Where did all the anarchists go?

[The Feral Underclass]

I seem to be the only one...

[Sasha]

there are still a bunch of A-S's, some others like me drifted towards tiqqun and theorie communiste and/or post-left stuff, some left for libcom...

[Tim Cornelis]

Many of them confused Marxist hypotheses with science and traded anarchism in for left-communism or orthodox Marxism.

[The Feral Underclass]

some others like me drifted towards tiqqun and theorie communiste and/or post-left stuff, some left for libcom...

How's that working out for you?

[The Feral Underclass]

Many of them confused Marxist hypotheses with science and traded anarchism in for left-communism or orthodox Marxism.

There needs to be a resurgence.

[Sasha]

How's that working out for you?


pretty good, i always rather read books, did actions and organized autonomous spaces than got entangled in trying to build (non-topic based) organisations, not much of switch from vaguely councel-communist to vaguely autonomist to vaguely insurectionist to vaguely tiqqunista over the last 15 or so years... more a drift away from previous labels than previous positions..

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Many of them confused Marxist hypotheses with science and traded anarchism in for left-communism or orthodox Marxism.

On the other hand, some of us used (post-)Marxist ideas to develop critiques of science, and traded our anarchism for an emancipatory project whose name is yet-to-be-articulated. I mean, I still call myself an anarchist sometimes, but mostly I say "communist" to differentiate myself from, on one hand, black-bloc fetishizing (and not in a sexy way) faux-insurrectionary individualist assholes, and, on the other, identity-politics obsessed liberals who conflate progressive policies aimed at ending sexual assault on their university campuses (not necessarily a bad thing, in-and-of-themselves) with liberation.

Which, really, I guess, is a way of saying that many anarchists are more concerned with the content than the label on the package.

[The Feral Underclass]

An emancipatory project? You make it sound like home work.

A lot of anarchists seem to be trying to find the next big thing without really looking at the tradition they claimed to once be part of.

The tradition of anarchist communism has the ideas, analysis and methodology, you just need to be prepared to look properly.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Many of them confused Marxist hypotheses with science and traded anarchism in for left-communism or orthodox Marxism.

No, just various strands of left communism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There are still a good number of anarchists here. Even more people with anarchist sympathies but who may not classify themselves as "anarchists".

[ed miliband]

i think i stopped identifying as an anarchist after my brief involvement with afed. i mean, they were lovely people and i like a lot of stuff that afed have put out, but whilst they held a critique of activism, etc. i didn't see how their activity actually broke from that. i have a number of other criticisms but i'm tired and kinda drunk.

[F9]

the only one?:star:

have we actually turned to be the minority around here?we were the vast majority:confused:

[Ostrinski]

I think the broader ultra left still outnumber the Leninists (by a bit, at least).

[Le Socialiste]

I think the broader ultra left still outnumber the Leninists (by a bit, at least).

I'd say that's true, but I also feel like we have more users self-identifying as Leninists lately (as opposed to the Stalinist variant). I guess I'd include myself in that number, but it's true - there doesn't seem to be as many anarchists on revleft as there used to be. Some appear to have either left, dropped out, or moved on to something else ('tendency' wise).

[Ostrinski]

If user group membership is any indication (it isn't) the anarchists are still the sizable majority.

Anarchist- 705
Marxist-Leninist- 441
Trotskyist- 338
Left Communist- 319

[black magick hustla]

anarchism is boring lol. nothing bores me more than a discussion about federalism or what is authoritarianism or not

[Sasha]

you hang with the wrong kind of anarchists, here its mostly punk music, drinking alcohol, doing drugs, fighting cops, fighting nazi's, fighting real-estate speculators, fighting sexist fratboys, lots of fighting now i think about it.
sure you meet the occasional vegan missionary but political theory is hardly discussed, read about, but not discussed...
the left-coms though are hell boring here..

[ed miliband]

punk music is a big part of the problem

[black magick hustla]

you hang with the wrong kind of anarchists, here its mostly punk music, drinking alcohol, doing drugs, fighting cops, fighting nazi's, fighting real-estate speculators, fighting sexist fratboys, lots of fighting now i think about it.
sure you meet the occasional vegan missionary but political theory is hardly discussed, read about, but not discussed...
the left-coms though are hell boring here..

lol there's like two of them in the netherlands and they are old ....

anyway i don't mean in terms of who parties harder or not, but anarchist theory in itself is boring. and probably the scene you are talking about is a major sausagefest.....

[Os Cangaceiros]

punk music is a big part of the problem


anarchist theory in itself is boring

^definitely agree with those two statements lol

[F9]

If user group membership is any indication (it isn't) the anarchists are still the sizable majority.

Anarchist- 705
Marxist-Leninist- 441
Trotskyist- 338
Left Communist- 319

this where done loooong time ago so sadly it aint an indication anymore...no one really uses them anymore anw

[Sasha]

lol there's like two of them in the netherlands and they are old ....

anyway i don't mean in terms of who parties harder or not, but anarchist theory in itself is boring. and probably the scene you are talking about is a major sausagefest.....

Vegan sausages?

Actually I think we have more active women atm than man, certainly more women in the prominent collectives.

[Quail]

I'm still here :)

[Ele'ill]

much of radical theory and revolutionary politics is boring

[bcbm]

seduced by nihilism

[The Feral Underclass]

Saying anarchist theory is boring is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Trying to make some kind of critique or statement about political theory based on how entertaining it is, is very strange. You engage with political theory because it speaks to your understanding of reality, not because you won't to be entertained.

If this is the level of political discourse around here now, I'm not surprised the anarchists went away.

[Pawn Power]

There are no anythings here. Just people who proscribe themselves to various disconnected political identities outside of a local community and political context.

No offence to anyone, really. I just think political identities are silly to have for yourself. Also, no offence to the agitators and organizers out there.

[Tim Cornelis]

you hang with the wrong kind of anarchists, here its mostly punk music, drinking alcohol, doing drugs, fighting cops, fighting nazi's, fighting real-estate speculators, fighting sexist fratboys, lots of fighting now i think about it.
sure you meet the occasional vegan missionary but political theory is hardly discussed, read about, but not discussed...
the left-coms though are hell boring here..

I'd rather have anarchism be a movement than a scene.

[Pawn Power]

I'd rather have anarchism be a movement than a scene.
If there is no scene there will be no movement.

[Ravachol]

political theory is hardly discussed, read about, but not discussed...

Tell me about it :p Though nerdy political injokes are always a blast.



the left-coms though are hell boring here..

There's only like 3 of them or so. They're nice folks but really old and sometimes a bit uptight. But at least I digg their politics over the usual serving of trottyblabla.



probably the scene you are talking about is a major sausagefest.....

This is actually not true. As Psycho said, i've seen plenty of situations where the number of women far surpassed the number of dudes.


I'd rather have anarchism be a movement than a scene.

Real movements are real scenes and vise-versa? :D (Sorry couldn't resist the urge).

