Ideological Confusion

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I have been internally conflicted ideologically. I still feel that I have some anti-authoritarian views I just feel that in light of the recent abuse from my significant other I wish there would be someone who would intervene in cases like that. That's why I feel there needs to be a (police-ish) force to protect people from being battered by their spouses/significant others/etc. Besides I am having trouble reconciling my anarchist beliefs with the hint of chicano nationalism.

[RedSunRising]

You are wise to think it over given that authority can often mean freedom, freedom from fear, freedom from abuse, etc. People, all of us, arent naturally nice all the time, rules and if necessary punishment for breaking those rules are necessary to our species's social well being. I dont understand though how chicano patriotism and anti-imperialism cant exist side by side with anarchism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Anti-authoritarianism does not mean laissez-faire or that everyone does whatever they want if it means treating other people in an exploitative way.In a socialist/anarchist society treating women badly will not be allowed. The mechanism of enforcement though will not be a state, seperate and above the community but the democratically run community itself.They'll be a worker's militia and a system of social workers, only without the corporate social conformism of many of today's social workers.

As far as ethnic/cultural nationalism goes, I'm sure you know that these are social constructs. There may very well be a need for a separate struggle of African-Americans, Chicanos and other minorities but ultimately we are all oppressed by the same system of capitalism.

[jake williams]

I have been internally conflicted ideologically. I still feel that I have some anti-authoritarian views I just feel that in light of the recent abuse from my significant other I wish there would be someone who would intervene in cases like that. That's why I feel there needs to be a (police-ish) force to protect people from being battered by their spouses/significant others/etc.
I think it's a serious error to assume that the police are always and only a weapon of politically repressing the working class. Enforcing traffic laws isn't class warfare. Police in capitalist societies don't really have an incentive to prevent domestic violence, or even enforce existing laws, but they do it sometimes, and in a society where analogous organizations were actually controlled by the working class, they'd actually do it consistently.


Besides I am having trouble reconciling my anarchist beliefs with the hint of chicano nationalism.
I really doubt it's a problem, but what are your actual views about chicano nationalism that you find problematic?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I think it's a serious error to assume that the police are always and only a weapon of politically repressing the working class. Enforcing traffic laws isn't class warfare. Police in capitalist societies don't really have an incentive to prevent domestic violence, or even enforce existing laws, but they do it sometimes, and in a society where analogous organizations were actually controlled by the working class, they'd actually do it consistently.
I would never advocate a capitalist society. The issue for me is the authoritarian/anti-authoritarian conflict. Also I said "(police-ish) force" not police. But the point is sometimes people need to have someone to bring consequenses for things like domestic abuse.


I really doubt it's a problem, but what are your actual views about chicano nationalism that you find problematic?
I believe in focusing on the struggle for my own people first. I believe that to bring about freedom and dignity you need to have a certain amount of pride in who you are and/or what background you come from.

[RedSunRising]

Go back to being an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist.

It will make you at least happier if nothing else.

[Tim Finnegan]

I believe in focusing on the struggle for my own people first. I believe that to bring about freedom and dignity you need to have a certain amount of pride in who you are and/or what background you come from.
I don't think that this is incompatible with libertarian socialism, in the sense that bourgeois nationalism would be. The latter implies a set of exclusive or at least primary allegiances to a given social-political unit, while what you're suggesting seems to be more an issue of practical implementation of essentially more universal principles. It seems to be characteristic of how you perceive the struggle against a certain cultural hegemony, rather than an attempt to construct a discrete political-cultural zone in which your own people may achieve a hegemonic position, which to me appears more closely analogous with anarcha-feminism, queer anarchism, and so forth, than with any sort of left-nationalism in the traditional sense.


Go back to being an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist.

It will make you at least happier if nothing else.
Is there actually a political philosophy more dour than "Anti-revisionist Marxism"? :confused:

[RedSunRising]

Is there actually a political philosophy more dour than "Anti-revisionist Marxism"? :confused:

It only appears so on the outside....;)

ypBWHtQAxzQ

[Tim Finnegan]

I would suggest that a reliance on choreographed displays of mass-joviality to dismiss accusations of dourness is a bit of a self-defeating tactic. http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

[RedSunRising]

LOL...In all seriousness though true happiness comes only from what is reality, when she was a Hoxhaist she was connected to reality because it reflects reality much more than anarchism, to hear old Russians speak of what it life was like during the Stalin years when the country was guided by both a profound historical purpose and clear grasp of the world is very moving.

[Tim Finnegan]

LOL...In all seriousness though true happiness comes only from what is reality, when she was a Hoxhaist she was connected to reality because it reflects reality much more than anarchism...
In what sense does the veneration of a minuscule regime that's been extinct for twenty years constitutes "realism" from the perspective of a young, transgender, working class, Chicana woman like Esperanza? Anarchism, at least, provides a body of principles applicable to her life and circumstances, which Uncle Enver's theories really do not.


...to hear old Russians speak of what it life was like during the Stalin years when the country was guided by both a profound historical purpose and clear grasp of the world is very moving.You could say the same thing about old Britons yammering on about Atlee and old Irish people blethering about Dev and the Big Fellah, but it doesn't mean that it's the way to go. Nostalgia and political relevance are at best coincidental.

[Roach]

The police force in the capitalist sistem is a weapon that the bourgeoisie uses to enforce its control over the proletariat, in a socialist state the police would certanly have a different behavior, since the socialist wouldnt serve the same objective of it's capitalist counterpart, that is forcing upon the throats of the vast majority of workers a sistem that doesn't benefit them at all. The police would be just a mean to maintain the socialist order, and considering that anti-revisionism values more the marxist education of the proleteriat and the lack of a strong bureaucratic caste as means to maintain the socialist state, the police would be even weaker. All this hipotesis was done without minding the possibility of imperialist saboutage of a workers state.

