Let's Get an Anarchist Consensus!

[Agnapostate]

Sometimes, there are people on the Net so foolish, ignorant, and belligerent that no amount of evidence can get it through their heads that anarchism is a doctrine of stateless socialism. I'm hoping, therefore, that overwhelming numerical consensus can prove a point. Anarchists, feel free to share some small argument or evidence that affirms the fact that anarchism is a philosophically socialist ideology, and has been historically.

[ed miliband]

"In modern Anarchism we have the confluence of the two great currents which before and since the French Revolution have found such characteristic expression in the intellectual life of Europe: Socialism and Liberalism. Modern Socialism developed when profound observers of social life came to see more and more dearly that political constitutions and changes in the form of government could never get to the root of the great problem that we call the social question. Its supporters recognised that an equalising of social and economic conditions for the benefit of all, despite the loveliest of theoretical assumptions. is not possible as long as people are separated into classes on the basis of their owning or not owning property, classes whose mere existence excludes in advance any thought of a genuine community. And so there developed the conviction that only by the elimination of economic monopolies and by common ownership of the means of production does a condition of social justice become feasible, a condition in which society shall become a real community, and human labour shall no longer serve the ends of exploitation but assure the wellbeing of everyone. But as soon as Socialism began to assemble its forces and become a movement, there at once came to light certain differences of opinion due to the influence of the social environment in different countries. It is a fact that every political concept from theocracy to Caesarism and dictatorship have affected certain factions of the socialist movement."

Rudolf Rocker

[Agnapostate]

The more the merrier...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchists, feel free to share some small argument or evidence that affirms the fact that anarchism is a philosophically socialist ideology, and has been historically.

Uh, how about the fact that all people who have self-described themselves as "anarchists" throughout history pre-Rothbard have described anarchism as being a socialist ideology, including even those who are grouped as "individualist anarchists"?

[Agnapostate]

Sure; everyone affirm it! This is all about demonstrating numerical supremacy. :thumbup1:

[¿Que?]

Bakunin and Marx were both vying for the top spot in the first international!

[ZeroNowhere]

Sometimes, there are people on the Net so foolish, ignorant, and belligerent that no amount of evidence can get it through their heads that anarchism is a doctrine of stateless socialism.It's not, though. Proudhon, for example, supported a system of self-managed capitalism.

[Tjis]

foolish ignorant belligerent people won't change their opinions based on a topic on revleft, no matter how many people agree here.

[this is an invasion]

It's not, though. Proudhon, for example, supported a system of self-managed capitalism.
Yeah but how is proudhon even relevant to today? Like seriously.

[DaComm]

We advocate worker control, anti-capitalism, democracy, and equality.

Dictionary.com definition:

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.




Use socialism in a Sentence (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+socialism+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993)

[Zanthorus]

Yeah but how is proudhon even relevant to today? Like seriously.

I think ZeroNowhere's point was that opposition to hierarchy doesn't necessarily imply opposition to market relations. The act of exchanging goods can be perfectly non-hierarchical, a simple exchange of equivalents, yet out of this basic relationship comes all the horrors of capitalism. In order to move the opposition to hierarchy into anti-capitalism, you would have to tack something on like, say, Marx's critique of political economy. Even if no-one takes Proudhon seriously anymore, anarchism by itself does not necessarily imply an anti-capitalist orientation.

[Widerstand]

I think ZeroNowhere's point was that opposition to hierarchy doesn't necessarily imply opposition to market relations. The act of exchanging goods can be perfectly non-hierarchical, a simple exchange of equivalents, yet out of this basic relationship comes all the horrors of capitalism. In order to move the opposition to hierarchy into anti-capitalism, you would have to tack something on like, say, Marx's critique of politicaly economy. Even if no-one takes Proudhon seriously anymore, anarchism by itself does not necessarily imply an anti-capitalist orientation.

This. Most of what could be called "class struggle anarchism" or "social anarchism", which is what's today most relevant in the anarchist scene, eg. anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism, is highly socialist (hence the term "libertarian socialism"), but anarchism isn't inherently so. Even nowadays, there are lots of individualists around, and while some of them may be anti-capitalist, I doubt all of them are.

[Stephen Colbert]

The market cannot exist without a state to protect property.

Anarchism is the lack thereof of a state or ruler.

Therefore : :lol: Anarchism with a market is not anarchism.

And what happens when you get rid of a market? I would hope a socialist economy.

