"Class Struggle Anarchists" [Archive]

Queercommie Girl

31st August 2010, 17:44

Despite me not being an anarchist, in what ways do these 'class' anarchists draw closer to marxism than anarcho-communist.

Because they emphasise class struggle more, which the ideological basis of Marxism.

Such as?

Such as the idea of "universal human rights", something fundamental and basic that every human being possesses, regardless of class.

But these 'anarcho-capitalists' are not anarchists, just because they don't want a tax and regulation and a 'state' does not make one an anarchist. By parrellel would you call a 'national-anarchists' an anarchist?

The only anarchists that could be considered capitalists are those that follow the strict teachings of the like of Proudhon.

But that's like saying "Stalinists are not socialists".

No-one has the right to monopolise particular terms and concepts. Subjective recognition should be acknowledged. The fact of the matter here is that anarcho-capitalists consider themselves to be anarchists just as Stalinists consider themselves to be Marxists.

I'm looking at this matter from a neutral academic point of view, not from my own political stance. Therefore I'm being fair to all parties involved, even those that are objectively wrong.

The Douche

31st August 2010, 17:49

Widerstand

31st August 2010, 17:55

They tend to emphasise the "class line" more and therefore are closer objectively to Marxism.

Closer to Marxism than what? And what practical consequences does these "class line" emphasis have? Is anarcho-syndicalism not very class oriented with it's emphasis on unions?

Other anarchist tendencies tend to focus more on "freedom" etc in a more universalistic sense, independent from class analysis. There are even anarcho-capitalists or capitalist anarchists at the other extreme of the political spectrum, which essentially is a very petit-bourgeois ideology based "all against all free competition".

I consider anarcho-capitalism to be an extreme form of Laissez-faire capitalism, really. And I consider anarcho-primitivism to be bullshit. But I don't want to go into semantic debates over these two terms.
To my understanding all schools of Anarchism are deeply rooted in socialism/communism and Marxist thought. This is evident in the fact that early distinctly Anarchist thinkers, especially Bakunin, were no doubt greatly influenced by Marx. Also, too my knowledge there aren't many anarchists that reject class struggle as a motor for revolution, except maybe some Individualists and Lifestylists.

the short answer is not much. like Iseul says we emphasize class a little more, but all the struggles are related. sometimes (correct me if I'm wrong) I feel like anarchists with adjectives are just anarchists who have more interest in a specific issue, i.e. the environment or LGBT rights.

You mean, they emphasize class struggle more than, say, "green-anarchists"? But don't anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists AND anarcho-collectivists, which I would perceive as the three main currents of Anarchist thought, all focus on revolution brought about by class struggle?

and I don't view Anarcho cappies as Anarchists, not many anarchists do.

Exactly.

Really, class struggle anarchism is somewhat abiguous. Its just a term made up by left-anarchists/red-anarchists/organizationalists/platformists/syndicalists etc to differentiate themselves from elements which they think are not as revolutionary as them.

Well that's how I feel about this as well.

Widerstand

31st August 2010, 17:58

Such as the idea of "universal human rights", something fundamental and basic that every human being possesses, regardless of class.

Would you say that Marxists refuse the notion of class being irrelevant to the possession of 'human rights'?

Objectively one cannot be a capitalist and an anarchist. Anarchism opposes hierarchy and arbitrary authority, both of which are features of the market economy, unavoidably, so its not possible to be both a capitalist and an anarchist.

Yeah.

Queercommie Girl

31st August 2010, 18:00

Objectively one cannot be a capitalist and an anarchist. Anarchism opposes hierarchy and arbitrary authority, both of which are features of the market economy, unavoidably, so its not possible to be both a capitalist and an anarchist.

My own political stance is that I agree with you.

But as I said I'm taking a neutral viewpoint. Anarcho-capitalism may be objectively wrong, but it still has an objective social existence. All forms of existence are justified to some extent by virtue of their existing, no matter how absurd.

I'm giving equal rights to everyone to adopt any political terms they wish, even objectively absurd ones like say "anarcho-capitalism" and "national socialism". (Nazis) Because my focus here is their simple social existence in a descriptive sense, not an analytical justification in the normative sense.

Aesop

31st August 2010, 18:08

Because they emphasise class struggle more, which the ideological basis of Marxism.

How exactly do they emphasise class struggle more, than anarcho-communists?
I am pretty sure class anarchists means anarcho-communists rather than individualist anarchists.

Such as the idea of "universal human rights", something fundamental and basic that every human being possesses, regardless of class.

But in all of my political activity i have never heard or seen a anarchist who has disputed this demand.

But that's like saying "Stalinists are not socialists".

No-one has the right to monopolise particular terms and concepts. Subjective recognition should be acknowledged. The fact of the matter here is that anarcho-capitalists consider themselves to be anarchists just as Stalinists consider themselves to be Marxists.

Now your just rambling.
Marxism and anarchism are not comparable, seeing as anarchism is a political position and marxism is a certain outlook in many different spheres such as history, economics, sociology.
Using your logic,if a national socialist considers to be a socilaist, does that really make him a socialist?
Political Alignment is more than merely self-identification.
There used to be peers in my classes who used to refer to themselves as socialists, however in reality they were really social-democrats seeing as they did not want to do away with capitalism. Of course i am not saying concepts should be monopolised by one person, however this does not mean self-identification is alone enough to be from a certain political ideological standing.

