Questions about Anarchism

[Jazzhands]

I've been a Trotskyist for several years, but then I became a Luxemburgist, with anarcho-syndicalist tendencies. I've read lots of Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Luxemburg, and Lenin. As of last night, I am officially an CNT-FAI style anarchist, although I've really had anarchism in my head for a year or so. That having been said, I know a lot less than I should about anarchist philosophers or their books. Who is the founder of anarchism, Bakunin or Proudhon? What were their individual contributions? What did Kropotkin add? What is the difference between anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism, etc.? What I really need are books to read. Can someone give me a few significant books to read from the founders of anarchism in the order of release and significance, as well as answer the above questions?

[Argument]

Proudhon is commonly regarded as the creator of modern anarchism. It is worth noting that he's hard to read, though. Proudhon seldom directly expressed his opinions, instead he wrote... well, strangely. Luckily for you, most anarchists dislike copyright, so you can find many of their books online.

The main difference between anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism is that anarcho-collectivism still uses money and wage labor, I believe.

Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman are two famous anarcho-communists. I've read some of them both, and they seem quite good.

I don't think Michael Bakunin, anarcho-collectivist, actually wrote much. God and the State is decent, although it doesn't talk much about anarchism, and nothing about anarcho-collectivism in particular.

Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker are two individualist anarchists you might want to check out. I haven't really read anything by them yet, though, other than some online reading.

When it comes to anarcho-syndicalism, the only name I can think of is Rudolf Rocker, and the one book I've read by him, anarcho-syndicalism, I don't think was that good.

[Jazzhands]

Thanks, you've been very helpful.

[Argument]

Glad to be of assistance! :)

[The Feral Underclass]

Argument & commisarusa


Proudhon is commonly regarded as the creator of modern anarchism.

Yeah, by mutualists and Proudhonists.

I don't think it's accurate to say only one person "created" modern anarchism, since there have been various thinkers who have actually contributed to formulation of coherent anarchist principles.

Proudhon introduced the idea of anti-statist politics, but he was not a class struggle anarchistss and his ideas did not focus on a materialist understanding of history or a class struggle analysis of social change, which are arguably the basis of the major anarchist movements in the world.


It is worth noting that he's hard to read, though. Proudhon seldom directly expressed his opinions, instead he wrote... well, strangely. Luckily for you, most anarchists dislike copyright, so you can find many of their books online. I wouldn't bother reading anything by Proudhon, he's irrelevant.


The main difference between anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism is that anarcho-collectivism still uses money and wage labor, I believe.But most social anarchists recognise collectivism as the stage of transition between a capitalist and communist society.


Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman are two famous anarcho-communists. I've read some of them both, and they seem quite good.Peter Kropotkin advanced the ideas of anarchist communism, along with Errico Malatesta. Kropotkin wrote Factories, Fields and Workshops and Mutual Aid, both of which are believed to be seminal texts of anarchist communism. He also wrote various pamphlets addressing issues such as morality and the state.

Malatestsa was more of an activist and polemicist rather than a theorist, but many of his essays and pamphlets have helped shape anarchist communist ideas. He was also responsible for the main criticism of the 1928 Platform.


I don't think Michael Bakunin, anarcho-collectivist, actually wrote much. God and the State is decent, although it doesn't talk much about anarchism, and nothing about anarcho-collectivism in particular.Bakunin wrote extensively on various subjects. Marxism, Freedom and the State, is a very good pamphlet to read, as is Stateless Socialism. God and the State is the first chapter of a wider book, which he never actually finished. There is a collected works at Marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/index.htm).


Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker are two individualist anarchists you might want to check out. I haven't really read anything by them yet, though, other than some online reading.Read them if you want, but their essentially nonsense. You should read Murray Bookchins book Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm (http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bookchin/sp001512/), which refutes all that individualist rubbish.

