Few questions on different Anarchist schools of thought.

[AnarchicSaint]

Wikipedia has nearly discouraged me from trying to learn the difference between different forms of Anarchism. The way it branches and categorizes each school has me lost.

So can someone please tell me the basic ideas behind the main schools of thought such as: Anarcho-syndicalism (which I think I understand, for the most part),Anarcho-communism, Collectivist Anarchism, or any other ones I should know about?

I'm new here and somewhat knew to Anarchism. I haven't really decided which school of thought I'd go under and it'd be nice to be able to argue against all the future business owners I went to school with... and be able to win the argument haha.

I'd appreciate any help. Thanks in advance!

[daft punk]

Well, seeing as no anarchist can be bothered to answer, I will tell you. Er, I dunno, but forget about anarchism, it's a waste of time. The best they ever achieved was in Spain, but they refused to take power, even though they admitted they could have, on principle! Then to make things even worse they joined a Stalinist-capitalist government, a government which was intent on crushing the revolution and later attacked anarchist strongholds.

[Hermes]

So one failure equals lack of success for the rest of history? Trotsky certainly did well.

I'm still learning, so if I say anything wrong it'd be great if someone could correct me. Anarcho-Communism is the idea that while no state exists, people will still have to band together in communities that work together for the common good. As I understand it, it is the revolutionary upheaval resulting in abolition of the state, resulting in immediate, no transition, communism. It rejects the extreme individualism of thinkers such as Stirner, believing that people are naturally good and are corrupted by the state, therefore the abolition of the state will allow for maximum freedom of individuals while still participating in a community. If I remember correctly, Kropotkin was the great Anarcho-Communist thinker, so you might want to read some of his writings. I haven't quite had time to, yet.

[The Douche]

Well, seeing as no anarchist can be bothered to answer, I will tell you. Er, I dunno, but forget about anarchism, it's a waste of time. The best they ever achieved was in Spain, but they refused to take power, even though they admitted they could have, on principle! Then to make things even worse they joined a Stalinist-capitalist government, a government which was intent on crushing the revolution and later attacked anarchist strongholds.

Verbal warning for trolling. That's not an appropriate response for the learning forum. If you can't help the OP then just move along.

OP;

What schools of anarchism are you interested in hearing about?

Syndicalism- Anarchist school of thought based on the employment of revolutionary unions and the general strike in order to organize revolution and post-revolutionary production.

Communism- This is kind of a broad range of thought, and other schools can potentially fall into anarchist communism. For instance, syndicalists are anarchist communists. Anarcho-communism is more or less "anarchy", a society organized without the state and organizing production for need, not profit.

[The Douche]

So one failure equals lack of success for the rest of history? Trotsky certainly did well.

I'm still learning, so if I say anything wrong it'd be great if someone could correct me. Anarcho-Communism is the idea that while no state exists, people will still have to band together in communities that work together for the common good. As I understand it, it is the revolutionary upheaval resulting in abolition of the state, resulting in immediate, no transition, communism. It rejects the extreme individualism of thinkers such as Stirner, believing that people are naturally good and are corrupted by the state, therefore the abolition of the state will allow for maximum freedom of individuals while still participating in a community. If I remember correctly, Kropotkin was the great Anarcho-Communist thinker, so you might want to read some of his writings. I haven't quite had time to, yet.

Stirner was pro-socialism, but because of the era in which he developed his ideas, I'd say it is possible to utilize them as part of either a communist or non-communist ideology. Stirner was certainly an influence on many communist developments (both the anarchist school, and the marxist school, many situationists were inspired by him).

[Caj]

Wikipedia has nearly discouraged me from trying to learn the difference between different forms of Anarchism. The way it branches and categorizes each school has me lost.

Yeah, wikipedia doesn't know shit when it comes to stuff like this.


So can someone please tell me the basic ideas behind the main schools of thought such as: Anarcho-syndicalism (which I think I understand, for the most part),Anarcho-communism, Collectivist Anarchism, or any other ones I should know about?

Collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism, contrary to what some may say, are synonymous. The early anarchists who were a part of the First International (e.g. Bakunin, Guillaume) referred to themselves as collectivists so as to distinguish themselves from the "authoritarians" of Marx's lot (who were often just referred to as communists). After the collapse of the First International and the divorce of the anarchist movement from the workers' movement, anarchists, following Kropotkin's lead, began to refer to themselves as communists.

It is often asserted that the difference between collectivism and communism lies in the question of remuneration, that collectivists support remuneration for labor and a communal market while communists reject these measures as bourgeois. This is not true, however. Collectivists, such as Bakunin and Guillaume, maintained that a system of "from each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her need" could be established in certain regions if it was practical. On the other hand, many anarchist communists (Malatesta, for example) said that remuneration may be a necessary measure immediately after the revolution in regions lacking an abundance of essential resources.

Anarcho-syndicalism focuses on the labor movement and the use of revolutionary unions or syndicates to bring about revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism began with Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism: From Theory to Pracitce.


I'm new here and somewhat knew to Anarchism. I haven't really decided which school of thought I'd go under

Don't worry about it. Most of the differences are just semantics anyway.


Er, I dunno, but forget about anarchism, it's a waste of time. The best they ever achieved was in Spain, but they refused to take power, even though they admitted they could have, on principle! Then to make things even worse they joined a Stalinist-capitalist government, a government which was intent on crushing the revolution and later attacked anarchist strongholds.

Remind me of the achievements of Trotskyism again?



As I understand it, it is the revolutionary upheaval resulting in abolition of the state, resulting in immediate, no transition, communism.

Anarchist communists don't reject transitions per se; rather they reject a transitional state.


It rejects the extreme individualism of thinkers such as Stirner,

Once again, this is not necessarily true. Emma Goldman, for example, was very much influenced by Stirner. Some anarchist communists maintain that the interests of the individual are identical with the interests of the community in many contexts. Bakunin, for example, maintained that the individual pursuit for freedom can only be accomplished within the context of social well being and membership in some sort of community. He termed this the "materialist, collectivist, and realist conception of freedom".


believing that people are naturally good and are corrupted by the state,

I don't think most anarchists would say people are naturally good or evil, but that they are above all social.

[daft punk]

So one failure equals lack of success for the rest of history? Trotsky certainly did well.


Er, Trotsky (with obvious moral support from Lenin) is the only person in history to have successfully led a workers revolution with the aim of socialism. Ok it went tits up in 1924 but that wasnt his fault.

[daft punk]

Verbal warning for trolling. That's not an appropriate response for the learning forum. If you can't help the OP then just move along.



Fuck me, at least I got the thread moving. 0 posts in 24 hours, the 5 as soon as I posted. Is a thread on anarchism not to include the main historical instance of anarchism in practice? Is it just to be confined to the realms of ideas and bits of paper, divorced from reality?

I though people might wanna discuss actual anarchism as it has existed in actual reality. The problem was the anarchist leaders. The anarchists themselves did a fine job.

[Blake's Baby]

To the OP:

I think you probably need some really basic intro stuff, which I would suggest you get from Anarchists:

The Anarchist FAQ: http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
LibCom (the Forum for Libertarian Communism) - you might want to make an account there: http://libcom.org/
The Anarchist Federation (formerly, the Anarchist-Communist Federation - in the UK): http://www.afed.org.uk/
Solidarity Federation (anarcho-syndicalist - also in the UK): http://www.solfed.org.uk/
Workers' Solidarity Movement (Ireland - 'platformist' which is a sub-set of anarchist-communist): http://www.wsm.ie/

There's no particular reason to believe anything any Marxist tells you about Anarchists, even me, and I was one for 20 years.

I'd second Hermes' call to read Kropotkin.

