

15th July 2009, 00:43

Godwin didn't - said that already. He was long dead.

You can't include "class struggle anarchist" in your definition, otherwise what you're saying is "non-class-struggle anarchists are not class class struggle anarchists". We know that.

Proudhon was the first self described anarchist. Ergo, after that "anarchist" meany "follower of Proudhon". Tucker, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Most - all regarded themselves as being inspired by Proudhon. So, for anarchists to reject the first anarchist, means they haven't really understood what anarchism is, because Proudhon invented it.

Of course, that doesn't mean it didn't devlop. But you can't deny the existence of the black thread going back to Proudhon, that means that "anarchist" doesn't mean anything.

Pogue

15th July 2009, 00:46

Proudhon wasn't a socialist. And yet, he was the first self-proclaimed anarchist.

Perhaps, in fact, all subsequent anarchists have misunderstood this fact.

Proudhon was a reactionary toss pot with shit ideas with very little in common with what we call anarchism today. He was hated by radical workers in Paris.

Pogue

15th July 2009, 00:46

I don't think you can be an anarchist outside of being a class strugglist anarchist.

Stranger Than Paradise

15th July 2009, 00:46

Yes I understand Proudhon was the first person to use thw word Anarchist but I don't fully understand your point. The idea of Anarchism wasn't invented by Proudhon, it is an idea deep-rooted in the working peoples struggle for freedom throughout history. Therefore I refuse to recognise Proudhon as the father of Anarchism, the only thing Proudhon contributed to the ideas of Bakunin and Kropotkin is the name itself.

Agrippa

15th July 2009, 00:59

Not all individualist anarchists are of the Proudhon-Spooner-Tucker variety. There's a difference between "American individualism" (which the English Godwin and the French Proudhon were predecessors) and "European individualism", which is more embodied by Stirner, Lev Chernyi, the Bonnott Gang, Jacob Marius, Ravochel, Renzo Novatore, the Gordin brothers, Chernoe Znamia, possibly Nietzsche...

I identify strongly with the European individualist tradition, but I do not think anarchism can exist without "class-strugglism". In fact, European individualist are among the most adament advocates of war against bourgeois society.

NoMore

15th July 2009, 02:51

Lots of fail in this thread.

The "anarchists" who reject class struggle are a population of middle to upper class teenagers looking for a way to be rebelious (that is, calling themselves anarchists), punk rockers who've never picked up a book, and lifestylists (who usually fall into the aforementioned categories). Their rejection of the class struggle usually comes from A) Their own priviledged backround.
B) Experience talking to teenagers of bourgeois and petit bourgeois dissent. The breaking of those barriers usually happens in school, where class mixing occurs. This is why they will usually respond to any criticism of the bourgeoisie with phrases like "the rich are oppressed too" or "would you hate your best friend if he lost the lottery?".
C) Lack of education: this usually applies to the punk rockers, those who call themselves "anarchist" yet know nothing of what such a label entails, and label themselves "anarchists" out of style.

I consider my self to be very privileged and have had a good quality of life maybe less compared some but more compared to many. My dad is a carpenter and my a mom is nurse. They also have a 3rd income which comes from my dad's retirement, from another job he used to do, which is why they can afford more then other families who are made up of carpenters and nurses. People who I have been friends with since day one have been on and off welfare and pretty much have had a shitty quality of life. I don't think that rich people are oppressed and I would be pissed off at my friends if they won the lottery an just blew the money on stupid material possessions and didn't help others in need. My motivation doesn't come from my oppression (which is very little compared to most.), it comes from the oppression that I have witnessed and want to put to an end. I would advise anybody who is privileged to use their privileges (land,money,and other assets) to take action and to educate other privileged people about the plight of working class people.

Pogue

15th July 2009, 02:54

I consider my self to be very privileged and have had a good quality of life maybe less compared some but more compared to many. My dad is a carpenter and my a mom is nurse. They also have a 3rd income which comes from my dad's retirement, from another job he used to do, which is why they can afford more then other families who are made up of carpenters and nurses. People who who I have been friends with since day one have been on and off welfare and pretty much have had a shitty quality of life. I don't think that rich people are oppressed and I would be pissed off at my friends if they won the lottery an just blew the money on stupid material possessions and didn't help others in need. My motivation doesn't come from my oppression (which is very little compared to most.), it comes from the oppression that I have witnessed and want to put to an end. I would advise anybody who is privileged to use their privileges (land,money,and other assets) to take action and to educate other privileged people about the plight of working class people.

But your class interests root you with the working class. All of us have moral/emotional attachments to communism but its also class interest. I'm not in it to be a Robin Hood figure, I'm in it cos i recognise my class interest and that of other working class people.

yuon

15th July 2009, 06:19

The Ungovernable Farce

15th July 2009, 11:39

Oh the difference between "class struggle anarchism" and other variants is much more than the simple difference with anarcho-capitalists. Essentially back in the 19th C lacked a strong anchor to the working class. For sure, there were always anarchists who expressly identified with the proletariat, but early anarchism lacked the inescapable attached to the working class that so marked Marxism. Hence the tendency of many early anarchists to ignore mass movements in favour of individual acts of terror. Propaganda of the deed is not underpinned by any real study of class struggle

And that's why anarchism was one of the major currents of the first international, and it collapsed immediately after the anarchists were expelled, right?

My point is that Proudhon was the first person to call himself an anarchist. But, apparently, he was wrong, because some people much later claimed you can't be an anarchist without also being a socialist. Stupid old Proudhon, he should have known that 150 years after his death people would change their minds about the word he used.
As an anarchist, I'm an anti-racist. Therefore, I think it's contradictory to be an anarchist and say "The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated."

Non "class-struggle" anarchists are simply anarchists who believe that anarchism (normally anarcho-communism or some variant of individualism) is possible without a violent revolution and war between classes.

Many anarchist pacifists (who are normally anarcho-communists) don't believe that class war is desirable for example.

To claim that they aren't anarchists, or that they don't believe in liberty or equality, or that they are all actually capitalists and not anarchists is all just wrong.
Yup, they believe in liberty and equality, they just advocate hopelessly ineffective ways of achieving them.

Stranger Than Paradise

15th July 2009, 11:42

Crazy, I haven't read the second page of this thread yet, I suspect I'll find more of the same crap.

Non "class-struggle" anarchists are simply anarchists who believe that anarchism (normally anarcho-communism or some variant of individualism) is possible without a violent revolution and war between classes.

Many anarchist pacifists (who are normally anarcho-communists) don't believe that class war is desirable for example.

To claim that they aren't anarchists, or that they don't believe in liberty or equality, or that they are all actually capitalists and not anarchists is all just wrong.

How about ya'll go and talk to some pacifist anarchists and find out what they think?

But because they do not realise that violence and clas struggle is a neccessity of revolution they cannot be considered true Anarchists, their world view can be similar to ours but that does not matter as long as they do not support class struggle and violent insurection they are no more than liberal sympathisers.

nuisance

15th July 2009, 16:04

I am sure Benjamin Tucker and William Godwin would call themselves Anarchists. It does not mean they are.
Tucker was an anarchist and Godwin a proto-anarchist of sorts- he influenced anarchist thought before the written ideology of anarchism was birthed.

ComradeOm

15th July 2009, 16:45

And that's why anarchism was one of the major currents of the first international...Sure, along with Mazzinists, Fenians, Proudhonists, Blanquists, Polish nationalists, Chartists... to name but a few of the groups involved. A mass following was not a requirement for membership of the International

...and it collapsed immediately after the anarchists were expelled, right?You are implying that one was responsible for the other? The following decades - with the short life of the St. Imier International and failure of propaganda of the deed - would demonstrate fully the bankruptcy of traditional anarchist tactics

As an anarchist, I'm an anti-racist. Therefore, I think it's contradictory to be an anarchist and say "The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated."Would you call Bakunin an anarchist?