I'm looking at this matter from a neutral academic point of view, not from my own political stance. Therefore I'm being fair to all parties involved, even those that are objectively wrong.

Come on we are all adults here. No one looks at things from a 'neutral' academic point of view, we all look at things from if not from our political perspective, but from a moral one. If you say you do, your only kidding yourself.

syndicat

31st August 2010, 18:12

In the USA "class struggle anarchism" is used to refer to a particular set of political tendencies, as cmoney says. There has been a series of Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences of the organized class/mass struggle anarchist groups over the past several years. We're about to have the third conference in about a wek. The groups who participate are either Platformist (such as NEFAC, 4 Star Anarchist Organization, etc), especifista (like Amanecer in California), or revolutionary syndicalist (like WSA). These tendencies are over-lapping as there are people who support both especifismo and syndicalism (like me), or who are both syndicalists and platformists.

American class struggle anarchism is in favor ongoing formal organizations, and is dual organizational. This means we see a necessary role for both mass organizations such as worker unions, tenant unions etc, and for a revolutionary political organization that has a tighter unity around agreement with a specific political perspective.

"Class struggle anarchism" is a bit misleading, tho, because we're not class reductionists. We think there are other forms of oppression besides class, and a variety of areas of struggle outside the workplace. nowadays many American class struggle anarchists agree with an "intersectional" analysis of class. "Intersectionality" is a concept developed in the '80s by black American socialist-feminists like bell hooks. It means that in the life of various groups within the working class various forms of oppression intersect, such as a black female postal clerk, who is female, black and a worker.

"Anarcho-communist" is not the same as "class struggle anarchism" because it refers to an aim, not strategy or organizational concept. Altho Platformism is officially anarcho-communist, there are anarcho-communists who aren't platformists, for example. Altho many WSA members are anarcho-communists, WSA is not officially "anarcho-communist" -- agreement on that label is not part of our political basis of unity -- but describes itself as "a social anarchist organization rooted in the syndicalist tradition."

Os Cangaceiros

31st August 2010, 20:20

All anarchist sects are technically "class struggle-ists". John Zerzan supports wildcat strikes and such (influenced by the Situationists and May '68 as he is). "Anarcho"-Capitalists and have their own theory of class: the oligarch parasite class in government vs. the "productive class", largely influenced by Franz Oppenheimer's and Max Weber's theory of the state. The old-school American Stirnerites (like Tucker and Labadie) were major proponents of organized labor in their era. Insurrectionist anarchists have their own ideas about class, and the list goes on.

The word seems to be used a lot nowadays by prolier-than-thou Platformists and assorted others who wish to ex-communicate all of the degenerates who may have read a bit of Stirner at one point and actually liked it.

Magón

31st August 2010, 20:28

Ah, Anarcho-Capitalism, the ideology you love to hate. It's also no doubt an oxymoron, and pretty much just Free Capitalists wanting to call themselves Anarchists. :rolleyes:

As for Class Struggle Anarchists, I think they have their place in a revolution, on the Anarchist side. Sure they might focus more on where this and that person goes, than I do. But then again, I as a Anarcho-Socialist focus more on personal/collective freedoms for people, than a Class Struggle Anarchist probably would. I have respect for them none the less.

Queercommie Girl

31st August 2010, 20:40

How exactly do they emphasise class struggle more, than anarcho-communists?
I am pretty sure class anarchists means anarcho-communists rather than individualist anarchists.

Because "communists" don't always emphasise so much on class struggle. Don't you know, there are also utopian communists out there.

In the case of the anarchists, it's mostly just a matter of degree.

But in all of my political activity i have never heard or seen a anarchist who has disputed this demand.

Do you mean you believe in "universal human rights" too?

Now your just rambling.
Marxism and anarchism are not comparable, seeing as anarchism is a political position and marxism is a certain outlook in many different spheres such as history, economics, sociology.

You don't even understand my point. I'm not comparing Marxism with anarchism directly here.

Using your logic,if a national socialist considers to be a socilaist, does that really make him a socialist?
Political Alignment is more than merely self-identification.
There used to be peers in my classes who used to refer to themselves as socialists, however in reality they were really social-democrats seeing as they did not want to do away with capitalism. Of course i am not saying concepts should be monopolised by one person, however this does not mean self-identification is alone enough to be from a certain political ideological standing.

I'm not saying they are objectively correct, but they have the subjective right to use terms like "socialist" and "anarchist", and in an existentialist sense concepts like "anarcho-capitalism" and "national socialism" have a certain objective social existence.

Come on we are all adults here. No one looks at things from a 'neutral' academic point of view, we all look at things from if not from our political perspective, but from a moral one. If you say you do, your only kidding yourself.

So you think it is futile for scientists to try to engage in fair experiments?

Just because one is a socialist doesn't give one the excuse to be unscientific. Marxism is supposed to be "scientific socialism", don't let ideologies dominate your mind too much.

