Post-Left Anarchism

[Magón]

What are peoples opinion of this Anarchist branch? Do you think they're right in what they state and ways of going about things, or not? What is it that you specifically agree or disagree with them about? I'm sure, like myself, not everyone is going to say they're right on 100% of what they say, but I was just curious on what others thought.

Personally, I see some of Post-Left Anarchism's theories and statements on various things, as something to consider in this day and age, and think it's something that the Anarchism Movement as a whole has to take into consideration more now, than say 50 years ago when things were in a much different frame of view.

One criticism I have for Post-Left Anarchism is their criticisms of other Anarchist branches, specifically Anarcho-Syndicalism. I find that the statements made on Anarcho-Syndicalism don't holding much water when it comes to a good hearty debate.



FYI If you don't know what Post-Left Anarchism is, or need some refreshing on the branch, this should help with a general idea, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_left_anarchism

[renzo_novatore]

I personally am deeply influenced by post-leftists. I've found bob black's criticism of murray bookchin to be deeply insightful and also the abolition of work was brilliant, imo. And then there's wolfi landstreicher who's writings just amazed me - he's brilliant, that's all I can say. My criticism of them though is their primitivism or semi-primitivism. But at least they're not zerzan.

[L.A.P.]

One of the many ideologies I subscribed to when going back and forth between different forms of libertarianism to anarchism when I reached the conclusion that I was too radical to be a Liberal anymore.

[Magón]

I personally am deeply influenced by post-leftists. I've found bob black's criticism of murray bookchin to be deeply insightful and also the abolition of work was brilliant, imo. And then there's wolfi landstreicher who's writings just amazed me - he's brilliant, that's all I can say. My criticism of them though is their primitivism or semi-primitivism. But at least they're not zerzan.

Yeah, I agree that Black's criticism of Bookchin was pretty great, and in the end left Bookchin pretty speechless when it came to defending his personal theories. Though I didn't agree with everything Black tried saying against Bookchin, but he did give him a run for his money.

And I also agree, the primitivism of Post-Left Anarchy is a draw back to them, but at least they don't support Zerzan like he would probably like Post-Left Anarchists to. :lol:

[human strike]

Speaking as someone who isn't an Anarchist and is still fairly new to the ideas of post-Leftism, I see it as a fairly positive development. I think they've got a point in some of their criticisms of more traditional Anarchism.

[black magick hustla]

fuck no the hungover ramblings of a bunch of generation xers who shat on the work of the communist left just cuz they have no capacity to dream

[EvilRedGuy]

i thought Post-Left Anarchism was when everyone was free to build there own societies based on the idealogy they want.

[CynicalIdealist]

My thoughts on post-left anarchism, as someone who is sympathetic to left-anarchists?

Shit sucks.

[Widerstand]

Some of their critique is reasonable (though the parts I agree with aren't really new ideas by them, and are basically confined to CrimethInc. texts). Their politics however are dodgy as fuck. They seem to degenerate to either really awful crypto- or fullblown primitivism and individualism (not surprising considering the Stirner influence) or pointless, semantic sectarianism.

[GPDP]

I thought it was bollocks even when I considered myself an anarchist. At best, it's irrelevant. At worst, it's downright reactionary.

[Unclebananahead]

Individualist, 'feel good' ramblings. A revolution of 'the heart.' They strike me as a not at all in line with proletarian interests. I ordered the 'Autonomedia Calendar of Jubilee Saints' once, and read some of the CrimethInc. stuff, but later concluded that that stuff is for rebellious teenagers, hardcore users of psychedelic drugs, the escapist minded and crackpots -- not serious revolutionaries.

[The Douche]

If you don't like post-left anarchism you probably hate freedom.

[Widerstand]

If you don't like post-left anarchism you probably hate freedom.

explain.

[The Douche]

explain.

Haha it was mostly just a play on a mocking idea here in the states, where conservative hacks will say something like "if you don't love america, you hate freedom" or whatever.


I guess it has some element of actually being how I feel though. The post-anarchist (which is really not the term I like, because it is just and extension of anti-civ positions imo) critique of "work" and their application of Marx's theory of alienation mean a lot to me, and inform the way I think.

[RED DAVE]

If you don't like post-left anarchism you probably hate freedom.I guess freedom for you involve the griping of disaffected members of the petit-bourgeoisie, trying to make a virtue of their nonconnectedness and fantasies of individuality.

If they finds Marxism to be boring, think about how Marxists think about endless ranting about individuals and individuality.

RED DAVE

[Tablo]

I'm not a fan of post-left anarchists and I think they are a detriment to the labor movement. Fortunately they are completely insignificant.

[Magón]

What about their views on Globalization? What do some of you think about them?

[Fawkes]

i thought Post-Left Anarchism was when everyone was free to build there own societies based on the idealogy they want.

I'm pretty sure that's anarchism without adjectives.

[syndicat]

perhaps someone should explain what "post left anarchism" is. i don't know of any actual involvement in struggles by "post-lefts". the ones i'm familiar with are just a reading group.

to the extent that "anarchism" is something supportable, it is a libertarian form of socialism, oriented to horizontal, participant-controlled social movements, movements of the working class & oppressed. but this is part of what the "left" means.

Bob Black is a whack job. He tried to burn down a building where WSA had our offices, a building where people were living. He is contemptible.