Honestly though, I don't see the point. Most of the activist/anarchist/radical scene is a minoritarian and/or subcultural milieu, like all pro-rev orgs or networks in non-revolutionary times. I don't think 'anarchism' will (or should) ever become a 'mass movement' in the sense that there'll be millions of people running around reading Kropotkin or Malatesta or Landstreicher of whatever. The revolt against capital will most likely be a very diverse, combined and uneven process of destablization, driven by a constantly transforming proletariat (and transforming its organisations) in the process of negating itself. This won't look like a unified, step-by-step programme-oriented movement marching under the unified banner of this or that ideology or theoretical framework.

Besides, despite my misgivings about 'scenes' (which I have always disliked because of the sometimes incestous atmosphere) however you twist or turn the infrastructure of the squatting movement, its subcultural appeal and the whole imagery surrounding it probably did something for at least maintaining a marginal milieu where otherwise we'd be left with 10 old farts pretending its 1936, some apologist academics and the occasional 'libertarian' dead-end community organizer. Sure, the subcultural appeal works both ways and creates ghettoism, the unquestioning retreat into mediocre identities fresh of the identity-commodity shelves and all that yadayada. But this isn't the late '90s anymore where people are critiquing crimethinc. for dumpster diving and hopping freight trains or for people shouting 'up teh punx!' and pissing through a broken window under the banner of anarchy. Even looking at the very small pro-rev milieu in the Netherlands, there's a lot of people who got attracted to it in the past half decade or so who come from completely different backgrounds then the usual punk -> squatting -> anarchy route we're all so familiar with.

Anyways just wanted to point out a critique of 'ghettoism' isn't gonna solve the problem of the absence of billions which isn't something strategy can conjure up anyway.

[Ele'ill]

Saying anarchist theory is boring is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Trying to make some kind of critique or statement about political theory based on how entertaining it is, is very strange. You engage with political theory because it speaks to your understanding of reality, not because you won't to be entertained.

If this is the level of political discourse around here now, I'm not surprised the anarchists went away.

Yeah actually you're probably right about this. I generally find most theory interesting but I think the intensity of boredom has to do with the relevance of topic and there are people who want to talk about less breakingly relevant topics all the time. Most of the anarchists on the forum tend to congregate in threads surrounding current events with the focus being struggle here and now I guess because it's more of a tangible thing and obviously those threads specifically pertaining to anarchist theory. I think some of the threads you've posted recently are relevant and interesting and I know several of the anarchists on the forum wanted more discussion here on similar topics.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think that theory being "boring" is a real problem that needs to be confronted - because when theory is living and relevant it isn't boring. Good theory is the sort of thing that you can't put down; that answers some vital question of everyday life and spurs one to action.
Difficult and boring are very different things, and the former things seem worth doing when they're not the latter.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think that theory being "boring" is a real problem that needs to be confronted - because when theory is living and relevant it isn't boring.

I'm not really sure how you are drawing this distinction? I don't see how it's a relevant distinction either. Capital is incredibly dense and boring, but it is also living and relevant...


Good theory is the sort of thing that you can't put down; that answers some vital question of everyday life and spurs one to action.

If you enjoy reading theory.

[black magick hustla]

Saying anarchist theory is boring is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Trying to make some kind of critique or statement about political theory based on how entertaining it is, is very strange. You engage with political theory because it speaks to your understanding of reality, not because you won't to be entertained.


It was an offhand comment. What I mean about "boring" is that it is not insightful, doesn't give me new insights about the world I live in, etc. Theoretically, classical anarchism seems to be in some aspects, very close to the liberal worldview - you know, democracy vs authoritarianism, federalism vs centralism etc. I don't mean as in anarchists are what people mean by "liberal" nowadays but that historically, in terms of thought, they definitely seem to have been a radical split from that kind of early modern liberalism If you read Rocker's "nationalism and culture", where rocker is like the archetype of classical anarchism, he worships Locke and Godwin. I am not saying anarchists don't have class politics, but typically, the classical ones, basically merge the categories of class with liberal categories. For example, bourgeosie is bad cuz' it basically represents an undemocratic, authoritarian aspect of society etc. Insurrectionists are a bit different but that's why a lot of "social anarchists" dislike them. the most interesting anarchists absorbed marxism but even then, they still carry that deadweight. Sometimes when things are boring it simply means they fail to sound relevant.

[MarxSchmarx]

It was an offhand comment. What I mean about "boring" is that it is not insightful, doesn't give me new insights about the world I live in, etc. Theoretically, classical anarchism seems to be in some aspects, very close to the liberal worldview - you know, democracy vs authoritarianism, federalism vs centralism etc. I don't mean as in anarchists are what people mean by "liberal" nowadays but that historically, in terms of thought, they definitely seem to have been a radical split from that kind of early modern liberalism If you read Rocker's "nationalism and culture", where rocker is like the archetype of classical anarchism, he worships Locke and Godwin. I am not saying anarchists don't have class politics, but typically, the classical ones, basically merge the categories of class with liberal categories. For example, bourgeosie is bad cuz' it basically represents an undemocratic, authoritarian aspect of society etc. Insurrectionists are a bit different but that's why a lot of "social anarchists" dislike them. the most interesting anarchists absorbed marxism but even then, they still carry that deadweight. Sometimes when things are boring it simply means they fail to sound relevant.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I completely agree about your diagnosis of what makes it boring. At its core I think much of anarchist theory differs perhaps from other political theoreis in that it has also always been incredibly polemical and aimed at propagandizing. That's why it repeatedly deals with questions like "how do we make sure arsonists are kept under wraps" or something. To its credit, I think it forces readers to think about what they want after the transition from capitalism. It's also the only reason I could fathom why Rocker's writings strike me as incredibly pedantic.

But the other point is I wonder whether, for instance, anarchism is all that unique in terms of its adoption of bourgeois liberalism. I think a lot of Marx's writings incorporates ideas and analyses developed by bourgeois liberal idealogues and engages these enlightenment era questions pretty seriously. Even the class struggle isn't quite uniquely Marx's insights. In any event, in non-anarchist theory maybe a lot of that is Hegalizing, but I think Marx too doesn't represent as strong a radical break from teh liberal intellectual tradition that he is often made out to.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Rudolf Rocker was a great writer (which I don't say about many anarchists) and was one of the brightest left-wing minds of his era, in my opinion.

And yeah, he did have a certain affection for classical liberalism (which may be why he's probably one of Chomsky's most admired historical figures).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

much of radical theory and revolutionary politics is boring

I actually find revolutionary politics very exciting.

[black magick hustla]

Rudolf Rocker was a great writer (which I don't say about many anarchists) and was one of the brightest left-wing minds of his era, in my opinion.