NoOneIsIllegal

31st August 2010, 20:48

Never heard the term, although I think I like it. I, myself, am an anarchist (syndicalist). One thing that bugs about other anarchists is the over-emphasis on the government. Yes, capitalism and hierarchy go hand-in-hand, but sometimes when anarchists rarely make a reference to capitalism, it kills me a bit inside. I see anarchy and libertarian socialism as a reasonable/logical route towards seizing the means of production, compared to a political route. I guess I just prefer the class struggle emphasis rather than a "fuck the government, mannnnn" emphasis.
I think Black Flame describes some of my beliefs better, so read that shit, son. :lol:

Apoi_Viitor

31st August 2010, 21:39

They tend to emphasise the "class line" more and therefore are closer objectively to Marxism.

Other anarchist tendencies tend to focus more on "freedom" etc in a more universalistic sense, independent from class analysis. There are even anarcho-capitalists or capitalist anarchists at the other extreme of the political spectrum, which essentially is a very petit-bourgeois ideology based "all against all free competition".

Traditional Anarchism emphasizes class struggle to the same extant that Marxism does. It means nothing, that Anarcho-Capitalists and Individualist Anarchists claim they also share the legitimacy to classify their ideologies as "Anarchistic" - an equivalent would be someone saying that a whale is a fish. Fucking they aren't, whales are mammals, not fish. :laugh:

Thirsty Crow

31st August 2010, 22:01

It means nothing, that Anarcho-Capitalists and Individualist Anarchists claim they also share the legitimacy to classify their ideologies as "Anarchistic" - an equivalent would be someone saying that a whale is a fish.
But can we even consider Individualist Anarchism a political ideology?
As far as I know, this strand of anarchist thought does not deal with social conditions (which are what makes politics political - in the sense that any political ideology necessitates an account of a desireable social organization).

Os Cangaceiros

31st August 2010, 22:12

It's more of a philosophy than a political ideology, I think.

Zanthorus

31st August 2010, 22:25

The old-school American Stirnerites (like Tucker and Labadie) were major proponents of organized labor in their era.

Just as a side note, I think it would be misleading to call the early american individualists like Tucker "Stirnerites". Their anarchism was certainly more individualistic and opposed to abstract concepts like "right" than Proudhon's was, and this was certainly influenced by Tucker's reading of Stirner. However I think a consistent Stirnerite would have to reject "anarchism" as another "spook in the head" so to speak, since it implies an ideal to struggle towards, whereas a "unique individual" should have no preference one way or the other wether the rest of humanity adopts their perspective and the state dissolves, or wether they remain the only unique individual out there. Both of these situations would merely be different contexts in which to pursue ones ends. Of course, strictly speaking, I would say that no such thing as a pure Stirnerite has ever existed, not even Stirner himself, since the kind of subjectivistic nihilism which he preached is incompatible with any kind of stable mental existence.

"scientific socialism"

"...was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself;" (Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy)

Queercommie Girl

31st August 2010, 22:30

The problem I have with Proudhon is his support of patriarchy, which is reactionary.

My favourite anarchists are Kroptokin and Emma Goldman. Kroptokin because he was the only anarchist theorist with a significant influence in Chinese history. The democratic revolutionary Dr. Sun Yat-sen, who was essentially a reformist socialist economically, was partially influenced by anarchism, and used Kroptokin's theory of "mutual aid" to argue against the social darwinist ideology that was prevalent at the time in China. Emma Goldman because of her positive contribution to feminism and queer rights.

Zanthorus

31st August 2010, 22:39

The problem I have with Proudhon is his support of patriarchy, which is reactionary.

The Proudhon scholar Shawn P. Wilbur points out that Proudhon's patriarchal tendencies are in conflict with the main overriding principles of his work, and I think I agree with him.

Proudhon's fundamental problem is that he attempts to turn the values of capitalism like individuality, freedom etc against itself. On the surface this looks like a manifestation of dialectical thought, but in reality it just leads Proudhon back into a form of utopian socialism. He doesn't base himself on capital's immanent tendencies, it's internal dialectic, "the social movement made by the people itself" and the implications of the workers struggle against capital.

Os Cangaceiros

31st August 2010, 22:41

Just as a side note, I think it would be misleading to call the early american individualists like Tucker "Stirnerites". Their anarchism was certainly more individualistic and opposed to abstract concepts like "right" than Proudhon's was, and this was certainly influenced by Tucker's reading of Stirner. However I think a consistent Stirnerite would have to reject "anarchism" as another "spook in the head" so to speak, since it implies an ideal to struggle towards, whereas a "unique individual" should have no preference one way or the other wether the rest of humanity adopts their perspective and the state dissolves, or wether they remain the only unique individual out there. Both of these situations would merely be different contexts in which to pursue ones ends. Of course, strictly speaking, I would say that no such thing as a pure Stirnerite has ever existed, not even Stirner himself, since the kind of subjectivistic nihilism which he preached is incompatible with any kind of stable mental existence.

Yeah...I like to refer to his (Tucker's) ideology as a mixture of Proudhon and Stirner. I like to put an emphasis on Stirner, though, because it differentiates him from some of the other American individualists (many of whom didn't self-describe as anarchists) who believed in "natural rights", a concept which Tucker rightly believed was ridiculous. Instead he favoured Egoism.

Zanthorus

31st August 2010, 22:53

Yeah...I like to refer to his (Tucker's) ideology as a mixture of Proudhon and Stirner. I like to put an emphasis on Stirner, though, because it differentiates him from some of the other American individualists (many of whom didn't self-describe as anarchists) who believed in "natural rights", a concept which Tucker rightly believed was ridiculous. Instead he favoured Egoism.