"anarchism without adjectives" is not post-left anarchism but something else.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What is this, 2005?
I don't think anybody really strongly identifies with being "post-left" any more, or, at least, nobody interesting. Most of the post-left critique has been taken up by folk who identify with either various insurrectionary anarchist / autonomous communist strains, or sans-adjectives anarchy.
At this point, to say you're "post-left" is almost redundant. What anarchists seriously identify the left as anything other than the left wing of capital? Are there still self-described "left anarchists"?
Really, even the interesting parts of the left - autonomists, some ostensibly Maoist groups, "ultra-leftists" are for all intents and purposes post-left . . .

[28350]

What is this, 2005?
I don't think anybody really strongly identifies with being "post-left" any more, or, at least, nobody interesting.

Says the wo/man with "Post-Rev, Post-Left" as their user title.

[The Douche]

I guess freedom for you involve the griping of disaffected members of the petit-bourgeoisie, trying to make a virtue of their nonconnectedness and fantasies of individuality.

If they finds Marxism to be boring, think about how Marxists think about endless ranting about individuals and individuality.

RED DAVE

You are the best troll on revleft.

Ps. Post-left anarchism clearly has its roots in marxism.

[RED DAVE]

Would adherents to post-left anarchism consider the following to be an accurate characterization of one aspect of their views?


Post-left anarchists reject all ideologies in favor of the individual and communal construction of self-theory. Individual self-theory is theory in which the integral individual-in-context (in all her or his relationships, with all her or his history, desires, and projects, etc.) is always the subjective center of perception, understanding and action. Communal self-theory is similarly based on the group as subject, but always with an underlying awareness of the individuals (and their own self-theories) which make up the group or organization. For McQuinn "Non-ideological, anarchist organizations (or informal groups) are always explicitly based upon the autonomy of the individuals who construct them, quite unlike leftist organizations which require the surrender of personal autonomy as a prerequisite for membership".(FNs deleted)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_left_anarchism

RED DAVE

[the last donut of the night]

it's as useless as post-modernism

[Knight of Cydonia]

post left anarchy, based on their influences (Stirner, Situasionist) for me is a full of bullshit. with their tendency to reject all form of solid organization, i think much of 'em can't change any damn things. i mean, how can you resist such fine organized shitty system of capitalist without organizing a mass direct action or organizing any kind of resistance action?

[RED DAVE]

post left anarchy, based on their influences (Stirner, Situasionist) for me is a full of bullshit. with their tendency to reject all form of solid organization, i think much of 'em can't change any damn things. i mean, how can you resist such fine organized shitty system of capitalist without organizing a mass direct action or organizing any kind of resistance action?To which we might add: how the fuck will they relate to the working class? O rmaybe they just don't care to.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

To which we might add: how the fuck will they relate to the working class? O rmaybe they just don't care to.



they don't care to. not in any organized way, at least. i mean, if you were to ask, some of them might point out they are, in a sociological sense, workers. but they don't see this as having any particular significance in a strategic or political sense.

[The Douche]

Why would they want to abolish work if they were not workers/acting in class interest?

[syndicat]

Why would they want to abolish work if they were not workers/acting in class interest?


Abolishing work isn't a possibility. Work is labor that is needed to provide us with the things we want. The necessity of this is part of the human condition on this planet. Work is not the same thing as the institution of wage labor, or taylorist "alienated labor" that capitalism develops, or work under the control of dominating, exploiting class.

but Black has no interest whatever in worker struggle or a labor movement. he and people in his milieu think in terms of dropping out, like scheming to get on SSI or dumpster diving or other forms of self-marginalization as a "revolt against work." this is an individualist approach, not an approach based on class struggle.

[The Douche]

Work is not the same thing as the institution of wage labor, or taylorist "alienated labor" that capitalism develops, or work under the control of dominating, exploiting class.


In the language of many "post-leftists" work is actually meant/understood as "alienated labor". That is my experience, and my understanding from having read works, including those of Bob Black.

[jastrub]

Post-Left anarchism seems very consistent and fair in theory, but I don't know if it would be very practical. It is certainly utopian, and although I feel that I empathize with its major points to a greater degree than any other branch of the new liberterian-left, I think that, in the long run, I'd be more likely to support the syndicalist cause. I mean, let's face it. CrimethInc is never going to enact a global revolution. They are so loosely-organized and their goals are so lofty and vague as to mean absolutely nothing in the pragmatic real world. Beyond metaphysics, post-left anarchism seems to offer very little to my hopes for revolution, although I find it an inspiring and intriguing concept. So I guess bottom line, I AM a post-left anarchist, but I ACT as a syndicalist.

[syndicat]

well, i disagree. i think they are confused. i base this on actual one-on-one conversations i had with black & some others in that milieu.

i remember arguing with him about work as it might exist in libertarian socialism. i said, what about the sewers? someone has to maintain them. his reply was, "as long as I don't have to do it." This is an entirely elitist reply. it says he's okay with living off the work of others.

[RED DAVE]

well, i disagree. i think they are confused. i base this on actual one-on-one conversations i had with black & some others in that milieu.

i remember arguing with him about work as it might exist in libertarian socialism. i said, what about the sewers? someone has to maintain them. his reply was, "as long as I don't have to do it." This is an entirely elitist reply. it says he's okay with living off the work of others.This is the sense I get from their writings.