[anticap]

feel free to share some small argument or evidence that affirms the fact that anarchism is a philosophically socialist ideology

By opposing capitalist class rule and its necessary conditions anarchists implicitly affirm the opposite of private control of the means of production.

[Amphictyonis]

It's not, though. Proudhon, for example, supported a system of self-managed capitalism.
Proudhon wasn't an anarchist. Anarchism basically began with Bakunin. Marx, Engles, Stirner and a few other men would meet and have discussions, discussions where Stirner critiqued Marx's communism. It was those critiques by Stirner mixed with Proudhons views Bakunin used to form anarchism. Neither Stirner nor Proudhon considered themselves anarchists but their thoughts were in fact used to formulate Bakunins anarchism as an alternative to Marxism.

The 'individualists' such as Tucker were very mislead but even they were not supporters of wage slavery, interest and rent. Murray Rothbard seems to have done a number on anarchism and warped it into some strange theory of simply being against the state. The individualists he used to formulate his strange positions would in fact have a place in an anarchist, even Marxist society but the 'anarcho' capitalists would not. The individualists believed in trading labor between equals with both parties keeping the full value of their labor. Loosely based on Stirners 'union of egosits or union of equals'. I think all of the confusion can be put on Rothbards shoulders seeing he's the one who tried to turn anarchism into something it's not. Anarchism has always been a part of the socialist tradition and completely opposed to capitalism/private property.

[Agnapostate]

Is it possible to have some of these posts split, as they seem to be a potentially constructive yet separate dialogue, and honestly, this thread's intended as a set of affirmations of the socialist nature of anarchism?


It's not, though. Proudhon, for example, supported a system of self-managed capitalism.

If that's how you view all forms of market socialism, that's your view, but just as long as you don't view mutualism as "capitalist" and other forms as genuinely socialist...


I think ZeroNowhere's point was that opposition to hierarchy doesn't necessarily imply opposition to market relations. The act of exchanging goods can be perfectly non-hierarchical, a simple exchange of equivalents, yet out of this basic relationship comes all the horrors of capitalism. In order to move the opposition to hierarchy into anti-capitalism, you would have to tack something on like, say, Marx's critique of political economy. Even if no-one takes Proudhon seriously anymore, anarchism by itself does not necessarily imply an anti-capitalist orientation.

There are no forms of capitalism that can exist without hierarchy, since capitalism necessitates the private ownership of the means of production. Opposition to hierarchy is therefore sufficient for opposition to capitalism. Exchange, as far as I'm aware, is and has been a facet of every form of economic organization that has ever existed. Are there any examples to the contrary?

[Revolution starts with U]

.. I thought Proudhoun was the first person to self-identify as an anarchist :confused:

[Homo Songun]

Proudhon wasn't an anarchist. Anarchism basically began with Bakunin. Marx, Engles, Stirner and a few other men would meet and have discussions, discussions where Stirner critiqued Marx's communism. It was those critiques by Stirner mixed with Proudhons views Bakunin used to form anarchism. Neither Stirner nor Proudhon considered themselves anarchists but their thoughts were in fact used to formulate Bakunins anarchism as an alternative to Marxism.

The horizontal, participatory, consensus building model of interlocking consultas that is Wikipedia says your wrong:


he was the first person to call himself an "anarchist (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchist)".

[fa2991]

Anarchists participated in and at least briefly supported many of the biggest M-L victories ever, including the Russian & Cuban Revolutions.

[WeAreReborn]

Proudhon was the first self-identified anarchist, although the term was thrown around in an inaccurate and negative connotation before that. However, he laid out the ground work for Anarchist Mutualism and it is undoubtedly anarchist. However, there are also, undoubtedly, large traces of capitalism within his theories.

In terms of Stirner, he didn't use the actual word but he had anarchist ideals. He opposed the state because it was destructive to the "ego" which was his main focus. He openly wanted violence and the complete abolition of the state as well. So just because he didn't say "I'm an anarchist" doesn't mean he wasn't one.

[Magón]

Maybe showing people some actual Anarchist Lit, from people like Emma Goldman, Kropotkin, etc. Then give them some interesting info on the SCW and the Ukraine.

As for more modern events and gatherings, talk about the Anarchist Book Fairs that happen in NYC and SF, and if you've been to one of them, what some of the people there talk about, and stuff like that?

