Murray Bookchin Explains Anarchism

[Lanky Wanker]

rwp3CQVzzak

He speaks of how anarchism recognises hierarchical domination and not just economical domination, but makes it sound as though this is exclusive to anarchism. I feel like I'm sort of missing his point here, so what are your thoughts on this?

[Comrade Jandar]

It's interesting to hear about his path from Marxism-Leninism to Anarchism. The main problem I have is that he seems to doubt the revolutionary potential of the proletariat as a class.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Anarchism is definetly more libertarian than socialism.
This guy is right.
I wish every socialist would see things like he did, if socialists were to study anarchism they would see that anarchism is actually the answer, not socialism.

[Railyon]

Anarchism is definetly more libertarian than socialism.

So anarchists are not socialists? Interesting, definitely.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

It's interesting to hear about his path from Marxism-Leninism to Anarchism. The main problem I have is that he seems to doubt the revolutionary potential of the proletariat as a class.

No, he said that revolution could not just base itself in ending economic heirachy, and it should also end heirarchy in all forms.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

So anarchists are not socialists? Interesting, definitely.

No, who told you that?
Anarchists are not socialists, some anarchists might consider themselves communists, but never as socialists.
Our movement is more based on freedom than the socialist movement.

[Desperado]

He does seem to depart class analysis a bit too much for my liking, although I doubt that would result in much difference of action. His criticisms of the traditional "workers" movement are legitimate to an extent. He also touches on what are big problems for our analysis - or basically for all our movements - that it's hard to see how to break through capitals' alienation.

Are there any passages on Marx writing about the detrimental implications of alienation on so called class consciousness?


No, who told you that?
Anarchists are not socialists, some anarchists might consider themselves communists, but never as socialists.
Our movement is more based on freedom than the socialist movement.

Socialist for most people here means collective ownership of the means of production.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Socialist for most people here means collective ownership of the means of production.

Even so we do not call ourselves socialists.

[Desperado]

Even so we do not call ourselves socialists.

Speak for yourself.

[Anderson]

Are most anarchists petty bourgeois class intellectuals unable to see their class role in the social change and unable to either work for proletariat class or under proletariat class. Large number of intellectuals also think it fashionable to be a brand of socialists who have no concept of class struggle. As Marx has taught us there is no way social change can be planned without understanding class struggle. Revolution cannot be done without sharpening the contradictions of classes.
It is utopian and wishful thinking to be a Anarchist or Socialist with no concept of class struggle, no understanding of the historical role of proletariat and to somehow hope and think for a revolution.:)

[Comrade Jandar]

Even so we do not call ourselves socialists.

You're wrong. Anarchism is a strain of libertarian socialism. Please, you're making us look bad.

[Book O'Dead]

At minute 1:57, he says that the workers' movement in the U.S. lacked any real revolutionary content.

Perhaps he's right but if an explanation for that exists, I think it can be found in the failure (largely caused by the anarchists) of the IWW after its Chicago convention in 1905.

[Anderson]

You're wrong. Anarchism is a strain of libertarian socialism. Please, you're making us look bad.

So do the anarchists support Marx's Historical Materialism - All history is history of class struggle stuff....

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No, who told you that?
Anarchists are not socialists, some anarchists might consider themselves communists, but never as socialists.
Our movement is more based on freedom than the socialist movement.

Socialism is a ideology on it's own but it contains the ideas of other ideas as well. Any movement or idea that denies capitalist domination and calls for the workers to take over the means of production and rule society in a democratic way is socialist. For example, every anarchist and communist is a socialist while not every socialist is an anarchist or communist. Anarchists say they are against "Statist" socialism, yet they are still socialist.

[Railyon]

So do the anarchists support Marx's Historical Materialism - All history is history of class struggle stuff....

Usually, they do. Same with most other marxist concepts. But I guess that depends on who you ask, I mean you have all sorts of people who know jack shit about marxism in all "proper" marxist tendencies even so why should the anarchists be different?

My experience is that even if some people don't, they usually agree with it once you explain it to them, if that helps.

[Anderson]

This is making socialism into nothing.

Even Nazis were Socialist if we stretch the definition in such a way that there is no definition left.

Nazism, the common short form name of National Socialism (German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language): Nationalsozialismus) was the ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) and practice of the Nazi Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party) and of Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany)

[Railyon]

This is making socialism into nothing.