RED DAVE

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Post-Left anarchism seems very consistent and fair in theory, but I don't know if it would be very practical. It is certainly utopian, and although I feel that I empathize with its major points to a greater degree than any other branch of the new liberterian-left, I think that, in the long run, I'd be more likely to support the syndicalist cause. I mean, let's face it. CrimethInc is never going to enact a global revolution. They are so loosely-organized and their goals are so lofty and vague as to mean absolutely nothing in the pragmatic real world. Beyond metaphysics, post-left anarchism seems to offer very little to my hopes for revolution, although I find it an inspiring and intriguing concept. So I guess bottom line, I AM a post-left anarchist, but I ACT as a syndicalist.

In my own concrete experience, I've seen kids who are into or affiliated with CrimethInc.: Fight the police, organize neighbourhood bbqs, participate in radical anti-poverty/tenancy groups, run Food Not Bombs groups, organize demonstrations, steal/dumpster and share thousands of dollars (more?) worth of food, poster, graffiti, take squats, occupy land, blockade, and tonnes more. I'm sure many syndicalists do these things too, and I'm not going to play the "Which tendency are better anarchists?" game, but . . . don't dismiss loose organization and lofty goals.


Says the wo/man with "Post-Rev, Post-Left" as their user title.

The wo/man who calls themselves Post-Rev, Post-Left on RevLeft is mostly poking fun . . . and, IRL, would probably try to give a confusing answer about Insurrectionary Communism or Anarchist-Whatever.

[The Douche]

well, i disagree. i think they are confused. i base this on actual one-on-one conversations i had with black & some others in that milieu.

i remember arguing with him about work as it might exist in libertarian socialism. i said, what about the sewers? someone has to maintain them. his reply was, "as long as I don't have to do it." This is an entirely elitist reply. it says he's okay with living off the work of others.

What he meant, and what I too have argued in threads in that past, is not that "I am to good to clean a sewer", but that communism means people cannot be coerced into cleaning sewers. So if nobody in a communist society is willing to work on the sewers, what will we do?

I think its a bit foolish to jump to the conclusion that "Bob Black doesn't want to clean sewers, that means he wants to exploit the labor of others", come on, clearly you;re just going down that road because its self-serving since you have such a strong hatred for anything other than the most sterile and dogmatic forms of anarchism stuck in the early 20th century.

[Crux]

Uh? It's boring and therefore, to paraphrase Guy Debord, counter-revolutionary.

[RED DAVE]

What he meant, and what I too have argued in threads in that past, is not that "I am to good to clean a sewer", but that communism means people cannot be coerced into cleaning sewers. So if nobody in a communist society is willing to work on the sewers, what will we do?So who does it if no one wants to do it?

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

I think its a bit foolish to jump to the conclusion that "Bob Black doesn't want to clean sewers, that means he wants to exploit the labor of others", come on, clearly you;re just going down that road because its self-serving since you have such a strong hatred for anything other than the most sterile and dogmatic forms of anarchism stuck in the early 20th century.

insults don't make a case for anything. it just shows you don't have any arguments. you've done this before.


What he meant, and what I too have argued in threads in that past, is not that "I am to good to clean a sewer", but that communism means people cannot be coerced into cleaning sewers. So if nobody in a communist society is willing to work on the sewers, what will we do?

coming into such a society people inherit various advantages compared to others, such as more of a sense of entitlement, more education, more skills. because communism emerges out of capitalism and, as Marx said, bears the birth pangs of that origin. these people will use these advantages to latch on to only the most empowering and pleasant types of activity and avoid the drudge work, which will be forced on those from the least advantaged background.

this is why it's necessary to 1. require work effort from able-bodied people, and 2. re-organize work so that the more onerous, boring, harder or unpleasant tasks are distributed and not concentrated on a part of the population.

black's ideology simply encourages social parasitism.

[The Douche]

So who does it if no one wants to do it?

Indeed.


insults don't make a case for anything. it just shows you don't have any arguments. you've done this before.

I'm not trying to be insulting, I really find your version of anarchism to be secterian, dogmatic, and stale. I think, even if you disagree, you can see where I'm coming from. I used to be in the IWW, I used to be a syndicalist, I don't think its bad or anything man, it just never did anything for me, I never saw results come from my work with syndicalists or "social anarchists", granted I haven't seen much in the way of "results" from the "other anarchism", but at least on a personal level, it has been more productive. (And I know that the social anarchists have had success elsewhere)


this is why it's necessary to 1. require work effort from able-bodied people, and 2. re-organize work so that the more onerous, boring, harder or unpleasant tasks are distributed and not concentrated on a part of the population.

This does not adress coercion though, does it? If literally nobody (or at least, not enough people) wants to maintain the sewer, then it will only be through force that the sewers can be maintained right?


black's ideology simply encourages social parasitism.

I think you could argue that if you wanted, but it certainly does not encourage such things in my mind, and I generally have found myself to agree with him. And I think its a little absurd to claim that anarchists who are not social anarchists adhere to socially parasitic ideas.

[RED DAVE]

Indeed. ... This does not adress coercion though, does it? If literally nobody (or at least, not enough people) wants to maintain the sewer, then it will only be through force that the sewers can be maintained right?Right. You shit. You wash the toilet. Unless you have a better idea.

RED DAVE

[The Douche]

Right. You shit. You wash the toilet. Unless you have a better idea.

RED DAVE

I'm not sure if you're suggesting what I think you are. Your answer to "who will clean the sewers" is "everyone"?