His egoism was normative though, which is somewhat far removed from Stirner's polemic against all normative ethical constraints. Most people who take something from Stirner can only appropriate one aspect of his thinking, since if they took the whole thing on board that aspect would be negated again as another form of religion, a "spook in the head". In the end, the only thing Stirner is left with is the "I" and nothing else. It's like Gassendi's reductio of Descartes cogito. "I think therefore I am". But without experience, we cannot even know the difference between "being" and "not-being" and cannot even assert that we "are". So the only thing we are left with when we negate experience is the neverending "I". The way out is to reaffirm sense-experience, materialism. But then we've left the realm of Stirner and entered the realm of Marx. I think that's why the impact of Stirner's book was limited to such a short time frame. As the logical conclusion of Left-Hegelian philosophy up to that point, it was a necessary evil, and for that reason it was somewhat well recieved at the time, even by Engels. But it was surpassed almost immediately.

Big Red

1st September 2010, 04:24

I think I misunderstood, I percieved the term "class struggle anarchists" as an umbrella term for "currents" like anarcho syndicalism anarcho communists etc. I didn't mean to imply that other "currents" don't look at class or anything like that, intersectionality sounds about right to me. and obviously we all should and can work together regardless of whether or not you call yourself a "green-anarchist" or a "red anarchist", all this emphasis on different views or whatever on anarchism is getting confusing. CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG;)
and then smash the state?:thumbup1:

1st September 2010, 11:56

I like to further the gap between myself and various idiots who think that the state is purely a centralisation of political power - and nothing else, not a tool of the ruling class, not nothing.

Aesop

1st September 2010, 17:39

Because "communists" don't always emphasise so much on class struggle. Don't you know, there are also utopian communists out there.

In the case of the anarchists, it's mostly just a matter of degree.

You have not answered the question. How exactly do these claa anarchist emphasise class more than a anrcho-communiat.

Do you mean you believe in "universal human rights" too?

What kind of response is this.

You don't even understand my point. I'm not comparing Marxism with anarchism directly here.

No, you weren't comparing marxism with anarchism. However you were making a false analogy.

I'm not saying they are objectively correct, but they have the subjective right to use terms like "socialist" and "anarchist", and in an existentialist sense concepts like "anarcho-capitalism" and "national socialism" have a certain objective social existence.

The linguistic trickery will not work here. Just face it, just because someone refers to themselve as coming from a certain political ideological does not mean they are coming from that ideological perspective.
Do you agree?

So you think it is futile for scientists to try to engage in fair experiments?

Your arguing against a strawman now. Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough, i am arguing that no one comes from a neutral non biased position especially in sphere of politics, even what we call neutral position is down to peoples own subjective viewing of what neutral is, hence anyone making the asserting that they are coming from neutral non biased position is false.

Just because one is a socialist doesn't give one the excuse to be unscientific. Marxism is supposed to be "scientific socialism", don't let ideologies dominate your mind too much.

Yes, marxism is scientific. However your claim of coming from a non-biased position is not. Who decides what the neutral position is?

Aesop

1st September 2010, 17:47

Traditional Anarchism emphasizes class struggle to the same extant that Marxism does.

You sure, i know proudhon made the famous quote that 'property is theft', however wasn't he a mutualist that didn't actually mind private property as long as it was not exploitive. He was quite fond of how peasants and artisans lived their lives, and thought that mutualism was the key.
Correct me if i am wrong.

Thirsty Crow

1st September 2010, 18:44

He was quite fond of how peasants and artisans lived their lives, and thought that mutualism was the key.
Correct me if i am wrong.
Well, you've answered your question. Proudhon's political ideology stems from the social classes whose position he emphasized. And with the economic development (i.e. industrialization) this basis has become objectively subordinate (in the sense that the artisans and peasants have become very much dependant upon big industry, and in the sense that technological development and land closures produced what we know as pauperization - meaning that the very numbers of these classes are marginal in relation to those of the proletarians).

So in this sense, on the basis of the emphasized social class(es) (this emphasis may very well be only implied), we could distinguish individualist anarchism and mutualism, on one hand, and class struggle anarchism (anarcho-collectivism, anarchist communism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism etc. etc.; maybe the term "proletarian anarchism" would be nice??).

Now, what these two groups have in common is a different matter.

Omnia Sunt Communia

1st September 2010, 19:55

In the USA "class struggle anarchism" is used to refer to a particular set of political tendencies, as cmoney says.

The reference has always struck me personally as intellectual dishonest since it sets up anyone who criticizes these tendencies as being insufficiently devoted to "class struggle". In fact the question has always been; Which is the best strategy for achieving victory (ie: autonomy followed by self-abolition) for the proletarian class?

American class struggle anarchism is in favor ongoing formal organizations

Again this strikes me as intellectually dishonest language. Class war is not possible without "ongoing formal organizations", the only folks who eschew "ongoing formal organizations" are hedonists and isolationist survivalists. The crux of the question is over issues such as transparency, accountability, etc.

mass organizations such as worker unions, tenant unions etc

The over-emphasis of union work (within the context of North America) is part of the capitulation to social democracy. The unions that exist today are bourgeois surrogates for the original revolutionary workplace groups - such bourgeois unions could easily be compromised and co-opted by left social-revolutionary forces, and such an effort would be admirable. However the majority of the US-Canadian workforce is not unionized, therefore other forms of mass-agitation should be prioritized.