Nwoye

15th July 2009, 18:12

Proudhon was a reactionary toss pot with shit ideas with very little in common with what we call anarchism today. He was hated by radical workers in Paris.
That's very noble of you to completely disregard the man that first developed the ideology you adhere to.

As for people saying Proudhon isn't a socialist, that's just sectarian bullshit. If you disagree with his philosophy then fine, I do to in a lot of instances. But that doesn't mean he's not a socialist.

Blake's Baby

15th July 2009, 21:38

The Ungovernable Farce

15th July 2009, 22:48

Sure, along with Mazzinists, Fenians, Proudhonists, Blanquists, Polish nationalists, Chartists... to name but a few of the groups involved. A mass following was not a requirement for membership of the International

I said "major current", not current. The Marxists and anarchists were the only two groups with a mass following. Are you trying to claim that the Marxists were the only mass current? In that case, why did it fall apart?

You are implying that one was responsible for the other? The following decades - with the short life of the St. Imier International and failure of propaganda of the deed - would demonstrate fully the bankruptcy of traditional anarchist tacticsI don't think that propaganda of the deed was worthwhile. I also don't remember many successful Marxist revolutions in the following decades. Unless you count the glorious long life of the First International after the anarchists were expelled as a success.

Would you call Bakunin an anarchist?
I think he contributed a lot to anarchism, a lot more than Proudhon did. I also think he had a lot of shit ideas that're logically incompatible with anarchism. That's why I'm not a Bakuninist. I don't go in for personality cults.

ComradeOm

15th July 2009, 23:55

I said "major current", not current. The Marxists and anarchists were the only two groups with a mass following. Are you trying to claim that the Marxists were the only mass current? In that case, why did it fall apart?It fell apart for a variety of reasons (chief being the move to New York) of which the expulsion of the anarchists was a minor one. Largely because the anarchists, certainly those influenced by Bakunin, were not a major mass movement. Nor were anarchists themselves particularly perturbed by this fact - hence the continued focus on individual acts of terrorism or the sheer malicious stupidity of the likes of Nechayev

Incidentally I've never claimed that the Marxists in the International had a mass following. Marx was of course extremely influential but it was not until the following decade that his theories were placed at the centre of the emerging socialist parties

*Ironically of course the majority of anarchists represented at the International (including almost all of those from France) would have called themselves Proudhonists :lol:

I don't think that propaganda of the deed was worthwhile. I also don't remember many successful Marxist revolutions in the following decadesAmazing how no defence of anarchism is complete without a reference to Marxism, innit? Regardless, the decades following the collapse of the International were some of the most important in the history of Marxism with the establishment of mass socialist parties throughout Europe. It was during the 1870s that Marxism moved out of secret circles, such as the First International, and reshaped itself as a mass movement. So yes, the following decades were pretty good from our perspective

Unless you count the glorious long life of the First International after the anarchists were expelled as a successAgain you are insinuating that the First International collapsed as a result of the expulsions of the anarchists. That is not the case

I think he contributed a lot to anarchism, a lot more than Proudhon did. I also think he had a lot of shit ideas that're logically incompatible with anarchism. That's why I'm not a Bakuninist. I don't go in for personality cults.That's not what I asked. Do you consider him to have been an anarchist?

Nwoye

16th July 2009, 01:56

I don't think it is. Socialism is the establishment of a classless communal society without money or property, and that's not what Proudhon proposed. He wanted a national bank and private ownership of the means of production. Ergo, he wasn't a socialist.
he completely opposed property, and supported control of resources/goods based on possession and use. this led him to support worker cooperatives in conjunction with individualist workers (farmers tending the land by themselves). He didn't really support a "national bank" (he actually supported a mutually owned credit union), but he did push for the nationalization and centralization of capitalist banks as merely a positive step towards socialism, not as an end goal. Also, the abolishment of money isn't inherent in socialism, and whether or not Proudhon supported it as necessary or inevitable is irrelevant to him being a socialist.

Black Sheep

16th July 2009, 11:54

Non "class-struggle" anarchists are simply anarchists who believe that anarchism (normally anarcho-communism or some variant of individualism) is possible without a violent revolution and war between classes.yeah yeah..

Well to sum up, it seems to me that anarchism has this tremendous plauge: that every "libertarian","rebellious","christian","all-loving pacifist","weed-lover hippie" etc etc can legally define themselves as 'anarchist', with little or no counters to that hijacking by revolutionary social anarchists.

And that results in a disgusting abstraction covering the entire term of 'anarchism'.
Today,if i ask someone 'what's your political philosophy?' and he replies ' i m an anarchist', i'll have no idea what the fuck he believes.

He could very well be a spoilt little petit-bourgeoisie brat living off his dad's income.For fuck's sake man.And all this happens with the tolerance of sensible anarchists.

What the hell?If you are a sensible anarchist, then why is the individualist stirner-adoring """anarchist""" a fucking comrade of yours?If he is, then you might as well welcome in your comradely hug the social democrats, the primitivists and the reformists in general.

fucking hell :mad:

Pogue

16th July 2009, 12:58

yeah yeah..

Well to sum up, it seems to me that anarchism has this tremendous plauge: that every "libertarian","rebellious","christian","all-loving pacifist","weed-lover hippie" etc etc can legally define themselves as 'anarchist', with little or no counters to that hijacking by revolutionary social anarchists.

And that results in a disgusting abstraction covering the entire term of 'anarchism'.
Today,if i ask someone 'what's your political philosophy?' and he replies ' i m an anarchist', i'll have no idea what the fuck he believes.

He could very well be a spoilt little petit-bourgeoisie brat living off his dad's income.For fuck's sake man.And all this happens with the tolerance of sensible anarchists.

What the hell?If you are a sensible anarchist, then why is the individualist stirner-adoring """anarchist""" a fucking comrade of yours?If he is, then you might as well welcome in your comradely hug the social democrats, the primitivists and the reformists in general.

fucking hell :mad:

If it makes you feel any better there are very few 'non clas strugglist anarchists' and I don't consider them comrades.

The Ungovernable Farce

16th July 2009, 13:35

Incidentally I've never claimed that the Marxists in the International had a mass following. Marx was of course extremely influential but it was not until the following decade that his theories were placed at the centre of the emerging socialist parties

Essentially back in the 19th C lacked a strong anchor to the working class. For sure, there were always anarchists who expressly identified with the proletariat, but early anarchism lacked the inescapable attached to the working class that so marked Marxism.
Make your mind up. Either Marxism had a strong anchor to the working class or it didn't.

Amazing how no defence of anarchism is complete without a reference to Marxism, innit?
No, it's perfectly possible to defend anarchism without reference to Marxism. It's just a lot harder to defend it from a Marxist, attacking it by claiming that Marxism is superior, without reference to Marxism.

Regardless, the decades following the collapse of the International were some of the most important in the history of Marxism with the establishment of mass socialist parties throughout Europe. It was during the 1870s that Marxism moved out of secret circles, such as the First International, and reshaped itself as a mass movement. So yes, the following decades were pretty good from our perspective

Yup, you established mass social-democratic parties that would become completely integrated into the structure of capitalism, thus validiating the anarchist critique of such parties.

That's not what I asked. Do you consider him to have been an anarchist?
I think he contributed a lot to anarchism, a lot more than Proudhon did. I also think he had a lot of shit ideas that're logically incompatible with anarchism.