[syndicat]

I'm not trying to be insulting, I really find your version of anarchism to be secterian, dogmatic, and stale.

like i said. you can't make a case for anything. it's all personalized in terms of what you find "interesting". it's a self-indulgent approach to politics.

and some element of coercion is inevitable in any feasible human society. if you think otherwise, you need to provide proof.

for example, someone tries to bring back wage-labor, get people to do their bidding, maybe by offering them something...they are forced to cease and desist. wage-slavery would be illegal.

as Isaac Puente said in "Libertarian Communism" if certain people don't want to work that's fine, but in that case we won't provide them any food or shelter or whatever. let them do the work to provide these things for themselves. for them to demand these things without contributing to the real and often not fun tasks of production is a form of social parasitism.

now, this does imply a certain level of social coercion. that's because if people set up some institution where you have dire consequences if you don't do X, then you're being forced to do X. in this case, able bodied are forced by their brothers and sisters, the self-organized classless society, to contribute to social production.

but they're not being forced to do this for the benefit of some dominating, exploiting minority class, nor are they being denied meaningful self-management in the planning and carrying on of the work. so coercion is consistent with a society where there isn't oppression and exploitation.

anarchists who are extreme individualists often make the mistake of confusing accountability to others, social limits on their will, with oppression. like the people who advocate a requirement of unanimity in collective decisions because they make the mistake of thinking they oppressed if they lose a vote.

[Victus Mortuum]

It's not coercive to refuse to enter into a voluntary agreement with someone about using consuming goods the collective produced if they won't voluntarily be a part of the collective agreement of production. They are opting themselves out of participation in the social economy if social production has become democratic.

[syndicat]

It's not coercive to refuse to enter into a voluntary agreement with someone about using consuming goods the collective produced if they won't voluntarily be a part of the collective agreement of production. They are opting themselves out of participation in the social economy if social production has become democratic.


no social structure is purely "voluntary". that is another common anarchist confusion. you're born into a society and you're subject to its rules. infants are not even capable of making an informed decision yet.

and not allowing wage labor isn't voluntary either. that would be to imply that it would allowed for people to enter into such a relationship.

if the society has a system of production for providing food, clothing and shelter based on organized social production, then people will be subject to the rules of that institutional arrangement. if the land, agricultural equipment, textile and garment factories, are owned in common by the society and the society has a set of rules and decision-making system about how these things are allocated, then if you "choose" not to follow these rules, where are you going to get housing, clothes, etc?

being deprived of these things would be a dire consequence. if you are subject to a dire consequence if you don't do X, then you're forced to do X. to say that people who are able bodied are expected to work if they want to share in the fruits of social production of things like housing, clothes, use of the land, then they are forced to agree to engage in some socially recognized form of work.

if the society is classless, then they are working as a part of a socially self-managing system. they aren't subordinate to some dominating, exploiting class. this is one of the things that would differentiate a classless society from the present capitalist one.

[Victus Mortuum]

I think it's a matter of semantic definitions of words. The way I used voluntary is different than the way you used it. It's nothing to argue over. I see what you described as voluntary (as you have the option to opt in or out) and associational (anything you opt in or out of gives you equal say and power as everyone else in said organization). People would be provided with the training to live on their own by the socialist society if they wanted to, thus eliminating the 'coercive' aspect of opting out. Choosing to not receive the extra benefits of a voluntary and associational organizational agreement is not coercion but simply opting out of an 'exchange' of mutual social benefits above and beyond individual existence. But again, it's just a matter of semantics, I think.

[syndicat]

People would be provided with the training to live on their own by the socialist society if they wanted to, thus eliminating the 'coercive' aspect of opting out.

it's not possible to "opt out" of the society you live in. the governance system is overarching. there are rules or laws about acceptable behavior. you can't "opt out" of that.

[The Douche]

like i said. you can't make a case for anything. it's all personalized in terms of what you find "interesting". it's a self-indulgent approach to politics.

Well, like I said, man, the kind of anarchism you advocate just wasn't succesful in my experience. I am not opposed to it, I just don't think its what works in my area, in the struggles I'm involved in, at the current time. I'm sorry if you think that is self-indulgent, but we've all just got to do what we think works best.


and some element of coercion is inevitable in any feasible human society. if you think otherwise, you need to provide proof.


You're probably right, but I am not prepared to accept coerced labor under communism. I think the two are mutually exclusive.


for example, someone tries to bring back wage-labor, get people to do their bidding, maybe by offering them something...they are forced to cease and desist. wage-slavery would be illegal.

I disagree with the need to "illegalize" wage labor, why would anybody want their labor power to be exploited when we live in a communist economy? It just doesn't make sense, but I suppose if an individual really, really wanted to, for some strange reason, why shouldn't they be able to, they're only hurting themselves, afterall. (which is why I think its terribly unlikely)


if certain people don't want to work that's fine, but in that case we won't provide them any food or shelter or whatever. let them do the work to provide these things for themselves. for them to demand these things without contributing to the real and often not fun tasks of production is a form of social parasitism.


I agree with this, but who gets the right to determine what certain people do. If nobody volunteers to clean the sewers, will you force them to, under penalty of starvation?


now, this does imply a certain level of social coercion. that's because if people set up some institution where you have dire consequences if you don't do X, then you're being forced to do X. in this case, able bodied are forced by their brothers and sisters, the self-organized classless society, to contribute to social production.