And we should not follow the mistake of aping past strategies which have already been vanquished by the bourgeoisie. It is not realistic or desirable that the non-union majority of the US-Canadian proletariat be integrated into new bourgeois unions; we've learned our lesson about channeling our energy into the projects of the social democratic and Keynesian bourgeoisie.

All that is required to further the cause of communism is to organize our class brethren in every facet of day-to-day life towards the immediate creation of a communist conditions. (Which obviously necessitates an offensive gesture against the stable daily operation of commodity production, capital accumulation, and so forth) Thus our interaction with the bourgeois unions should be based around the strategy of recruiting away from the bourgeois project to mediate class antagonism and towards the goal of creating a flexible and invisible party for the imposition of communism.

a tighter unity around agreement with a specific political perspective.

This is a sort of stagnating "party line" dogma which signals the turn of the revolutionary party into a new organ of repression. Within this specific context it signifies a total isolation of certain political elements from broad class support.

because we're not class reductionists. We think there are other forms of oppression besides class, and a variety of areas of struggle outside the workplace. nowadays many American class struggle anarchists agree with an "intersectional" analysis of class. "Intersectionality" is a concept developed in the '80s by black American socialist-feminists like bell hooks. It means that in the life of various groups within the working class various forms of oppression intersect, such as a black female postal clerk, who is female, black and a worker.

The notion of "areas of struggle outside the workplace" being somehow separate from the sphere of capital and class is unscientific. The entire material world is monopolized by the bourgeois social order. The primitive development of capitalism demanded the seizure of all commonly held social spaces for integration into the commodity market. There is no place on Earth where the conditions of capital do not prevail, except where the proletariat asserts itself as a class.

If you analyze the creation of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as a class you will see that it germinated in the prior forms of property-state dictatorship. The foundation of these forms of domination is the patriarchal family unit. I think it is wrong to view the feminist struggle and the class struggle as separate struggles that should ideally "intersect". The same is true of national/ethnic oppression which in most cases is also older than the emergence of the current class order. Also wherever such divisions prevail they are almost always expressed as divisions of economic class. (notice for example how a bourgeois black man is often considered more socially white or a bourgeois woman more socially male)

syndicat

1st September 2010, 20:17

The reference has always struck me personally as intellectual dishonest since it sets up anyone who criticizes these tendencies as being insufficiently devoted to "class struggle".

notice how our responder here can't avoid engaging in insult.

"class struggle anarchism" is just a tag. There is no necessary claim that others are not in favor of class struggle.

but in fact there are people who call themselves "anarchists" in the USA who either think class struggle is "outdated" or don't emphasize it at all. it is intellectually dishonest on the part of our responder to not acknowledge that.

me:

American class struggle anarchism is in favor ongoing formal organizations

Again this strikes me as intellectually dishonest language. Class war is not possible without "ongoing formal organizations", the only folks who eschew "ongoing formal organizations" are hedonists and isolationist survivalists.

again gratuitous insult...the mark of the sectarian ultra. again, it's a description of what the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference groups are for. There is no necessary claim about anyone else.

in fact there are a variety of anarchists who in fact favor only informal groups, discrete small collectives, are against larger ongoing formal organization.

The over-emphasis of union work (within the context of North America) is part of the capitulation to social democracy. The unions that exist today are bourgeois surrogates for the original revolutionary workplace groups - such bourgeois unions could easily be compromised and co-opted by left social-revolutionary forces, and such an effort would be admirable. However the majority of the US-Canadian workforce is not unionized, therefore other forms of mass-agitation should be prioritized.

My reference to worker unions didn't specify whether this would be new, worker-controlled unions or activity in the context of the bureaucratic business unions. altho a majority of workers are not in the latter, the latter do exist in a number of important sectors. we can't ignore them. workers in fact organize struggles through these unions...whether our ultra poster likes it or not. hence we need to figure out a path for activity in this context. this might consist of helping to organize rank and file organizations there independent of the bureaucracy.

and new forms of worker-managed mass organization that emerge in rising levels of struggle will be new forms of unionism, because unonism is a broad range of phenomena whose character is a mass organization to fight the employers, and to force them to not do what they are trying to do or to force them to do things we want them to do, or to fight to get rid of the employers and gain power for the working class.

in any event, i gave unions as an example of mass organization. i think in fact the class will have to form mass ongoing organizations in its struggles at the point of production because shutting down production is in fact the most important leverage the class has at present.

The notion of "areas of struggle outside the workplace" being somehow separate from the sphere of capital and class is unscientific.

you're putting words in my mouth. and your use of "scientific" is gratuitous and suggests to me you have no idea what it means.

in any event, the class structure of capitalism derives from domination over workers in the system of social production. workers are forced to work for the capitalists (and the state) and under the thumb of their managerial regimes. this domination is the basis of the exploitation of our labor.

it's true that the power of capital then spreads throughout the society, and into their control over the state. but class originates in the sphere of production. but i never said that struggle outside the workplace "is separate from capital."

the idea that gender and race/nationality are not distinct forms of oppression, separate from class, leads to a "class only" approach to organizing that will be unsuccessful because it ignores harms to sub-groups of the class due to non-class forms of oppression. and the working class cannot unify itself and develop into an agency of revolution if it doesn't develop an internal alliance among its various subgroups, and this is highly unlikely if the various forms of harm done to various groups in the class is not acknowledged and fought.