ComradeOm

16th July 2009, 13:47

Make your mind up. Either Marxism had a strong anchor to the working class or it didn'tI fail to see the contradiction. Marxism has always, from its very inception, been anchored to the working class in that it views the proletariat as the only vehicle for revolution. That does not mean that Marxism has, from 1848, been a mass movement. Rather that, in contrast to the bulk of anarchists, Marxists spent the 19th C working within the working class to establish itself as mass current. This would pay off in the 1870s

Yup, you established mass social-democratic parties that would become completely integrated into the structure of capitalism, thus validiating the anarchist critique of such partiesAnd that is the sort of attitude that convinced anarchists that blowing up Tsars and dukes was the key to success. Anyone who thinks that building mass worker parties is a waste of time does not understand the meaning of "class struggle"

I think he contributed a lot to anarchism, a lot more than Proudhon did. I also think he had a lot of shit ideas that're logically incompatible with anarchismSo you've said. But the question remains unanswered: was Bakunin an anarchist? Its not a difficult question

The Ungovernable Farce

16th July 2009, 18:02

And that is the sort of attitude that convinced anarchists that blowing up Tsars and dukes was the key to success. Anyone who thinks that building mass worker parties is a waste of time does not understand the meaning of "class struggle"
And anyone who doesn't understand the difference between mass workers' organisations and mass parties of workers controlled by a hierarchical leadership is doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past over and over again. Seriously, you think getting shits like Friedrich Ebert into power is anything to be proud of.

So you've said. But the question remains unanswered: was Bakunin an anarchist? Its not a difficult question
I don't think he was a perfect, 100% consistent anarchist. I think that for the most part he was an anarchist, but he had some very un-anarchist ideas.

17th July 2009, 03:59

No, you should get a restriction firstly because you're an anarchist. Secondly, because you presumed I'm male (which I'm not) which shows how much of a closet-misogynist you are. Asshole.

:laugh::laugh:

Now, if you continue derailling this thread i will issue warning points.If you cant answer, if you have some "issues" with Anarchists or something, save it for yourself or another thread.This isnt the place...
Cleaned the thread with the derailments.

Don't kid yourself. There are no Bakunists or Kropotkinists because neither gave any theoretical contributions to anarchism - since anarchism is utterly devoid of such. Whereas Lenin, or Stalin or Marx or Mao or Trotsky or Bordiga or Luxemburg actually gave political stances, right or wrong, there exists the possibility of those who support their stances becomging a Marxist or a Maoists or a Luxemburgist or whatever. On the contrary, Bakunin or Kropotkin gave nothing to anarchism. Anarchists don't refuse to call themselves Bakunists on the basis of opposition to a cult of personality, as they would like to pretend, (which, by the way, no one does if they call themselves a Marxist), but because Bakunin didn't say anything important (e.g. Marx) or lead any relevant political movement which had significant influence (e.g Lenin).

Feel free to open another thread with this in Learning or Politics(if you want to back up those "jokes"), but this is NOT the place for such comments.Plus consider this a verbal warning for the derailing-spamming this thread.

Fuserg9:star:

thejambo1

17th July 2009, 06:05

i dont consider "lifestylist" non class struggle anarchists to be comrades at all,i in all honesty i dont find them of much use!!! i have very little in common with them so tend to ignore them! probably listen more to trots etc as at least they have input into the class struggle.

yuon

17th July 2009, 07:56

But because they do not realise that violence and clas struggle is a neccessity of revolution they cannot be considered true Anarchists, their world view can be similar to ours but that does not matter as long as they do not support class struggle and violent insurection they are no more than liberal sympathisers.
Bah, what the fuck is a true anarchist? Is that like a true Scotsman? (Did you post in the thread in the anarchist group? I've got like two or three posts near the end that haven't been addressed by anyone.)

yeah yeah..

Well to sum up, it seems to me that anarchism has this tremendous plauge: that every "libertarian","rebellious","christian","all-loving pacifist","weed-lover hippie" etc etc can legally define themselves as 'anarchist', with little or no counters to that hijacking by revolutionary social anarchists.

And that results in a disgusting abstraction covering the entire term of 'anarchism'.
Today,if i ask someone 'what's your political philosophy?' and he replies ' i m an anarchist', i'll have no idea what the fuck he believes.

He could very well be a spoilt little petit-bourgeoisie brat living off his dad's income.For fuck's sake man.And all this happens with the tolerance of sensible anarchists.

What the hell?If you are a sensible anarchist, then why is the individualist stirner-adoring """anarchist""" a fucking comrade of yours?If he is, then you might as well welcome in your comradely hug the social democrats, the primitivists and the reformists in general.

fucking hell :mad:
If someone today said to me, that they were an anarchist, I would have to question them as to what they meant. The same as if they said they were a communist, or even nazi. Many people don't understand these terms, and use them for the shock affect.

Big deal.

However, if someone said that they opposed hierarchy, oppression, capitalism and the state, and supported freedom, and the rights of people to do what they would (within the limit of other people's freedom), I could suggest, "that person is probably an anarchist".

It doesn't matter shit if they are a pacifist, or an individualist, or anything like that; at least, not for me, to call them an anarchist.

Egoists, do they want maximum freedom for everyone (etc.)? If so, why not call them anarchistic? If some primitivists believe that technology causes oppression, and hold that freedom is best, and oppression, hierarchy etc. are bad, what’s wrong with them calling themselves anarchistic?

Don’t believe that I have no standards. I have high standards, and would reject many people that you might think are anarchists (not freedom loving enough, too supportive of social hierarchy, etc.). I do, however, have consistent standards, and merely saying, “I’m an anarchist” isn’t enough for me to give you that label, because I don’t know if you might turn around and say, “I believe that a uniformed, permanent and armed police force is necessary in an anarchist society”.

Oh, and finally, what’s wrong with being “a spoilt little petit-bourgeoisie brat living off his dad's income”? I mean, if you’re 15 and can’t legally earn a living wage, and have to go to school five days a week, you have to live off someone’s income. And you can’t choice your parents… If that “brat” believes that social hierarchy is a bad thing, wishes for class war to bring about an end to capitalism, and desires a free society as a result, would you have a problem with them?

Bah.

Stranger Than Paradise

17th July 2009, 13:45

Bah, what the fuck is a true anarchist? Is that like a true Scotsman? (Did you post in the thread in the anarchist group? I've got like two or three posts near the end that haven't been addressed by anyone.)

A true Anarchist? What is it? It is a class struggle Anarchist. That is by definition a true Anarchist.

There is no such thing as a true Scotsman.

The Ungovernable Farce

17th July 2009, 14:02

Egoists, do they want maximum freedom for everyone (etc.)? If so, why not call them anarchistic?
Benjamin Tucker said that anarchism "does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force."

If some primitivists believe that technology causes oppression, and hold that freedom is best, and oppression, hierarchy etc. are bad, what’s wrong with them calling themselves anarchistic?
Because abandoning industrialised food production would condemn millions if not billions of people to starve. I don't think you can be free in any meaningful sense if you're starving to death.

Oh, and finally, what’s wrong with being “a spoilt little petit-bourgeoisie brat living off his dad's income”? I mean, if you’re 15 and can’t legally earn a living wage, and have to go to school five days a week, you have to live off someone’s income. And you can’t choice your parents… If that “brat” believes that social hierarchy is a bad thing, wishes for class war to bring about an end to capitalism, and desires a free society as a result, would you have a problem with them?

Yeah, 15-year-old proletarians still live off their parents' income. I don't think anyone would object to 15-year-olds doing that. I think he was referring to grown adults still depending on their parents rather than getting jobs or state benefits.

Agrippa

17th July 2009, 20:19

i dont consider "lifestylist" non class struggle anarchists to be comrades at all

"Lifestyle anarchism", or "lifestylism", is a term coined originally by Murray Bookchin, a petit-bourgeois socialist intelligentsia who believed that anyone who wasn't an Enlightenment atheist bigot was a fascist hippie, and that participation in municipal elections was the best bet for creating the condition of communism. He considered Emma Goldman a "lifestyle anarchist", along with anyone else who actually resisted capitalism

Benjamin Tucker said that anarchism "does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force."