This is not cercion in the way we're discussing it though! You're talking about the necessity of individuals to contribute to society, on which we agree, and its not coercive because they exist in such a society on a purely voluntary basis, there are no negative consequences if they wish not to participate. What will we do if nobody (not enough people) wants to clean the sewers? Will we force someone? Is that communist? I don't think it is.

[syndicat]

This is not cercion in the way we're discussing it though! You're talking about the necessity of individuals to contribute to society, on which we agree, and its not coercive because they exist in such a society on a purely voluntary basis, there are no negative consequences if they wish not to participate. What will we do if nobody (not enough people) wants to clean the sewers? Will we force someone? Is that communist? I don't think it is.

you seem to think you can just redefine words to mean anything you like.

i think the mass workers movement that takes over social production, if it is to be able to create a sustainable classless system, will have to ensure that jobs are systematically re-designed so all the disempowering, boring, drudge work is distributed so that everyone does their share of it. this needs to be part of the program of a revolutionary workers movement, and it will need to have an organized approach to ensuring this is done.

there are other things equivalent to cleaning sewers, such as picking up the trash, weeding agricultural plots, driving buses, doing assembly of parts into things like clothes and furniture or buses.

if you say each person should be able to do only what they like, then what would happen is that the people who come to this society with the most advantages from the old society will use them to their advantage, to avoid the less desireable and more disempowering and drudge kinds of labor...and you'll end up with a new class system.

[The Douche]

you seem to think you can just redefine words to mean anything you like.

Maybe I am doing so unintentionally, or maybe we just come from different schools which have different understandings of those words.


i think the mass workers movement that takes over social production, if it is to be able to create a sustainable classless system, will have to ensure that jobs are systematically re-designed so all the disempowering, boring, drudge work is distributed so that everyone does their share of it. this needs to be part of the program of a revolutionary workers movement, and it will need to have an organized approach to ensuring this is done.

I definitely agree that many things will have to be redesigned, rethought, and maybe even evaluated as to whether or not they even have a place in a communist world. Especially in regards to alienation, coercion, and the the environment.


there are other things equivalent to cleaning sewers, such as picking up the trash, weeding agricultural plots, driving buses, doing assembly of parts into things like clothes and furniture or buses.


Agreed, and you can probably find people who would rather clean sewers than pull weeds.


if you say each person should be able to do only what they like, then what would happen is that the people who come to this society with the most advantages from the old society will use them to their advantage, to avoid the less desireable and more disempowering and drudge kinds of labor...and you'll end up with a new class system.

Now I see what you were getting at. I agree that communism means, largely, and end to the kind of specialization that exists in capitalist society, where regular people can be rocket scientists.


I do not, however, find myself convinced that we have solved the problem of coercion. But on the upside, I don't think that we can have all the solutions right now, and that a lot of things won't be realized until the new world starts to emerge. In a big way I think it will be the struggle for communism that answers the kind of questions we're dealing with right now, and that the brilliance of the organized and mobilized working class far exceeds the capabilities of a few people on a message board.

[RED DAVE]

I'm not sure if you're suggesting what I think you are. Your answer to "who will clean the sewers" is "everyone"?Yes, unless there are volunteers who are into it.

If there are not enough volunteers, everyone works at it. If you don't care to work at it, I hope you don't care to eat. Yes, that's compulsion.

RED DAVE

[The Douche]

Yes, unless there are volunteers who are into it.

If there are not enough volunteers, everyone works at it. If you don't care to work at it, I hope you don't care to eat. Yes, that's compulsion.

RED DAVE

I think this kind of coercion is un-communist, and that, in the event that not enough people are willing to do a certain task, that we must find a different way to accomplish the goal of that task.

I agree that what you're suggesting is equitable though. I just think that kind of coercion is uncompatible with the way I concieve of communism.

[renzo_novatore]

if you say each person should be able to do only what they like, then what would happen is that the people who come to this society with the most advantages from the old society will use them to their advantage, to avoid the less desireable and more disempowering and drudge kinds of labor...and you'll end up with a new class system.


So - what is basically comes down to is this - human nature. I don't think you need to tell a starving person to eat, and in the same way, if sewers are necessary for our survival, then someone will WANT to work on the sewers. To say that we need to force people to do this is to say that we need to impose a form of organization onto people - which is in itself reactionary. If no one volunteers to work at the sewers, then who fucking cares about the sewers - besides some coordinator who thinks he knows what is best for everyone! I mean, in my opinion, such ideas result in things like GULAGS. FORCED LABOR CAMPS.

So, if for instance, no one wants to work at the sewers and someone else comes along and offers to give them something for doing something that they don't want them to do - yeah I think that that would indeed be better than starving people and making them spend their lives doing something that they hate "for the sake of the community". But I dont think that that is the case.

I personally wouldn't care to be apart of a society that demands everything from me and demands that I adapt to it, instead of society being something that adapts to individuals. I am a Stirnerite egoist - and this is what Max Stirner meant by a union of egoists. You all ignorantly like to call him an extreme individualist, but he saw a need for people and a need for others as being apart of human nature. Post-left anarchists see it in the same way. That we as individuals need a community. That the dichotomy between individualism and collectivism is a myth. Communities aren't things to be imposed onto us, they are apart of who we are. To say that we need to force people to adapt to the standards of a society or a community, is to say that people don't want to be apart of it - to say that people wouldn't want to work in a communistic society is to say that people wouldn't want to be apart of a communistic society, but that you think that they should be apart of it. I completely disagree - all the earliest forms of societies were communistic, where wealth was spread and shared. This isn't something that needs to be forced on us. Early humanity didn't need a government or a police force to tell them to give - and they gave abundantly. I'm surprised that the anarchists on here seem to be unfamiliar with kropotkin's mutual aid!