Zanthorus

1st September 2010, 20:18

the mark of the sectarian ultra.

Always amusing to see anarchists using insults invented by Trotsky.

Omnia Sunt Communia

1st September 2010, 20:50

notice how our responder here can't avoid engaging in insult.

My intention is not to insult anyone on an individual level but to articulate my objections to the strategy and ideology, and especially to challenge the language being used to reinforce said ideology.

but in fact there are people who call themselves "anarchists" in the USA who either think class struggle is "outdated" or don't emphasize it at all.Perhaps there are, but there are also people who call themselves "anarchists" in the USA who advocate for child rape.

However all the trendy intellectual currents (Bonnano, Tiqqun, Zerzan etc.) within the North American anarchist "scene" which find the most resistance among the self-appointed "class struggle anarchists" are all heavily indebted to traditional Marxian class-politics.

in fact there are a variety of anarchists who in fact favor only informal groups, discrete small collectives, are against larger ongoing formal organization.Those groups are not usually considered "class struggle anarchists", in this context, even though they almost always orient themselves towards a politics of proletarian emancipation. To me this is why the term "class struggle anarchist" is Newspeak.

the latter do exist in a number of important sectors.every sector of capitalist exploitation is important, especially to those who live with its daily reality. The service industry (mostly non-union in the US) is as important to the reproduction of capitalist conditions as manufacturing. To suggest otherwise is to retreat to the chauvinistic dinosaur politics of the old left.

we can't ignore them.At the same time we can't over-emphasize them, based on an archaic and obsolete (or arguably, originally deficient) concept of productive labor - or else we risk alienating the majority of our class.

workers in fact organize struggles through these unions...Yes and the goal should be to further agitate these struggles until they develop into struggles against the union bureaucrats and against the normalcy of capitalist relationships. (eg: wildcat strikes) This is currently not happening in the US, unfortunately, "union work" mostly seems like a pretense for rank-and-file obedience to the union and NGO bureaucrats.

and new forms of worker-managed mass organization that emerge in rising levels of struggle will be new forms of unionism, because unonism is a broad range of phenomena whose character is a mass organization to fight the employers and to force them to not do what they are trying to do or to force them to do things we want them to do, or to fight to get rid of the employers and gain power for the working class.This is vague enough of a definition that every form of social struggle becomes "unionism", to which I can't genuinely object.

shutting down production is in fact the most important leverage the class has at present.Yes, absolutely, and production can be halted at any stage. (Eg: A waiters' strike, a rock concert riot, a tenant strike, etc.)

in any event, the class structure of capitalism derives from domination over workers in the system of social production. workers are forced to work for the capitalists (and the state) and under the thumb of their managerial regimes. this domination is the basis of the exploitation of our labor.And this domination continues in the street with the cop and the surveillance camera, in the schools with the teacher and the principal, in prison with the guards and wardens, in the patriarchal family unit with fathers, and so forth.

Take for instance how much extra labor the woman performs in the typical patriarchal marriage arrangement, even if the woman is elsewhere employed "officially" by the wage labor market. This is no less a form of "social production". Or take the "volunteer work" that many are obliged to perform for NGO "charities", and so forth.

class originates in the sphere of production.All aspects of modern life are reflections of capitalist production, the distinction between "recreational" time and "productive" time is an illusion given to grant legitimacy to the farce of our wasted lives under the bourgeois.

but i never said that struggle outside the workplace "is separate from capital.But I feel you are still mystifying "the workplace" as a unique sphere of "social production" as opposed to just another meaningless division of capitalist terrain.

the idea that gender and race/nationality are not distinct forms of oppression, separate from class, leads to a "class only" approach to organizing that will be unsuccessful because it ignores harms to sub-groups of the class due to non-class forms of oppression.Understanding "oppression" as something that sometimes occurs outside of the context of a monopoly of physical force by the bourgeois class will lead to the death of combative class politics in favor of single-issue social democratic campaigns against "injustice".

and the working class cannot unify itself and develop into an agency of revolution if it doesn't develop an internal alliance among its various subgroups, and this is highly unlikely if the various forms of harm done to various groups in the class is not acknowledged and fought.And in order to do that honestly we must salvage "class reductionism" by pointing with clarity to the roots of our collective misery. That's what the most interesting feminist and national liberationist thinkers have done...

Queercommie Girl

1st September 2010, 20:51

You have not answered the question. How exactly do these claa anarchist emphasise class more than a anrcho-communiat.

As I said, it is a matter of degree.

Also, there are anarchists, or people who call themselves anarchists, who explicitly do not focus on class struggle at all. Hence the term "class struggle anarchists" distinguishes themselves from these other "non-class struggle anarchists".

What kind of response is this.

I don't know what you mean.

Orthodox Marxism does not believe that "every individual is born with inalienable human rights" in a metaphysical universalistic sense, like the kind of phrasing found in the American Declaration of Independence. Such is a bourgeois idea.

Marxists believe that some people have no human rights, such as malign class enemies and fascists, so it is not ethically wrong to treat them literally not as humans.