Commisarusa,


What is the difference between anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communismThe difference between anarcho-communism and syndicalism is usually one of tactics. Many anarcho-communist organisations reject the idea that you can build a revolutionary union. The Anarchist Federation for example understands that a union by its very nature cannot be a revolutionary vehicle for change, irrespective of the politics of the union, simply because it's main function is to negotiate better terms of exploitation for the workers.


collectivist anarchismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism


Can someone give me a few significant books to read from the founders of anarchism in the order of release and significance, as well as answer the above questions?The first book you should read is ABC of Anarchism (http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/anarchism/berkman_abc_of_anarchism.html), by Alexander Berkman. You should also read Malatesta (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/malatesta/MalatestaCW.html) and Kropotkin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/KropotkinCW.html) and Emma Goldman (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/GoldmanCW.html).

[syndicat]

I've been a Trotskyist for several years, but then I became a Luxemburgist, with anarcho-syndicalist tendencies. I've read lots of Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Luxemburg, and Lenin. As of last night, I am officially an CNT-FAI style anarchist, although I've really had anarchism in my head for a year or so. That having been said, I know a lot less than I should about anarchist philosophers or their books. Who is the founder of anarchism, Bakunin or Proudhon? What were their individual contributions? What did Kropotkin add? What is the difference between anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism, etc.? What I really need are books to read. Can someone give me a few significant books to read from the founders of anarchism in the order of release and significance, as well as answer the above questions?


I would suggest reading Black Flame. This is a history of social anarchism and syndicalism, with a particular emphasis on syndicalist style mass organizing. Altho the language is clear, the book is not written in the most engaging style but it is extremely well researched.

I tend to agree with the authors of that book that Proudhon is not a genuine social anarchist of the moden mass struggle type. Mass struggle oriented anarchism really begins with the libertarian socialist circle around Bakunin in the first international. Proudhon was not an advocate of unionism and strikes for example. And he was an advocate of an early form of market socialism which most social anarchists/syndicalists in the past century do not agree with.

I think one of the best ways to learn about the ideas is to read about actual historical revolutionary movements in which libertarian socialists, syndicalists played a role, such as Maurice Brinton's "The Bolsheviks & Workers Control" and Israel Getzler's history of the Kronstadt soviet. Neither are syndicalists but they do a good job of reporting on anarchosyndicalist & libertarian socialists in the Russian revolution.

Similarly, things like "Towards a Fresh Revolution" by Friends of Durruti, Gaston Leval's "Collectives in the Spanish revolution", "Free Women of Spain" and another oral history "Blood of Spain" give a good sense of the views of anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish revolution.

Two other decent books I will mention are "Anarchism" by Daniel Guerin and "Facing the Enemy" by Skirda.

Revolutionary social and syndicalist anarchism has evolved during the course of the past century, so the early "classic" anarchist writers are not necessarily an adequate introduction.


Many anarcho-communist organisations reject the idea that you can build a revolutionary union.

that may be the view of the British AF, but there isn't a single anarcho-communist group (as far as I know) in the USA that agrees with that. a sizeable proportion of the members of my organization, Workers Solidarity Alliance, would consider themselves "anarcho-communists", but our organization has a revolutionary syndicalist strategy.

I'll mention in passing that tomorrow (May 1) WSA is re-launching our magazine ideas & action as a webzine at: ideasandaction.info

I'll also mention that there is a network of mass/class struggle oriented social anarchist organizations in the USA, and we have been having lately annual conferences -- workshops, discussion of perspectives, developing coordination, etc. Third conference is slated for Seattle in September. This network includes North East Federation of Anarchist Communists, Miami Solidarity & Autonomy, Buffalo Class Action, Four Star Anarchist Organization, Common Action, Amanecer, Union Comuniste Libertaire (Quebec), Common Cause and Workers Solidarity Alliance.

[The Feral Underclass]

that may be the view of the British AF, but there isn't a single anarcho-communist group (as far as I know) in the USA that agrees with that.