I'd also recommend Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman and Grigory Maximov on Russia, as well as Victor Serge (an anarchist-turned-marxist); Paul Avrich on anarchist history; Ida Mett on the Kronstadt Commune; as for Spain, well... I'm not so good on Spain, but 'Homage to Catalonia' by Orwell (not an anarchist but fairly sympathetic) is a good place to start for the general framework.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

First off, I am not an anarchist so my response may be somewhat biased. I was an anarchist for a long time though, so I know what I am talking about. It seems like the anarchists on this site haven't seen this, so if you are serious about this question I would seek them out.

Anarcho-Communism is the belief that not just the state and capitalism, but the idea of money too needs to be abolished. Instead of people working for a wage, workers would ban together, controlling the workplaces themselves, and work for 3-4 hours. No item would cost anything and all things are free. It is hoped that lazy people who wouldn't work would want to work from feeling guilty. There would be no regular police, but instead a voluntary police force. This would be like a worker one day working on the assembly line, the next day working as a police officer, and the next day back to the assembly line. This would be to take the elitism out of police work. Attributed to Kropotkin.

Anarcho-Collectivism is basically the same thing as Anarcho-Communism but with the existence of money. Prices on products would be determined by the workers the their communities before the products are made. While there is money, the market does not exist. Basically this is attributed to Bakunin and James Guillame.

Anarcho-Mutualism is the belief in the existence of a market, money, and prices alongside of the stateless society. Just like the other anarchist ideas, the state and capitalism are gone and the workers would control it all through their own, non-compulsory and voluntary organizations that anyone can or cannot be apart of. Attributed to Proudhon.

Again, I am not an anarchist. I did believe in it for a while though and I went into great study with it. You should ask people this in the Anarchist Discussion group or the Anarchist group. It would probably help you a lot more. I am not going to tell you why I think Anarchism is wrong, utopian, flawed, etc. because i'm sure the Marxist-Leninists will do that for me!:D:laugh:

[The Douche]

Don't argue Trotsky vs Anarchy in this thread, everybody. I'm sure there's a Kronstadt thread going on somewhere, take it there.

[Luc]

a shoddy overview but as only DaftPunk posted it's better than nothing. i tried to be neutral so this is not my opinion

edit: damn alot of posts while I was writting, I wrote this while there was just 1 reply by Daft Punk and before the posts by others which are great

Anarchisms:

Anarcho-Communism: Immiediete(spelling lol) abolition of money, the state, private property, markets to be replaced with a horizontal network of workers councils or Communes (i.e. Paris Commune) community controls means of production and production and consumption based on From each according to their ability, to each acording to their needs important writers: Peter Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman

Anarcho-Syndicalism: Similiar to anarcho-communism but focuses of Trade Unions, and other types of union using direct democracy in the union (ex. IWW (http://www.iww.org/en/about)) post-revolutionary society run by workers (perhaps different than run by community) controling their own workplace democraticaly. Also difrers from communism in that it may not abolish money right away but instead replace with labour vouchers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_voucher) (aka LTV) Important writers: Rudolf Rocker, Gregori Maximoff

Not really sure Anarcho-Collectivism is really anything but Anarchism in it's early phase around Bakunin's time not much written about it to say it's a distinguished school

Method based Anarchisms:

These are not necessarily different socio-economic views but instead are mostly organisational views so one can be Anarcho-Communist and a Platformist or a A-Communist and an Insurrectionist

Platformism: Emphasis on coming together to formulate a central plan/idea/tactics etc. that we all agree on via debates, conferences. Four main tenets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism#Principles) are Federalism, Tactical Unity, Theoretical unity, Collective Responsibility. A must read to learn about Platformism: http://www.struggle.ws/pdfs/leaflets/platform/platformUSletDuplex.pdf

Insurrectionism: i can't really say mcuh about it I don't know about yet but focusses on Affinity Group organisation and some other stuff :unsure: here is somthing I found useful: Some Notes on Insurrectionist Anarchism (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/sasha_k__Some_notes_on_Insurrectionary_Anarchism.h tml) also check out http://theanarchistlibrary.org/topics/insurrectionist.html for works on Insurrectionism. Alfredo Bonanno is a pretty popular insurrectionist. I am totally new to this organisational tendency