And yeah, he did have a certain affection for classical liberalism (which may be why he's probably one of Chomsky's most admired historical figures).
dude rocker holds a really close place in my heart. i read nationalism and culture when i was 15. made me think about society in different ways. he was the whole definition of a brilliant autodidact forged in the heat of the class struggle and deeply respect that. however, i don't really buy the classical liberalism implicit in anarchism. rocker had a place in my intellectual evolution but i transcended him already

[black magick hustla]

. I think a lot of Marx's writings incorporates ideas and analyses developed by bourgeois liberal idealogues and engages these enlightenment era questions pretty seriously. Even the class struggle isn't quite uniquely Marx's insights. In any event, in non-anarchist theory maybe a lot of that is Hegalizing, but I think Marx too doesn't represent as strong a radical break from teh liberal intellectual tradition that he is often made out to.

i think that too, but i think the currents i identify with that came out of the 20th century did make a definite break with classical liberalsim. read bordiga's "the democratic principle", it's basically the marxist negation of the enlightment imho.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

There needs to be a resurgence.

I prefer it just slowly, or quickly, disappears instead.

[Let's Get Free]

The anarchist movement has been hijacked by middle class radicalism to such аn extent that we should to ditch it and — when we struggle to reorganize the working class deny all contact with it and drive it out of working class areas when it appears.

[Tim Cornelis]

I prefer it just slowly, or quickly, disappears instead.

Anarchism is only a threat to those whom wish to perpetuate class society. To actual Marxists anarchism is harmless because they would recocgnise that calls for "freedom" are in fact mere class rhetoric and may not correspond to a material reality. The further we deviate from Marxism, the more problems we have with anarchism -- unsurprisingly, then, we find that you have many problems with anarchism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The anarchist movement has been hijacked by middle class radicalism to such аn extent that we should to ditch it and — when we struggle to reorganize the working class deny all contact with it and drive it out of working class areas when it appears.

That's . . . fraught with all-of-the-problematic.
For starters, what about the preponderance of academics in positions of institutional power within various "Marxist" organizations? Further, probably driving "the anarchist movement" (For real, who?) of of "working class areas" (Workplaces? Neighbourhoods? Like, places where anarchists live and work?) is neither possible (especially given the relative preference of anarchists for streetfights :lol:), nor particularly productive (since, probably, there more pressing concerns - coke dealers, cops . . .).

[The Feral Underclass]

I prefer it just slowly, or quickly, disappears instead.

Just as well your preferences are irrelevant then isn't it.

[black magick hustla]

i welcome the spirit and the attitude of anarchism, something that still deeply influences me. i like the tiqqunista slogan of calling yourself an anarchist among communists, and a communist among anarchists. however classical anarchism is just theoretically really poor and just seems that every anarchist position that is sound can be articulated in a much better and insightful way without the whole empty phraseology about libertarianism and authoritarianism, when there is nothing more authoritarian than waging a war against a class.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

however classical anarchism is just theoretically really poor

If you are going to compare anarchism to marxism then you are right. I think the lack of theory suits it. An anarchist book will not tell you what to do in many steps, it will tell you what can be done and will leave the rest to you. The strange part is how left anarchists, who lack in theory, are more united than communists. Left Anarchists don't have silly discussions over who was the best supreme leader or what class is the best or marxist interpretation of #insert random thing here#. The main conflict between anarchists is collectivism vs individualism, but still it is not as serious because, at least in the country where I live all anarchists I have met are anarcho-communists.
Anarchists have defined ideals, those ideals unite us. Anarchist theory is not based upon the emancipation of the proletariat, it is based on liberty and equality, the same ideals the liberals had, but anarchists take them much further. In order to achieve liberty the state must be abolished, in order to achieve equality capitalism must be abolished. These things must be done not to emancipate the working class, but to liberate all of humanity.
In the end we may not have as much theory as marxists, but we are united.


and just seems that every anarchist position that is sound can be articulated in a much better and insightful way without the whole empty phraseology about libertarianism and authoritarianism, when there is nothing more authoritarian than waging a war against a class.

I have already explained hundreds of times who a revolution can be seen as libertarian, but it seems like, unless I turn into Engels or Marx, nobody will listen to me.
You interpretation of libertarian and authoritarian is the same one Marx and Engels had, but they also said anarchists were part of the reaction. Do you consider that the ideas of men who lived so long ago can still be followed to the letter? I sometimes think that if Marx and Engels had been born later in time their theory would be different. I do not dogmaticaly follow the theory of any person, I follow my own theory, which I have created from the theory of others who lived before me.

[Art Vandelay]

Oh tra23 always gets me laughing.

[Thirsty Crow]

Anarchist theory is not based upon the emancipation of the proletariat, it is based on liberty and equality, the same ideals the liberals had, but anarchists take them much further.
I feel for you TAT, not only have some anarchists gone (syndicat comes to mind first as a good and informed poster), but among those who are here, there are liberals.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I feel for you TAT, not only have some anarchists gone (syndicat comes to mind first as a good and informed poster), but among those who are here, there are liberals.

How could any Anarchist be a Keynesian? That doesn't make sense!

[Thirsty Crow]

How could any Anarchist be a Keynesian? That doesn't make sense!
How can the platypus lay eggs? 'Tis a mystery! :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

however classical anarchism is just theoretically really poor

In what sense?


and just seems that every anarchist position that is sound can be articulated in a much better and insightful way without the whole empty phraseology about libertarianism and authoritarianism, when there is nothing more authoritarian than waging a war against a class.

You've arrived at this view because you have a superficial understanding of anarchism.

[black magick hustla]

In what sense?



You've arrived at this view because you have a superficial understanding of anarchism.

that is of course, your opinion, and a very boring/cliche one as well, and hard to substantiate. the fact that you have a strong interest for marxist theorists aid more my argument than yours.

[black magick hustla]

In what sense?
Well I already posted about it. Classical anarchism never really broke with its radical liberal roots. It articulates class politics by using liberal categories like authoritarianism, centralism, federalism, democracy, etcetera. In a sense, it's more concerned with telling you what is the right thing to do, as dictated by radical-liberal ethos, as opposed stating how things are.

[The Feral Underclass]

that is of course, your opinion, and a very boring/cliche one as well, and hard to substantiate.

It's not an opinion. You said: "just seems that every anarchist position that is sound can be articulated in a much better and insightful way without the whole empty phraseology about libertarianism and authoritarianism." That is evidence that your understanding of anarchism is superficial. The whole sentence is so basic in and of itself it practically lacks meaning, let alone being a substantive or relevant criticism of anarchism.

Your sum of anarchist theory is reductive at best. If you honestly think the sum of anarchism is "phraseology about libertarianism and authoritarianism" (what does that even mean?) then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.


the fact that you have a strong interest for marxist theorists aid more my argument than yours.

Erm, the fact I read Marxist theory isn't proof of anarchism's lack of substance. What kind of logic is that...

[The Feral Underclass]

Well I already posted about it. Classical anarchism never really broke with its radical liberal roots.

And you've read Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin and come to this conclusion how?