And so - we go back to labor. A lot of production is currently unnecessary - and the part of production that is necessary, if it is necessary, then people would do it voluntarily - you don't have to force them to do it. And - well hey as bob black said - we could turn a lot of the unpleasant forms of work into games and into play so that more people would want to do them on a VOLUNTARY basis. Instead of beating them up and telling them to submit to the whims of society. But then I also agree that if people wouldn't want to work and expect to live at other's expense, well, they can say bye and leave the community as far as I'm concerned.

People are naturally social beings – thus social organization doesn't need to be imposed – but you assume that they are asocial beings who do need to live in a society, which is simply not true.

[RED DAVE]

I think this kind of coercion is un-communist, and that, in the event that not enough people are willing to do a certain task, that we must find a different way to accomplish the goal of that task.

I agree that what you're suggesting is equitable though. I just think that kind of coercion is uncompatible with the way I concieve of communism.What you are saying is that because of your personal preferences, you should be allowed to avoid unpleasant work. In the end, before a different way is found, the shit has to be processed. This is a collective responsibility, which means its your responsibility.

This is why I've always considered that nonsyndicalist forms of anarchism are basically akin to the protests of teenagers who don't want to clean up after themselves. In this case, you literally don't want to do this.

RED DAVE

[Widerstand]

This is why I've always considered that nonsyndicalist forms of anarchism are basically akin to the protests of teenagers who don't want to clean up after themselves. In this case, you literally don't want to do this.

RED DAVE

Anarcho-Communism = teenagers who don't want to clean up after themselves?

[syndicat]

Anarcho-Communism = teenagers who don't want to clean up after themselves?

historically most syndicalists were anarcho-communists. "anarcho-communism" refers to the aim, syndicalism refers to the strategic orientation.

[RED DAVE]

Anarcho-Communism = teenagers who don't want to clean up after themselves?That's not what I said.

RED DAVE

[Widerstand]

historically most syndicalists were anarcho-communists. "anarcho-communism" refers to the aim, syndicalism refers to the strategic orientation.

You make a statement about syndicalists, but I asked about Anarcho-Communists. What about those Anarcho-Communists who don't identify with syndicalism or it's tactics? Was Kropotkin a syndicalist? Was Berkman? If no, does it then follow they didn't want to clean up after themselves when they were teenagers?

[syndicat]

You make a statement about syndicalists, but I asked about Anarcho-Communists. What about those Anarcho-Communists who don't identify with syndicalism or it's tactics? Was Kropotkin a syndicalist? Was Berkman? If no, does it then follow they didn't want to clean up after themselves when they were teenagers?

if you read "What is communist anarchism?" you'll see that berkman saw anarcho-communism arising from a workers movement. ordinary workers were the intended audience for the book. kropotkin was very harsh in his critique of extreme individualism. in the years before World War 1 Kropotkin was highly supportive of syndicalism. it's true that many of his followers in the Russian revolution, the "anarcho-communist" groups in St Petersburg and Moscow, were not syndicalists but advocates of substitutionist forms of action by small anarchist groups, such as small group expropriations....which led to the corruption of the movement as it became an excuse for stealing (as Emma Goldman reluctantly acknowledged in "My Disillusionment in Russia").

in any event, this thread is about "post-left" anarchism, and what passes for an anarchist milieu in more recent times, especially in the USA (where "post-left" anarchism has its origins).

[Widerstand]

if you read "What is communist anarchism?" you'll see that berkman saw anarcho-communism arising from a workers movement. ordinary workers were the intended audience for the book. kropotkin was very harsh in his critique of extreme individualism.

in any event, this thread is about "post-left" anarchism, and what passes for an anarchist milieu in more recent times, especially in the USA (where "post-left" anarchism has its origins).

I've read the book, I don't recall Berkman advocating the general strike as an end-all revolutionary practice, nor do I remember him overly focusing on unions as revolutionary organizations, nor do I recall him calling for social organization to be made up of unions (and union federations). I'm not familiar with Kropotkin saying either.

I would argue that these are defining features of "Anarcho-Syndicalism", and if not exactly in that way, then certainly a strong focus on unions as organizations and organs of revolutionary struggle and transformation, which is completely absent from both thinkers.

[syndicat]

I've read the book, I don't recall Berkman advocating the general strike as an end-all revolutionary practice, nor do I remember him overly focusing on unions as revolutionary organizations, nor do I recall him calling for social organization to be made up of unions (and union federations). I'm not familiar with Kropotkin saying either.