[Amphictyonis]

The horizontal, participatory, consensus building model of interlocking consultas that is Wikipedia says your wrong:
LOL at Wiki.

http://www.hack.org/mc/mirror/www.spunk.org/texts/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html#INTRO

The Historical Background to Anarchism

It is not without interest that what might be called the anarchist approach goes back into antiquity; nor that there is an anarchism of sorts in the peasant movements that struggled against State oppression over the centuries. But the modern anarchist movement could not claim such precursors of revolt as its own more than the other modern working class theories. To trace the modern Anarchist movement we must look closer to our own times. While there existed libertarian and non-Statist and federalist groups, which were later termed anarchistic in retrospect, before the middle of the nineteenth century, it was only about then that they became what we now call Anarchists.
In particular, we may cite three philosophical precursors of Anarchism, Godwin, Proudhon, and perhaps Hegel. None of these was in fact an Anarchist, though Proudhon first used the word in its modern sense (taking it from the French Revolution, when it was first used politically and not entirely pejoratively). None of them engaged in Anarchist activity or struggle, and Proudhon engaged in parliamentary activity. One of the poorest, though ostensibly objective, books on Anarchism, Judge Eltzbacher's Anarchism, describes Anarchism as a sort of hydra-headed theory some of which comes from Godwin or Proudhon or Stirner (another who never mentions anarchism), or Kropotkin, each a different variation on a theme. The book may be tossed aside as valueless except in its description of what these particular men thought. Proudhon did not write a programme for all time, nor did Kropotkin in his time write for a sect of Anarchists. But many other books written by academics are equally valueless: many professors have a view of anarchism based on the popular press. Anarchism is neither a mindless theory of destruction nor, despite some liberal-minded literary conceptions, is it hero-worship of people or institutions, however liberated they might be.
Godwin is the father of the Stateless Society movement, which diverged into three lines. One, that of the Anarchists (with which we will deal). Two, that of classic American Individualism, which included Thoreau and his school, sometimes thought of as anarchistic, but which equally gives rise to the 'rugged individualism' of modern 'libertarian' capitalism and to the pacifist cults of Tolstoy and Gandhi which have influenced the entire hippy cult. Individualism (applying to the capitalist and not the worker) has become a right-wing doctrine.
The second line of descent from Godwin is responsible for the 'Pacifist Anarchist' approach or the 'Individualist Anarchist' approach that differs radically from revolutionary anarchism in the first line of descent. It is sometimes too readily conceded that 'this is, after all, anarchism'. Pacifist movements, and the Gandhian in particular, are usually totalitarian and impose authority (even if only by moral means); the school of Benjamin Tucker -- by virtue of their individualism -- accepted the need for police to break strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom'. All this school of so-called Individualists accept, at one time or another, the necessity of the police force, hence for Government, and the definition of anarchism is no Government.
The third school of descent from Godwin is simple liberalism, or conservative individualism.
Dealing here with the 'first line of descent' from Godwin, his idea of Stateless Society was introduced into the working class movement by Ambrose Cuddon (jun). His revolutionary internationalist and non-Statist socialism came along the late days of English Chartism. It was in sympathy with the French Proudhonians. Those who in Paris accepted Proudhon's theory did not consider themselves Anarchists, but Republicans. They were for the most part self-employed artisans running their own productive businesses. The whole of French economy was geared both to the peasantry and to the artisan -- this, the one-person business of printer, bookbinder, wagon and cart maker, blacksmith, dressmaker, goldsmith, diamond polisher, hat maker as distinct from the factory or farm worker of the time, who worked for an employer. Independent, individualistic and receiving no benefit from the State but the dubious privilege of paying taxes and fighting, they were at that time concerned to find out an economic method of survival and to withstand encroaching capitalism.
Marx described them as 'petty bourgeois', which had a different meaning in the nineteenth century. He justifiably claimed that these 'petty bourgeois' were not as disciplined as the then factory workers (he despised farm workers) and said that when they were forced into industry they did not faithfully follow the line laid down by a disciplined party from outside the class, but were independent of mind and troublesome to organisation imposed from above, their frustration often leading to violence. They moved to anarchism and through syndicalism spread it through the working class. (This claim is echoed by Marxists nowadays, when the term 'petty bourgeois' means something utterly different -- solicitors and chartered accountants -- and thus makes Marx's quite sensible analysis sound utterly ridiculous.)