It articulates class politics by using liberal categories like authoritarianism, centralism, federalism, democracy, etcetera. In a sense, it's more concerned with telling you what is the right thing to do, as dictated by radical-liberal ethos, as opposed stating how things are.

This is just utter nonsense. It doesn't really even make any sense. "Telling the right thing to do as opposed to stating how things are"? What does that fucking mean?

What books on anarchism are you reading to come to these conclusions?

[black magick hustla]

I\\That is evidence that your understanding of anarchism is superficial. The whole sentence is so basic in and of itself it practically lacks meaning, let alone being a substantive or relevant criticism of anarchism.


again more condescending browbeating, and no argument.


And you've read Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin and come to this conclusion how?
I haven't read Malatesta, but I've read Bakunin, Kroptotkin, Magon, and Rudolf Rocker. It's interesting you mention Bakunin, because when I was posting in this thread, I was thinking a lot about "God and the State," for example,

"It is the characteristic of privilege and of every privileged position to kill the mind and heart of men. The privileged man, whether politically or economically, is a man depraved in mind and heart. That is a social law which admits of no exception, and is as applicable to entire nations as to classes, corporations, and individuals. It is the law of equality, the supreme condition of liberty and humanity. The principal object of this treatise is precisely to demonstrate this truth in all the manifestations of human life."

"To sum up. We recognize, then, the absolute authority of science, because the sole object of science is the mental reproduction, as well-considered and systematic as possible, of the natural laws inherent in the material, intellectual, and moral life of both the physical and the social worlds, these two worlds constituting, in fact, but one and the same natural world. Outside of this only legitimate authority, legitimate because rational and in harmony with human liberty, we declare all other authorities false, arbitrary and fatal."

etc.

[black magick hustla]

This is just utter nonsense. It doesn't really even make any sense. "Telling the right thing to do as opposed to stating how things are"? What does that fucking mean?
That a lot of anarchism is normative. I.e. it's more about showcasing an ethical point, rather than delivering some insight about how society works.

[The Feral Underclass]

again more condescending browbeating, and no argument.

But there was nothing to argue against. You made a superficial, reductive statement about what you think anarchism is offering and I called you out on it. Your understanding of anarchism is reductive and superficial. That's not a matter of argument, it's a fact. I can highlight this fact more plainly by explaining the theories of anarchism to you, but you are the one claiming to already understand them, so I don't know what you want from me...


I haven't read Malatesta, but I've read Bakunin, Kroptotkin, Magon, and Rudolf Rocker. It's interesting you mention Bakunin, because when I was posting in this thread, I was thinking a lot about "God and the State," for example

Why do you think anarchists attach such importance to the ideas expressed in those quotes?


That a lot of anarchism is normative. I.e. it's more about showcasing an ethical point, rather than delivering some insight about how society works.

Whether you are right or wrong notwithstanding, are you making the claim that something is only substantive if it is about "how society works"? Because that's what it seems like...

[Sasha]

Besided, isn't ethics what makes us communists? Why would anyone actually strive for a better world at all if it would all already be a certainty as everything is dictated by vulgar determinism?
Marxism is an analysis of the capitalist system, it predicts its fall and gives sugestions what could feasibly replace it, its not a scripture of revelations by a clearvoyant though.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

...all the bloody isms and hyphenations (just made that one up)
Makes my head spin and sometimes leaves me wondering where my, for want of a better word, 'allegiances' lie (in terms of theory, tendency or what have you)

[Manic Impressive]

i welcome the spirit and the attitude of anarchism, something that still deeply influences me. i like the tiqqunista slogan of calling yourself an anarchist among communists, and a communist among anarchists. however classical anarchism is just theoretically really poor and just seems that every anarchist position that is sound can be articulated in a much better and insightful way without the whole empty phraseology about libertarianism and authoritarianism, when there is nothing more authoritarian than waging a war against a class.
Why can't it be both? Why can't it be authoritarian from the point of the bourgeoisie and a liberation from the point of view of the worker. Why do you feel it's an absolute? It's such a shame that the bordigists won this argument on Revleft without facing any real opposition. Of course revolution is authoritarian if you are Bordiga who was not for workers emancipating themselves. With his party becoming the social brain of the class while the workers stayed as the obedient limbs unable to function without the supreme leadership of the central committee. And if you consider yourself the brain why would you want democratic input from the rest of the body? It would be chaos fortunately the human body is not a social entity. His ideas on liberty and democracy were not uncommon in the Italian far left of the 1920's. Perhaps the material conditions specific to that country and time had an effect on their thinking and not a rational view of how a world wide revolution can occur.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I agree with a lot of the theory being boring. I'm not sure why so many people are unable to move beyond Bakunin or Kropotkin. I've read them and can see the value in their work but very little of their writing is relevant for today, so i'm always perplexed when I see people recommend them to new users here or when I'm asked if I've ever read them in real life encounters.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Aye, I wonder about people who are really into classical anarchism in-and-of-itself. I think it offers valuable critique of classical Marxism, and is important to look at in relationship to the (inspiring) history of anarchist activity (So many strikes! Such a good body count of mptherfuckers who had it comming!), but… well, it's a bit stale.
That said, at this point, is it possible to differentiate between "anarchist" and "Marxist" theory? Within the contemporary radical milieu, the two seem to mix pretty freely. Take, for example, a lot of "Materialist Feminism", or North American texts emerging out of the after-everyone-read-the-invisible-committee period. If you can tell me whether "After The Fall" is more Marxist or anarchist, I'll buy you a coffee.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Besided, isn't ethics what makes us communists? Why would anyone actually strive for a better world at all if it would all already be a certainty as everything is dictated by vulgar determinism? I think the criticism is that classical anarchism discusses its ethics too much, rather than offering critical analysis of society and capitalism and shit. I mean, it's one thing to have ethics, it's another to formulate means by which to practice them.


I agree with a lot of the theory being boring. I'm not sure why so many people are unable to move beyond Bakunin or Kropotkin. I've read them and can see the value in their work but very little of their writing is relevant for today, so i'm always perplexed when I see people recommend them to new users here or when I'm asked if I've ever read them in real life encounters. I suppose it's thought that they offer an ethical basis with which one can interpret contemporary affairs.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think the criticism is that classical anarchism discusses its ethics too much, rather than offering critical analysis of society and capitalism and shit. I mean, it's one thing to have ethics, it's another to formulate means by which to practice them.

So you're saying anarchism hasn't "formulated mean by which to practice" its ideas?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Aye, I wonder about people who are really into classical anarchism in-and-of-itself. I think it offers valuable critique of classical Marxism, and is important to look at in relationship to the (inspiring) history of anarchist activity (So many strikes! Such a good body count of mptherfuckers who had it comming!), but… well, it's a bit stale.
That said, at this point, is it possible to differentiate between "anarchist" and "Marxist" theory? Within the contemporary radical milieu, the two seem to mix pretty freely. Take, for example, a lot of "Materialist Feminism", or North American texts emerging out of the after-everyone-read-the-invisible-committee period. If you can tell me whether "After The Fall" is more Marxist or anarchist, I'll buy you a coffee.