I would argue that these are defining features of "Anarcho-Syndicalism", and if not exactly in that way, then certainly a strong focus on unions as organizations and organs of revolutionary struggle and transformation, which is completely absent from both thinkers.

you're wrong. they're not "defining features" of syndicalism. syndialism advocates for the development of worker-controlled grassroots forms of unionist organization, to provide a basis for development of class consciousness through facilitating a sense of worker power and control over their own movement.

but historically this has not always taken the form of a "trade union." the British shop stewards movement during World War 1 was a syndicalist inspired movement that was a form of grassroots unionism but independent of the trade unions. the Turin Libertarian Group worked to develop a similar "factory council" movement, that is, a radical shop stewards movement based on worker assemblies, in Turin in 1919-20. the Russian anarcho-syndicalists did work in unions where feasible but also supported the factory committee movement often against the trade unions.

from a syndicalist point of view, "unionism" is understood very generally to refer to forms of action by workers "in union" with each other, rooted especially in social production but also in other sites of class struggle.

nor is it the case that syndicalism necessarily requires "social organization to be made up of unions." the program of the CNT in Spain in 1936 called for the creation of "free municipalities" that would be based on assemblies of residents in neighborhoods and villages, and did construct some of these in Aragon. this was in addition to the generalized takeover of management of industries by workers...which Berkman did also advocate, and the creation of a unified people's militia, controlled by the unions.

a generalized takeover of management of industries by workers is what the IWW would call "a revolutionary general strike on the job."

[RED DAVE]

This is why i've always considered that nonsyndicalist forms of anarchism are basically akin to the protests of teenagers who don't want to clean up after themselves.
In my own concrete experience, I've seen kids who are into or affiliated with CrimethInc.: Fight the police, organize neighbourhood bbqs, participate in radical anti-poverty/tenancy groups, run Food Not Bombs groups, organize demonstrations, steal/dumpster and share thousands of dollars (more?) worth of food, poster, graffiti, take squats, occupy land, blockade, and tonnes more. I'm sure many syndicalists do these things too, and I'm not going to play the "Which tendency are better anarchists?" game, but . . . don't dismiss loose organization and lofty goals.I rest my case. This is the politics of adolescence. I did much the same in the 60s, when I was but a youth. :D

Both Marxism and I have learned a few things since then. Repeating what we did then and expecting a different outcome is nuts.

RED DAVE

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I rest my case. This is the politics of adolescence. I did much the same in the 60s, when I was but a youth. :D

Both Marxism and I have learned a few things since then. Repeating what we did then and expecting a different outcome is nuts.

RED DAVE


Sorry, outside the activities I've listed, what concrete activities would you suggest? Selling newspapers? Recruiting? Participating in elections?

Excuse me if I'm not wowed by "I did some shit in the sixties."

[RED DAVE]

Sorry, outside the activities I've listed, what concrete activities would you suggest? Selling newspapers? Recruiting? Participating in elections?

Excuse me if I'm not wowed by "I did some shit in the sixties."How about union work or is that a dirty word for you? My point about the 50s, Comrade, is that the work you're describing, basically community organizing, was tried over and over again, including by the Black Panthers and it failed.

RED DAVE

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How about union work or is that a dirty word for you? My point about the 50s, Comrade, is that the work you're describing, basically community organizing, was tried over and over again, including by the Black Panthers and it failed.

RED DAVE

It's not a "dirty word," but it does make me think of fat-ass bureaucrats, collaborationist sell-outs, and a proud history of making capitalism more livable for a select few without changing much . . .

[Widerstand]

How about union work or is that a dirty word for you? My point about the 50s, Comrade, is that the work you're describing, basically community organizing, was tried over and over again, including by the Black Panthers and it failed.

RED DAVE

Give me one reason why union work should be preferable to community organizing in any country in which the majority (if not all) unions are utter bullshit pro-capitalist integration platforms, only serving to direct and diffuse dissent. Not to mention that unemployment and precarious forms of employment (often in non-unionized work places and with frequent change of jobs). As is the situation in many Western countries I imagine. Not to mention that some for example Germany is plotting to de facto outlaw small, radical unions (through changes to tariff autonomy laws rendering their work contracts non-existent). Give me one reason why union work, which doesn't at all address the problems of large parts of the populace should be preferred to community organizing?

edit:

In fact screw it, tell me, how is union work incompatible with community organizing?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Give me one reason why union work should be preferable to community organizing in any country in which the majority (if not all) unions are utter bullshit pro-capitalist integration platforms, only serving to direct and diffuse dissent. Not to mention that unemployment and precarious forms of employment (often in non-unionized work places and with frequent change of jobs). As is the situation in many Western countries I imagine. Not to mention that some for example Germany is plotting to de facto outlaw small, radical unions (through changes to tariff autonomy laws rendering their work contracts non-existent). Give me one reason why union work, which doesn't at all address the problems of large parts of the populace should be preferred to community organizing?

edit:

In fact screw it, tell me, how is union work incompatible with community organizing?

I don't necessarily think union work is incompatible with community organizing - I just don't think it's necessarily any more effective. In fact, I think it is most effective when it is a means to community organizing - when it does concrete solidarity work moreso than when it means getting cards signed.

[RED DAVE]

In fact screw it, tell me, how is union work incompatible with community organizing?It's not a matter of being incompatible. It's a matter that left experience over decades has shown that community organizing, in the absence of mass movements, basically working class movements, including unions, is a waste of time and energy.

There has never been a revolutionary movement built on community organizing. The outstanding example of community organizing in the US, the Black Panthers, was a failure.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

It's not a "dirty word," but it does make me think of fat-ass bureaucrats, collaborationist sell-outs, and a proud history of making capitalism more livable for a select few without changing much . . .I wonder why the word "union" doesn't remind you of rank-and-file organizing, wildcat strikes, campaigns against racism and sexism on the job, etc.? Ever heard or been involved with these? Or do you prefer revolutionary dumpster-diving?