Even Nazis were Socialist if we stretch the definition in such a way that there is no definition left.

How is that stretching? The Nazis were pro-private property, putting them safely into the non-socialist camp.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

How is that stretching?


It is streatching if you call all leftists socialists.
Anarchism IS libertarian socialism, they are synonimous, but calling us socialists would identify us with the marxists.
Anarchism is based on the idea that heirarchy is a bad thing, whether it is social or economical.

I can call myself communist, but if I do people will think I am a marxist, so even though I believe in a society like communism (which we call anarchy) I am not a communist, because my main tendency is anarchism.

You socialists try to make it harder and harder to refer to you, for example: if I refer to you as communist you will say anarchists are also communists, if I refer to you as socialists you say anarchists are also socialists, If refer to you as marxists you will say I am not a marxist, I am a "INSERT SUB-TENDENCY OF SOCIALISM HERE".
So for me it is easier to refer to leftists who aren't anarchists, but support a society like communism, as socialists.

"Even so we do not call ourselves socialists. "

If someone asks what political tendency you support what will you answer: socialist or anarchist?

[Railyon]

It is streatching if you call all leftists socialists.
Of course. Not all leftists are socialists. I'll refrain from any cheap potshots here though... :)


Anarchism IS libertarian socialism, they are synonimous, but calling us socialists would identify us with the marxists.
You seem to think Marxists are a bad thing and thus conflate socialism with Marxism. Marxism itself isn't anything bad really, I think it's a powerful weapon in the hands of an anarchist, however you seem to surrender both Marxism and socialism to what we call "state socialists" (Trots, Leninists, etc) - which is false in my opinion.


Anarchism is based on the idea that heirarchy is a bad thing, whether it is social or economical.
The economical is the social and vice versa.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It is streatching if you call all leftists socialists.
Anarchism IS libertarian socialism, they are synonimous, but calling us socialists would identify us with the marxists.
Anarchism is based on the idea that heirarchy is a bad thing, whether it is social or economical.

This is wrong. Unless you don't support workers' control of production, than you are a socialist BY DEFINITION, just a different tendency, anarchist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

thats a lot of handwaving shit to get to the point of disavowing marxism

[Lanky Wanker]

Anarchism is definetly more libertarian than socialism.
This guy is right.
I wish every socialist would see things like he did, if socialists were to study anarchism they would see that anarchism is actually the answer, not socialism.

I don't mean to start an argument or a hate relationship here, but I can't find the correct word for a lot of your posts I've seen... dogmatic might be one. It just sort of makes you sound like one of those n00bs who read about anarchism on wikipedia then fall in love with the idea and start throwing molotov cocktails at Marxist-Lenninists and cars in the name of freedom.


Even so we do not call ourselves socialists.

What's your definition of socialism?

[Railyon]

I don't mean to start an argument or a hate relationship here, but I can't find the correct word for a lot of your posts I've seen... dogmatic might be one. It just sort of makes you sound like one of those n00bs who read about anarchism on wikipedia then fall in love with the idea and become glued to it.

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? I think it's an easy mistake to make, and I used to think the same for a brief period of time before I discovered classical Marxism via his writings. So there may be a bit of truth to what you say though lol.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"Even so we do not call ourselves socialists. "

If someone asks what political tendency you support what will you answer: socialist or anarchist?

Do I not have the freedom to not be identified as an authoritarian socialist.

"What's your definition of socialism? "

My definition of socialism is the same as yours, but just because I support the same kind of economy as you it does not mean I support everything else you do.

[Railyon]

If someone asks what political tendency you support what will you answer: socialist or anarchist?

Libertarian Marxist.

Honestly, what difference does it make? People who know nothing of either will dismiss both; those that know their correlation will only make a point in their difference if they're sectarian.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

"Even so we do not call ourselves socialists. "

If someone asks what political tendency you support what will you answer: socialist or anarchist?

Libertarian Socialist

(FYI I am not an anarchist, but I studied it for 2 years and was for 2 years. I am a left-communist apart of the German/Dutch Council Communist tradition now).

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Libertarian Marxist.

That was a question for anarchists.

"you are a socialist BY DEFINITION, just a different tendency, anarchist. "

Anarchism is NOT a tendency of socialism, the anarchism you are refering to is anarchist-communism, and that is also NOT a tendency of socialism, it is a tendency of anarchism.

