Left Anarchy/Communism: For Romantics?

[Anti Scene]

Ive been studying leftist anarchism for quite some time now. Also I have briefly looked at communism. Without revealing my own political philosophy, I was wondering if anybody could explain why people are drawn to these ideologies? I understand that you all have love for your fellow man and wish to respect the rights of all, which I believe is a noble cause. Its hard sometimes though for me to respect your movements when there is so much property damage and attacks upon police. Now I in no way respect the police, because I see the police in most cases to be an oppressive entity. Most property damage commited also dosnt bother me that much. But the pure act of it seems a bit contradictory. I was expect a movement such as yours to want to focus more on civil disobedience like Gandhi. Your movement seems segmented between those that wish to just break shit and like the "romanticism" of your movement, and those that want legitimate change

I hope I didnt offend any of you, because I have the utmost respect for you all as individuals and as fighters of what you believe to be oppression, but I just cant see the sense in your tactics.

[#FF0000]

You're some kind of free-market socialist, libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist.

Anyway, yeah the Left in general is kind of in a weird way right now, between people who just want to break shit, people who are big on nonviolence, and people who I think are realistic.

[Agnapostate]

Yes, you're probably a proponent of "anarcho"-capitalism. Not an actual anarcho-capitalist, because no capitalist has ever operated in conditions of anarchy, but the propertarians are the only people I'm aware of that use the redundant term "left anarchy" as it falsely implies that there can be a "right anarchy" that they fall under.

[Red Lion]

Its easy to identify if someone is serious about their beliefs or not. The below post is just my personal opinion, please don't be offended by it anybody but feel free to correct me :)

LEFT ANARCHISM

-Wants to break things- progress to 1.

1. Has read the literature:-
i) yes- angry about the whole system and disillusioned. Genuinely wants change, and believes anarchism is the only way to do it. Lack of faith in anything that doesn't make frontpage news or create an explosion. Insecure.

ii) no- idiot. Probably a teenager who doesn't really know what anarchism is about, pyromaniac, obsessed with the media version of the anarchist, just wants to break things and cause trouble.

-Advocates peaceful protest- progress to 2.

2. Has read the literature:-
i) yes- progress to 3.

ii) no- anti-authoritarian for the sake of it, probably an idiot teenager who doesn't want his parents to tell him to tidy his room and thinks anarchism is a good way to rebel and avoid cleaning up the shit on his floor. Like the violent, uneducated "anarchist" in 1.ii), doesn't understand that the implementation of anarchism would mean hard work and commitment, not smoking weed and sitting around talking shit about the government and police, while doing nothing to help your situation or throwing the occasional brick.

3. Lives in a nice big house

i) yes- Bourgeoisie bohemian, agrees with (or claims to) the ideas of anarchism but will do nothing to achieve them. Can often be found sitting on the terraces of "anarchist" communal cafés sipping claret and discussing aspects of theory completely irrelevant to the real struggles of the working classes today.

ii) no- ?????????


Just my two pennies worth. :rolleyes:

[Red Lion]

redundant term "left anarchy" as it falsely implies that there can be a "right anarchy" that they fall under.

I would call the lawless actions of many big corporations pretty "right-anarchist" actually.

[Agnapostate]

I would call the lawless actions of many big corporations pretty "right-anarchist" actually.

That would promote the false cliche that anarchism is merely chaos or disorder, rather than the elimination of institutionalized hierarchies.

[Red Lion]

That would promote the false cliche that anarchism is merely chaos or disorder, rather than the elimination of institutionalized hierarchies.

And disregarding the institutionalized hierarchy of law and government in favor of the free market isn't Anarchist then?

[#FF0000]

And disregarding the institutionalized hierarchy of law and government in favor of the free market isn't Anarchist then?

It has nothing to do with Anarchy as a political philosophy.

[Red Lion]

It has nothing to do with Anarchy as a political philosophy.

Why not?


Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy

[Agnapostate]

And disregarding the institutionalized hierarchy of law and government in favor of the free market isn't Anarchist then?

It has nothing to do with the "free market." The interdependent oligopoly that characterizes capitalism isn't a "free market" and the institutionalized hierarchies of the orthodox capitalist firm are starkly at odds with freedom.

[#FF0000]

Why not?

The Free Market is never and can never be anarchist because, beyond opposing the state, they oppose unjust hierarchies in general, which the free market has.

[Agnapostate]

Why not?