Well, yes, liberal egoists in the vain of Tucker, Spooner, and Rothbard are already condemned to OI. But did Stirner believe in prisons, officials, military, etc.?

Because abandoning industrialised food production would condemn millions if not billions of people to starve.Capitalism has condemned millions if not billions of people to starve. Capitalism has created the conditions of overpopulation in its reckless, shortsighted quest for more human capital. No mode of production, including industrialism, can forestall the impending shortage crisis created by the capitalist overproduction of human capital. Even within this incredibly desperate and pessimistic scenario, genuine communism (which has always been anti-industrial and opposed to centralization) is still the most humane and compassionate of all options.

I don't think you can be free in any meaningful sense if you're starving to death.

Freedom doesn't preclude suffering, though. It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, as the old Mexican revolutionary slogan goes.

Yeah, 15-year-old proletarians still live off their parents' income. I don't think anyone would object to 15-year-olds doing that.I do. They should get a job.

17th July 2009, 20:32

I do. They should get a job.

:bored: Wasn't it you that was going on about living outside of Capitalism before?

Agrippa

17th July 2009, 20:37

:bored: Wasn't it you that was going on about living outside of Capitalism before?

Yeah. How does that justify mooching off your parents?

x359594

17th July 2009, 20:40

"Lifestyle anarchism", or "lifestylism", is a term coined originally by Murray Bookchin, a petit-bourgeois socialist intelligentsia who believed that anyone who wasn't an Enlightenment atheist bigot was a fascist hippie, and that participation in municipal elections was the best bet for creating the condition of communism. He considered Emma Goldman a "lifestyle anarchist", along with anyone else who actually resisted capitalism...

While there's some truth to this caricature of Bookchin, there's a little more nuance to his idea of lifestyle anarchsim then you credit here.

While he was certainly wrong in his assesment of Emma Goldman, Paul Goodman and a few other anarchists, I think he was on the mark about Hakim Bey, Zerzan and the people who claim to be anarchists on the basis of ultra individualism.

The great irony is that a few years after he wrote Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism? he declared himself not to be an anarchist at all.

Nwoye

17th July 2009, 23:13

Yeah. How does that justify mooching off your parents?
damned if you do. damned if you don't.

Agrippa

17th July 2009, 23:32

While there's some truth to this caricature of Bookchin, there's a little more nuance to his idea of lifestyle anarchsim then you credit here.

While he was certainly wrong in his assesment of Emma Goldman, Paul Goodman and a few other anarchists, I think he was on the mark about Hakim Bey, Zerzan and the people who claim to be anarchists on the basis of ultra individualism.

From my perspective, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism raises some genuinely legitimate criticisms of a new generation of US anarchists, (such as Zerzan, Bey, Fifth Estate, et. al) drawing from comparisons to the anarchists of his generation's day. However, while his criticisms are valid, his explanation, his analysis, is dead wrong. Rather than blaming the poor quality of generation X/generation Y anarchism on changes in society during the subsequent two or three generations since the Old Left, (that would contradict his technocratic, progressivist ideology) he blames a growing prevailance of ideas borrowed from the historical individualist, anti-industrialist, autonomist, insurrectionist and anti-Enlightenment tradition of anarchism.

This is bullshit for obvious reasons. Anarchist groups of the same generation that share Bookchin's socialistic ideology (such as Love and Rage, NEFAC, Libcom, Red and Anarchist Action Network, etc.) also share much of the same problems Bookchin criticizes. Bookchin uses the incoherent pedophile Bey, and the ridiculous ultra-nihilist Zerzan as strawmen to abolish, so he doesn't have to address any serious questions brought up by the individualist/anti-industrialist/autonomist etc. camp

damned if you do. damned if you don't.

I know, but still, fuck teenagers who sit around destroying their able bodies by playing video games and eating Oreos all day while their working-class parents bust their asses paying the grocery and electric bills. In a communist society, girls will become women and boys will become men a lot sooner than in post-modern capitalist society. Also in a communist society, children will do a reasonable share of the work.

thejambo1

18th July 2009, 07:12

agrippa, i couldnt give a flying fuck about bookchin and his terminology for lifestyle anarchists. i think if the cap fits wear the fucker!! :)

Stranger Than Paradise

18th July 2009, 08:35

I do. They should get a job.

Well that is an impossibility where I live as you cannot start work til you are 16.

x359594

18th July 2009, 16:04

From my perspective, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism raises some genuinely legitimate criticisms of a new generation of US anarchists, (such as Zerzan, Bey, Fifth Estate, et. al) drawing from comparisons to the anarchists of his generation's day. However, while his criticisms are valid, his explanation, his analysis, is dead wrong...Anarchist groups of the same generation that share Bookchin's socialistic ideology (such as Love and Rage, NEFAC, Libcom, Red and Anarchist Action Network, etc.) also share much of the same problems Bookchin criticizes. Bookchin uses the incoherent pedophile Bey, and the ridiculous ultra-nihilist Zerzan as strawmen to abolish, so he doesn't have to address any serious questions brought up by the individualist/anti-industrialist/autonomist etc. camp...

Well, here we're on the same page. I'm guessing that at the time he wrote Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism he was moving away from anarchism, and I'm fairly certain this accounts for the weakness of his analysis.

yuon

19th July 2009, 10:45

A true Anarchist? What is it? It is a class struggle Anarchist. That is by definition a true Anarchist.

There is no such thing as a true Scotsman.

Did you respond in that thread in the anarchist group?

What the fuck is an anarchist anyway?

I am not a "class struggle Anarchist", I simply am "anarchist". I believe that "class struggle" is the more likely method of bringing about the first steps to a truly free society, yet, I'm not going say it is the only possible method. Because, to claim that only one method is possible to work, is dogmatic, irrational, and just plain stupid.

We don't have any evidence that class struggle is the only possible method of bringing about the first steps of anarchism, or even if class struggle can bring about the first step that will successfully go to the second, third and so on to the final step.

We only have a few examples in history of anything resembling an anarchist society, or anarchistic system, and none on a large scale, and surviving a long time. How about some more evidence before claiming, quite dogmatically, that class struggle is the only possible method.

Fuck dogmatism.

yuon

19th July 2009, 10:54

Benjamin Tucker said that anarchism "does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force."
I disagree with Tucker, however, other "anarchists" don't. (Including Forward Union as far as I can tell.)

However, we don't have to listen to Tucker where he was wrong, just as we don't listen to Proudhon when he was wrong, or Kropotkin etc.

Because abandoning industrialised food production would condemn millions if not billions of people to starve. I don't think you can be free in any meaningful sense if you're starving to death.
Perhaps not, however, what if the population voluntarily drops over a period of time (centenaries even?) and, over the same time, industry is abandoned?
It is possible, within the rules of science as we know them, for this to happen.

Yeah, 15-year-old proletarians still live off their parents' income. I don't think anyone would object to 15-year-olds doing that. I think he was referring to grown adults still depending on their parents rather than getting jobs or state benefits.
Oh? I didn't see any evidence that they didn't meant fifteen year olds.

Stranger Than Paradise

19th July 2009, 12:25

Did you respond in that thread in the anarchist group?

No please tell me which thread it is.

What the fuck is an anarchist anyway?

Very simplistically. An Anarchist is someone who believes in abolishing the state, capitalism and private property in favour of common ownership of the means of production. They also believe in a decentralised federalised network of communes based upon the philosophies of direct democracy and voluntary association. Anyone else please feel free to add.

I am not a "class struggle Anarchist", I simply am "anarchist". I believe that "class struggle" is the more likely method of bringing about the first steps to a truly free society, yet, I'm not going say it is the only possible method. Because, to claim that only one method is possible to work, is dogmatic, irrational, and just plain stupid.