I agree, with the exception of groups on both sides committed to a type of revolutionary larping, I don't think the need to differentiate between the two is all that critical anymore. Nothing makes me lose interest in a conversation quicker than when people want to start rolling out their acronyms and their ists. I'd almost rather talk about TV.

[Art Vandelay]

The idea that Marxists and Anarchists have fundamentally become one in the same, is a ridiculous notion to say the least.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The idea that anyone cares is what is ridiculous.

[Art Vandelay]

The idea that anyone cares is what is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that anyone cares, but if you plan on doing any actual organizing; the differences between the two, do pose actual tangible issues.

[o well this is ok I guess]

So you're saying anarchism hasn't "formulated mean by which to practice" its ideas? That is not what I'm saying. I'm simply clarifying what I think bmh is saying. And I think he refers to classical anarchism, not anarchism in the general sense.
And no one is saying that anarchists have no practice whatsoever. Chill out, man.

[The Feral Underclass]

That is not what I'm saying. I'm simply clarifying what I think bmh is saying. And I think he refers to classical anarchism, not anarchism in the general sense.
And no one is saying that anarchists have no practice whatsoever. Chill out, man.

I'm perfectly "chilled" thanks. I just don't understand what you people are talking about. Apparently asking for clarification is some indication that I'm upset.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm perfectly "chilled" thanks. I just don't understand what you people are talking about. Apparently asking for clarification is some indication that I'm upset.

Its not so much the 'asking for clarification' part, but rather the calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant part.

[Thirsty Crow]

The idea that Marxists and Anarchists have fundamentally become one in the same, is a ridiculous notion to say the least.


That said, at this point, is it possible to differentiate between "anarchist" and "Marxist" theory? Within the contemporary radical milieu, the two seem to mix pretty freely.

This hardly amounts to a notion that "fundamentally, Marxists and anarchists have become one and the same".

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I cannot say liberty without being called a liberal?

[Art Vandelay]

This hardly amounts to a notion that "fundamentally, Marxists and anarchists have become one and the same".

While the two may mix pretty freely, I would argue that as the struggle intensifies this is going to change. While I would be open to working with any and all anarchists, the issue of decentralization vs centralization is going to be a sticking point.

[Thirsty Crow]

I cannot say liberty without being called a liberal?
Yes. Thought police, censorship, get used to it.

On a more serious note, you shouldn't be surprised to hear that when you explicitly state that you don't base your opinions on the self-emancipation of the working class.

[Art Vandelay]

I cannot say liberty without being called a liberal?

No you can, its just that you're a liberal. There are plenty of anarchists on the site who aren't, TAT for example, but you're not one of them.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

On a more serious note, you shouldn't be surprised to hear that when you explicitly state that you don't base your opinions on the self-emancipation of the working class.

The emancipation of the working class is not the base of my ideals, but it is a part of them. The ideas at the base of my ideology are liberty and equality, the emancipation of the working class is a means to achieve those ends.


No you can, its just that you're a liberal. There are plenty of anarchists on the site who aren't, TAT for example, but you're not one of them.

You have taught your theory to how many people? I have taught mine to at least 7. To how many demonstrations have you been recently? I have been to 2. Have you even ever taught anybody about how bad fascism is? Have you even done anything to help your movement?
You should not accuse me.

[Art Vandelay]

You have taught your theory to how many people? I have taught mine to at least 7. To how many demonstrations have you been recently? I have been to 2. Have you even ever taught anybody about how bad fascism is? Have you even done anything to help your movement? You should not accuse me.

I would honestly just feel like even more of a dick then I am if I addressed how absurd this it.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I would honestly just feel like even more of a dick then I am if I addressed how absurd this it.

It is not absurd if you consider that many marxist consider that the goal of anarchism is the same as the goal of marxism, with different theoretical basis. When taking that into consideration if you see that I have done much more for my movement than younhave done for yours, even though I am younger, you should be able to reach the conclusion that you are accusing someone who you should, considering common goals, be allied with, of being an enemy.
So you see, you are the one being absurd.

[Art Vandelay]

It is not absurd if you consider that many marxist consider that the goal of anarchism is the same as the goal of marxism, with different theoretical basis.

I do agree with this, but once again you're nothing but a liberal waving a black flag.


When taking that into consideration if you see that I have done much more for my movement than younhave done for yours,

You're a fucking moron who has no idea about what sorts of class struggle I've engaged in (not that its anything much but I'm sure its been a hell of alot more productive then the shit you're bragging about). Given the fact that you're bragging on a fucking public forum (you idiot) then I'm guessing you haven't really done much other than talk to people about what you think anarchism is and engage in protests. I have gone to protests (not that means much on its own cause activist 'do anything' culture is overrated; not that you'd ever have the mental capacity to understand that), but actually at the protests I've been to, I've engaged in class struggle that isn't fit to talk about on a public forum. That was back in my insurrecto days but whatever.


even though I am younger, you should be able to reach the conclusion that you are accusing someone who you should, considering common goals, be allied with, of being an enemy.
So you see, you are the one being absurd.

If I didn't find your stupidity so amusing I would of blocked you a while ago. Even the anarchists disown you, cause you're an embarrassment to their cause.

[The Feral Underclass]

Its not so much the 'asking for clarification' part, but rather the calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant part.

You seem to be confused about the core concept of what I'm saying.

This has nothing to do with my opinions. It has to do with facts. The idea that anarchism is based on "empty phraseology about libertarianism and authoritarianism" or that it hasn't put forward ways to implement its ideas is reductive and superficial. Holding those views flies in the face of 150 years of debate, development, theory and struggle, diminishing the massive contribution that anarchists have made to revolutionary struggle throughout history. Including the ones that have died in the pursuit of their ideals.

Now, you and others can continue to think that anarchism is this superficial, half formed idea with no practical basis if you want to, I don't really care. All it means is that you'll have opinions that are wrong. If you wish to be closed minded to those things then that's your problem, not mine. You can either take what I am saying and develop your understandings, or you can get all prissy about it. If you want to choose the latter then I don't think that's a particularly productive thing to do and yes, I think that's ignorant. If that offends you, then that's just too bad I guess.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I do agree with this, but once again you're nothing but a liberal waving a black flag.