The state is one manifestation of hierarchical governance; opposition to its existence is a necessary but not sufficient condition of anarchism. The definition that you've quoted abounds on the Internet because proponents of "anarcho"-capitalism have sufficient numbers there to make it seem as though they constitute a significant contingency. Capitalism also could not exist without the state, which is necessary for macroeconomic stabilization purposes.

[Agnapostate]

The Free Market is never and can never be anarchist because, beyond opposing the state, they oppose unjust hierarchies in general, which the free market has.

The free market is nonexistent, so it "has" nothing in that sense. The propertarians that defend mixed-market capitalism with free market rhetoric are simply ignorant or disingenuous. If free markets could exist, it would be in a socialist economy.

[Red Lion]

Ok, thank you for clearing those misconceptions up for me. I see your point.

[trivas7]

The free market is nonexistent[...]
So then what is it exactly are you dissenting against?

[Agnapostate]

Um...capitalism? As in real capitalism, not the utopian fantasy that doesn't exist outside of the textbook.

[trivas7]

Um...capitalism? [...]
Which is what given that there is no free market?

[syndicat]

I sometimes use the phrase "Left anarchism" also, to differentiate from various forms of extremist individualism that call themselves "anarchist". Historically the dominant form of "Left anarchism" was anarchosyndicalism, which is a radical labor outlook, which advocates militancy, class-wide solidarity, and grassroots worker-controlled unionism, in order to have a more effective means to fight the exploiting, dominating classes, but also because it foreshadows and, if it develops far enough, can be the basis for the working class taking over and socializing the means of production and creating workers self-management of production. This working class radical politics shouldn't be confused with "kids" smashing bank windows or whatever. The most important anarchist-influenced social movements have been labor-based movements, like the factory committee movement in Russia in 1917, the radical shop council movement in Italy in 1919-20, the massive worker takeover of industry in Spain in 1936, or the militant CNT labor organization in Uruguay in the ''60s-'70s.

[Jazzratt]

Which is what given that there is no free market?

A system where control of the means of production is the exclusive purview of the bourgeois classes and goods or services are traded in a market setting. Just because "free" markets don't exist doesn't mean that market/price systems don't exist full stop, pillock.

[trivas7]

A system where control of the means of production is the exclusive purview of the bourgeois classes and goods or services are traded in a market setting.
What does "where...goods and services are traded in a market setting" mean in a system with no free markets, Einstein? Either piss or get off the pot.

[Ele'ill]

I was wondering if anybody could explain why people are drawn to these ideologies?

If you find a person that is a 'text-book' anything politically they're either fake or incompetent. My beliefs that I've naturally developed since I was a child align to an extent with anarchism however I believe we can gut this system on the spot if we organize correctly- push it to the flash point.


I understand that you all have love for your fellow man and wish to respect the rights of all, which I believe is a noble cause. Its hard sometimes though for me to respect your movements when there is so much property damage and attacks upon police.

The attacks on property are rarely effective. The public generally needs to be shown why corporate interest is crime and why corporations are criminals. When the dumpsters roll out into the street and glass gets broken it does nothing but make the bystanders feel personally attacked. From the perspective of tactics it would make more sense to spend that time organizing.


I was expect a movement such as yours to want to focus more on civil disobedience like Gandhi.I've mentioned it before within groups that if they spent their time peacefully 'occupying an area' of corporate interest it would gain attention and less of the negative type- it would force the police to brutalize those 'occupying' the area- Maybe more importantly it would determine which activists really want to be there- the activists would have to dig deep to want to stay put after being beaten or sprayed with oc. It's a gut check.



Your movement seems segmented between those that wish to just break shit and like the "romanticism" of your movement, and those that want legitimate change It isn't quite this divided. There are a lot of good activists/organizers that have taken part in the more lively demonstrations.

There are two categories of property destruction that I've come up with- there is property destruction surrounding/leading up to larger demonstrations such as in a week or two in Toronto at the g20 summit- and then there are autonomous attacks against state owned property such as police stations or corporate buildings such as banks, Mcdonalds, Starbucks, etc... that take place randomly with no significance to the date.

Are either effective tactics?

No.


I hope I didnt offend any of you, because I have the utmost respect for you all as individuals and as fighters of what you believe to be oppression, but I just cant see the sense in your tactics.The main reason the violent tactics need to be put on hold is because of this exactly. The positive aspects of various movements greatly outweigh the negative property destruction type stuff but unless you're part of the solution or within ear range of those groups you'd never know. We can ***** that the media is to blame (which it is) till we're blue in the face but we know what we're up against- no excuses anymore.