There are more than two? Clearly it's not just the British AF who agree with that position.


I'll also mention that there is a network of mass/class struggle oriented social anarchist organizations in the USA, and we have been having lately annual conferences -- workshops, discussion of perspectives, developing coordination, etc. Third conference is slated for Seattle in September. This network includes North East Federation of Anarchist Communists, Miami Solidarity & Autonomy, Buffalo Class Action, Four Star Anarchist Organization, Common Action, Amanecer, Union Comuniste Libertaire (Quebec), Common Cause and Workers Solidarity Alliance.That's very cool.

[BAM]

One short book to start with is Albert Meltzer's Anarchism: Arguments for and Against (http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-arguments-against-albert-meltzer).

[Argument]

I don't think it's wise to so easily dismiss individualist anarchism, because it certainly do have some points. Why not read about both individualist anarchism and social anarchism and from then make a decision? I will have to say that I'm not a hardcore individualist anarchism, I see that social anarchism has several good points. At the moment, I think individualist anarchism would work smoother than, say, anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism, yet I wouldn't dismiss them as irrelevant.

So, Commissarusa, my suggestion is that you should read about both individualist anarchism (which is more social than you might think) and social anarchism (which is more individualistic than you might think). :)

[Sir Comradical]

I've been a Trotskyist for several years, but then I became a Luxemburgist, with anarcho-syndicalist tendencies. I've read lots of Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Luxemburg, and Lenin. As of last night, I am officially an CNT-FAI style anarchist, although I've really had anarchism in my head for a year or so. That having been said, I know a lot less than I should about anarchist philosophers or their books. Who is the founder of anarchism, Bakunin or Proudhon? What were their individual contributions? What did Kropotkin add? What is the difference between anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism, etc.? What I really need are books to read. Can someone give me a few significant books to read from the founders of anarchism in the order of release and significance, as well as answer the above questions?

They're all basically the same aren't they?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

To learn more about Anarcho-Syndicalism I suggest you read Rudolf Rocker's book Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice.

For modern day Anarcho-Syndicalist texts this article by SolFed is very interesting: http://libcom.org/library/strategy-struggle-anarcho-syndicalism-21st-century

[syndicat]

re antiunionism I said:

that may be the view of the British AF, but there isn't a single anarcho-communist group (as far as I know) in the USA that agrees with that.


AT:
There are more than two? Clearly it's not just the British AF who agree with that position.


No doubt but off hand I can't think of a group in the western hemisphere (USA, Canada and Latin America) that has that sort of view. in the USA that sort of view is identified with "left communism." in my observation, the British anarchist movement seems to be more ultra-left than their American counterparts.

Eight of the nine groups I listed have endorsed the Anarkismo statement. The Anarkismo statement endorses anarcho-communism. The only group in that list that isn't officially anarcho-communist is Workers Solidarity Alliance. In the USA most anarcho-communists nowadays are Platformists. the Platform is reproduced in the Skirda book I mentioned.

I should mention also as a source WSA's political statement, Where We Stand:

http://workersolidarity.org/?page_id=78

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, by mutualists and Proudhonists.


And by Rudolf Rocker, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Who is the founder of anarchism, Bakunin or Proudhon?

There is no single founder of anarchism. Bakunin is probably the closest thing the anarchist movement of today has to a "founder", but he wasn't much of a theorist and was himself drawing from a variety of different influences, including Proudhon, Marx and classical liberalism.

There's some debate over what anarchism can or cannot be defined as. Some have Rudolf Rocker's view that


Anarchist ideas are to be found in every period of known history.

but others such as Michael Schmidt hold that "anarchism" is a very specific tradition related to Bakunin and the First International.


What were their individual contributions?

Proudhon contributed several important ideas, such as opposing the state and certain "dual power" theories that would later be echoed by Colin Ward and others. His thought would be of great influence as French syndicalism developed.