The wikipedia will tell you what a liberal is, and it is not me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
I had already investigated liberalism before I learned about anarchism, but I did not like it. What attracted me to anarchism was the idea of the lack of state. When I was 14 I spent a long time reflecting on the current system and how to change it, I went through many theories, I rejected them one by one, only anarchism had the answers.
Try to teach a teenager that the answer to the world's problems lies in "the emancipation of the working class through dictatorship of the proletariat, where the proletariat will opress the bourgeosie in order to abolish itself" and you will see why I did not further investigate marxism at the time.
After I learned anarchism i investigated marxism, and I still did not like it. The problem before was that they used really complicated words and expression, which made it impossible for me to understand (especialy if you consider that I am from Portugal, therefore I do not know english as native language), and the problem afterwards, when I actualy begun to understand the expression, was that, while its goals were good, the methods were bad.
My father told me, when I was younger, the history of communist revolutions, and how they always started with poverty and misery, and ended in poverty and misery. Strangely enough my father is a communist, like his father, and his grandfather before him.
He said: that the dictatorship of the proletariat was an excusse used by the communist party so that they could get into power.
Later, after I found anarchism, I went to confirm if he was right, and my conclusion was that he was. It has been proven to me that, no matter the ideology, the state is always harmfull, therefore it must be abolished.

This auto-biographical text is necessary since you seem to be looking for a big justification as to why i chose the ideology I chose.

And now I will make a list of all the insults you used in your post:
1- you're nothing but a liberal waving a black flag
2- You're a fucking moron
3- I'm sure its been a hell of alot more productive then the shit you're bragging about
4- you idiot
5- haven't really done much
6 -not that you'd ever have the mental capacity to understand that
7- If I didn't find your stupidity so amusing I would of blocked you a while ago.
8-Even the anarchists disown you
9-you're an embarrassment to their cause

Wow. You have outdone yourself today! Almost 10 insults in a single post! According to hardcore maths that makes 1.2 insults per line of text!
Only someone who has been offended usesthat many insults at once. Oh wait, that would mean you have been offended by a teenager.

I do not need insults to transmit my point.

I also noticed that Anarchist Tension is defending my point. Wouldn't that make him a liberal too?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

While the two may mix pretty freely, I would argue that as the struggle intensifies this is going to change. While I would be open to working with any and all anarchists, the issue of decentralization vs centralization is going to be a sticking point.

Certainly - but it won't be along anarchist/Marxist lines…

[Art Vandelay]

I'm done discussing things with you tra23, because between you and the Maoists it feels like I'm bashing my head repeatedly into a brick wall. Sorry for being rude. I don't mean to come across as jaded, cruel, or a prick, but I am, so that is how it comes out.

[Art Vandelay]

Certainly - but it won't be along anarchist/Marxist lines…

Fair enough, I know that platformists have no problem with hierarchy.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Fair enough, I know that platformists have no problem with hierarchy.

I would do well to inform The Cheshire Cat (the revleft user) about this, because I am prety sure he had no idea.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I'm done discussing things with you tra23, because between you and the Maoists it feels like I'm bashing my head repeatedly into a brick wall.

I just don't see what you are trying to accomplish. You are just accusing my theory and calling me names. If you actualy said something about your theory maybe we would be going somewhere.

[Ele'ill]

Even the anarchists disown you, cause you're an embarrassment to their cause.

where what

[The Feral Underclass]

Fair enough, I know that platformists have no problem with hierarchy.

What platformists are these?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm done discussing things with you tra23, because between you and the Maoists it feels like I'm bashing my head repeatedly into a brick wall. Sorry for being rude. I don't mean to come across as jaded, cruel, or a prick, but I am, so that is how it comes out.

Embracing the negative aspects of my personality was something I did in my early 20s while suffering from depression. I normally wouldn't say anything but you seem intent on us all noticing, so I will. It won't make you feel better and it will make you insufferable for others to be around. Based on the amount of posts you make like this, I think it would be helpful for you to seek counseling.

[Art Vandelay]

What platformists are these?

The original ones who were ruled under the iron fist of Mahnko.

[Art Vandelay]

Embracing the negative aspects of my personality was something I did in my early 20s while suffering from depression. I normally wouldn't say anything but you seem intent on us all noticing, so I will. It won't make you feel better and it will make you insufferable for others to be around. Based on the amount of posts you make like this, I think it would be helpful for you to seek counseling.

I would prefer if you minded your own business when it comes to me or my need of counseling.

[Ele'ill]

Hey so how about anarchism

I think a lot of the wordy stuff is fun to read until you realize that what you just read could be summed up in like a half a sentence

[The Feral Underclass]

The original ones who were ruled under the iron fist of Mahnko.

Three questions.

Can you explain to me the kind of hierarchy you imagine other anarchists reject that Makhno endorsed? Can you explain what relevance you think the organisational structure of an insurrectionary army in 1920 has on modern western platformism, and have you read the History of the Makhnovist Movement?

[Tim Cornelis]

@9mm

I don't mean to get personal (but I will nevertheless), but you seem to become increasingly less nuanced, and therefore more obnoxious -- you're so convinced of your own right everyone else is a liberal idiot. For instance saying that platformists have no problem with hierarchy and replying by: "The original ones who were ruled under the iron fist of Mahnko," is completely ridiculous, for a multitude of reasons.


Well I already posted about it. Classical anarchism never really broke with its radical liberal roots. It articulates class politics by using liberal categories like authoritarianism, centralism, federalism, democracy, etcetera. In a sense, it's more concerned with telling you what is the right thing to do, as dictated by radical-liberal ethos, as opposed stating how things are.

So normativity is, apparently, liberal.

"Philosophers have hitherto interpreted the world, the point is to change it."

-- Karl Marx, the liberal

"Stating how things are" is useful only to a certain point. I would agree with you that anarchism is theoretically poor, and that we need a Marxian analysis and to critically appropriate it insofar it is accurate and useful.

But to insist that the use of "authoritarianism, centralism, federalism, democracy" are liberal categories is simply fallacious. By the same token "democracy" could be considered 'slavish' as Athens was a 'democracy' of the ruling class. "Republic" is feudalistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic), and confederations are tribal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Nations_of_Canada), and communes and syndicates are medieval (communes and guilds). Slave rebellions were liberal because of they demanded "freedom."

Wouldn't Lenin be a liberal for his "democratic centralism"? Wouldn't Bordiga be a liberal for advocating the use of a political party? (The political party, of course, being a product of bourgeois society). Most or many left communists would likewise be liberal for advocating workers' democracy.

Surely, a Marxian or Marxist analysis will reveal that ethics are not devoid of class content, and that "bourgeois freedom" therefore cannot be equated with "proletarian freedom", as you do?

Anarchism's roots lay with class struggle. Anarchism was theorised on the basis of working class self-organised praxis. Rocker and Chomsky may ague anarchism is a product of classical liberalism and socialism, but the reality is Proudhon theorised anarchism on the basis of workers' cooperatives that resulted from class struggle. It was faulty to use this snapshot of unfulfilled class struggle as theoretical nucleus for a future post-capitalist society, which later anarchists in the First Internationale corrected (the product being: anarcho-communism).

EDIT:
@9mm
As for insulting TheRedAnarchist23's intelligence, I don't know if you have ever engaged in organising or engaged politically with workers, but you would be lucky if you came across a worker like TheRedAnarchist23. If you think arguing with TheRedAnarchist23 and Maoists is like bashing your head against a wall, then don't start with actual workers, whom are usually closer to actual liberals -- because calling them idiots and stupid is going to be counter-productive in advancing class struggle.