If you tell someone you are a socialist they will react differently than if you had said you were an anarchist, usually when I say I am an anarchist the other person asks: "whats that?", which gives me a perfect opportunity to explain anarchism.

By the way you are posting to fast for me to answer.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Railyon is an anarchist I think (if I am wrong, sorry).

[Railyon]

That was a question for anarchists.
:confused:

I'm a member of an anarchist syndicate. Does that count?

Libertarian Marxism is a code word for "anarchists who read Marx" anyway. :D

[Brosa Luxemburg]

"What's your definition of socialism? "

My definition of socialism is the same as yours, but just because I support the same kind of economy as you it does not mean I support everything else you do.

That is why socialism has different tendencies such as M-L, Trotskyism, Council Communism, and...wait for it....ANARCHISM! :D

[Anderson]

It seems that definition wise there is confusion on the forum between anarchists, socialists and communists.

Can we make a table of comparison of stand taken of issues related to social change and revolution by these three ?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

That is why socialism has different tendencies such as M-L, Trotskyism, Council Communism, and...wait for it....ANARCHISM! :D

Like I have said before anarchism is NOT a tendency of socialism.the anarchism you are refering to is anarchist-communism, and that is also NOT a tendency of socialism, it is a tendency of anarchism.

If you tell someone you are a socialist they will react differently than if you had said you were an anarchist, usually when I say I am an anarchist the other person asks: "whats that?", which gives me a perfect opportunity to explain anarchism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Anderson

"It seems that definition wise there is confusion on the forum between anarchists, socialists and communists.

Can we make a table of comparison of stand taken of issues related to social change and revolution by these three ? "

Please do.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Can everybody stop posting and allow me to explain!!

[Lanky Wanker]

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? I think it's an easy mistake to make, and I used to think the same for a brief period of time before I discovered classical Marxism via his writings. So there may be a bit of truth to what you say though lol.

Oh trust me, I did the same. I found out about leftism when I saw communist t-shirts on a punk website and thought "...da fok?" because of the anti-communist propaganda I'd been indoctrinated by. I found out about anarcho-communism through that same website and fell in love with the idea. When I first joined RevLeft I had all the anarchy signs in my signature thinking I was a total boss. :lol: I don't even think I understood the difference between anarcho-communism and regular Marxism at the time, it just sounded cool to me. I didn't post "lulz anarchy R da best!!!" comments though.



My definition of socialism is the same as yours, but just because I support the same kind of economy as you it does not mean I support everything else you do.

Well clearly it isn't the same if we disagree on whether or not anarcho-communists are socialists. Are you referring to the ways in which we break free of capitalism and reach communism?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Like I have said before anarchism is NOT a tendency of socialism.

Do you support workers' control of production and industry? Do you support society being run by the people? Do you support a stateless and classless society (no matter if there is a transition period or not)? If you answered "yes" to these, then you are a socialist and anarchism is a tendency of socialism. That isn't a bad thing, and I am not trying to criticize you. It is just a fact.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Anarchism is its own theory and its origins are not the same as socialism's, the anarchism you guys talk about is when anarchist dicided to combine the libertarianism of anarchism with the economic theories of socialism, so if you think this way I AM a socialist.

I said we do not call ourselves socialists because we support a separate theory, which envolves the socialist economy.

Not all leftist tendencies are socialism.

Anarchism is NOT a tendency of socialism because it is based more on libertation and anti-hierarchy than socialism and also anarchism comes from different origins.

[Railyon]

If you tell someone you are a socialist they will react differently than if you had said you were an anarchist, usually when I say I am an anarchist the other person asks: "whats that?", which gives me a perfect opportunity to explain anarchism.

That sounds like an opportunistic semantics game you're playing there.

If anarchism isn't socialist, it's not anarchism - easy as that. What you call yourself is a different matter and yes, some people react differently to different terms.

What if you encounter someone who thinks anarchists are bomb throwers? Now that doesn't really help you either.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

If anarchism isn't socialist, it's not anarchism

You seem to be ignorant to the individualist tendencies of anarchism.

[Lanky Wanker]

I think this is what TheRedAnarchist23 is getting at:


[Socialism] differs from communism in that socialists do not necessarilly insist upon the removal or overthrow of the state entirely. Marxist socialists support the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, while reformist socialists are content with capitalism remaining in place while some progressive changes are made to the exisiting system.
Socialism appears in various forms across the political spectrum, from marxism to the far left, social democracy to the centre left and national socialism to the extreme right.