Bakunin gets a bad reputation sometimes, but I feel that his biggest contribution was being a revolutionary. He was a man of action, first and foremost. That's not to say that he didn't write anything of importance...Anarchy and State essentially states many of the common criticisms anarchists had of the USSR.

Kropotkin, Malatesta and Rocker are also important in the evolution of anarchism, in that they all helped develope and/or influence specific subfields of anarchist thought (anarcho-communism, insurrectionary anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism, respectively)




What did Kropotkin add?

Quite a lot, actually. The Conquest of Bread is a very important historical anarchist work.


What is the difference between anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism, etc.?

Mainly issues concerning tactics...for example, whether to put workplaces at the forefront of class struggle (anarchosyndicalism), or whether to put entire communities at the forefront of class struggle (anarchocommunism).


What I really need are books to read. Can someone give me a few significant books to read from the founders of anarchism in the order of release and significance, as well as answer the above questions?

Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker. Anarchy by Malatesta. Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman. Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism by Michael Schmidt and Lucen Van Der Walt.

I'd try to read a lot of contemporary authors and accounts as well, though. A lot of times I find reading works written many decades (if not centuries) ago to be kind of hard to "get into". Not to mention the fact that many of the classical anarchist writers wrote about morality, economics and political science in broad strokes.

[Jazzhands]

It just occured to me, I could have just asked MIA.
:cursing:

[Zanthorus]

There is no single founder of anarchism. Bakunin is probably the closest thing the anarchist movement of today has to a "founder", but he wasn't much of a theorist and was himself drawing from a variety of different influences, including Proudhon, Marx and classical liberalism.

Bakunin was quite scathing of classical liberalism actually:


I do not mean...the individualist, egotistical, narrow and fictitious freedom which the school of J.J. Rousseau and all other systems of property moralists, middle class bourgeoisism and liberalism recommend – according to which the so called rights of individuals which the State "represents" has the limit in the right of all, whereby the rights of every individual are necessarily, always reduced to nil.

Any classical liberal influences he had where probably distilled through Proudhon. I think one major influence on Bakunin's thought that never gets mentioned but probably should be brought more to the forefront is the influence of the Russian agrarian socialism of Alexander Herzen and it's emphasis on soviet councils. I have heard it said that the Marx-Bakunin conflict can be thought of as a conflict between western (Marx) and eastern (Bakunin) visions of socialism.

EDIT: I'd like to add, the reason I think Rocker and Chomsky emphasise anarchism as the synthesis of socialism and classical liberalism is because of their adherence to western philosophical traditions. I'd also put this forward as a reason that the role of Herzen in influencing Bakunin has been de-emphasised.

[syndicat]

Except that Bakunin was critical of the Russian mir because of its intense patriarchy. Through the influence of his sisters, Bakunin was quite strong on gender equality. so Bakunin believed the village and farmer organization would have to be transformed.

Mark Leier's biography of Bakunin argues that Bakunin was much closer to Marx than is usually thought. A lot of the conflict of him with Marx was based on misunderstanding and mutual distrust.

Bakunin's emphasis on the role of the worker associations makes him a proto-syndicalist, and the emphasis on the mass worker organizations was characteristic of the libertarian socialists around him, such as Anselmo Lorenzo and the other Spanish libertarians who built the first modern labor movement in Spain, the FORE...the largest section of the first international.

[Zanthorus]

Except that Bakunin was critical of the Russian mir because of its intense patriarchy. Through the influence of his sisters, Bakunin was quite strong on gender equality. so Bakunin believed the village and farmer organization would have to be transformed.

Of course. But I wasn't talking about the mir. I was talking about Herzen, who was undeniably influential on Bakunin.


Mark Leier's biography of Bakunin argues that Bakunin was much closer to Marx than is usually thought. A lot of the conflict of him with Marx was based on misunderstanding and mutual distrust.