[Thirsty Crow]

Fair enough, I know that platformists have no problem with hierarchy.
The problem is the conflation of terms.
Organizational centralization and practical unity - as opposed to centralism which can be used as a term denoting the dominance of a specific central body over the organization, along with issues such as the lack of accountability, suspension of democratic procedures and debate etc., in other words, SWP :D - is not necessarily synonymous with hierarchy, and it is not antithetical to the opposition to what anarchists analyze as hierarchy.

Or do you think that Makhno or Alex Callinicos or Mr. Y or whoever ruling with an iron fist is a healthy organizational practice for a pro-revolutionary organization?

[black magick hustla]

ow, you and others can continue to think that anarchism is this superficial, half formed idea with no practical basis if you want to, I don't really care. All it means is that you'll have opinions that are wrong. If you wish to be closed minded to those things then that's your problem, not mine. You can either take what I am saying and develop your understandings, or you can get all prissy about it. If you want to choose the latter then I don't think that's a particularly productive thing to do and yes, I think that's ignorant. If that offends you, then that's just too bad I guess.
yes, anarchism has evolved, and that's why a lot of people who are "anarchists" today are not "classical anarchists" anymore. ravachol is an "anarchist" for example, but my posts weren't geared towards him etc.

[black magick hustla]

blah.

i don't think marxism is "non normative". the problem with classical anarchism is that it conflates normative issues with theory. it feels like someone is talking down to me, basically.

anyway, i never said anarchism was "non-working class", i stated that anarchism, as an intellectual framework, was born as a radical split from liberalism. i don't believe in the simplistic notion that "liberalism" was completely bourgeois, it was more complicated. hence if you read about the first internationale, you would find all sorts of radical republicans etc. that were self taught workers.

the problem with "centralism" vs "federalism vs democracy", is that it is a formalistic question, it's not about content. it's a matter of strategy, and anarchism is boring to me because it elevates them as sacrosant principles. "Democratic centralism" even if i am not really that much into lenin is an organizational question.

[Thirsty Crow]

the problem with "centralism" vs "federalism vs democracy", is that it is a formalistic question, it's not about content. it's a matter of strategy, and anarchism is boring to me because it elevates them as sacrosant principles. "Democratic centralism" even if i am not really that much into lenin is an organizational question.
How is centralism v. federalism a formalistic question if at the same time democratic centralism concerns organizational issues? They're both organizational issues, and very much about "content".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well I already posted about it. Classical anarchism never really broke with its radical liberal roots. It articulates class politics by using liberal categories like authoritarianism, centralism, federalism, democracy, etcetera. In a sense, it's more concerned with telling you what is the right thing to do, as dictated by radical-liberal ethos, as opposed stating how things are.

"What is the right thing to do" and "what is the state of things and how did they get there" are two different questions, are they not?

It seems to me that since they are different questions, it therefore follows that anarchism can answer the former question, while Marxism can answer the latter question, and the answers to both do not necessarily conflict.

[Art Vandelay]

Three questions.

Can you explain to me the kind of hierarchy you imagine other anarchists reject that Makhno endorsed? Can you explain what relevance you think the organisational structure of an insurrectionary army in 1920 has on modern western platformism, and have you read the History of the Makhnovist Movement?

If theory doesn't correlate into to praxis then what is the purpose of the theory in the first place. I have no doubt that platformists preach federalism; however most Marxists outside of the DotP preach decentralization as well. Now I know that anarchists don't advocate a DotP, however during the insurrectionary situation (you can argue that this was in 1920, however I would counter point and say that an insurrectionary army will be necessary in any coming socialist revolution), they abandon their federalism (or at least have historically) an adopted a centralized army which Mahnko ruled with 'an iron fist.' The way that Mahnko ruled the black army was as centralized and ruthless as Trotsky ruled the red army. So once again, my point was simply that if you preach federalism and yet abandon in favor of centralism in the immediate aftermath of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, then what the point is this insistence on federalism?

[Art Vandelay]

@9mm

I was being an asshole. I was having a horrible day and dealing with a host of issues and I was acting unfairly. I apologize to tra. I have engaged in organizing in the past and I normally don't act in that manner when engaging with workers. I have less patience around professed radicals, however that doesn't make my behavior any less excusable.

[Art Vandelay]

The problem is the conflation of terms.
Organizational centralization and practical unity - as opposed to centralism which can be used as a term denoting the dominance of a specific central body over the organization, along with issues such as the lack of accountability, suspension of democratic procedures and debate etc., in other words, SWP :D - is not necessarily synonymous with hierarchy, and it is not antithetical to the opposition to what anarchists analyze as hierarchy.

Or do you think that Makhno or Alex Callinicos or Mr. Y or whoever ruling with an iron fist is a healthy organizational practice for a pro-revolutionary organization?

Which were all present in Makhno's black army. I have no problem with federalism, although I may disagree with it under certain circumstances, however if any pretense of federalism is thrown out at the first sign of opposition, then I have to wonder how sincere these calls for federalism are.

[black magick hustla]

How is centralism v. federalism a formalistic question if at the same time democratic centralism concerns organizational issues? They're both organizational issues, and very much about "content".
i am using the word "form" in the same way communisationists use it. i imply that they are strategy questions, not political questions. as in, sometimes specific parts of organizations work better as centralized, and some parts as federated. democratic centralism was invented at a time when the the russian radical millieu was heavily infiltrated by secret police, hence the need for democratic centralism. "content" in communisationist speak means capitalism vs communism, working class vs bourgeoisie, value form, etc. anarchists (and many marxists) elevate strategical questions to universals that apply to all times to all situations basically

[Thirsty Crow]

i am using the word "form" in the same way communisationists use it. i imply that they are strategy questions, not political questions. as in, sometimes specific parts of organizations work better as centralized, and some parts as federated. Okay, that makes sense, and I suppose that practical matters which do not bear immediately on the issue of political action and analysis, at least on its more fundamental aspects, do fit in with this notion of "federate when practical and useful, centralize when practical and useful".

But still, I have a problem with this division between "form" and "content", and am somewhat surprised that a current which relies on the notion of prefiguration (am I mistaken here? might be) would make such sharp distinctions (are they sharp? that's my assumption)


anarchists (and many marxists) elevate strategical questions to universals that apply to all times to all situations basicallyYeah, I get it, this indeed is problematic.

[The Feral Underclass]

If theory doesn't correlate into to praxis then what is the purpose of the theory in the first place. I have no doubt that platformists preach federalism; however most Marxists outside of the DotP preach decentralization as well. Now I know that anarchists don't advocate a DotP, however during the insurrectionary situation (you can argue that this was in 1920, however I would counter point and say that an insurrectionary army will be necessary in any coming socialist revolution), they abandon their federalism (or at least have historically) an adopted a centralized army which Mahnko ruled with 'an iron fist.' The way that Mahnko ruled the black army was as centralized and ruthless as Trotsky ruled the red army. So once again, my point was simply that if you preach federalism and yet abandon in favor of centralism in the immediate aftermath of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, then what the point is this insistence on federalism?