We don't have any evidence that class struggle is the only possible method of bringing about the first steps of anarchism, or even if class struggle can bring about the first step that will successfully go to the second, third and so on to the final step.

We only have a few examples in history of anything resembling an anarchist society, or anarchistic system, and none on a large scale, and surviving a long time. How about some more evidence before claiming, quite dogmatically, that class struggle is the only possible method.

If you do not accept that class struggle is the only method to achieve revolution then I do not see why you are on a board where everyone accepts class struggle as a neccessity to revolution. It is not dogmatic and stupid it is the reality of revolution. There is no other way and if you do not believe that yourself then I am sorry but you should be restricted.

yuon

20th July 2009, 10:07

No please tell me which thread it is.I see you've found it. For the rest:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&discussionid=2181&pp=30
(You need to be a member of the anarchist group to see that thread.)

Very simplistically. An Anarchist is someone who believes in abolishing the state, capitalism and private property in favour of common ownership of the means of production. They also believe in a decentralised federalised network of communes based upon the philosophies of direct democracy and voluntary association. Anyone else please feel free to add.
I've addressed this in the thread linked above.

If you do not accept that class struggle is the only method to achieve revolution then I do not see why you are on a board where everyone accepts class struggle as a neccessity to revolution. It is not dogmatic and stupid it is the reality of revolution. There is no other way and if you do not believe that yourself then I am sorry but you should be restricted.
It is dogmatic. You say only one thing is possible to bring about positive social change, I say that's dogmatic.

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.
Whoops, I disputed, doubted and diverged from the gospel! I'm a heretic who should be restricted!

Oh, and why should I, a revolutionary leftist, who supports the abolition of the state, capitalism, oppression and hierarchy, and supports freedom for all, why should I be restricted?

Wait, I've already said it, I'm a heretic, who thinks, that maybe, just maybe, it is possible to bring about a free society without revolution. Not even that it is probable, just possible.

Shit, you really are dogmatic if you want to restrict me for that.

Black Sheep

20th July 2009, 10:53

Stranger Than Paradise

20th July 2009, 12:13

It is dogmatic. You say only one thing is possible to bring about positive social change, I say that's dogmatic.

Well it is a belief we all hold on this board. That's because it IS the only method to bring about the emancipation of the proletariat. You could name any other method you please. Me and any other comrade on this board will be able to disprove it. I don't understand how something is dogmatic because it is the only way to do something. It is like me saying racism will always exists whilst we live under capitalism and you saying that's not a certainty, we don't know that. We DO know that. Both things.

Wait, I've already said it, I'm a heretic, who thinks, that maybe, just maybe, it is possible to bring about a free society without revolution. Not even that it is probable, just possible.

The hint is in the title, Revolutionary Left. If that is what you believe then you do warrant a restriction.

The Ungovernable Farce

20th July 2009, 18:41

It is dogmatic. You say only one thing is possible to bring about positive social change, I say that's dogmatic.
How do you think it's going to happen if not by class struggle? What alternate method do you think is more likely to get results?

Wait, I've already said it, I'm a heretic, who thinks, that maybe, just maybe, it is possible to bring about a free society without revolution. Not even that it is probable, just possible.

Again, if not revolution, then what? Do we individually persuade each member of the ruling class to be nice and sensible and abolish themselves? Not that I think you should be restricted, I don't really care either way, but I've yet to hear a more convincing explanation.

Stranger Than Paradise

20th July 2009, 19:34

I have been waiting for him to answer that question myself.

Misanthrope

20th July 2009, 19:40

I know a few people that call themselves anarchists, they aren't just non-class strugglist anarchists, they are anti-worker "anarchists".

Agrippa

21st July 2009, 01:43

Well that is an impossibility where I live as you cannot start work til you are 16.

You could always become a day-laborer! :D

21st July 2009, 02:39

You could always become a day-laborer! :D

Ah dear. This apparently exclusive-to-the-"transitional stage" approach of no damn slacking! And some apparent "anti-laziness" rhetoric is just annoying.

I know, but still

There is a but..? You're quite crazy (and I mean that in a completely genuine way).

fuck teenagers who sit around destroying their able bodies by playing video games and eating Oreos all day while their working-class parents bust their asses paying the grocery and electric bills.

You would rather they went out and got exploited for peanuts as a day-labourer? I have total respect for folks that do do that at that age, but seriously come on.

In a communist society, girls will become women and boys will become men a lot sooner than in post-modern capitalist society.

Sounds like you plan on implementing mandatory growth hormone treatment. :ninja:

Also in a communist society, children will do a reasonable share of the work.

Voluntarily.

Agrippa

21st July 2009, 04:49

Ah dear. This apparently exclusive-to-the-"transitional stage" approach of no damn slacking! And some apparent "anti-laziness" rhetoric is just annoying.

Yes, however, genuine laziness is a drain on any economic system. Thus, while it's good to be lazy when you're working for the capitalists, laziness in-of-itself is not a good social value to promote, especially within the context of a communist society.

You're quite crazyThank you!

You would rather they went out and got exploited for peanuts as a day-labourer?I'd rather they went out and overthrow capitalism, but I still don't like to see teenagers totally mooching off of their parents. To me that is in of itself a form of exploitation. At the very least they should do the brunt of the housework, if they're not bringing in an income.

Sounds like you plan on implementing mandatory growth hormone treatment. :ninja::confused:

No, merely the abolition of the teenager as a social class.

Voluntarily.I don't believe in traumatizing children by pushing them past their physical and psychological limits. (Any reasonably competent parent knows what their limits are) But many children tend to start out with a diminished sense of social responsibility, just as not all children are born with nutritional wisdom. I believe that in a free society, all members of society have control over when they work and what kind of work, but part of freedom is social responsibility, which isn't always innate. If we just let kids do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted without any limits, they would eat catsup and icecream mixed together for every meal.

Stranger Than Paradise

21st July 2009, 07:39

Yes, however, genuine laziness is a drain on any economic system. Thus, while it's good to be lazy when you're working for the capitalists, laziness in-of-itself is not a good social value to promote, especially within the context of a communist society.

No I don't think that is the aim of Communist society. For what I we trying to do? We want to reduce the work load to it's minimum level. We don't want to assimilate the worker to a work ethic. Ultimately we want as much freedom from the domain of work as possible.

No, merely the abolition of the teenager as a social class.

What does that mean?

I don't believe in traumatizing children by pushing them past their physical and psychological limits. (Any reasonably competent parent knows what their limits are) But many children tend to start out with a diminished sense of social responsibility, just as not all children are born with nutritional wisdom. I believe that in a free society, all members of society have control over when they work and what kind of work, but part of freedom is social responsibility, which isn't always innate. If we just let kids do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted without any limits, they would eat catsup and icecream mixed together for every meal.

That really makes you sound like some neo-liberal conservative you know?

yuon

21st July 2009, 09:59

Well it is a belief we all hold on this board. That's because it IS the only method to bring about the emancipation of the proletariat. You could name any other method you please. Me and any other comrade on this board will be able to disprove it. I don't understand how something is dogmatic because it is the only way to do something. It is like me saying racism will always exists whilst we live under capitalism and you saying that's not a certainty, we don't know that. We DO know that. Both things.
Most of this quote is addressed below (I don't need to present an alternative to "class struggle" to believe that there could exist alternatives).
However, I also disagree on racism. I do think that it is possible for racism, sexism, nationalism and other such rubbish to go away in a liberal capitalist system. That's because liberalism is a progressive ideology compared to what came before it (and racism and sexism etc. came from a time when liberalism wasn't around).

Liberalism isn't progressive when compared to, say, anarchism, but it is still progressive enough to believe in equality (at least of opportunity) regardless of race or sex. So there you go, do you want to restrict me for that heresy too?