Well as you can see from my sig this is basically my thoughts on the conflict as well. I was just noting some people see it in that way. I think even the distrust is sometimes overexagerrated:


Bakunin sends his regards. He left today for Italy where he is living (Florence). I saw him yesterday for the first time in 16 years. I must say I liked him very much, more so than previously. With regard to the Polish movement, he said the Russian government had needed the movement to keep Russia itself quiet, but had not counted on anything like an 18-month struggle. They had thus provoked the affair in Poland. Poland had been defeated by two things, the influence of Bonaparte and, secondly, the hesitation of the Polish aristocracy in openly and unambiguously proclaiming peasant socialism from the outset. From now on — after the collapse of the Polish affair — he (Bakunin) will only involve himself in the socialist movement.

On the whole, he is one of the few people whom after 16 years I find to have moved forwards and not backwards.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/letters/64_11_04.htm

[The Feral Underclass]

And by Rudolf Rocker, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman.

That's very odd, since it's not true.

[The Feral Underclass]

Mark Leier's biography of Bakunin

I fucking love that book!!!

[this is an invasion]

Definitely read shit by Malatesta, because he was real, and his stuff is really accessible. Also read about Durruti (specifically the book called "Durruti" by AK Press). That guy was the man. I would also read Bonano (or however you spell his goddamn name). Communiques From an Absent Future is cool if you have any connection at all to the student movement. Also, At Daggers Drawn, Autonomous Self-Organization and the Anarchist Intervention, and shit from Killing King Abacus.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That's very odd, since it's not true.

Bakunin called Proudhon "the father of us all" (referring to his place in the anarchist pantheon of ideas). Rocker called Proudhon "one of the most intellectually gifted" socialists of all time. He also affirmed to Bakunin "took his stand on the teachings of Proudhon".

Kropotkin and Goldman also held very positive views of Proudhon. I can give you quotes if that would tickle your fancy.

[anticap]

Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread is one of my favorite works by any communist of any stripe.

[Os Cangaceiros]

(Just to be clear: I do think that anarchism has evolved past Proudhon and his thought. I myself take great issue with a good number of things that Proudhon said and did over the course of his life. However, I do feel that his work laid the foundations for anarchism as it developed in it's early stages.)

[Zanthorus]

To back up what Explosive Situation is saying here, in "The Commune, the Church and the State (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch11.htm)" Bakunin says:


Revolutionary--new known as libertarian socialists believe that in the instinctive yearnings and true wants of the masses, is to be found much sound reason and logic than in the deep wisdom of all the doctors, servants, and teachers of humanity who, after many disastrous attempts, still dabble in the problem of making the people happy. Humanity, think they, has been ruled and governed much toe long and so they think this state of the affairs should continue. Indeed the search of people's trouble, lies not in this or that form of government, but in the existence and manifestation of Government itself, whatever form it may assume.

This is the historical difference between the authoritarian communist ideas, scientifically developed through the German Marxist school and partly adopted by English and American Socialists, on one hand and the Anarchist ideas of Joseph Pierre Proudhon which have educated the proletariat of the Latin countries and led them intellectually to the last consequences of Proudhon's teachings. This latter revolutionary or libertarian socialism has now for the first time, attempted to put its ideas into practice in the Paris Commune.

And again in "The Paris Commune and the idea of the State (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1871/paris-commune.htm)":


...there is the well-known contradiction between communism as developed scientifically by the German school and accepted in part by the Americans and the English, and Proudhonism, greatly developed and taken to its ultimate conclusion by the proletariat of the Latin countries. Revolutionary socialism has just attempted its first striking and practical demonstration in the Paris Commune.

And again in "Stateless Socialism: Anarchism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm)":


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. Revolutionary Socialism has made its first brilliant and practical appearance in the Paris Commune.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bakunin called Proudhon "the father of us all" (referring to his place in the anarchist pantheon of ideas). Rocker called Proudhon "one of the most intellectually gifted" socialists of all time. He also affirmed to Bakunin "took his stand on the teachings of Proudhon".