These French and English movements came together in the First International. The International Workingmen's Association owed its existence to Marx, indirectly to Hegelian philosophy. But within the International, there was not only the 'scientific socialism' of Marx, but also Utopian Socialism, Blanquism (working-class republicanism), English Trade Unionism, German-authoritarian and opportunistic socialism, and Spanish, Swiss, and Italian stateless socialism, as well as national Republicanism and the various federalistic trends.
Bakunin was not the 'father' of anarchism, as often described. He was not an anarchist until later in life. He learned his federalism and socialism from the Swiss workers of the Jura, and gave expression to the ideas of the Godwinian and Proudhonian 'federalists', or non-State socialists. In many countries, Spain and Italy in particular, it was Bakunin's criticism of the ideas of Marx that gave the federalist movement its definition. (While to Anarchists, Marx is of course "the villain of the piece" in the International, it must be granted that without Marx defining one form of socialism there would have been no clash, no Bakunin defining the opposite.)
There had grown up by 1869 a very noticeable trend within the International that was called 'Bakuninist' which was in one line from Godwin and another from Proudhon. When the Paris Commune exploded in the face of the International, it was the parting of the ways (though this was deferred a little longer and seemed to follow personal lines). From the non-Anarchists and Marxists knew by their different analyses and interpretations and actions during the Paris Commune, that they were separate.
All the same, for many years Anarchists continued to form part of the Socialist Movement that included Marxists and Social-Democrats. Marx had not succeeded in building a mass movement. The German socialist movement was more influenced by Lassalle; English socialism by reformist and Christian traditions of radical nonconformity. Only after Marx's death, when Marxism was the official doctrine of German social-democracy, were Anarchists finally excluded from Socialist Internationals; social-democracy marched on to its own schism, that between English Liberalism on the one hand, and social-democracy on the other; and that between 'majority' Social-Democrats (Bolsheviks, actually never more than a minority) and reformism.
There were no such schisms at that time in the anarchist movement as such. Popular opinion made such figures as Tolstoy into (what he never claimed to be) an anarchist (he was not; neither in the normal sense of the words was he a Christian or a Pacifist, as popularly supposed, but his idolators always know better than he), but derived from the 'second line' of Godwinism like many other caricature-Anarchists. What we may call 'mainstream' anarchism was coherent and united, and was given body by the writings of a number of theoreticians, such as Peter Kropotkin.
After the bloody suppression of the Paris Commune, and repression in many parts of the world -- notably Tsarist Russia, Anarchism passed into its well-known stage of individual terrorism. It fought back and survived and gave birth to (or was carried forward in) the revolutionary syndicalist movement which began in France. It lost ground after the First World War, because of the revival of patriotic feeling, the growth of reformist socialism, and the rise of fascism; and while it made a contribution to the Russian Revolution, it was defeated by the Bolshevik counterrevolution. It was seen in both resistance and in a constructive role in the Spanish Revolution of 1936.
By the time of the Second World War, Anarchism had been tried and tested in many revolutionary situations and labour struggles. Alternative forms had been tried and discarded; the German Revolution had introduced the idea of Workers Councils. The experience of the American IWW had shown the possibilities of industrial unionism and 'how one can build the new society in the shell of the old'. In the 'flint against flint' argument against Marxist Communism, the lesson of what socialism without freedom meant in Russia, and the failure of reformist socialism everywhere, the anarchist doctrine was shaped.
There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects of the philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been worked out in practice rather than from a philosophy. Very often, a bourgeois writer comes along and writes down what has already been worked out in practice by workers and peasants; he is attributed by bourgeois historians as being a leader, and by successive bourgeois writers (citing the bourgeois historians) as being one more case that proves the working class relies on bourgeois leadership.
More often, bourgeois academics borrow the name 'Anarchism' to give expression to their own liberal philosophies or, alternatively, picking up their cue from journalists, assorted objects of their dislike. For some professors and teachers, 'Anarchism' is anything from Tolstoyism to the IRA, from drug-taking to militant-trade unionism, from nationalism to bolshevism, from the hippy cult to Islamic fundamentalism, from the punk scene to violent resistance to almost anything! This is by no means an exaggeration but a sign of academic illiteracy, to be distinguished from journalists who in the 1960s obeyed a directive to call anything Marxist-Leninist that involved action as 'Anarchist' and anything Anarchist as 'nationalist'.

[Ovi]

It's not, though. Proudhon, for example, supported a system of self-managed capitalism.
How is mutualism capitalistic?