[Jazzratt]

What does "where...goods and services are traded in a market setting" mean in a system with no free markets, Einstein? Either piss or get off the pot.

As I explained in the next fucking sentence you do not need a "free market" for a market to exist you semi-literate bellend. Market relations are simply where things a brought and sold often using entirely arbitrary value measurements. That's it, we don't need a mythological "free" market to define that at all.

[Agnapostate]

Which is what given that there is no free market?

What actually exists. Propertarians' asinine association of "capitalism" with the nonexistent free market (when it was a term popularized by Marx, at that), in times of crisis and attribution of benefits to capitalism in times of relative prosperity is simply a no true Scotsman fallacy. "Oh, but that wasn't true capitalism."

[Bud Struggle]

Ive been studying leftist anarchism for quite some time now. Also I have briefly looked at communism. Without revealing my own political philosophy, I was wondering if anybody could explain why people are drawn to these ideologies? I understand that you all have love for your fellow man and wish to respect the rights of all, which I believe is a noble cause. Its hard sometimes though for me to respect your movements when there is so much property damage and attacks upon police. Now I in no way respect the police, because I see the police in most cases to be an oppressive entity. Most property damage commited also dosnt bother me that much. But the pure act of it seems a bit contradictory. I was expect a movement such as yours to want to focus more on civil disobedience like Gandhi. Your movement seems segmented between those that wish to just break shit and like the "romanticism" of your movement, and those that want legitimate change

I hope I didnt offend any of you, because I have the utmost respect for you all as individuals and as fighters of what you believe to be oppression, but I just cant see the sense in your tactics.

Every "Anarchy" is for Romantics.

[RGacky3]

Every "Anarchy" is for Romantics.

How so?


What does "where...goods and services are traded in a market setting" mean in a system with no free markets, Einstein? Either piss or get off the pot.

Its not just black and white.

[Conquer or Die]

Ive been studying leftist anarchism for quite some time now. Also I have briefly looked at communism. Without revealing my own political philosophy, I was wondering if anybody could explain why people are drawn to these ideologies?

Surely superficial qualities play a large role. I was probably drawn to the movement as a former defender of the Lost Cause of the south because I linked some nobility, compassion, and against all odds defense of humanity to it. People are also looking for excuses for their problems. Both are problems with the movement, I believe, but while these emotional appeals shouldn't be grounds for a logical defense of Marxism or Exploitation theories, those same theories shouldn't be discarded on such grounds if the theories themselves or the people practicing them engage in logical debate (I believe they do, and most people believe they at least have something to say).

Think of any political movement and its followers. Think Tea Party especially. You're going to tell me mass romanticism and revisionism is only within the rank of Communists.


I understand that you all have love for your fellow man and wish to respect the rights of all, which I believe is a noble cause. Its hard sometimes though for me to respect your movements when there is so much property damage and attacks upon police. Now I in no way respect the police, because I see the police in most cases to be an oppressive entity. Most property damage commited also dosnt bother me that much. But the pure act of it seems a bit contradictory.

Hating the police is an all encompassing ideal. It's amateur and often misdirected but let's not pretend that anarchists are the only ones hating on the police. Plenty of people from all backgrounds and all stripes do hate the police. Most people grow out of this and accept this extension of civil society in some capacity with oversight.

It's most likely healthy to nurture a distrust of authority, especially when young.


I was expect a movement such as yours to want to focus more on civil disobedience like Gandhi.

Gandhi was a charlatan and a racist from what I've read of him. He's an out and out counter revolutionary who pissed on struggle with an ivory staff of self flagellation.

The founder of Civil Disobedience was also hypocritical and romantic.


Your movement seems segmented between those that wish to just break shit and like the "romanticism" of your movement, and those that want legitimate change

Romanticism is a significant component of the movement. Romanticism is the advertising tool. It's something that often backfires but it's a distraction to talk in vague generalities. The issue should be about exploitation and why it's good or bad.



I hope I didnt offend any of you, because I have the utmost respect for you all as individuals and as fighters of what you believe to be oppression, but I just cant see the sense in your tactics.

Assuming that exploitation is present and that this is invariably the cause for a number of sick human problems why wouldn't the tactics involved be violent and repressive?

Was Nat Turner's revolt justified? Was the killing of a slave owner's baby justified? If not, does that discredit the whole action?