For the more ''philosophical'' side of things I recommend reading Marxist-Leninist literature concerning anarchism, as a start:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm



The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

[hatzel]

For the more philosophical side of things I recommend reading Marxist-Leninist literature concerning anarchism

Ah...why not just read anarchist literature concerning anarchism? :confused:

[syndicat]

I have been internally conflicted ideologically. I still feel that I have some anti-authoritarian views I just feel that in light of the recent abuse from my significant other I wish there would be someone who would intervene in cases like that. That's why I feel there needs to be a (police-ish) force to protect people from being battered by their spouses/significant others/etc. Besides I am having trouble reconciling my anarchist beliefs with the hint of chicano nationalism.


a common error among some anarchists is the belief that anti-authoritarian means anything goes. that is really an individualist outlook. people have obligations to others, and it is our collective obligtation to fight against abuses of others. otherwise "an injury to one is an injury to all" has no meaning.

a sense of attachment to one's own people, if you're from an oppressed group...and in my view the whole working class is an oppressed group, as are various parts of it...is entirely understandable, so long as one also appreciates that an alliance with other oppressed groups is necessary if liberation from capitalist oppression is to occur. it is necessary if one is to have an adequate concept of solidarity.

chicano nationalism only goes off the rails when it gets in the way of an alliance within the working class with other groups or becomes an excuse for a cross-class alliance that allows people in elite classes to retain a dominant position in the movement or in organizations.

[jake williams]

I would never advocate a capitalist society. The issue for me is the authoritarian/anti-authoritarian conflict. Also I said "(police-ish) force" not police. But the point is sometimes people need to have someone to bring consequenses for things like domestic abuse.
We can call it "the police" or not, but some sort of institution would fulfill a lot of the roles that the police does.

Regarding "authoritarianism", I personally think the sort of thing you're talking about is a problem with conceptualizing politics as being about individual freedom in the abstract. There's an extent to which politics is necessarily "authoritarian" in that politics is about trying to bring a vision of the world into place. That's not to say you do it undemocratically, but there isn't a contradiction between "authority" and democracy. Indeed, the right and the liberals are some of the first to point out that their "anti-authoritarianism" is anti-democratic - the main "authority" they're concerned about is the democratic authority to replace capitalism with socialism. I once had an economics professor explicitly defend Pinochet's government on the grounds of preventing authoritarian repression of "constitutional principles".

All that said, there isn't a contradiction between emancipatory politics and anarchism per se, with a logic along the lines of what syndicat pointed out. Frankly I think a lot of anarchists simply don't want to call the democratic defence of, say, freedom from sexist oppression, an act of "authority". But that can be more of a semantic issue than a political one.


I believe in focusing on the struggle for my own people first. I believe that to bring about freedom and dignity you need to have a certain amount of pride in who you are and/or what background you come from.
I really don't think you have anything to worry about in that regard.

[bezdomni]

Revolution is intrinsically an authoritarian act. Violence is authoritarian.

My advice is to just be a "free agent" for a while, there is nothing that requires you to have a specific well-defined ideology. Just figure out what are your basic observations/assumptions about the social world (e.g., society is divided into classes, human history is the history of class struggle, etc.) and then build up from there. What follows logically from your observations?

Most of the questions in Marxism are wide open and need better answers. Marx and Engels asked and did their best to answer the fundamental questions in the 19th century, the many revolutionaries throughout the 20th century investigated these questions more deeply, and now it is our task in the 21st century to re-evaluate this work and finally come up with a solution.

We can do this without sticking to the outdated schools of thought and their associated "-isms" from the 20th century.

You've graduated from anti-revisionist ML school, now you're graduating from anarchism. Congratulations! Embrace the confusion and build something that is your own, or help others who you find a strong unity with to build something new.

Best of luck to you. :)

[Magón]

I would never advocate a capitalist society. The issue for me is the authoritarian/anti-authoritarian conflict. Also I said "(police-ish) force" not police. But the point is sometimes people need to have someone to bring consequenses for things like domestic abuse.

In this society/country we live in, going to the Cops or someone else for help in getting a domestic abuse situation settled, is something most people, regardless of political affiliation, have to do. If I knew someone was in a domestic abuse situation, regardless of how well I knew them, I would probably have to go to the cops or someone else to get them help, because that's just the way things have to go sometimes, when you want to keep things legal.

I still oppose a police force in the fashion they are now, but in an Anarchist society, there would still be a "police"-like force to help people with this sort of thing. Plus, going about such a situation illegally, could get you into a bit of a mess when/if you tried to take it to a legal court or whatever.


I believe in focusing on the struggle for my own people first. I believe that to bring about freedom and dignity you need to have a certain amount of pride in who you are and/or what background you come from.

This doesn't make you less of an Anarchist by any means. I do a lot of work for/with other Hispanic people a lot, most of it focused on our problems, and still call myself an Anarchist. Most of my best work in Class Struggle politics/actions, has been working with these hispanic groups, helping to get us better and more stomaching rights here in California, and the US in general.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I think I'll just be an Esperanza-ist until I figure out what that means.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Do Espernza-ists speak Esperanto?
Seriously though, Esperanza-ism rocks!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Do Espernza-ists speak Esperanto?
Seriously though, Esperanza-ism rocks!
No we speak english and in times of fire like emotion will go off ranting in spanish. :thumbup1:

[Tablo]

I think I'll just be an Esperanza-ist until I figure out what that means.
I think that is the best thing to be. :)

I'm a Tsukaist first and foremost. I only call myself an Anarchist because that most closely fits my views.