[Widerstand]

How is mutualism capitalistic?

How is it not? It has private ownership of land and the means of production, banks which gives loans at interest, a "free market", etc. In fact, don't contemporary mutualists describe their system as exactly the one we have minus the state?


Contemporary mutualist author Kevin Carson holds that capitalism[3] has been founded on "an act of robbery as massive as feudalism," and argues that capitalism could not exist in the absence of a state. He says "[i]t is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market".[28]
[...]
However, he says he has no quarrel with anarcho-capitalists who use the term "laissez-faire capitalism" and distinguish it from "actually existing capitalism."


-Wikipedia on Mutualism

[Ovi]

How is it not? It has private ownership of land and the means of production, banks which gives loans at interest, a "free market", etc. In fact, don't contemporary mutualists describe their system as exactly the one we have minus the state?

Proudhon was against private property. Property is theft! is probably his most famous quote, which he declared in his book What is property? . Instead, he supported a system of worker cooperatives based on occupancy and use. That would abolish both rent and wage slavery. About mutual credit (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionJ5#secj56):


Mutual banks and LETS have the following key aspects:

1) Co-operation: No-one owns the network. It is controlled by its members directly.
2) Non-exploitative: No interest is charged on account balances or credit. At most administrative costs are charged, a result of it being commonly owned and managed.
3) Consent: Nothing happens without it, there is no compulsion to trade.
4) Money: They use their own type of money (traditionally called "labour-notes") as a means of aiding "honest exchange".

-Wikipedia on Mutualism
Kevin Carson isn't much of a mutualist.

[ZeroNowhere]

How is mutualism capitalistic?
It seeks to preserve generalized commodity production, and, as Bordiga put it, "The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step. It is known that the attempts of workers' producer cooperatives in the last century, even if they did have the merit of showing that one could do without the social person of the capitalist, were a resounding failure because they were not able to stand up to the bourgeois competition. It would be no different if the competition took place no longer between bosses' enterprises and workers' cooperatives but between as many workers' cooperatives as there were enterprises. One of two things would happen: either the workers' cooperatives would try to operate other than as capitalist enterprises and as all the other conditions would remain bourgeois (links by the intermediary of the market) they would be swept aside; or, if they intended to survive, they would only be able to operate as capitalist enterprises with a money capital, wages, profits, a depreciation fund and capital investments, credit and interest etc. The competition between them would not be abolished, so neither would the system of commercial contracts, nor civil law and the state institution needed to uphold it."


Yeah but how is proudhon even relevant to today? Like seriously.He is generally considered an anarchist, and anarchism by such a conception would not be inherently socialist. This is not to say that most anarchists are not socialist, as they probably are, and certainly I am not attempting some 'Two Souls of Socialism'-style argument.


Neither Stirner nor Proudhon considered themselves anarchists but their thoughts were in fact used to formulate Bakunins anarchism as an alternative to Marxism.Proudhon didn't promote 'anarchy' in 'What is Property?'

[Ovi]

It seeks to preserve generalized commodity production, and, as Bordiga put it, "The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step. It is known that the attempts of workers' producer cooperatives in the last century, even if they did have the merit of showing that one could do without the social person of the capitalist, were a resounding failure because they were not able to stand up to the bourgeois competition. It would be no different if the competition took place no longer between bosses' enterprises and workers' cooperatives but between as many workers' cooperatives as there were enterprises. One of two things would happen: either the workers' cooperatives would try to operate other than as capitalist enterprises and as all the other conditions would remain bourgeois (links by the intermediary of the market) they would be swept aside; or, if they intended to survive, they would only be able to operate as capitalist enterprises with a money capital, wages, profits, a depreciation fund and capital investments, credit and interest etc. The competition between them would not be abolished, so neither would the system of commercial contracts, nor civil law and the state institution needed to uphold it."

That's a straw man argument. Just because it failed, that doesn't make it capitalistic. Yes, mutual credit and worker cooperatives cannot out compete capitalism for many reasons (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionJ5#secj511), for instance lack of profit motive to expand. However, a society built upon worker cooperatives and no private property is by no means capitalistic.


He is generally considered an anarchist, and anarchism by such a conception would not be inherently socialist. This is not to say that most anarchists are not socialist, as they probably are, and certainly I am not attempting some 'Two Souls of Socialism'-style argument.

Proudhon was a socialist and mutualists were part of the International Workingmen's Association or First International.

