Tree of leftism

[know2b]

Does anyone know of a tree of leftism? I've seen a tree of Trotskyism at the Trotsky archive which made me think of it. For example a tree beginning with the split between Marx and Bakunin, then for example the Marx line then splitting at Lenin, and so forth. Or even one beginning much earlier with ancients who might qualify as ideological ancestors, like Spartacus.

[el_chavista]

There is a tree of libertarian Marxists at http://libcom.org/library/libertarian-marxist-tendency-map
see http://libcom.org/files/Tendency_Map.jpg

[The Idler]

See Justin Denton's work (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/trees/ustree.htm)

[know2b]

There is a tree of libertarian Marxists at libcom.org/library/libertarian-marxist-tendency-map
see libcom.org/files/Tendency_Map.jpg

Thanks. I like what they've done there, but it covers only a small piece of the puzzle, much like the tree of Trotskyism.


See Justin Denton's work (marxists.org/history/etol/trees/ustree.htm)

I mentioned that in the first post, but I'd forgotten the link and the name so thanks for those.

I'd like to see a comprehensive tree of leftism. I can hardly believe that someone hasn't made one before. I'd do it myself, but I'd surely get it all wrong.

[know2b]

I'll try anyway. Please help me. I'd like to have something like a family genealogy. When we get to Trotskyism and Libertarian Marxism we can paste in the trees mentioned above.

"In the beginning" the International Workingmen's Association split into the Marxist branch and the Anarchist branch.

The Marxist branch later split into...

The Anarchist branch later split into...

Do you see what I mean? If we had a textual one, we could render it graphically.

Does anyone else find it unbelievable that such a thing doesn't already exist? Someone even made one trying to connect Neoconservatism with Trotskyism! media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.gif

[ContrarianLemming]

I'll try anyway. Please help me. I'd like to have something like a family genealogy. When we get to Trotskyism and Libertarian Marxism we can paste in the trees mentioned above.

"In the beginning" the International Workingmen's Association split into the Marxist branch and the Anarchist branch.

The Marxist branch later split into...

The Anarchist branch later split into...

Do you see what I mean? If we had a textual one, we could render it graphically.

Does anyone else find it unbelievable that such a thing doesn't already exist? Someone even made one trying to connect Neoconservatism with Trotskyism! media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.gif

i find it rediculous that it doesn't exist, we should make one
altohugh it doesn't necessarily "split" sometimes new movements sipmly grow put of old ones, like anarcho communism grew out of anarcho collectivism, but collectivism is still popular, Parecon is also basically advanced collectivism, but there was no split, in fact almost all (if not all) anarchist schools of thought since the beginings of anarchism are still around. I'm not sure if the same can be said for Marxism, don't know, but I have never met a situationist or a left hegelian, they seem somewhat dead

[know2b]

I agree, I should have tried to make it clear that while some branches originated from splits, others evolved from, or grew out of, previous stages.

For example the Marxist branch split at Lenin, and along the Leninist branch we can identify Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.

And the Anarchist branch split at individualism, but along the collectivist branch we can identify Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.

I found this: flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2338479886

I don't know how it might fit into a tree format, but it looks interesting.

[revolution inaction]

I found this: flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2338479886

I don't know how it might fit into a tree format, but it looks interesting.

that picture is compleatly riduculas, its got femanism ential seperate from social anarchism, theres some made up thing called tecnologica anarchism, it includes primativism as a kind of anarchism, it put anarchos communism as compleatly seperat from anarco syndicalism, what hte fuck is libitarian socilalis anachism suposed to be?

[know2b]

I only posted it because I thought it might add something to the discussion. If you find it terribly flawed, then we can dismiss it. I don't mind.

[ContrarianLemming]

that picture is compleatly riduculas, its got femanism ential seperate from social anarchism, theres some made up thing called tecnologica anarchism, it includes primativism as a kind of anarchism, it put anarchos communism as compleatly seperat from anarco syndicalism, what hte fuck is libitarian socilalis anachism suposed to be?

It's highly flawed, social anarchism and anarcho communism are separate, that's the worst part :(
I think we could make one llike that, better though, I might get started..I'll get back to ya's

[ContrarianLemming]

I only posted it because I thought it might add something to the discussion. If you find it terribly flawed, then we can dismiss it. I don't mind.

It isn't entirely inaccurate, in simple terms I can make sense of it

[ContrarianLemming]

Done! have a look at this, might interest you http://www.revleft.com/vb/chart-anarchist-schools-t133503/index.html

[GPDP]

I made a very, very crude tree about a year ago or so. Have a look:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/342/socialismi.jpg

Obviously it's incomplete, and I'm missing a bunch of branches, but I think it could be worked on from there.

[Zanthorus]

The first thing I would do is replace "anarcho-communism" with social anarchism and then have mutualism as a branch from both social anarchism and individualist anarchism since Mutualism can fall into either category. The european mutualist movement centred around the first international and mostly influenced by Proudhon tended to fall into the "social anarchist" category since they were against private ownership of the means of production. The american mutualist movement which also took on influences from Josiah Warren and Max Stirner tended to fall more into the "individualist anarchist" category since they were not against private ownership per se but thought that in a free market worker co-operatives would be more prevalent.