Synthesis Anarchism: Federations that try to put Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Individualism together. Differs from platformism in that Syndicalism is seen as part of Communism and if I recal correctly individualism is left out or thought to be also a part of communism where as Synthesis Anarchism sees these three as just three different economic arrangements to achieve the same goal thefore they should unite (overcome sectarianism)

A note on Anarcho-Individualism

In my reading I haven't been able to acertain a coherent idea of what Individulism proposes it jsut seems to philosophy instead of economics I don't know I apoligize to you and any Individualists :unsure: see Goti's post below me it's better about Individualism

On Queer and Feminist Anarchism

I think they are just focuses on Queer and or Feminist liberation via Anarchist Revolution as opposed to a separate economic system or organisational methods

Advice of Tendencys

Don't pigeon hole yourself, learn, explore, see what you like try being you can always be an "Anarchist without Adjective" which is just "simply an Anarchist"

[Tim Cornelis]

Fuck me, at least I got the thread moving. 0 posts in 24 hours, the 5 as soon as I posted. Is a thread on anarchism not to include the main historical instance of anarchism in practice? Is it just to be confined to the realms of ideas and bits of paper, divorced from reality?

I though people might wanna discuss actual anarchism as it has existed in actual reality. The problem was the anarchist leaders. The anarchists themselves did a fine job.

He was asking about basic anarchist theory, not practice.

Let's say someone starts a thread about Trotskyist theory asking what it entails, would you find it acceptable if I went:

"Oh don't bother, Trotskyism has no practical success, he totally fucked up the Russian revolution, and he advocated conscription of labour".

That's not what that person would be asking.

It's completely self-righteous, and you do it all the time (trying to convert people unwantedly, although not so explicitly now). You're like a Jehova Witness but for Trotskyism.

EDIT:

Individualist anarchism is a mostly philosophical current that usually does not advocate class struggle. It advocates a market (be it a free market without regulation, or regulation by means of cooperation by an agro-industrial federation) of worker cooperatives, exhange banks with next to zero interest (basically credit unions). It has never attracted a mass movement, and to me it seems a gateway to social anarchism for most people.

[Blake's Baby]

... forget about anarchism, it's a waste of time...

You forgot about this bit is seems Goti.

[NewLeft]

To the OP:

I think you probably need some really basic intro stuff, which I would suggest you get from Anarchists:

The Anarchist FAQ: http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
LibCom (the Forum for Libertarian Communism) - you might want to make an account there: http://libcom.org/
The Anarchist Federation (formerly, the Anarchist-Communist Federation - in the UK): http://www.afed.org.uk/
Solidarity Federation (anarcho-syndicalist - also in the UK): http://www.solfed.org.uk/
Workers' Solidarity Movement (Ireland - 'platformist' which is a sub-set of anarchist-communist): http://www.wsm.ie/

There's no particular reason to believe anything any Marxist tells you about Anarchists, even me, and I was one for 20 years.

I'd second Hermes' call to read Kropotkin.

I'd also recommend Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman and Grigory Maximov on Russia, as well as Victor Serge (an anarchist-turned-marxist); Paul Avrich on anarchist history; Ida Mett on the Kronstadt Commune; as for Spain, well... I'm not so good on Spain, but 'Homage to Catalonia' by Orwell (not an anarchist but fairly sympathetic) is a good place to start for the general framework.

I second the anarchist FAQ.

[daft punk]

Marxist Internet Archive Encylopedia - Anarchism
brief overview with links

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/n.htm#anarchism


Massive resource, all the main anarchist writers:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/n.htm#anarchism


Marxism & Anarchism

Resources on the theory and practice of anarchism and the unity and conflict between Marxists and Anarchists over the past 150 years.