[ZeroNowhere]

That's a straw man argument. Just because it failed, that doesn't make it capitalistic.No, that's a strawman argument. He never argues that failing makes them capitalist, his point is that they're capitalist anyway. Also, it would seem rather strange to suggest that capitalist co-ops have no profit motive; if they thought so, too, they'd get run out of business even faster. Certainly, Mondragon didn't show much of this lack of a profit motive in their attempts to expropriate cheap labour in Poland. Ultimately, they need to make profits for the same reason that capitalists do, namely competition. Capitalists, of course, need to buy stuff in addition, but most of this stuff is by no means essential.

[DWI]

Statism is non-socialist. It is the subjection of one man to the will of another. Statists should be shot.

[Agnapostate]

-Wikipedia on Mutualism

Yeah, I have no quarrel with them either. I have no quarrel with them because they have roughly the same scholarly influence as astrologers, and even less of a chance of bringing about their utopian vision.

[Amphictyonis]

Proudhon didn't promote 'anarchy' in 'What is Property?'

No. He laid some of it's roots which Bakunin used to form anarchism. Were Henri de Saint-Simon and Robert Owen promoting Marxism?

[fa2991]

Statism is non-socialist. It is the subjection of one man to the will of another. Statists should be shot.

Was the irony in this statement intentional, or are you just stupid?

[Amphictyonis]

Was the irony in this statement intentional, or are you just stupid?

I think he's driving while intoxicated.

[Revolution starts with U]

anybody who believes one man can ever have the right to rule over another is not an anarchist, period: An-archy (no rulers).

[Os Cangaceiros]

A lot of what Proudhon wrote hasn't even been translated yet (maybe even the majority?), so it's hard to draw any real conclusions about his philosophy as a whole. What makes it even harder is that he was a big fan of paradox and wordplay, and even gave different definitions of words in varying works of his, especially "property". And actually he did say a lot of things that would indicate that he's a leftist of some sort:


The Revolution of Febuary proclaimed the right to work, the predominance of labor over capital. On the basis of that principle, I say that before overriding all reforms, we have to occupy ourselves with a generalizing institution, which expresses, on all the points of social economy, the subordination of capital to labor; which, in lieu of making, as it has been, the capitalist the sponsor of the laborer, makes the laborer the arbiter and commander of the capitalist, an institution which changes the relation between the two great economic powers, labor and property, and from which follows, consequently, all other reforms.


I understand that the negation of property is necessary for the abolition of misery, for the emancipation of the proletariat.

Then there's some other things he said that are rather odd and strange. He's kind of an Anselme Bellegarrigue-type character, in that he mixed radical beliefs with other not-so-radical beliefs, like French patriotism and republicanism. But I've found that most of the people who criticize Proudhon don't really even bother to commence cursory readings of his work.

[Manic Impressive]

Bakunin and Marx were both vying for the top spot in the first international!

Marx was never vying for the top spot in the first International. In fact he was begged to take the job but turned it down because he believed a member of the proletariat should be chair not a bourgeois radical like himself. The highest position Marx ever held was treasurer.

[Amphictyonis]

A lot of what Proudhon wrote hasn't even been translated yet (maybe even the majority?), so it's hard to draw any real conclusions about his philosophy as a whole. What makes it even harder is that he was a big fan of paradox and wordplay, and even gave different definitions of words in varying works of his, especially "property". And actually he did say a lot of things that would indicate that he's a leftist of some sort:





Then there's some other things he said that are rather odd and strange. He's kind of an Anselme Bellegarrigue-type character, in that he mixed radical beliefs with other not-so-radical beliefs, like French patriotism and republicanism. But I've found that most of the people who criticize Proudhon don't really even bother to commence cursory readings of his work.

I have "What Is Property " and "General Idea Of The Revolution" sitting right next to me. The real question here should be "is mutualism anarchism?". I say no. Proudhon advocated mutualism. If you're going to go by whatever standards you're using then Godwin would be the first "anarchist". :)

In reality anarchism, as we know it today, formed through Bakunin and Marx's conflict but of course the seeds had been planted before Bakunin. No one man ever creates any philosophy out of thin air. Just as Marx had his inspirations.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I have "What Is Property " and "General Idea Of The Revolution" sitting right next to me. The real question here should be "is mutualism anarchism?". I say no. Proudhon advocated mutualism. If you're going to go by whatever standards you're using then Godwin would be the first "anarchist". :)

In reality anarchism, as we know it today, formed through Bakunin and Marx's conflict but of course the seeds had been planted before Bakunin. No one man ever creates any philosophy out of thin air. Just as Marx had his inspirations.