(RevLeft Wiki: Socialism)


Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation. Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism," pp. 30-34, Man!, M. Graham (Ed), p. 32, p. 34]

(It must stressed that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" and so on.).

Individualists like Benjamin Tucker, along with social anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and Anarchism," "so long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time." [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in Tucker's words, "the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." [Lance Klafta, "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 34]

However, the meanings of words change over time. Today "socialism" almost always refers to state socialism, a system that all anarchists have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals.


(Making Sense of Anarchism - Anarchism for Dummies)

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Anarchism is a separate theory with many tendencies, one is the one you know as anarchism, which is the tendency of anarcho-communism.
There are individualistic tendencies as there are social tendencies of anarchism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"[Socialism] differs from communism in that socialists do not necessarilly insist upon the removal or overthrow of the state entirely. Marxist socialists support the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, while reformist socialists are content with capitalism remaining in place while some progressive changes are made to the exisiting system.
Socialism appears in various forms across the political spectrum, from marxism to the far left, social democracy to the centre left and national socialism to the extreme right."

YES!

"Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation. Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism," pp. 30-34, Man!, M. Graham (Ed), p. 32, p. 34]"

WRONG! There are branches of anarchism (ANARCHO-CAPITALISM AND ANARCHO-INDIVIDUALISM) which are not oposed to capitalism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I conclude this with anarchists are not socialists, because our main tendency is not socialism, it is anarchism, but we do support socialism.

IS THAT FUCKING CLEAR!?

[hatzel]

I conclude this with anarchists are not socialists, because our main tendency is not socialism, but we do support socialism.

IS THAT FUCKING CLEAR!?

In a word: no.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Socialism is a tendency we added to our already existing tendency of anarchism.

[Railyon]

I'll say it again; anarchists who are not socialists are not anarchists.

Individualists, if we take the old school kind, are also generally socialists, but for different reasons (thinking of Stirner here, for example).

"Anarcho-Capitalism" is not anarchism. Period. Ever.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Railyon

Who do you think understands more of anarchism: an anarchist or a non-anarchist.

"Anarcho-Capitalism" is not anarchism. Period. Ever. "

YES IT IS, because it is based on the libertarian ideals of anarchism

To put it simply: anarchism is a libertarian tendency, nothing else, the anarchism you talk about is anarcho-communism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

"Anarcho-Capitalism" is not anarchism. Period. Ever. "

YES IT IS, because it is based on the libertarian ideals of anarchism


Clearly you are not aware of the origins of and what anarcho-capitalism is.

[Railyon]

@Railyon

Who do you think understands more of anarchism: an anarchist or a non-anarchist.

Sometimes I'm not too sure of that.


"Anarcho-Capitalism" is not anarchism. Period. Ever. "

YES IT IS, because it is based on the libertarian ideals of anarchism.

Because capitalism is so anarchist rite. Unless you use the dictionary definition of anarchism like they do, anti-statism, there is just no way they fit into anarchism - ideals don't count for much. Unless you want to kiss your boss's ass because he didn't force you into that shit job, which is certainly an AnCap stance, but hardly anarchist.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Takayuki

"Clearly you are not aware of the origins of and what anarcho-capitalism is. "

Anarcho-capitalism is anarchism combined with capitalism, it is a stateless, "hierarchyless":confused: system that envolves free trade with money.

[hatzel]

So can I just check...we've all totally given up on discussing what Bookchin had to say, right?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Anarchism is a system that supports the abolition of all forms of hierarchy, socialism is a system that involves the abolition of economic hierarchy, so if you think this way SOCIALISM IS A TENDENCY OF ANARCHISM:D:D:D:D:D!!!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

@Takayuki

"Clearly you are not aware of the origins of and what anarcho-capitalism is. "

Anarcho-capitalism is anarchism combined with capitalism, it is a stateless, "hierarchyless":confused: system that envolves free trade with money.

Capitalism cannot be without hierarchy (and anarcho-capitalists do not shy away from hierarchy), nor is it compatible with anarchism as an ideology. Ergo, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"So can I just check...we've all totally given up on discussing what Bookchin had to say, right?"

Yes, there was not that much to discuss anyway, picking one me for not supporting that anarchism is a tendency of socialism is much more fun!