[daft punk]

Anarchist FAQ is also linked from my link to the MIA Encylopedia

[daft punk]

anarchist history archive

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/worldmovements.html

[daft punk]

So, there are 2 main strands of anarchism, social and individual.

Social includes mutualism, collectivism, communism and syndicalism.

Individual includes reformists and terrorists. Reformists here is different from your social democratic reformists obviously.

[The Douche]

So, there are 2 main strands of anarchism, social and individual.

Social includes mutualism, collectivism, communism and syndicalism.

Individual includes reformists and terrorists. Reformists here is different from your social democratic reformists obviously.

That's kind of an inaccurate over simplification. You can be an "individualist anarchist" or "egoist" without being a terrorist or "reformist". And reformism has nothing to do with Stirnirist/Egoist anarchy. And egoist anarchy is not necessarily opposed to collectivism.

[daft punk]

That's kind of an inaccurate over simplification. You can be an "individualist anarchist" or "egoist" without being a terrorist or "reformist". And reformism has nothing to do with Stirnirist/Egoist anarchy. And egoist anarchy is not necessarily opposed to collectivism.


from my link above


Max Stirner (1806-1856)
“Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity.”
Max Stirner was one of the Young Hegelians blasted by Marx as “Saint Max” in Chapter 3 of The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03.htm) (1845).
We do not have any works by Max Stirner on M.I.A. at the moment, but Stirner’s major work, The Ego and Its Own (http://www.nonserviam.com/stirner/the_ego/), and other works are available from The Egoist Archive (http://www.nonserviam.com/egoistarchive/index.html).
See Stirner and Nietzsche (http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/levy/stirner-nietzsche.htm), by Albert Lévy, 1904
Stirner was also a Young Hegelian, but returned to the philosophy of Hegel’s predecessor, Johann Fichte (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/f/i.htm#fichte-johann). Stirner advocates egoism, an extreme form of Libertarianism which idolises individualism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/n.htm#individualism) and rejects any and all forms of collectivism. Thus, in contrast to the communal spirit of Proudhon’s philosophy, Stirner is the precursor of Autonomism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/u.htm#autonomy). Shades of Stirner are also visible in Nietzsche.


from the MIA encyclopedia


"Individual anarchists of both types believe that being a part of a community is equivalent to losing their freedom. Max Stirner explained: “Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity.” [The Ego and Its Own, p. 257]"

[The Douche]

Yes, Stirner advocates a "union of egoists". Stirner is for only voluntary cooperation.

Stirner died before his time in my opinion, and could have contributed a lot more to the anarchist movement if he lived longer.

So like I said, one can interpret Stirner in a reactionary individualist manner, or a revolutionary individualist manner.

As an anarchist I do believe in individual autonomy, I don't think that the decisions of any collective organization supercede my individual autonomy. I think that individuals are (ought to be) free and autonomous in so much as they do not infringe on the autonomy of others.

[hatzel]

Max Stirner was one of the Young Hegelians blasted by Marx as “Saint Max” in Chapter 3 of The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03.htm) (1845).

Yeah might not be worth bringing that up. There's a reason those 300-odd pages are conspicuous in their absence from many editions of The German Ideology, and I can assure you that it's not the result of some elitist cabal trying to keep the very pinnacle of Marx's work hidden from the masses...

With that in mind, I am instantly suspicious of any claims about Stirner's philosophy flowing from the mouth or pen of a Marxist. More so, in fact, than any other Marxist claim about anarchism, which always seem remarkably tame in comparison. Which isn't to say that many Marxist haven't embraced his thought in a meaningful way.

[The Douche]

Yeah might not be worth bringing that up. There's a reason those 300-odd pages are conspicuous in their absence from many editions of The German Ideology, and I can assure you that it's not the result of some elitist cabal trying to keep the very pinnacle of Marx's work hidden from the masses...

With that in mind, I am instantly suspicious of any claims about Stirner's philosophy flowing from the mouth or pen of a Marxist. More so, in fact, than any other Marxist claim about anarchism, which always seem remarkably tame in comparison. Which isn't to say that many Marxist haven't embraced his thought in a meaningful way.