There are certainly psychological and organizational problems with the movement. The question is how much of this comprises the sum total of the movement, especially in relation to alternatives. I would say that the logical grounds of Marxism and the negatives of exploitation give the movement its credibility.

[Revolutionair]

The Free Market is never and can never be anarchist because, beyond opposing the state, they oppose unjust hierarchies in general, which the free market has.

How about mutualism? You don't consider that an anarchistic ideology?

[BeerShaman]

Well, anarchy is no romanticism. If anyone believes anarchists are just romantics let him/her see what happened in Spain on 1936 and learn.

In addition, there is no left or right anarchism. Anarchism is against goverments and the words left or right just suit parliaments, which can no way exist in anarchy. Anarchy = non-hierarchical organisation. And this means no parties.

[Zanthorus]

How about mutualism? You don't consider that an anarchistic ideology?

Well Proudhon at least, was not actually a free-marketer. He wanted maximum and minimum profit margins fixed and "voluntary societies" organised in order to regulate the market. He also argued for an "agro-industrial federation" which would correct the destabilising effects of the market economy and prevent iniquities of wealth.

[trivas7]

[...] you do not need a "free market" for a market to exist [...] Market relations are simply where things a brought and sold often using entirely arbitrary value measurements.
Distinguish a "free market" from "market relations", Bubba.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, anarchy is no romanticism. If anyone believes anarchists are just romantics let him/her see what happened in Spain on 1936 and learn.

One could easily learn that the fate of Spain's Anarchism may be the fate of all Anarchisms. A fleeting time of past happinesses and joys.

Archie Bunker felt the same about the exact same time period:

Boy the way Glenn Miller Played
Songs that made the Hit Parade
Guys like us we had it made
Those were the days.

Didn't need no Welfare states
Everybody pulled his weight
gee our old LaSalle ran great
Those were the days

And you knew who you were then
Girls were girls and men were men
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again

People seemd to be content
$50 payed the rent
Freaks were in a circus tent
Those were the days

Take a little sunday spin
Tonight I'll watch the dogers win
Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin

Hair was short and skirts were long
Kate Smith really sung the song
I don't know just what went wrong.

Change the words a bit and that could have been written by RGacky. :)

[Zanthorus]

Distinguish a "free market" from "market relations", Bubba.

Simple.

A market involves the exchange of goods and services. When this is done with all participants respecting property norms and the absence of any coercive state legislation interfering in the process then this market is "free". When the state apparatus intervenes with legislation to regulate the exchange of particular goods and services, establishing quality controls and such, then the market is no longer free.

Actually the above is a slightly modernised take.

In the classical liberal tradition a "free" market is one where all economic rent is socialised by the state via taxation. A "free" market in the neo-liberal sense would therefore be an unfree market in the classical liberal sense because of the pervasiveness of unsocialised rent.

But whichever way you want to look at it the currently existing state of things is not a "free market" in either sense of the word.

[syndicat]

however, in classical liberalism, freedom is identified with negative freedom: absence of coercion or physical restraint.

on their view, the employer/worker contract is a "free" contract because the employer doesn't put a gun to the worker's head.

in reality, liberalism has a poverty-stricken concept of freedom. the monopolization of means of production by the capitalist class means that workers are in fact forced to take job offers from capitalists. but the power imbalance between capitalist and worker is "disappeared" in classical liberal theory.

so even if market transactions involved more powerful actors taking advantage of less powerful actors, it's still seen as a "free market" in classical liberal ideology. this means that economic allocation is not coordinated overall but occurs through comparatively autonomous actors making their separate decisions.

competition between the separate firms leads eventually to the buildup of massive bureaucratic economic entities, the large corporations. this falls out of the competitive advantage of size in a market system, and the way competition is an engine of capital accumulation, but built on the subordination of the mass of the population, whose vulnerability makes them subject to exploitation, and this makes profit possible. the power of the capitalists enables them to suppress wage rates to a level that allows the firm to accrue a surplus of revenue over expenses.

[trivas7]

Simple.

A market involves the exchange of goods and services. When this is done with all participants respecting property norms and the absence of any coercive state legislation interfering in the process then this market is "free". When the state apparatus intervenes with legislation to regulate the exchange of particular goods and services, establishing quality controls and such, then the amarket is no longer free.

Actually the above is a slightly modernised take.

Indeed capitalism has always been replete w/ state intervention in markets. Is that the point being made? Just as there has never existed communism, neither has there ever been a pure free market. So what? The significance of this escapes me.