The hint is in the title, Revolutionary Left. If that is what you believe then you do warrant a restriction.
Bullshit. RevLeft is for socialists of all types to discuss socialism, leftism, etc.
To quote from the FAQ:
"This Community is open to all leftists." - http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules

Certainly, to be in the CC, you need to be:
"committed to class struggle, anti-capitalism and anti-fascism" - http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=thecc#faq_ccadfree

I am "committed to class struggle" (etc.), however, I'm just not convinced that it is the only possible method of bringing about social change. (I do think it is the most likely, and plausible though.)

How do you think it's going to happen if not by class struggle? What alternate method do you think is more likely to get results?

Again, if not revolution, then what? Do we individually persuade each member of the ruling class to be nice and sensible and abolish themselves? Not that I think you should be restricted, I don't really care either way, but I've yet to hear a more convincing explanation.
I never said that there was a "more likely" way of bringing about a class-less state-less society. I simply said that alternatives were possible. Oh, and if you disagree, you are as dogmatic as Christians who claim that there has been no further prophet since Christ, and that the Bible is the word of God.

If you accept no possibility that you are incorrect, that's a dogma (and irrational, illogical, and down right stupid).

I have been waiting for him to answer that question myself.
Have you considered investigating whether I am male or female or something else? I'm guessing not, you're assuming I'm male, for no reason that I can tell. A word of advice, on the Internet, it's very hard to tell if someone's a dog. (Or a particular gender or not.) Because of this, you are much less likely to cause offence if you assume that you don't know someone's gender, and use gender neutral terminology. Unless, you do know a person's gender, and you obviously don't know mine.

I'll take offence if you assume my gender next time, but I'll let you off this time. :):cool:

I know a few people that call themselves anarchists, they aren't just non-class strugglist anarchists, they are anti-worker "anarchists".
If you are extrapolating from the few non "class-strugglist" anarchists you have met, to all non "class-strugglist" anarchists, I would suggest you don't know what you are talking about. The few non "class-strugglist" anarchists I've met are not anti-worker, or anti-working class or any such bullshit. Who needs evidence when you've got anecdotes?

Stranger Than Paradise

21st July 2009, 09:59

An article I do not agree with (the author seems to be writing in support of what he calls a 'new school of Anarchism' which he defines as reformist 'anarchism') in relation to this topic:

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536

Stranger Than Paradise

21st July 2009, 10:05

However, I also disagree on racism. I do think that it is possible for racism, sexism, nationalism and other such rubbish to go away in a liberal capitalist system. That's because liberalism is a progressive ideology compared to what came before it (and racism and sexism etc. came from a time when liberalism wasn't around).

Well then you are sadly mistaken and reformist. Racism, Sexism and Nationalism will always exist as long as Capitalism exists.

Liberalism isn't progressive when compared to, say, anarchism, but it is still progressive enough to believe in equality (at least of opportunity) regardless of race or sex. So there you go, do you want to restrict me for that heresy too?

Liberalism believes in a Capitalist system. Therefore the legitimacy of this ideology for claiming to want equality is fake.

I never said that there was a "more likely" way of bringing about a class-less state-less society. I simply said that alternatives were possible. Oh, and if you disagree, you are as dogmatic as Christians who claim that there has been no further prophet since Christ, and that the Bible is the word of God.

Well I do disagree with you as any other Anarchist will here. Class struggle is the only means to emancipate the working class.

Have you considered investigating whether I am male or female or something else? I'm guessing not, you're assuming I'm male, for no reason that I can tell. A word of advice, on the Internet, it's very hard to tell if someone's a dog. (Or a particular gender or not.) Because of this, you are much less likely to cause offence if you assume that you don't know someone's gender, and use gender neutral terminology. Unless, you do know a person's gender, and you obviously don't know mine.

I'll take offence if you assume my gender next time, but I'll let you off this time. :):cool:

I am VERY VERY SORRY for this. I did not even realise I addressed you as a him.

If you are extrapolating from the few non "class-strugglist" anarchists you have met, to all non "class-strugglist" anarchists, I would suggest you don't know what you are talking about. The few non "class-strugglist" anarchists I've met are not anti-worker, or anti-working class or any such bullshit. Who needs evidence when you've got anecdotes?

It doesn't matter if they are, they believe reformism is a means to social change, which it isn't.

Misanthrope

21st July 2009, 11:55

If you are extrapolating from the few non "class-strugglist" anarchists you have met, to all non "class-strugglist" anarchists, I would suggest you don't know what you are talking about. The few non "class-strugglist" anarchists I've met are not anti-worker, or anti-working class or any such bullshit. Who needs evidence when you've got anecdotes?

You took my post out of context. I was referring to ancaps, they are anti-worker and call themselves anarchists, it is hilarious.

What do your non class strugglist friends identify as?

The Ungovernable Farce

21st July 2009, 14:21

(I don't need to present an alternative to "class struggle" to believe that there could exist alternatives).
Maybe not, but it'd be helpful if you could give some vague suggestion as to what you think the alternative would look like.

I never said that there was a "more likely" way of bringing about a class-less state-less society. I simply said that alternatives were possible. Oh, and if you disagree, you are as dogmatic as Christians who claim that there has been no further prophet since Christ, and that the Bible is the word of God.

If you present a concrete example of an alternative, I'll judge it on its own merits. How's that for dogmatic?

Agrippa

22nd July 2009, 00:46

No I don't think that is the aim of Communist society. For what I we trying to do? We want to reduce the work load to it's minimum level.

I disagree. Work will always be a physical and psychological need. It's an issue of the qualityof one's work, whether it's intellectually and spiritually satisfying or not, whether it improves or deteriorates physical health, whether it's persued in freedom or slavery.

We don't want to assimilate the worker to a work ethic. Ultimately we want as much freedom from the domain of work as possible.

We want as much freedom from alienated labor as possible. Communism is not the same thing as some hedonistic mass-democracy where nobody exercises their mind or body because they're too busy gratifying their most superficial desires. Putting physical energy into producing food and other goods instills one with a sense of grattitude and appreciation. Those who don't need to work usually become very depressed and lethargic if they are unable to create work for themselves.

What does that mean?

A return to societal modes in which adolescence is the beginning of adulthood. The "teenager" class was mostly a creation of convenience on the part of centralized, cumpulsory education.

That really makes you sound like some neo-liberal conservative you know?

If by "neo-liberal conservative", you mean "someone who has had to put up with more spoiled toddlers than he would have ever initially wanted to"....

Stranger Than Paradise

22nd July 2009, 08:32

I disagree. Work will always be a physical and psychological need. It's an issue of the qualityof one's work, whether it's intellectually and spiritually satisfying or not, whether it improves or deteriorates physical health, whether it's persued in freedom or slavery.

No, you are simply wrong. You are telling me that women working in sweatshops twelve hours a day feel their work is a neccessity to them?

We want as much freedom from alienated labor as possible. Communism is not the same thing as some hedonistic mass-democracy where nobody exercises their mind or body because they're too busy gratifying their most superficial desires. Putting physical energy into producing food and other goods instills one with a sense of grattitude and appreciation. Those who don't need to work usually become very depressed and lethargic if they are unable to create work for themselves.

Please tell me what exactly you are advocating, you don't want to see the workload heavily reduced? That is the wish of everyone else I have had this conversation with on this board.

A return to societal modes in which adolescence is the beginning of adulthood. The "teenager" class was mostly a creation of convenience on the part of centralized, cumpulsory education.
Teenager class? How are you defining teenager?

If by "neo-liberal conservative", you mean "someone who has had to put
up with more spoiled toddlers than he would have ever initially wanted to"....

If you like.