Honestly, I think Stirner could've filled the same historical role that Marx did, if he didn't die so soon.

[Ocean Seal]

This message is hidden because daft punk is on your ignore list. After reading what has been quoted, I really just appreciate this feature of the forum more than any other.

Anarcho-Collectivism- Bakunin. Basically Marx's socialism with no state
Anarcho-Communism-Kropotkin. Marx's higher stage of socialism achieved without a state intermediary.
Anarcho-syndicalism-a method of organization by which the revolutionary gains of the proletariat will be made through industrial unions. In addition these democratic unions will be how the proletariat achieves class power post revolution.

[Os Cangaceiros]

from my link above


Max Stirner (1806-1856)
“Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity.”
Max Stirner was one of the Young Hegelians blasted by Marx as “Saint Max” in Chapter 3 of The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03.htm) (1845).
We do not have any works by Max Stirner on M.I.A. at the moment, but Stirner’s major work, The Ego and Its Own (http://www.nonserviam.com/stirner/the_ego/), and other works are available from The Egoist Archive (http://www.nonserviam.com/egoistarchive/index.html).
See Stirner and Nietzsche (http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/levy/stirner-nietzsche.htm), by Albert Lévy, 1904
Stirner was also a Young Hegelian, but returned to the philosophy of Hegel’s predecessor, Johann Fichte (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/f/i.htm#fichte-johann). Stirner advocates egoism, an extreme form of Libertarianism which idolises individualism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/n.htm#individualism) and rejects any and all forms of collectivism. Thus, in contrast to the communal spirit of Proudhon’s philosophy, Stirner is the precursor of Autonomism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/u.htm#autonomy). Shades of Stirner are also visible in Nietzsche.


from the MIA encyclopedia


"Individual anarchists of both types believe that being a part of a community is equivalent to losing their freedom. Max Stirner explained: “Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity.” [The Ego and Its Own, p. 257]"

Max Stirner wasn't against the more progressive movements of his day, at least not in his day to day life...he helped found a cooperative, but it failed because the potential customers of the cooperative were suspicious of the owners cuz it was too bougie. :closedeyes: Most of the people who were followers of his thought were advocates of "social
individualism" and rational egoism.

here's another example (http://www.revleft.com/vb/interesting-article-max-t156687/index.html?t=156687)

I think there's a problem among some Marxists who only get information about certain historical figures (such as Stirner or Bakunin) as it's filtered down through Marx, Lenin or other ideological antagonists.

[hatzel]

Most of the people who were followers of his thought were advocates of "social individualism" and rational egoism.

This essay (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Massimo_Passamani__Mutual_Utilization__Relationshi p_and_Revolt_in_Max_Stirner.html) should probably be brought up at this point, not least because it actually realises that the book is called 'The Ego and its Own' so clearly there's something of significance beyond a mere assertion of the individual in isolation. I don't think it would be exactly fair to compare it to Ortega y Gasset's yo soy yo y mi circumstancia, but the basic structure (I am I and that outside of me) can be found in both, rather than the immature individualism (I am I...end of story) often ascribed to him by those who forgot to actually read the stuff before commenting on it.

...though it seems this thread has now turned from discussing the various types of anarchism to just discussing the merits of Stirner. Ah...problem? :rolleyes:

[Paulappaul]

Fuck me, at least I got the thread moving. 0 posts in 24 hours, the 5 as soon as I posted. Is a thread on anarchism not to include the main historical instance of anarchism in practice? Is it just to be confined to the realms of ideas and bits of paper, divorced from reality?

I though people might wanna discuss actual anarchism as it has existed in actual reality. The problem was the anarchist leaders. The anarchists themselves did a fine job.

Every post you write really reminds me of what an asshole you are.