Kropotkin and Goldman also held very positive views of Proudhon. I can give you quotes if that would tickle your fancy.

You haven't understood my point.

I don't need quotes to know that anarchists credit Proudhon with contributing to the development of anarchism and neither do I deny that to be the case. I do, however, reject the assertion that "Proudhon is...the creator of modern anarchism", because it's simply not true. Platitudes or no platitudes, "modern anarchism" was not "created" by Proudhon.

[Zanthorus]

TAT:

That wasn't all that you were asserting though. You also said that:


I wouldn't bother reading anything by Proudhon, he's irrelevant.

Which would seem to add another dimension to your rejection of Proudhon as the founder of modern anarchism and lead me and ES to read you as rejecting Proudhon's influence on Bakunin, Kropotkin etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

That wasn't all that you were asserting though. You also said that:


I wouldn't bother reading anything by Proudhon, he's irrelevant.Which is true.


Which would seem to add another dimension to you rejection of Proudhon as the founder of modern anarchism and lead me and ES to read you as rejecting Proudhon's influence on Bakunin, Kropotkin etc.I'm sorry, but it seems slightly unfair for you to credit me with your extrapolations.

Proudhon is only interesting from an historical perspective. He serves no relevance to developing an understanding of contemporary anarchism or class struggle.

[Zanthorus]

Ok then. But just one question - Have you ever actually read any Proudhon?

[The Feral Underclass]

Ok then. But just one question - Have you ever actually read any Proudhon?

I read Philosophy of Misery a long time ago and some of What is Property? Are you trying to have some intellectualist competition? The developments made by Bakunin and subsequently Malatesta and Kropotkin are far more integral and relevant, so I have concentrated my reading on them.

[Zanthorus]

Are you trying to have some intellectualist competition?

No, but in my experience a lot of the people who make those kind of statements turn out to have not read Proudhon. Thanks for the reply anyway.

[syndicat]

I think it's clear that social anarchism or libertarian socialism only began as an organized left tendency in the context of the first international, and that this congealed around Bakunin and the various people he worked with like Anselmo Lorenzo and the others. In that context, they were opponents of the Proudhonists, who did not support strikes and unions as instruments of revolutionary change, as did Bakunin and the tendency around him.

As Bookchin points out, with relevant quotes, Proudhon operated with individualist premises, which is understandable given the social base he derives from and spoke for, that is, self-employed artisans and farmers.

Proudhon contributed certain ideas to anarchism, such as self-management and federalism. But it would inaccurate to say he is the creator of modern anarchism. Political tendencies need organizations in order to develop collective positions and practice, and this didn't began for "modern anarchism" before the first international.

[Zanthorus]

As Bookchin points out, with relevant quotes, Proudhon operated with individualist premises.

He actually derived a sort of theory of surplus-value from his notion of the "collective person":


The principle that all labor should leave an excess, undemonstrable by political economy, — that is, by proprietary routine, — is one of those which bear strongest testimony to the reality of the collective person.

[Anarchia]

No doubt but off hand I can't think of a group in the western hemisphere (USA, Canada and Latin America) that has that sort of view. in the USA that sort of view is identified with "left communism." in my observation, the British anarchist movement seems to be more ultra-left than their American counterparts.Somewhat off-topic, so I'll keep it brief, but the group I am a part of, the Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (http://www.awsm.org.nz), holds to an essentially similar view as the AF (UK), that unions can never be revolutionary. So there's a 2nd "western" anarchist-communist group with that perspective.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, the International of Anarchist Federations is full of them...:)

[syndicat]

but not in the USA. as I said, my comment was comparing organized class struggle-oriented anarchism in the USA to elsewhere. IFA has no affiliates in USA as far as I know. Nor does IWA (since they expelled WSA).

by the way, I'll mention here that WSA has revived its journal ideas & action as a webzine: http://ideasandaction.info. the editorial committee will probably be updating it around once a week.