No, you weren't comparing marxism with anarchism. However you were making a false analogy.

I was not directly comparing Marxism with anarchism. I was saying to say that "anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists" is like saying "Stalinists are not Marxists".

The linguistic trickery will not work here. Just face it, just because someone refers to themselve as coming from a certain political ideological does not mean they are coming from that ideological perspective.
Do you agree?

It's not linguistic trickery. You can only evaluate other people's views in such a way if you already assume a certain political stance as a starting point. From your point of view they are objectively wrong regarding their claim for being anarchists (I personally agree with you), but from their perspective they are not wrong, and you are wrong.

But the key to having a neutral viewpoint is precisely to not assume any kind of political stance or engage in any kind of evaluation or normative analysis, but simply descriptively list what is objectively found in the social world. Who is to say that your analysis is better than theirs?

Your arguing against a strawman now. Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough, i am arguing that no one comes from a neutral non biased position especially in sphere of politics, even what we call neutral position is down to peoples own subjective viewing of what neutral is, hence anyone making the asserting that they are coming from neutral non biased position is false.

Yes, marxism is scientific. However your claim of coming from a non-biased position is not. Who decides what the neutral position is?

Actually politics can also be a science. Hence the field called political science. Science doesn't just mean the natural sciences.

Zanthorus

1st September 2010, 20:58

Ok, for the last time - Marxism is not a science. The original german is wissenschaft which doesn't actually mean science in our modern sense. Hegel, for example, claims that his philosophy is wissenschaftliche, but that anatomy has no real right to be called a wissenschaft because it is simply a collection of items of knowledge. "Scientific socialism" was used solely in oppsotion to forms of socialism - "utopian socialism" - which started by constructing an ideal world or taking up some "principle" and only took notice of the workers movement insofar as it showed the evils of capitalism. Marx and Engels' "scientific socialism", by contrast, is socialism based on the struggle of the workers against capital. In this sense, class-struggle anarchism could also be called "scientific socialism".

Queercommie Girl

1st September 2010, 21:00

My point is that Marxists must also be scientific in their analysis of the world in general. Marxism, whether strictly "scientific" or not, cannot override the rest of science and the scientific method in general.

There is a difference between a Marxist and a Marxist ideologue. I'm in the former category, not the latter category. As far as I'm concerned, being a dogmatic "ideologue" is not a positive feature at all.

Zanthorus

1st September 2010, 21:03

My point is that Marxists must also be scientific in their analysis of the world in general. Marxism, whether strictly "scientific" or not, cannot override the rest of science and the scientific method in general.

Yes, but this is true of practically every way of viewing the world, and is somewhat trivial.

syndicat

1st September 2010, 21:20

Take for instance how much extra labor the woman performs in the typical patriarchal marriage arrangement, even if the woman is elsewhere employed "officially" by the wage labor market. This is no less a form of "social production".

yes the "double day." as I define "social production," however, it is distinct from household production, that is, i would define it as people who belong to certain households producing things for people who belong to other households, and in capitalism this is mediated by market exchange, whereas in household production we do things to benefit others in the household without this being mediated by market exchange.

I would agree with you in disavowing the fundamentalist Marxist distinction between "productive" and "unproductive" labor. And it is equally important for workers everywhere organize themselves. this doesn't, however, show that every workplace is equally strategic or that a shutdown of work would have an equal impact at the corner market as it would if the city transit system shut down.

Zanthorus

1st September 2010, 21:26

I would agree with you in disavowing the fundamentalist Marxist distinction between "productive" and "unproductive" labor.

I don't see what's "fundamentalist" about the distinction between productive and unproductive labour. Productive labour is simply labour employed by capital in order to expand itself, whereas unproductive labour is labour which is payed for out of the surplus-value produced by productive labour. Unproductive labour is still necessary in order for capitalist society to keep itself running, but it doesn't produce surplus-value, capital.

Queercommie Girl

1st September 2010, 21:53

Yes, but this is true of practically every way of viewing the world, and is somewhat trivial.

Well, you'd be surprised how many dogmatic ideologues there are out there.

BLACKPLATES

2nd September 2010, 01:31

I always thought an "anarcho-capitalist" is a Libertarian. same thing right? utopian capitalism?

2nd September 2010, 07:02

I always thought an "anarcho-capitalist" is a Libertarian. same thing right? utopian capitalism?
I would refraining from calling them anarchists. They don't reject private property and they don't reject hierarchical social relationships (coincidentally, they share many of the same views as fascists: http://www.revleft.com/vb/austrians-and-scientific-t139945/index.html). Instead, they aim for the privatisation of police forces (so you have to pay for the police to investigate a crime) - and, presumably, other emergency services. As far as I know, institutional government as we see it today will either have virtually no sovereignty or it will be abolished altogether. So all political and economic power will be merely transferred to pre-existing private owners within the capitalist class - and the state will not be abolished (class-based society obviously still exists). Contrary to popular belief, "anarcho"-capitalism will not be "utopian capitalism" (an oxymoron if you ask me), but rather, it will be a dystopia - where the poor cannot afford protection and security and there will be no-one to hinder the extreme power of market forces. It will be pure laissez-faire capitalism - and there will be no such trivial nonsense as the "free market" like they would have you believe.