Decolonize The Left

23rd July 2009, 01:45

I'll admit I haven't read through the entire thread, but my understanding of non-class struggle anarchists are simply anarchists who don't identify class as the primary form of social change. There are lots of labels which anarchists often feel the need to adopt in order to push one cause over another: green anarchists, etc...

Ultimately, class-struggle anarchism is merely anarchism (opposition to the state and hierarchy) coupled with loose communism (opposition to capitalism through the mobilization of the working class). A non-class struggle anarchist would be someone who did not feel that capitalism needed to be opposed through the mobilization of the working class, rather, for example, through individual direct action - or perhaps through retreating from society, etc...

- August

Os Cangaceiros

23rd July 2009, 02:21

I am sure Benjamin Tucker and William Godwin would call themselves Anarchists. It does not mean they are.

William Godwin would most certainly not call himself an anarchist. The term "anarchist" wasn't even used in his day.

Dividing between "class struggle anarchists" and "non-class struggle anarchists" gets even trickier when you look at the fact that the "non-class struggle anarchists" (notably the American individualists) were in fact very much involved in the U.S. labour movement in their areas. Hell, even Leo Tolstoy helped smuggle and distribute Kropotkin's writings in Czarist Russia. I don't really think you can draw a clear line between anarchists into two different camps, those being "Hooray for the proletariat!" and the other being "Fuck the proletariat!" In reality I feel that anarchist philosophy is more nuanced, and is often a blend between what people here call "class struggle anarchism" and "non-class struggle anarchism"; that, for example, is why you have people like the famous French anarcho-syndicalist Fernand Pelloutier (who certainly was involved in the class struggle as a leading figure in the French CGT) who said that anarchists are "impassioned lovers of the culture of oneself."

Agrippa

23rd July 2009, 18:23

No, you are simply wrong. You are telling me that women working in sweatshops twelve hours a day feel their work is a neccessity to them?

Any context which could be referred to as a "sweatshop", especially one with 12-hour work days, is an example of alienated labor, which I very clearly stated my opposition towards.

How about someone who is very passionate about sewing spending two or three hours out of the day making a beautiful jacket for themselves or someone they love? As opposed to an anarcho-technocrat utopia where you could just use a fab lab to generate thousands of widely-variant articles of clothing instantaneously, and the apathy, nihilism, and constant ennui that would develop as a consequence of such great reward for such little effort.

Please tell me what exactly you are advocating, you don't want to see the workload heavily reduced?

Individual control of one's own labor-power and social communisation of chores and responsibilities. This will not intrinsically "heavily reduce" the "workload" but it will make the process of expending energy and exhertion, both mental and physical, in order to survive, much more pleasurable and enjoyable.

Teenager class? How are you defining teenager?

A socially constructed age-group comprised of individuals with the physical and mental capacity of adults, who are given both the privilige of reduced social responsibility and the oppression of both cumpulsory education and legal prohibitions on certain activities (drinking, voting, smoking, selling one's labor power, staying out on the streets after a certian hour, etc.)

If you like.

I'm not talking about forcing five-year-olds to dig trenches with a shovel and chop trees with a hatchet for six hours. I'm talking about forcing child to clean up after themselves, (especially in common areas of the house) help with cooking/dishwashing, spend more time on serious academic, atheletic, artistic, and spiritual persuits than frivilous pop-culture, etc. I don't get how that makes me a "neo-liberal conservative", whatever that is.

Bright Banana Beard

23rd July 2009, 18:34

They just wanted to be good. :'(

yuon

24th July 2009, 02:51

Well then you are sadly mistaken and reformist. Racism, Sexism and Nationalism will always exist as long as Capitalism exists.

I guess we'll have to disagree on this too...

Liberalism believes in a Capitalist system. Therefore the legitimacy of this ideology for claiming to want equality is fake.

Equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome...

Well I do disagree with you as any other Anarchist will here. Class struggle is the only means to emancipate the working class.

Ah well, enjoy your disagreement, I can't get worked up over this any more...

I am VERY VERY SORRY for this. I did not even realise I addressed you as a him.
No worries, just pretend you don't know anyone's gender, and only use gender neutral terms. No one here should get offended by that.

It doesn't matter if they are, they believe reformism is a means to social change, which it isn't.
Just because someone doesn't believe in "class struggle" doesn't mean that they believe in reformism (using the political system to change, and ultimately abolish, itself).

yuon

24th July 2009, 03:00

You took my post out of context. I was referring to ancaps, they are anti-worker and call themselves anarchists, it is hilarious.

Oh, I didn't notice. Capitalists aren't anarchists even if they call themselves that, I think we both agree.

What do your non class strugglist friends identify as?
Generally they support pacifism and communism... So, they are still anarchist communists, but don't support using violence.

Maybe not, but it'd be helpful if you could give some vague suggestion as to what you think the alternative would look like.

If you present a concrete example of an alternative, I'll judge it on its own merits. How's that for dogmatic?
Heh, how about this, some people would suggest that if only everyone would just ignore the state and capitalism, it would go away. I'm don't think this is very realistic, but I do think that if it did happen, it would work.

I'm sure that there are other possibilities. I understand that some people have said something about a global economic collapse, resulting in people just taking over, without any struggle involved...

I've realised, just today while reading this thread, that no one has defined what "class struggle" actually means. I've been using it as another term for "class war". In other words, violent action on the part of the lower classes, bringing about the downfall of the ruling classes. But, I guess, it doesn't have to be that way...

So, some of my "alternatives" are not alternatives to general lower class action, such much as alternatives to violent action by the lower classes.

thejambo1

24th July 2009, 06:00

i think you are being a bit naive if you think revolution will come about by people "just taking over". any change would have to be by violent means,i dont think there is any other way. class struggle should ultimately lead to class war.

The Ungovernable Farce

24th July 2009, 14:51

Heh, how about this, some people would suggest that if only everyone would just ignore the state and capitalism, it would go away. I'm don't think this is very realistic, but I do think that if it did happen, it would work.

Sounds good in theory, but (at the risk of sounding really simplistic), it's not easy to ignore a cop with a truncheon if they don't want to be ignored. Similarly, when you're hungry and you go into a shop, it's hard to ignore the existence of money, or at least the existence of security guards.

Ovi

24th July 2009, 20:49

Then why are you here?
I don't know. If there are state capitalists on revleft, then why not world revolution skeptic anarchists? :laugh:

Black Sheep

25th July 2009, 16:01

Ultimately, class-struggle anarchism is merely anarchism (opposition to the state and hierarchy) coupled with loose communism (opposition to capitalism through the mobilization of the working class). A non-class struggle anarchist would be someone who did not feel that capitalism needed to be opposed through the mobilization of the working class, rather, for example, through individual direct action - or perhaps through retreating from society, etc...
Could be, but their views have to be judged.I think history has demonstrated more than enough that the working class is the catalyst for change.

In addittion,rejecting the 'concept' of class struggle violates the anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian principles.If your'e working class, you and your class members are being oppressed by the capitalist class,all together.Unless you are a pacifist (no damn comment to that!), you can logically reach the conclusion that you need to fight and struggle against your oppressors.If you dont, if you do not engage in class struggle (fighting against ur oppressors, who form a class), then you violate your own principles of anarchism.There is oppression on you (and in fact the strongest one, economic oppression that condemns u and ur class to poverty), and you do not confront it.
You are not an anarchist.

So it boils down to 'should i fight the oppressors with my mates, the other guys that share the same situation with me and are oppressed, or should i fight alone?'

As far as the 1st is concerned,that's the right choice IMO.If you fight,why not fight
with your damn comrades?Power in numbers,all have the same general goal.
Fighting with your comrades,who are members of the same class as you, against your oppressors, who constitute a class as well, is a class vs class battle.It's class struggle.