[The Ben G]

I'll try anyway. Please help me. I'd like to have something like a family genealogy. When we get to Trotskyism and Libertarian Marxism we can paste in the trees mentioned above.

"In the beginning" the International Workingmen's Association split into the Marxist branch and the Anarchist branch.

The Marxist branch later split into...

The Anarchist branch later split into...

Do you see what I mean? If we had a textual one, we could render it graphically.

Does anyone else find it unbelievable that such a thing doesn't already exist? Someone even made one trying to connect Neoconservatism with Trotskyism! media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.gif

Wait, What!?!

http://pewpewlazerz.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/wtf.jpg

[Sam_b]

You probably shouldn't spam up Learning with pointless images of cats.

[Kassad]

Wait, What!?!

http://pewpewlazerz.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/wtf.jpg

Please don't spam. Consider this a verbal warning.

[syndicat]

i think libertarian left tendencies are more complex than that. and it's hard to chart it because of the relative lack of ongoing organizations.

Proudhon and the American mutualists were also individualists. There wasn't historically much separation between mutualism and individualism.

At the time of the first international, you have the libertarian socialist or social anarchist current associated with Bakunin, Lorenzo and so on. They were clearly at odds with the mutualist/individualist Proudonians. They were proto-syndicalist. And the syndicalist wing attempted to recreate some sort of continuation of the first international at various times but didn't really come together til 1922 and formation of the second IWA.

but since the rebuilding of the IWA in the '70s there have been various splits, so you have CNT splitting into CGT, CNT-AIT and SO in Spain for example.

Because social anarchism is dual organizational you'd need a separate chart for political organizations, but these are fewer.

And then you have the problem of libertarian socialist groups that don't come out of previous tendencies, like London Solidarity of the '60s/70s period and Socialism or Barbarism (these two groups were part of same tendency), which evolved out of Trotskyism. They didn't consider themselves "anarchists".

"Anarchist communism" isn't really clear as being any sort of political tendency. I mean, the platformists and their opponents both claimed to be "anarcho-communists." But "platformism" didn't really become a distinct political tendency until the past decade or so. And some are syndicalist and some aren't.

[AK]

You probably shouldn't spam up Learning with pointless images of cats.
But he's got a point... seriously... what the hell?

In b4 Stalimao strawman AnarchoTrot-NeoCon bullshit.

[Zanthorus]

Proudhon and the American mutualists were also individualists. There wasn't historically much separation between mutualism and individualism.

I think there is a clear enough divide between the Mutualism of Proudhon and his direct followers and the Mutualism of the american indvidualist school like Benjamin Tucker or Lysander Spooner to make a distinction. The americans also took on influences from people like Josiah Warren and Max Stirner. There was also a lot of classical liberal thought in there especially in the natural rights anarchists like Spooner. This put them at odds with european mutualists who were more influenced by Utopian Socialism.


At the time of the first international, you have the libertarian socialist or social anarchist current associated with Bakunin, Lorenzo and so on. They were clearly at odds with the mutualist/individualist Proudonians.

Bakunin was a follower of Proudhon. He even called the social anarchist current "Proudhonism" in "Stateless Socialism: Anarchism":


It is this difference of opinion, which already has become historic, that now exists between the scientific Communism, developed by the German school and partly accepted by American and English Socialists, and Proudhonism, extensively developed and pushed to its ultimate conclusions, and by now accepted by the proletariat of the Latin countries.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm

And in his writing on the Paris Commune he calls anarchism:


Proudhonism, greatly developed and taken to its ultimate conclusion by the proletariat of the latin countries.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1871/paris-commune.htm


They were proto-syndicalist.

So was Euguene Varlin (Also a Proudhonist).

I'm not denying that there weren't clear differences between the mutualists/Proudhonists and the revolutionary anarchists of the first international but it's also quite clear that the latter sprang and took influence from the former and still considered themselves somewhat Proudhonist. Proudhon had ideas that would be called "collectivist" or "social anarchist" and his immediate followers had clear enough differences between themselves and the american individualists to warrant making a clear cut distinction.

[syndicat]

Bakunin was a follower of Proudhon. He even called the social anarchist current "Proudhonism" in "Stateless Socialism: Anarchism":


This is highly implausible. Proudhon was opposed to unions and strikes and was virulently misogynist.

In Bookchin's critique of lifestyle anarchism, he has some good quotes from Proudhon which show he was an individualist. And he also has an excellent quote from Bakunin that shows Bakunin rejected individualism. Individualism is derived from classical liberalism, and the notion of society as starting from individuals as atoms. The individualist concept is a major influence even on many anarchists who call themselves "communists", such as Malatesta. For example, Malatesta's opposition to majoritarian direct democracy is based on individualis premises.

No doubt Bakunin was influenced by Proudhon. Proudhon's advocacy of self-management and federalism were an influence on later anarchists. But that's not the same thing as saying they are of the same tendency. They weren't.