Thirsty Crow

2nd September 2010, 10:01

I would refraining from calling them anarchists. They don't reject private property and they don't reject hierarchical social relationships (coincidentally, they share many of the same views as fascists: http://www.revleft.com/vb/austrians-and-scientific-t139945/index.html). The problem with this approach is that you would necessarily have to dismiss some of the historical variants of anarchism, for instance, Proudhon's mutualism and 19th century individualist anarchism.
This in turn would imply that the other aspect of anarchist thought which may be demonstrated as a factor of unity - i.e. its focus on individuals' autonomy - is wiped out. But that is problematic...since anarchism, in a generalized sense, comprises two distinct areas of interest: social theory and social praxis AND a philosophy of the individual. Erasing the latter would cripple the former, since there cannot be an "anarchism" without it, and if it were, that wsould effectively mean a complete identification with some strands of Marxism. So, if anarchists wish to preserve their distinctiveness (not only with respect to revolutionary strategy/tactics, but its analytical orientation as well), rhey shouldn't just dismiss phenomena like anarcho-capitalism as a contradiction in terms. Instead, I think that it should be proven how this phenomena came to be (via a more or less degenerate "interpretation" of individualist anarchism, which, when combined with the changes in productive forces and relations of production, empties this political ideology from any revolutionary potential).

2nd September 2010, 10:21

The problem with this approach is that you would necessarily have to dismiss some of the historical variants of anarchism, for instance, Proudhon's mutualism and 19th century individualist anarchism.
Mutualism? Individualism? Fuck 'em both. There, I said it.
But I do realise that a lot of current anarchism is based on those two - it doesn't necessarily mean, however, that I should support them.

Thirsty Crow

2nd September 2010, 10:24

Mutualism? Individualism? Fuck 'em both. There, I said it.
But I do realise that a lot of current anarchism is based on those two - it doesn't necessarily mean, however, that I should support them.
No, but these two have a common feature with class struggle anarchism - the philosophy of the individual (individual autonomy). As I've stated, erasing this factor means collapsing anarchism into Marxism.
And don't get me wrong, I'd say "fuck 'em both" as well. It's just that the primary sphere of individualist anarchists' interest may be valuable if properly fused with a class based perspective on social organization and organization of production.

syndicat

2nd September 2010, 18:15

No, but these two have a common feature with class struggle anarchism - the philosophy of the individual (individual autonomy).

nope. libertarian socialism does NOT depend on any hyper-individualist notion of society based on "personal autonomy." the latter comes from the liberal concept of people as discrete atoms, not essentially socialized in groups. Bakunin was a staunch critic of the liberal individualist philosophy of the person. and it would be a mistake to say that then social anarchism collapses into Marxism because you forget about the importance of self-management in libertarian socialism, a concept that some Marxists have adopted at times, but which was is derived from the libertarian socialist tradition.

Zanthorus

2nd September 2010, 18:19

syndicat is basically correct. I wouldn't necessarily say that Bakunin was a "staunch critic" of individualism as some of his statement do point in that direction, but on other occasions he explicitly rejected it.

I'm not aware of any Marxists that have adopted the notion of self-management as the essence of socialism thugh.

syndicat

2nd September 2010, 19:47

i don't know what "the esence of socialism" means. OTOH, i would say that self-management is a necessary condition for an authentic socialism because it is a necessary condition of human liberation from oppression and exploitation. some Marxists nowadays do advocate for a "self-managed socialism" altho it wasn't historically central to the Marxist tradition. there is a close relationship between self-management and direct democracy...the latter is a necessary condition for the former. and, here again, advocacy of direct democracy is more characteristic of the libertarian socialist tradition.

Thirsty Crow

5th September 2010, 11:11

nope. libertarian socialism does NOT depend on any hyper-individualist notion of society based on "personal autonomy." the latter comes from the liberal concept of people as discrete atoms, not essentially socialized in groups. Bakunin was a staunch critic of the liberal individualist philosophy of the person. and it would be a mistake to say that then social anarchism collapses into Marxism because you forget about the importance of self-management in libertarian socialism, a concept that some Marxists have adopted at times, but which was is derived from the libertarian socialist tradition.

Maybe I worded it wrongly, maybe I'm wrong altogether, but I'll try to explain myself.
I didn't intend to communicate that I think that libertarian socialism depends on any hyper-individualist notion of society. Quite the contrary. But when I speak about anarchism I do not exclusively include the aspect of political ideology (encompassed by your insistence on libertarian socialism) but also a reflection on freedom of the individual from hierarchically organized social power. This is what I meant by personal autonomy, the freedom FROM social control, coercion and repression via hierarchical system(s), which in turn engenders the freedom for (self-management and a generalization of this principle through the social and political form of federations).
Now, as I understand this problem, one moment which can (and should) be isolated is precisely the second aspect I highlighted. But I do not claim that anarchism builds a notion of society by first developing the notion of the autonomous individual (this, I think, can be argued when it comes to individualist anarchism), or in other words, isolated and atomized abstract individual. I think that the reflection on the issue of social organization (proceeding from immediate economic organization) is the first moment of analysis which functions as a basis for the other aspect - and that aspect includes considerations on real, living and socialized individuals and their collective freedom (which enables personal freedom).

Honestly I don't know if this will make sense to you, but I tried :D