If our hypothetical anarchist chooses the 2nd choice, for reasons that i cant even imagine,he refuses social anarchism - he rejects cooperative struggle (as fighting with members of his class against the oppressing class doesnt suit him - he maybe wants to fight alongside his friends, pursuing the abstract holy ghost of FREEDOM ZOMG) then he is a non-class strugglist anarchist, he is an individualist anarchist, stuck in irrelevant egomaniac bullshit. And a stupid one, IMO.

And not a comrade of mine.

Ovi

27th July 2009, 18:00

If our hypothetical anarchist chooses the 2nd choice, for reasons that i cant even imagine,he refuses social anarchism - he rejects cooperative struggle (as fighting with members of his class against the oppressing class doesnt suit him - he maybe wants to fight alongside his friends, pursuing the abstract holy ghost of FREEDOM ZOMG) then he is a non-class strugglist anarchist, he is an individualist anarchist, stuck in irrelevant egomaniac bullshit. And a stupid one, IMO.

And not a comrade of mine.
The only individualist "anarchism" is "anarcho"-capitalism. Without cooperation and organization there is no anarchy.

Black Sheep

27th July 2009, 20:48

And extreme individualism in general.

Os Cangaceiros

28th July 2009, 03:26

If our hypothetical anarchist chooses the 2nd choice, for reasons that i cant even imagine,he refuses social anarchism - he rejects cooperative struggle (as fighting with members of his class against the oppressing class doesnt suit him - he maybe wants to fight alongside his friends, pursuing the abstract holy ghost of FREEDOM ZOMG)

Well, "freedom" is an important concept within libertarian socialism...I don't see why you're mocking it.

Black Sheep

28th July 2009, 11:39

Well, "freedom" is an important concept within libertarian socialism...I don't see why you're mocking it.
I am mocking the pursue of abstract freedom, without any relevance to the situation, the society form, the class system.

Just like a petit-bourgeoisie idealist would pursue freedom.

RedCommieBear

30th July 2009, 01:40

I was just reading the Anarchist FAQ, and I just thought I'd point out this quote. It points out that individualist anarchists can still recognize class. It was just a point that I thought should be made.

Moreover, like the social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchists were aware that the state was not some neutral machine or one that exploited all classes purely for its own ends. They were aware that it was a vehicle of class rule, namely the rule of the capitalist class over the working class. Spooner thought that that "holders of this monopoly [of the money supply] now rule and rob this nation; and the government, in all its branches, is simply their tool" and that "the employers of wage labour . . . are also the monopolists of money." [Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p. 42 and p. 48] Tucker recognised that "capital had so manipulated legislation" that they gained an advantage on the capitalist market which allowed them to exploit labour. [The Individualist Anarchists, pp. 82-3] He was quite clear that the state was a capitalist state, with "Capitalists hav[ing] placed and kept on the statute books all sorts of prohibitions and taxes" to ensure a "free market" skewed in favour of themselves. [Instead of a Book, p. 454] A.H. Simpson argued that the Individualist Anarchist "knows very well that the present State . . . is simply the tool of the property-owning class." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 92] Thus both wings of the anarchist movement were united in their opposition to capitalist exploitation and their common recognition that the state was a tool of the capitalist class, used to allow them to exploit the working class.

This perhaps, could extend into a class-struggle view of history.

BabylonHoruv

31st July 2009, 06:49

Well that is an impossibility where I live as you cannot start work til you are 16.

Interesting statement for an Anarchist to make. Why not? I presume because the government will not allow you to. Doing what the government allows you to is a pretty good way to be certain that you'll never achieve revolution.

Not that i am against 15 year olds being supported by their parents mind you, but you shouldn't let the law stand in the way of doing what fulfils you.

The Ungovernable Farce

31st July 2009, 08:21

Interesting statement for an Anarchist to make. Why not? I presume because the government will not allow you to. Doing what the government allows you to is a pretty good way to be certain that you'll never achieve revolution.

Not that i am against 15 year olds being supported by their parents mind you, but you shouldn't let the law stand in the way of doing what fulfils you.
It's not as simple as that. In order to get a job, you also need to convince an employer to give you a job, and they're a little less likely to just ignore what the government wants.

nuisance

31st July 2009, 12:45

The only individualist "anarchism" is "anarcho"-capitalism. Without cooperation and organization there is no anarchy.
What are you going on about? Stirner? Tucker? Spooner?- These are individualist anarchists who do not seek to maintain capitalist relations with their individualism.

Firstly, the Individualist Anarchists opposed profits, interest and rent as forms of exploitation (they termed these non-labour incomes "usury", but as Tucker stressed usury was "but another name for the exploitation of labour." [Liberty, no. 122, p. 4]). To use the words of Ezra Heywood, the Individualist Anarchists thought "Interest is theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder." [quoted by Martin Blatt, "Ezra Heywood & Benjamin Tucker,", pp. 28-43, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 29] Non-labour incomes are merely "different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital." Their vision of the good society was one in which "the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit" would not exist and Labour would "secure its natural wage, its entire product." [Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 80, p. 82 and p. 85] This would also apply to dividends, "since no idle shareholders could continue in receipt of dividends were it not for the support of monopoly, it follows that these dividends are no part of the proper reward of ability." [Tucker, Liberty, no. 282, p. 2]

In addition, as a means of social change, the individualists suggested that activists start "inducing the people to steadily refuse the payment of rents and taxes." [Instead of a Book pp. 299-300] These are hardly statements with which capitalists would agree. Tucker, as noted, also opposed interest, considering it usury (exploitation and a "crime") pure and simple and one of the means by which workers were denied the full fruits of their labour. Indeed, he looked forward to the day when "any person who charges more than cost for any product [will] . . . be regarded very much as we now regard a pickpocket." This "attitude of hostility to usury, in any form" hardly fits into the capitalist mentality or belief system. [Op. Cit., p. 155] Similarly, Ezra Heywood considered profit-taking "an injustice which ranked second only to legalising titles to absolute ownership of land or raw-materials." [James J. Martin, Op. Cit., p. 111] Opposition to profits, rent or interest is hardly capitalistic -- indeed, the reverse.

Thus the Individualist Anarchists, like the social anarchists, opposed the exploitation of labour and desired to see the end of capitalism by ensuring that labour would own what it produced. They desired a society in which there would no longer be capitalists and workers, only workers. The worker would receive the full product of his/her labour, so ending the exploitation of labour by capital. In Tucker's words, a free society would see "each man reaping the fruits of his labour and no man able to live in idleness on an income from capital" and so society would "become a great hive of Anarchistic workers, prosperous and free individuals" combining "to carry on their production and distribution on the cost principle." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 276]

Secondly, the Individualist Anarchists favoured a new system of land ownership based on "occupancy and use." So, as well as this opposition to capitalist usury, the individualist anarchists also expressed opposition to capitalist ideas on property (particularly property in land). J.K. Ingalls, for example, considered that "the private domination of the land" originated in "usurpation only, whether of the camp, the court or the market. Whenever such a domination excludes or deprives a single human being of his equal opportunity, it is a violation, not only of the public right, and of the social duty, but of the very principle of law and morals upon which property itself is based." [quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., p. 148f] As Martin comments, for Ingalls, "[t]o reduce land to the status of a commodity was an act of usurpation, enabling a group to 'profit by its relation to production' without the expenditure of labour time." [Op. Cit., p. 148] These ideas are identical to Proudhon's and Ingalls continues in this Proudhonian "occupancy and use" vein when he argues that possession "remains possession, and can never become property, in the sense of absolute dominion, except by positive statue [i.e. state action]. Labour can only claim occupancy, and can lay no claim to more than the usufruct." Current property ownership in land were created by "forceful and fraudulent taking" of land, which "could give no justification to the system." [quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., p. 149]

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secGcon.html