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"Capitalism cannot be without hierarchy (and anarcho-capitalists do not shy away from hierarchy), nor is it compatible with anarchism as an ideology. Ergo, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism."

Read comment 52

[TheRedAnarchist23]

You guys have offended me for saying anarchism is socialism, which it isn't, it is a separate philosophy.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

"Capitalism cannot be without hierarchy (and anarcho-capitalists do not shy away from hierarchy), nor is it compatible with anarchism as an ideology. Ergo, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism."

Read comment 52

Has nothing to do with the point in question.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"Has nothing to do with the point in question."

Comment 52 explains why you are right and why the others who say anarchism is a tendency of socialism are wrong.

[Lanky Wanker]

RedAnarchist23, you're making anarchism sound like a recipe or something. "Bit of freedom here, some workers' control there, throw in some statelessness for that extra lemony zing..."

Anarcho-COMMUNISM is socialism, as is anarcho-COLLECTIVISM and other strands. "Anarchism" means fuck all on its own. When I asked my commie friend what his views on anarchism were, he assumed I meant anarcho-capitalism where the rich will inevitably rule over everyone and blah blah blah, and this is because the word on its own is such a weak one.

Anyway, more to the point: Does it matter? I'd like to finish my dinner now.

[Railyon]

You guys have offended me for saying anarchism is socialism, which it isn't, it is a separate philosophy.

Their common historical roots is where it's at.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Anarchism is THE libertarian tendency, anarchism means libertarianism, therefore it is not socialism, but many of its tendencies envolve socialism.

READ comment 52

[WanderingCactus]

thats a lot of handwaving shit to get to the point of disavowing marxism

That's bookchin's style yo.

[x359594]

Well, Bookchin doesn't have the last word on anarchism. In his final years he repudiated anarchism and even claimed that he was never an anarchist! Clearly, his published work up until the late 1990s belies his latter disavowal.

Bookchin's principal theoretical work The Ecology of Freedom explores all the ways domination and hierarchy permeate the bourgeois mode of production. His approach is dialectical inasmuch as he sees capitalism as a system that includes relations between human and nature, men and women, straight and gay, white and people of color, order giver and order taker, bosses and workers as ways of reproducing itself through the maintenance of unequal power relationships.

The contention is that a change from a capitalist to a socialist economy will not necessarily result in the erosion of sexism, heterosexism, racism, the exploitation of nature, the patriarchal family, ect. The bourgeois mode of production is a many headed hydra that has to have all its heads decapitated in order to arrive at a society based on from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"Their common historical roots is where it's at."

Anarchism is a much more ancient idea than socialism.
Anarchism means freedom, anarchism means REAL freedom, socialism means economic freedom.

[Ele'ill]

From wiki

Revolutionary Socialism

"The term revolutionary socialism refers to socialist tendencies that advocate the need for the overthrow of capitalism through revolution, by mass movements of the working class, as a strategy to achieve a socialist society. This anti-capitalist term is mainly synonymous with Marxism, however it can be used to described revolutionary anarchists."

There's a ton of information about this if you all just keyword search it

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Mari3l

Read comment 52, it explains everything

[TheRedAnarchist23]

To any that have a problem with me saying anarchism is not a form of socialism read comment 52.
If after reading that you still feel like picking on me leave a message on my profile page.

[Railyon]

Anarchism is a system that supports the abolition of all forms of hierarchy, socialism is a system that involves the abolition of economic hierarchy, so if you think this way SOCIALISM IS A TENDENCY OF ANARCHISM:D:D:D:D:D!!!

Which comes down to "what came first, hen or egg"

To me that's a nonsensical question and if socialism is a tendency of anarchism, why are you against calling yourself a socialist? Are you cappie maybe? :p

To me as an anarchist the two are inseparable anyway, but topics like these really make me reconsider whether I want to continue identifying with this tendency in the first place.

[Per Levy]

@Mari3l

Read comment 52, it explains everything

tbh, it doesnt explain anything at all. its just a statement or to be more frank just your opinion and it has little to no insight of anything.

but soemhow i have the feeling we should make a meme out of "read comment 52" "comment 52 explains everything", like "read some lenin" or so, could be fun.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

This guy sounds like an idealistic little twit. He tries to downplay class struggle, a materialist concept, and replace it with the abstract and stupid concept of "hierarchical struggle." One concept is based on the materialist analysis of history and economics, while the other concept is simply based on this idealist view of history which claims that that it has the (unspecified) masses vs. the hierarchy of everything in daily life and society. I think that even most anarchists on this website would find this man to be incorrect in his denial of the viability and historical importance of class struggle.