You didn't answer my questions...

Can you explain to me the kind of hierarchy you imagine other anarchists reject that Makhno endorsed?

Can you explain what relevance you think the organisational structure of an insurrectionary army in 1920 has on modern western platformism?

have you read the History of the Makhnovist Movement?

[Art Vandelay]

Can you explain to me the kind of hierarchy you imagine other anarchists reject that Makhno endorsed?

A centralized military and organizational force, in the immediate aftermath of the expropriation of the bourgoeisie (what Marxists would call the dotp).


Can you explain what relevance you think the organisational structure of an insurrectionary army in 1920 has on modern western platformism?

This is tied in with my point above. If platformists are in the future to organize in the same manner that they have historically, then I don't see why they profess to be federalists. So my point is that to analyze how platformists might organize in the future, it is important to evaluate the history of their movement and their past actions. Now perhaps platformists now a days explicitly reject the centralization of Makhno's black army, however I generally see them endorsing it.


have you read the History of the Makhnovist Movement?

I've done some research on it, but I don't profess to be an expert, however I could find sources to back up some of the stuff I've been saying if you wish. When I was an anarchist, I was more into insurrectionary stuff (invisible commitee, tiqquin, stirner, etc), so the majority of my knowledge on the Makhno movement comes from the book 'black flame' which gave me a decent run down on the various strains of anarchist thought.

[The Feral Underclass]

A centralized military and organizational force, in the immediate aftermath of the expropriation of the bourgoeisie (what Marxists would call the dotp).

Can you demonstrate where this is the case?


This is tied in with my point above. If platformists are in the future to organize in the same manner that they have historically, then I don't see why they profess to be federalists.

Anarchists don't oppose centralisation generally on principle, they oppose centralisation of political authority specifically.

Anarchists oppose the centralisation of political authority. That's to say, we oppose the centralisation of power over the political and economical organisation of society. The military organisation of the Ukrainian revolution or of any revolution is not the same as the political and economical organisation of society.

It's true that Makhno was a bit of a tyrant, but these are things that he criticised himself for and is precisely why the decentralised, federated political organisations eventually took control of the strategic decisions and organisation of the insurrectionary army.


So my point is that to analyze how platformists might organize in the future, it is important to evaluate the history of their movement and their past actions.

...Yet, you have failed to adequately do that...


Now perhaps platformists now a days explicitly reject the centralization of Makhno's black army, however I generally see them endorsing it.

As I said, the problem for anarchists isn't centralisation per se, it's centralisation of political authority.


I've done some research on it, but I don't profess to be an expert, however I could find sources to back up some of the stuff I've been saying if you wish. When I was an anarchist, I was more into insurrectionary stuff (invisible commitee, tiqquin, stirner, etc), so the majority of my knowledge on the Makhno movement comes from the book 'black flame' which gave me a decent run down on the various strains of anarchist thought.

Peter Arshinov was Makhno's secretary and was involved in all major events of the Ukrainian revolution. If you wish to have a first hand, comprehensive account of Makhno and the revolution, I suggest you read the History of the Makhnovist movement, 1918-1921 by Peter Arshinov.

[The Feral Underclass]

i don't think marxism is "non normative". the problem with classical anarchism is that it conflates normative issues with theory. it feels like someone is talking down to me, basically.

For some reason you have made an assumption that anarchism's critique of authority, centralisation, power and hierarchy etc is a matter of morality. It isn't. Or at least it never meant to be.

Anarchist criticisms of these things are based upon a theoretical understanding of how you move beyond capital and into a communist society.


anyway, i never said anarchism was "non-working class", i stated that anarchism, as an intellectual framework, was born as a radical split from liberalism.

Even if we were to accept this point-of-view, you have still failed to adequately understand the nature of the anarchist critique, in that the critique is forwarding a rejection of the state.

But of course I don't accept your premise, and in fact you give liberalism a great deal of credit. Liberalism holds to the idea of the state, does not reject capitalism, though it does reject class (at least in economic terms), and is essentially conservative by nature. By that, I mean Liberalism does not aim to really change anything.

In contrast, anarchism is a revolutionary, anti-capitalist, anti-statist, materialist ideology based upon an acceptance of the economic struggles between classes, seeking a fundamental transformation of society.

Anarchism shares no similarities with liberalism, which in reality is an incredibly conservative, authoritarian and passive set of ideas.


i don't believe in the simplistic notion that "liberalism" was completely bourgeois, it was more complicated. hence if you read about the first internationale, you would find all sorts of radical republicans etc. that were self taught workers.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps it is more "complicated." That notwithstanding, liberalism maintains very specific beliefs that are universally applicable and that are profoundly at odds with anarchism's core concepts and application.


the problem with "centralism" vs "federalism vs democracy", is that it is a formalistic question, it's not about content. it's a matter of strategy, and anarchism is boring to me because it elevates them as sacrosant principles. "Democratic centralism" even if i am not really that much into lenin is an organizational question.

Here in lies your lack of understanding.

The rejection of centralisation of political authority isn't just about strategy, it is about the very nature of how a working class revolution can transform society.

This rather dull critique of anarchism as being "immature" and "moralistic" is based upon the acceptance of the bourgeois concept of authority. That it is just a way for organising something.

This point-of-view of course does not take into consideration how this political authority, instituted into a state (the centralisation of political authority) conforms to specific capitalist social relations.

This is a fundamental problem with the way revolutionaries interact with what revolution means or what it should aim to accomplish.

The question here is not that the anarchist critique of the state and authority is lacking, it is that your understanding of this critique ignores the fundamental nature of capitalist social relations and the role the state has in perpetuating them.


i am using the word "form" in the same way communisationists use it. i imply that they are strategy questions, not political questions.

But they are political questions. Authority, the state, centralisation are all concepts that maintain very specific capitalist social relations. These things rose out of capitalist hegemony. The idea that you can just harness them to create communism is theoretically flawed.

There needs to be a comprehensive understanding of what that means to us as people who wish to destroy capitalism. Anarchism provides that understanding and critique.


anarchists (and many marxists) elevate strategical questions to universals that apply to all times to all situations basically

You cannot create a communist society by instituting centralised political authority. Bakunin was right about this as demonstrated throughout history.

[Comrade Nasser]

I seem to be the only one...

You got one right here mate! I'm new to the website and the movement lol but I'm willing to fight for our cause.

[pastradamus]

Most of the Anarchists left when staying in college for the rest of their life was no longer cool. :D

[MP5]

Well i am a Anarcho-Communist though i mostly just call myself a Communist as i don't like to put myself into just one tendency. I was a Marxist-Leninist before i was a Anarchist so there's still some of those elements with me i guess.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Anarchists are a minority here? Since when? This is interesting. I always thought this site was dominated by them.