I consider mutualism to be part of the broad libertarian socialist tradition, even though I myself am not a mutualist.

[Homo Songun]

Was the irony in this statement intentional, or are you just stupid?

It wouldn't be irony if it was intentional.

[Sir Comradical]

A consensus? That's sounds authoritarian and statist.

I kidd, I kidd.

[DWI]

Was the irony in this statement intentional, or are you just stupid?
What irony? Shooting in self-defence is different to shooting in aggression.

[The Red Next Door]

You should be shot for that thread; you had posted.

[Apoi_Viitor]

What irony? Shooting in self-defence is different to shooting in aggression.


You should be shot for that thread; you had posted.

If this is the future of the Revolutionary Leftist movement, then we might as well just throw in the towel.

[Amphictyonis]

I consider mutualism to be part of the broad libertarian socialist tradition, even though I myself am not a mutualist.

They reject anarchism- have you had any run ins with this guy-

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/

I have. The whole lot of them aren't necessarily extremely right wing but I don't see them as comrades. They take Proudhon in a different direction than Bakunin took him; towards some strange hypothetical world where private ownership of means of production, wage labor and rent are not coercive.

[28350]

Statism is non-socialist. It is the subjection of one man to the will of another. Statists should be shot.

Cool story, bro
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Nemo1313/BrosephBackround.jpg

[Os Cangaceiros]

They reject anarchism- have you had any run ins with this guy-

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/

I have. The whole lot of them aren't necessarily extremely right wing but I don't see them as comrades. They take Proudhon in a different direction than Bakunin took him; towards some strange hypothetical world where private ownership of means of production, wage labor and rent are not coercive.

Yeah. I've read his first book, and a couple of other things that he's wrote. He's always good for screeds and diatribes against Lew Rockwell and the Mises.org ilk, but otherwise I don't really read too much of what he's written. He has defended anarchists in the past, though, including writing positively about anarcho-syndicalist unions, and helping raise awareness of people arrested during the RNC 2008 debacle.

[Chaz]

Even nowadays, there are lots of individualists around, and while some of them may be anti-capitalist, I doubt all of them are.
I'm one. Capitalism is supposed to be defined by a marked separation from government control to begin with, and it's only gotten to where it is now by being buddy-buddy with the state (which is all Corporatism, which is rooted in Socialist beliefs like maintaining the supply of material goods to the market). Free-market systems that exist in a society that doesn't rely on money or its supporting Industrial infrastructure become just another facet of your culture that you can choose to take part in, instead of being the backbone of a society you're practically forced to serve. That kind of competition is conducive to amazing progress and it helps ensure businesses with poor practices fail instead of getting a check.

I never considered Anarchism to specifically be a Socialist ideology, but I also don't prefer to call myself an Anarchist anymore because the overwhelming consensus disagrees with me on a whole lot of things.

[Agnapostate]

Despite not being a market socialist myself (mutualism and individualist anarchism are two breeds of market socialism, if not simply European and American expressions of the same tendency), I've always had some admiration and respect for market anarchists (I mean real market anarchists, not the pseudo-anarchists that wank to Rothbard), because I'm a fan of robbing the pseudo-anarchists and pseudo-libertarians of their entire axiomatic foundation. When Kevin Carson made the "vulgar libertarian" issue accessible to a modern audience in plain language, I was glad.

[Ovi]

No, that's a strawman argument. He never argues that failing makes them capitalist, his point is that they're capitalist anyway.

And I still haven't seen any arguments for that.


Also, it would seem rather strange to suggest that capitalist co-ops have no profit motive; if they thought so, too, they'd get run out of business even faster. Certainly, Mondragon didn't show much of this lack of a profit motive in their attempts to expropriate cheap labour in Poland. Ultimately, they need to make profits for the same reason that capitalists do, namely competition. Capitalists, of course, need to buy stuff in addition, but most of this stuff is by no means essential.
Yes, Mondragon exploits workers, thus Proudhon is a capitalist. I was talking about individual cooperatives. Once they sell as much as they want to produce, coops have no reason to expand, to conquer new markets, to crush competition because there isn't anyone extracting surplus value.

[Ele'ill]

Yes! To that!