[Lanky Wanker]

Guys, I think he got us. :rolleyes:

[Brosa Luxemburg]

http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca14

http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF

http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG

This is for RedAnarchist123. It's the Anarchist FAQ and the sections I linked to debunk your claims. Please do not blow them off, you may learn from them.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

For the first link go to A.1.4

It explains why anarchists are socialists.

The second link is why anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism

The last section is why individualist anarchists are also socialists.

[Grayshot]

This guy sounds like an idealistic little twit. He tries to downplay class struggle, a materialist concept, and replace it with the abstract and stupid concept of "hierarchical struggle."

Are you referring to Bookchin? I don't think he was downplaying class struggle per se, but expand the notions of exploitation to those of an explicitly non-economic kind, such as said hierarchical relations. I don't think he was trying to throw out Marx so much as go beyond him.

That said, anyone who thinks that Marxist concepts are useless is really just screwing themselves. You can't critique capitalism without referring to him. However, the importance of the resistance to hierarchy is probably as important as the class struggle. For me, at least, the two coincide.

[Grayshot]

WRONG! There are branches of anarchism (ANARCHO-CAPITALISM AND ANARCHO-INDIVIDUALISM) which are not oposed to capitalism.

First of all, individualist anarchism is still socialist (a position that is reinforced by the section of the Anarchist FAQ that was just posted).

Second, do not ever say again, ever, ever, ever, that an-caps are anarchists. The whole notion is ridiculous. So called 'anarcho'-capitalism makes no sense in the context of the rest of the anarchist movement and history, which is, in fact, socialist (socialist in the sense that there is SOCIAL ownership of the means of production).

[Lanky Wanker]

To tackle the question more directly, shouldn't we be trying to explain how anarcho-COMMUNISTS are socialists?

[Railyon]

To tackle the question more directly, shouldn't we be trying to explain how anarcho-COMMUNISTS are socialists?

I beg your pardon? It's kinda like trying to explain why French Fries taste like potato. :confused:

[Lanky Wanker]

I beg your pardon? It's kinda like trying to explain why French Fries taste like potato. :confused:

Pumped with salt and fried in oil until they turn crispy... that's not what a potato tastes like! My nan is Irish, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to potatoes; it's in our genetics. Anyway, it looks like we're gonna have to explain it... oh wait, that's what we've been doing throughout the whole thread.

It'd be nice if a mod could rename this thread to "Are anarchists socialists or not: the never ending debate (Part 1)"

[NewLeft]

Pumped with salt and fried in oil until they turn crispy... that's not what a potato tastes like! My nan is Irish, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to potatoes; it's in our genetics. Anyway, it looks like we're gonna have to explain it... oh wait, that's what we've been doing throughout the whole thread.

It'd be nice if a mod could rename this thread to "Are anarchists socialists or not: the never ending debate (Part 1)"
Post 52 pretty much nailed it..

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah anarchism is against hierarchy but anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, cause there would be no hierarchy in an ancap society :confused: I think we found the anarchist equivalent of some of the younger M-L's on this site.

[NewLeft]

Yeah anarchism is against hierarchy but anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, cause there would be no hierarchy in an ancap society :confused: I think we found the anarchist equivalent of some of the younger M-L's on this site.
Ancaps accept hierarchy at the workplace because the "individual" is free to work for a boss or not. :rolleyes: They think the real coercion exists in the democratic workplaces, councils..etc.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah its not like the workers are forced into exploitative working conditions. They have the options of work, or starve.:rolleyes:

[Tim Finnegan]

This guy sounds like an idealistic little twit. He tries to downplay class struggle, a materialist concept, and replace it with the abstract and stupid concept of "hierarchical struggle." One concept is based on the materialist analysis of history and economics, while the other concept is simply based on this idealist view of history which claims that that it has the (unspecified) masses vs. the hierarchy of everything in daily life and society. I think that even most anarchists on this website would find this man to be incorrect in his denial of the viability and historical importance of class struggle.
You don't think that hierarchies of gender, race, etc. are relationships of a fundamentally material character? Sounds to me like you are the idealist, not him.