RED DAVE

[bricolage]

I wonder why the word "union" doesn't remind you of rank-and-file organizing, wildcat strikes, campaigns against racism and sexism on the job, etc.? Ever heard or been involved with these? Or do you prefer revolutionary dumpster-diving?
Surely wildcat strikes are, by their nature, enacted outside of the union apparatus?

[RED DAVE]

Surely wildcat strikes are, by their nature, enacted outside of the union apparatus?Quite the contrary. Wildcat strikes are often undertaken to get the union bureaucrats off their fat asses. They are often led by local leaders, who may or may not be in the union structure.

In any event any wildcat strike has to take into account the presence or absence of a union. Remember that a wildcat strike has a purpose. The strike is usually ended through a process of negotiations, hence unions are critical. Comrades need to learn this stuff.

RED DAVE

[nuisance]

So if community organising has failed, so by this reasoning so has union organising....

[syndicat]

So if community organising has failed, so by this reasoning so has union organising....


this pissing match isn't helpful. workplace and community-based organizing each has a role to play.

in my organization we have a concept of what we call "community syndicalism" such as class struggles at the point of consumption. this can include organizing and struggles by tenants, or riders of public transit systems. in the latter case, however, this kind of struggle has been strongest when it is allied with initiatives of the workers. a current alliance along these lines is in Atlanta, between the transit riders union and the local branch of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

we consume the air we breath and the water we drink. another form of struggle at the point of consumption is when working class communities organize against things like putting a waste dump or incinerator in their area, or against the toxic pollution of nearby industries such as oil refineries. but, again, this kind of struggle is strongest if it can link up with the struggles of workers against being poisoned on the job.

[bricolage]

Quite the contrary. Wildcat strikes are often undertaken to get the union bureaucrats off their fat asses.
Well its true that in a number of cases its the lack of action on behalf of unions that results in wildcat strikes taking place and yes it could be designed to spur them to get 'off their fat asses' but strikes can quickly evolve past this. The way you seem to see it it is that strikes can only ever end in their absoprtion into union procedures where they are 'critical' to negotiations, negotiations that usually end with the same union bureaucrats that have got off their fat asses selling out the workers themselves. Alternatively there is the idea of workers controlling their own struggles and representing themselves.

[RED DAVE]

this pissing match isn't helpful. workplace and community-based organizing each has a role to play.

in my organization we have a concept of what we call "community syndicalism" such as class struggles at the point of consumption. this can include organizing and struggles by tenants, or riders of public transit systems. in the latter case, however, this kind of struggle has been strongest when it is allied with initiatives of the workers. a current alliance along these lines is in Atlanta, between the transit riders union and the local branch of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

we consume the air we breath and the water we drink. another form of struggle at the point of consumption is when working class communities organize against things like putting a waste dump or incinerator in their area, or against the toxic pollution of nearby industries such as oil refineries. but, again, this kind of struggle is strongest if it can link up with the struggles of workers against being poisoned on the job.(emph added)

Excellent.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

So if community organising has failed, so by this reasoning so has union organising....Union organizing has produced ongoing organizations that have lasted for decades and are excellent arenas for political activity. Typically, community organizations collapse almost imediatlely when the militants withdraw. The was the experience of the Civil Rights Movement, the ERAP Project, the Panthers, etc.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

Union organizing has produced ongoing organizations that have lasted for decades and are excellent arenas for political activity. Typically, community organizations collapse almost imediatlely when the militants withdraw. The was the experience of the Civil Rights Movement, the ERAP Project, the Panthers, etc.



but in the last several decades the problem has been the tendency of community organizing to be taken over, or converted into, bureaucratic nonprofits, where the professional staff and executive directors make the decisions and you have a kind of clientelist or service agency relationship to the base. similar to the problem of bureaucratic business unionism and the "service agency" model.

the anthology "The Revolution Will Not Be Funded" talks a lot about this problem.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Lasting structures within capitalism! Victory!

[The Douche]

Ageism? Check. Dogmatism? Check. Secterianism? Check.

Notice how social anarchists love to whine and complain about how other anarchists have ruined the movement and aren't "real anarchists". Yet somehow we're the ones who are immature?

I'm out.

[syndicat]

Notice how social anarchists love to whine and complain about how other anarchists have ruined the movement and aren't "real anarchists". Yet somehow we're the ones who are immature?


agism? yeah, like you and some others of your ilk calling me or other older comrades "washed up." that's an agist slur.

[The Douche]

agism? yeah, like you and some others of your ilk calling me or other older comrades "washed up." that's an agist slur.

Bro, in all fairness, I believe I called your ideology washed up. (which I think it is, and there are plenty of old dudes and ladies who I think have really cool ideas, like Bonnano) But if I did refer to you or Red Dave or somebody else as being personally "washed up", well, then my bad.

[Ravachol]

What I don't get is the enormous focus some people have on specific tactics for grandiose struggles way above what they can actually put in practice. Whether we like it or not we are, to a degree, bound to the tidal waves of materialism and there's nothing we can do about that as a revolutionary minority. Organisational forms and tactics emerge from real existing struggles and ought to adapt to the needs of these specific struggles. We can talk about 'community organising' all we want but that doesn't really mean anything. Tenant networks seeking to prevent rent increases or evictions will have to organise differently and employ different tactics than other networks of struggle that could be classified as 'community organisations'. Speculating about the specific form (as oposed to general organisational principles) these organisations take in some theoretical bubble divorced from the concrete reality they originate within is madness.