Anyways,

Collectivism is not Marxism minus the state. The fission between Marx and Bakunin was larger then that. Marx and Engels regarded that Hierarchy was a product of social relations founded on the material conditions of society and without knowing the conditions of a socialist society they couldn't on principle reject Hierarchy as it would be a -historical. Also Marxism is in many ways anti - state and in more ways Libertarian then Collectivism - Marxist rejection of a wage whereas Bakunin upheld its practical use in facilitating trade.

Anarcho - Syndicalism is mostly a tactic of "Libertarian Communism" (with Anarchist - Communism as its dream of the future) in contrast to its pre - spain connotation of an industrially organized anarchist society.

[AnarchicSaint]

Thank you for all the replies. I'll have to study up more and check out some of the links.

Also, another question. I know that some say Libertarian Socialism is a longer word for 'Anarchism' but from what I read, it is more of a category of Anarchism rather than a translation. Any more info on that would be great. As always, Wikipedia just raises more confusion.

Thanks for all the replies, again.

[Luc]

Thank you for all the replies. I'll have to study up more and check out some of the links.

Also, another question. I know that some say Libertarian Socialism is a longer word for 'Anarchism' but from what I read, it is more of a category of Anarchism rather than a translation. Any more info on that would be great. As always, Wikipedia just raises more confusion.

Thanks for all the replies, again.

Libertarian Socialism appears to be any Socialist tendency that is anti-statist. So Anarchism's relation to Libertarian Socialism would be that Anarchism is Libertarian Socialist but Libertarian Socialism isn't necessarily Anarchist

iirc, the first person to call themselves Libertarian was an Anarcho-Communist or atleast a precursor to it (Joseph Dejacque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque)) if that means anything; interesting fact I guess :unsure:

[Grenzer]

Libertarian Socialism is a longer word for 'Anarchism' but from what I read, it is more of a category of Anarchism rather than a translation. Any more info on that would be great. As always, Wikipedia just raises more confusion.

Nah, not really.

Libertarian Socialism is just kind of a vague, meaningless umbrella term for tendencies that generally are opposed to Leninism. It includes anarchism, but it could also include Left Communism or similar tendencies depending on who you ask. It's meaningless because the tendencies included within the umbrella differ from each other to the extent where it would be absurd to lump them together at times.

In some contexts, Libertarian Socialism can be a politically correct way of saying Anarchism, but the meaning I provided is generally how the users here see it.

[CommunityBeliever]

So can someone please tell me the basic ideas behind the main schools of thought such as: Anarcho-syndicalism (which I think I understand, for the most part),Anarcho-communism, Collectivist Anarchism, or any other ones I should know about?

Veganarchism is an ideology with the goal of liberating all sentient beings from exploitation. Just as human animals are victims of their social relations to production, so too are non-human animals victims of exploitation for the production of animal products. As such, it is sensible to have unified platform for the liberation of all sentient beings including humans and non-humans, and veganarchism plays that role quite well.

[Sasha]

Insurrectionary anarchism: a tactic (like anarcho-syndicalism, platformism, etc etc) to come to a revolutionary situation and hopefully establish a anarcho-communist society.
In this form through informal temporal "affinity groups" and their involvement in insurrections and other forms of (not nescecairly revolutionary anarchist) class struggle.
Main ideologe: alfredo bonanno
Currently coming to a interesting synthesis with autonomous (post-)marxism in the work of the French collectives Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee.

[The Douche]

I'm giving infractions out to anybody who makes another off topic post in this thread.

[Ravachol]

Yes, Stirner advocates a "union of egoists". Stirner is for only voluntary cooperation.

Stirner died before his time in my opinion, and could have contributed a lot more to the anarchist movement if he lived longer.

So like I said, one can interpret Stirner in a reactionary individualist manner, or a revolutionary individualist manner.

As an anarchist I do believe in individual autonomy, I don't think that the decisions of any collective organization supercede my individual autonomy. I think that individuals are (ought to be) free and autonomous in so much as they do not infringe on the autonomy of others.

Indeed, 'egoism' and communism aren't necessarily opposed, as this piece shows: http://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything