modern anarchism isn't all bakunin and proudhon

[ed miliband]

whenever anarchism is discussed here it's invariably attacked by leninists as anti-marxist, and proudhon and bakunin are summoned forth as its (sole) intellectual forefathers.

i always feel like pointing out, modern anarchist-communists (in my personal experience, and online) are far more likely to be versed in capital than they are god and the state. there are, for example, capital reading groups organised by afed, an organisation which sees itself in the tradition of the german/dutch communist left, the situationists, and italian workerism (all marxist, all hostile to anarchism), much more than it does proudhon (and in many cases, bakunin). your average intellectual anarchist sort is more likely to be reading gilles dauve or jacques camatte, pannekoek or gorter, clr james or selma federici, i.i. rubin or paul mattick than s/he is bakunin or proudhon.

one of the things you could say about some anarchists, the likes of wayne price, is that they are closer to trotskyists on issues like trade unions and national liberation than they are to other anarchists. more positively (imo, at least), the icc recognises that there are anarchist-communists who are closer to the communist left than many marxists.

if people want to attack anarchism that's fine, but i think it should be based on today's anarchism rather than an anarchism that hasn't really existed since the end of the nineteenth century. many modern anarchists have dropped their hostility to marx and marxists, i think maybe people should acknowledge that more, and nobody except iain mackaye likes proudhon.

[The Feral Underclass]

AFed organised Capital reading groups? That's a new one.

I think by-and-large you are correct, but it is necessary not to forget or fail to understand where (and why) anarchism came from. There are very fundamental lessons to be learned from Bakunin's ideas and when all is said and done, anarchism is based upon them.

[BIXX]

But... But... Muh bakunins!

Haha, good post, nonetheless. I know that I personally haven't yet read Capital, but I've been getting ready to once I finish the Essential Works of Bakunin.

[Ele'ill]

but the same theoretical disputes continue to occur

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

didn't realised afed saw themselves as close to the communist left, though I have read through their website stuff a few times IIRC and not found myself hating it.

[The Feral Underclass]

didn't realised afed saw themselves as close to the communist left, though I have read through their website stuff a few times IIRC and not found myself hating it.

I'm not entirely convinced of how much that is true. There may be older members who give a nod towards that tradition. A good friend and comrade from the AFed (who sadly died) was very much into that tradition and probably influenced older texts, but certainly the modern incarnation of the AFed is nothing like the communist left -- certainly not in its internal or organisational practice.

[ed miliband]

AFed organised Capital reading groups? That's a new one.

I think by-and-large you are correct, but it is necessary not to forget or fail to understand where (and why) anarchism came from. There are very fundamental lessons to be learned from Bakunin's ideas and when all is said and done, anarchism is based upon them.

well, edinburgh and/or glasgow afed, along with talks on anarchism and the marxist tradition. i think it's quite positive.


didn't realised afed saw themselves as close to the communist left, though I have read through their website stuff a few times IIRC and not found myself hating it.

i don't quite understand the genealogy but i think most of the uk ultraleft (for want of a better term) come out of splits in the solidarity group in the 1970s, so afed, the uk section of the icc, and so on all share a familiar heritage. in terms of positions on national liberation and trade unions, the icc see afed as being sounder than many other anarchists and marxists.

maybe on interest to you:

http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets/95-in-the-tradition.html

[Sasha]

Do see an resurgent intrest in stirner among anarchists though...

[ed miliband]

Do see an resurgent intrest in stirner among anarchists though...

i find stirner interesting, i don't think he was an anarchist though, and i don't think interest in stirner means you can't also be interested in marx or the work of some marxists.

[ed miliband]

anything else?

[The Feral Underclass]

Say what?

http://t.qkme.me/3ualkm.jpg

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Just for the record, Selma Federici doesn't exist (or at least, not within the autonomist/left-communist cannon) - I think you meant either Selma James, Sylvia Federici, or both (both are pretty A+).

[bcbm]

Sylvia Federic

*silvia

[SonofRage]

I agree with the OP. I've considered myself an anarchist for 10 years and have probably studied Marx and various libertarian Marxists more than any anarchist writer.

[ed miliband]

Just for the record, Selma Federici doesn't exist (or at least, not within the autonomist/left-communist cannon) - I think you meant either Selma James, Sylvia Federici, or both (both are pretty A+).

hahaha, yes.

yeah, i wrote selma james first, then changed 'james' to 'federici'. that's bad.

[BIXX]

I'm still gonna finish up with some works of Bakunin, read a little Kropotkin, and a bit of Bonanno and just kinda round my anarchist reading. Then I suppose it's gonna be time to read Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Ah yes, Baskin Robbin's 36 Flavors of Anarchism. This is particularly obvious on the internet, where you can find all manner of anarchist-influenced wingnuts. ;) My favorite ones are probably the Mediterranean neo-nihilists who are obsessed with bad poetry and arson.

Although most anarchists probably haven't read much Bakunin, the basic principles that Bakunin advocated (federalism, anti-capitalism, anti-statism, anti-theism, etc) are still pretty big ideas that define the "movement". Modern anarchists tend to be very well read in a variety of left-wing sources, esp. ultra-left sources, and I think that's a pretty big strength. I think modern anarchists tend to be much more well read than, say, modern Trotskyists, for example. I think part of that has to do with the (for the most part) poverty of classical anarchism when it comes to things like rigorous analyses of political economy. A lot of Leninists still rely on Lenin or even Engels when attacking anarchism, without doing any primary source investigation of what they're criticizing.

[Paul Pott]

Pretty sure the anarchist political spectrum is going to be similar to the non-anarchist one in the future.

That is, communists and unionists influenced by Marx, Bakunin, etc. on the left, ancaps and racial anarchists on the right, mutualist types in the center.

It's becoming trendy on the right to oppose the state.

[BIXX]

Pretty sure the anarchist political spectrum is going to be similar to the non-anarchist one in the future.

That is, communists and unionists influenced by Marx, Bakunin, etc. on the left, ancaps and racial anarchists on the right, mutualist types in the center.

It's becoming trendy on the right to oppose the state.

Just opposing the state doesn't make you an anarchist. However, it's a big part.

[darkblues]

db

[BIXX]

i would add kropotkin to the other two too....i would argue that anarchists who study the libertarian marxist tradition are the most important in terms of 'viability' and 'possibility' since the fall of the SU.

Why?

[darkblues]

db

[ed miliband]

Pretty sure the anarchist political spectrum is going to be similar to the non-anarchist one in the future.

That is, communists and unionists influenced by Marx, Bakunin, etc. on the left, ancaps and racial anarchists on the right, mutualist types in the center.

It's becoming trendy on the right to oppose the state.

i think this is all wrong for a number of reasons, but what does it have to do with this thread? just seems like an attempt to attack anarchists by chucking them together with the far-right.

[The Douche]

I read Bakunin over 10 years ago, probably never finished it (God and the State).


How much Bakunin do you really have to read in order to "get" him?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

i think this is all wrong for a number of reasons, but what does it have to do with this thread? just seems like an attempt to attack anarchists by chucking them together with the far-right.

Not necessarily. He made a clear distinction between leftists (or whatever the people who dislike the term left-wing want to call themselves) and the conservative and racist nutbags who label themselves as anarchists.

[The Douche]

Not necessarily. He made a clear distinction between leftists (or whatever the people who dislike the term left-wing want to call themselves) and the conservative and racist nutbags who label themselves as anarchists.

I am a doctor.

Does this make me a doctor? Or do I have to actually, you know, study and learn about medicine?

[ed miliband]

Not necessarily. He made a clear distinction between leftists (or whatever the people who dislike the term left-wing want to call themselves) and the conservative and racist nutbags who label themselves as anarchists.

still seems to rest on the assumption that they share the same opposition to the state, which is untrue.

[darkblues]

db

[BIXX]

i think i botched up my previous reply to you by assuming you were referring to my Kropotkin point-- talk about defensive and anxious to protect this tradition!

I just think that their contribution (anarchists/lib-marxists) has arguably been the most progressive and exciting and relevant for trying to rejuvenate Marxism which has had set-back after set-back...for me atleast they provide a grain of hope and possibility.

Well, here you seem to be saying something different. In the previous post, you seemed to be implying non-Marxist anarchists provide less hope than the Marxist anarchists:


i would add kropotkin to the other two too....i would argue that anarchists who study the libertarian marxist tradition are the most important in terms of 'viability' and 'possibility' since the fall of the SU.

The problem with this statement here is that all anarchism is Marxist, in terms of how anarchists and Marxists see capitalism, the end goal, and a lot of the analysis strategies.


I just think that their contribution (anarchists/lib-marxists) has arguably been the most progressive and exciting and relevant for trying to rejuvenate Marxism

Like I said, anarchism is entwined with Marxism, and it seems that you noticed that with (anarchists/lib-Marxists). However, some consider anarchists to be wholly un-Marxist. Which is ridiculous, but I always wonder where people stand on the issue.

Out of curiosity, what is you view on Marxism and anarchism, and their relationship?

[darkblues]

db

[Hivemind]

Although there is some merit in the works of Proudhon and Bakunin, I think that a good portion of anarchists are too concerned with them. Granted, those same "anarchists" are generally armchair philosophers and critics, with very little influence.

That's why I think that there is a more merit in modern insurrectionary anarchist writers (such as Bonanno) and organizations, because they get straight to the point and they don't wait around for opportunities to arise; instead, they try to create them.

I've read a couple of things off of Killing King Abacus (reocities [.] com/kk_abacus/), copy and pasted the things I read into a word document to see how many pages there were in total, and I was shocked. I had learned more in about fifty pages of reading off that website than I did in the thousands of aggregate pages of Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. But also Marx and Kropotkin, and the two named in the title. This isn't a bash of those people, I'm just stating the fact that they're all verbose as fuck. Granted, some of them have less essence than the others but that's not the point here.

The modern anarchist movement, if it concerns itself with the raising and influencing of the consciousness of the working class and participation in the class struggle (which it does), then it knows to cut to the chase in its writings, and participate in the class struggle personally, neither of which is accomplished with excessive wordiness and armchair philosophy. This is why I think insurrectionary anarchism is so important. While there is merit in the writers of the past, and as much as I hate to echo this, as it has been echoed before, time and time again, we should look forward, not back. We have to take what is useful from their writings and cast aside what is not, and get on with it. We can't sit here analyzing what someone said 150 years ago for the rest of our lives, especially if that time is spent analyzing something that isn't even useful to the working class movement, revolution, or influence. You know what I'm saying?

[Sasha]

Insurectionary writing can be dense and proze heavy though, sometimes i wish there where more theoratical groups with the writing style of say classwar or redaction, stuff everyone can understand and want so set fire to shit from...
Its funny that if you read very early marxist and anarchist publications (at least the dutch ones) it where almost tabloid like tracts, full with gossip about the bourgiousy and call outs for meetings and stuff, really similair to the classwar newspaper actualy

[The Douche]

The modern anarchist movement, if it concerns itself with the raising and influencing of the consciousness of the working class and participation in the class struggle (which it does), then it knows to cut to the chase in its writings, and participate in the class struggle personally, neither of which is accomplished with excessive wordiness and armchair philosophy. This is why I think insurrectionary anarchism is so important.

Hey man, if this is what you're getting from KKA and Bonanno, then you're not understanding them. Just sayin...

[Paul Pott]

still seems to rest on the assumption that they share the same opposition to the state, which is untrue.

No, but I don't have any reason to believe they aren't being honest when they say they want a society without a state and with impossibly "free" markets or ethnic villages without the racial mixing of statist civilization or whatever it is national anarchists say.

That isn't to suggest they have any grasp on reality in terms of their understanding of the state or anything else, but the ideas can and do exist, and they seem to have some following.

[Paul Pott]

Just opposing the state doesn't make you an anarchist. However, it's a big part.

I see, but then what do we call the idea that there should be no state?

[Os Cangaceiros]

anti-statism?

[Os Cangaceiros]

That isn't to suggest they have any grasp on reality in terms of their understanding of the state or anything else, but the ideas can and do exist, and they seem to have some following.

Also, I have to disagree with this, specifically the last seven words of what you wrote. The left-wing anarchist movement is freakin' anemic, but it's influence can still be seen somewhat in "real life", for example the presence of infoshops, squatted social centers, the influence of anarchism in certain anti-fascist groups like the European Anti-Fascist Action or the American Anti-Racist Action, and a few labor organizations of note, like the Spanish CNT-FAI and CGT, and the Swedish SAC. And a bunch of anarchist graffiti everywhere.

In contrast, I struggle to think of any real representation of anarcho-capitalist ideology in the "real world", with the possible exception of some crypto-anarchist projects online.

[darkblues]

db

[Devrim]

whenever anarchism is discussed here it's invariably attacked by leninists as anti-marxist, and proudhon and bakunin are summoned forth as its (sole) intellectual forefathers.

i always feel like pointing out, modern anarchist-communists (in my personal experience, and online) are far more likely to be versed in capital than they are god and the state.

I'd agree with this. Anarchism today is neither Bakuninism or Proudhonism. Most 'Marxists' have no idea of this fact, know very little about anarchism, read the latest party condemnation and repeat it parrot fashion.


and nobody except iain mackaye likes proudhon

Ian Mackaye comes across in some ways like the worst sort of party hack. It is sort of like he feels he has to defend the tradition rather than look at it critically.


Pretty sure the anarchist political spectrum is going to be similar to the non-anarchist one in the future.

That is, communists and unionists influenced by Marx, Bakunin, etc. on the left, ancaps and racial anarchists on the right, mutualist types in the center.

It's becoming trendy on the right to oppose the state.

There aren't any mutualists in the real world. Maybe you can find one old hippy going on about workers' banks and co-operatives, but I thought he had died years ago. Have you ever seen a mutualist anarchist organisation.

Similarly ancaps are a small handful of people who only exist in the US, and then only on the internet.


i would add kropotkin to the other two too....i would argue that anarchists who study the libertarian marxist tradition are the most important in terms of 'viability' and 'possibility' since the fall of the SU.

Neither is there a 'libertarian Marxist tradition'. It is just another way of saying Marxists anarchists like. These people don't use it to refer to themselves. The only person I can think of who did was Daniel Guerin. There is someone on here who uses the terms, but who has very strange politics.

Devrim

[darkblues]

db

[Hivemind]

Hey man, if this is what you're getting from KKA and Bonanno, then you're not understanding them. Just sayin...

Well no obviously not from them, from a much wider variety of sources :cool:

[Popular Front of Judea]

The anarchist -- socialist border is a porous one. Many of us cross over it at least once in our lives. Sometime in our travels we join at least temporarily the IWW. (Shame they stopped issuing the classic red books. I wish I hadn't lost mine.)

[Popular Front of Judea]

However "wrong" it may be there's a fair amount of truth to it. Look at the renewed interest in 19th century 'individualist' anarchism. Lysander Spooner et al.


i think this is all wrong for a number of reasons, but what does it have to do with this thread? just seems like an attempt to attack anarchists by chucking them together with the far-right.


Pretty sure the anarchist political spectrum is going to be similar to the non-anarchist one in the future.

That is, communists and unionists influenced by Marx, Bakunin, etc. on the left, ancaps and racial anarchists on the right, mutualist types in the center.

It's becoming trendy on the right to oppose the state.

[Paul Pott]

I don't see how you can say ancap doesn't have any influence when it's obviously a growing wing of the right wing libertarian movement, which doesn't have workshops and collectives like left anarchists but is unquestionably powerful among petty bourgeois youth in the US.

[Paul Pott]

However "wrong" it may be there's a fair amount of truth to it. Look at the renewed interest in 19th century 'individualist' anarchism. Lysander Spooner et al.

This is certainly true.

All anarcho-capitalism is is an attempt to marry right libertarianism with older individualist tendencies in the anarchist movement, with influence from people like Ayn Rand and other philosophers who see the state or anything social as hostile to their liberty.

[Popular Front of Judea]

There is little love lost between Ayn Rand's followers, 'Objectivists' and libertarians, whom Ayn Rand famously called "hippies". Rand was in the libertarian lingo a 'minarchist', someone who supported a minimum state to do such things as defense, "contract enforcement" and in Rands case provide aid to Israel. If there is one person responsible for the rise of "anarcho-capitalism" it would be Murray Rothbard. A close second would be Milton Friedmans son, David Friedman.

If you are debating libertarians its wise to not mention Ayn Rand. Although many start by reading her she is persona non grata among the most passionate ones. Like socialists libertarians love to argue about what libertarianism is not.


This is certainly true.

All anarcho-capitalism is is an attempt to marry right libertarianism with older individualist tendencies in the anarchist movement, with influence from people like Ayn Rand and other philosophers who see the state or anything social as hostile to their liberty.

[Paul Pott]

If you are debating libertarians its wise to not mention Ayn Rand. Although many start by reading her she is persona non grata among the most passionate ones. Like socialists libertarians love to argue about what libertarianism is not.


Well my impression is that that's far from the norm, and Rand is generally seen as a major influence even if true "Objectivists" who have taken on all of her philosophical positions are few and far between.

[Sotionov]

Modern anarchism isn't all that anarchist :rolleyes:

It could be said that I'm not an anarchist, I call myself a horizontalist, someone who wants an end of all hierarchies, and I see anarchists as direct-action horizontalists, my views of political action is in line with impossibilism. That being said, my economic views are the same that Kropotkin and Malatesta held, I'm for communism, but IMO, for a society to be really socialistic, it's economy must be in accordance with the so called "anarchism without adjectives" - in accordance with Malatesta's explanation:


Imposed communism would be the most detestable tyranny that the human mind could conceive. And free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist — as one wishes, always on condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others

A large number of people today calling themselves anarchist don't accept the anarchist view of classes or of exploitation, they're simply not anarchists, but libertarian marxists calling themselves anarchists.

[The Douche]

Hey, you guys that think anarcho-capitalism is actually a thing, how active are you in the communist movement in real life?

[Popular Front of Judea]

"Anarcho-capitalism" is a thing on Reddit where I came across it. I am not presently active in the "communist movement". On the other hand I am not exactly new to it either. I am not a 20-something internet Stalinist typing out denunciations in his parents basement. Thank you for asking.


Hey, you guys that think anarcho-capitalism is actually a thing, how active are you in the communist movement in real life?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Hey, you guys that think anarcho-capitalism is actually a thing, how active are you in the communist movement in real life?

They are a thing. They show up to demonstrations here, and I've butted heads with a few.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Do they show up as fellow demonstrators or as counter-demonstrators? Are they basically clueless Ron Paul supporters?

[The Douche]

I'm not trying to insinuate anything, I have come across them online plenty of times, they make their presence on the internet well known.

But I have never met one in real life, and I don't personally know anybody who has, that I can think of.


What I'm getting at, is, ya'll can concern yourselves with political role playing, if you want, but don't think that that sort of shit has anything to really do with anything. Its fun and all, but, yeah, combatting anarcho-capitalism is just a hobby.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Arguably this entire forum is a political hobbyist site. (One of the few hobbies that comes with an FBI file of your very own.)


I'm not trying to insinuate anything, I have come across them online plenty of times, they make their presence on the internet well known.

But I have never met one in real life, and I don't personally know anybody who has, that I can think of.


What I'm getting at, is, ya'll can concern yourselves with political role playing, if you want, but don't think that that sort of shit has anything to really do with anything. Its fun and all, but, yeah, combatting anarcho-capitalism is just a hobby.

[Ele'ill]

They are a thing. They show up to demonstrations

along with the types of people who spend 24 hours a day (literally, they don't sleep) posting black bloc reptile pyramid mother ship jfk flouride drinking water chemtrail conspiracy theories on IMC websites in all capital letters with blurry photographs they took from the latest demo

[Popular Front of Judea]

All power to the Gangster Computer God (http://boingboing.net/2012/10/13/gangster-computer-god-worldwid.html)!


along with the types of people who spend 24 hours a day (literally, they don't sleep) posting black bloc reptile pyramid mother ship jfk flouride drinking water chemtrail conspiracy theories on IMC websites in all capital letters with blurry photographs they took from the latest demo

[Ele'ill]

this is a side rant but I'd like to put in reptile contact lenses and go to these people's houses and knock on their door and be like 'we need to talk'

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Do they show up as fellow demonstrators or as counter-demonstrators? Are they basically clueless Ron Paul supporters?

Counter-demonstrators. They're walking Austrian nightmares who preach the gospel of Mises and Bohm and 'disprove the fictionality of exploitation theory'.

They're quite common at political demonstrations here, especially among youth. I would've thought these kinds of people would have an even larger presence in the US of A, but according to you guys it's not the case.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The only counter-demonstrators I've ever personally come across were white power/fascist types. Actually, scratch that. I was part of the counter-demo element at that rally, come to think of it (it was an anti-immigration rally)

Honestly you're more likely to see a unicorn than actually meet an "anarcho-capitalist". You may meet a libertarian who's on the very far right and is heavily influenced by Mises, Hayek etc. but that's a separate but related thing. But even that's very rare.

[Paul Pott]

That's an ad hominem with no relevance to the thread. I could ask the same of you. You might be just a 20 something who has lied to his revleft buddies about his military service and his political activity. I don't even care if you have one of them to vouch for you online. This is the internet. You could even be a cop or a fascist, just like I could be a 20 something denouncing the world in his parent's basement (I'm not, fwiw).

You still haven't addressed my point that libertarianism is undeniably a thing (it doesn't help that the only thing they organize about is Ron Paul) outside of the internet, and anarcho-capitalism might be irrelevant as a political force but it's a growing trend within the libertarian movement.

And even if it weren't, it would still be an anarchist ideology.

[Ele'ill]

it would still be an anarchist ideology.


would it?

[bcbm]

would it?

nope

[helot]

And even if it weren't, it would still be an anarchist ideology.

Care to back that up? Even if we limit anarchism to be purely anti-state (which is insufficient) they're still not anarchists as they do not even oppose state functions just that they should be provided via the market mechanism.

Basically, their entire claim to being anarchists is "the dictionary says anti-state" and "what authority do you have to say what is and isn't anarchist?" failing of course to realise that dictionaries are not useful sources for information on political thought.


As for the OP, of course contemporary anarchism, while still drawing certain things from Bakunin and Proudhon, is neither Proudhonian nor Bakuninist. I find it rare to even come across an anarchist who's read Proudhon even though i do advise anarchists to purely due to appeals to Proudhon seemingly being the preferred method of attack from other parts of the left without realising, of course, that generally their information on Proudhon is also incorrect and is derived from a polemic misrepresentation.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines . . . we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists . . . We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."

damn, thanks for clearing that up Murray Rothbard!

[Popular Front of Judea]

Is that left Rothbard or paleo Rothbard? Ed: It was Old Right Rothbard. Written in the mid-50s. (Anonymously) http://mises.org/daily/2801


"We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines . . . we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists . . . We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."

damn, thanks for clearing that up Murray Rothbard!

[Os Cangaceiros]

He was a political schizophrenic who went from praising the Black Panthers, Josep Broz Tito & Che (albeit from a weird right-wing libertarian position) to being a grumpy "racial realist". Quite a career

[ed miliband]

'paul pott' has a weird axe to grind.

i wonder whether explicitly non-anarchist, anti-state communists are also anarchists?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

i wonder whether explicitly non-anarchist, anti-state communists are also anarchists?

We are not. Though for what it's worth, i'm not sure how much of a big deal it is anyway - when we talk politics, I don't have stuck in my mind "he is an anarchist, therefore...". Though I sense that some other ideologies' followers do go through that sort of thinking process.

[The Douche]

That's an ad hominem with no relevance to the thread. I could ask the same of you. You might be just a 20 something who has lied to his revleft buddies about his military service and his political activity. I don't even care if you have one of them to vouch for you online. This is the internet. You could even be a cop or a fascist, just like I could be a 20 something denouncing the world in his parent's basement (I'm not, fwiw).

You still haven't addressed my point that libertarianism is undeniably a thing (it doesn't help that the only thing they organize about is Ron Paul) outside of the internet, and anarcho-capitalism might be irrelevant as a political force but it's a growing trend within the libertarian movement.

And even if it weren't, it would still be an anarchist ideology.

Lol, you Marxist-Leninists and your attempeted (non)definitions of anarchism.



But anyways, you've completely misrepresented my point (par for the course on revleft lately). I'm saying, yes it exists, and it doesn't matter that it exists, because it has no effect in real life, and because its pure ideology, its fucking irrelevant, its going nowhere, and its a pipe dream of fedora wearing MRAs.

So yeah, "combat" it if you want, but don't pretend like it "needs" to be combatted.



But if that's how you spend your time (combatting anarcho-capitalism) don't pretend like you're doing important r-r-revolutionary political work.

[Rafiq]

To say anarcho capitalism is a form of anarchism is wholly idealist. American Libertarians and anarchists have a diametrically opposed class basis. Anarchism arose as a mutation of socialism, but its class nature is unquestionably proletarian. It's not easy to overlook such a substantial historical context with regards to anarchism.

[The Douche]

To say anarcho capitalism is a form of anarchism is wholly idealist. American Libertarians and anarchists have a diametrically opposed class basis. Anarchism arose as a mutation of socialism, but its class nature is unquestionably proletarian. It's not easy to overlook such a substantial historical context with regards to anarchism.

Uh, anarchism is not a "mutation" of socialism. Anarchists, utopian socialists, and Marxists all have a valid claim to socialism as a historical tendency.

I would say it is social-democrats and right-wing socialists who represent some sort of "mutation" of socialism. But even the right can lay historical claim to socialism in a more limited sense. (anti-Semitism and sometimes anti-immigrant/xenophobic tendencies were occasionally intertwined with the earliest socialist movements, especially in France, as I recall)

[Rafiq]

Uh, anarchism is not a "mutation" of socialism. Anarchists, utopian socialists, and Marxists all have a valid claim to socialism as a historical tendency.

I would say it is social-democrats and right-wing socialists who represent some sort of "mutation" of socialism. But even the right can lay historical claim to socialism in a more limited sense. (anti-Semitism and sometimes anti-immigrant/xenophobic tendencies were occasionally intertwined with the earliest socialist movements, especially in France, as I recall)

The utopians lost any sort of movemental significance two hundred years ago. The socialist movement in its womb was that of Blanquis. Anarchism is a mutation in the sense that it is they who were distinguished in their universalist "anti-authoritarianism". Marxism in that sense isn't comparable as it is not interchangable with socialism, like anarchism is. Most marxists were either spectators of the real existing movement or enlightened vanguards.

Anyway, generally speaking when the radical schism occured, Marxists went on with social democracy and anarchists with economic struggle. It wasn't until the bolsheviks and certain german marxists entered the picture that social democracy became as radical and took the form of communism. So radical was Lenin's change, that the bourgeois socialists took fashion in calling him an anarchist. It is from them that all significant marxist radicals are derived. The rest shriveled on into the socialist international piss bucket.

Now Utopian socialists today have no claim to anything because they were a product of bourgeois romanticism and not proletarian consciousness. They never had a developed class basis. The mantle of socialism, so to speak, split apart and lived on through both anarchist and marxist trends.

[The Douche]

The utopians lost any sort of movemental significance two hundred years ago. The socialist movement in its womb was that of Blanquis. Anarchism is a mutation in the sense that it is they who were distinguished in their universalist "anti-authoritarianism". Marxism in that sense isn't comparable as it is not interchangable with socialism, like anarchism is. Most marxists were either spectators of the real existing movement or enlightened vanguards.

Anyway, generally speaking when the radical schism occured, Marxists went on with social democracy and anarchists with economic struggle. It wasn't until the bolsheviks and certain german marxists entered the picture that social democracy became as radical and took the form of communism. So radical was Lenin's change, that the bourgeois socialists took fashion in calling him an anarchist. It is from them that all significant marxist radicals are derived. The rest shriveled on into the socialist international piss bucket.

Now Utopian socialists today have no claim to anything because they were a product of bourgeois romanticism and not proletarian consciousness. They never had a developed class basis. The mantle of socialism, so to speak, split apart and lived on through both anarchist and marxist trends.

Allow me to quote myself, placing more emphasis on a particular phrase:


Anarchists, utopian socialists, and Marxists all have a valid claim to socialism as a historical tendency.


Not the "socialist movement", necessarily.

[Rafiq]

Allow me to quote myself, placing more emphasis on a particular phrase:



Not the "socialist movement", necessarily.

Socialism as a tendency is nothing without it's class basis, and nothing without the real existing movement. It is for that precise reason that utopian socialists hold no claim.

[The Douche]

Socialism as a tendency is nothing without it's class basis, and nothing without the real existing movement. It is for that precise reason that utopian socialists hold no claim.

History?

[ed miliband]

We are not. Though for what it's worth, i'm not sure how much of a big deal it is anyway - when we talk politics, I don't have stuck in my mind "he is an anarchist, therefore...". Though I sense that some other ideologies' followers do go through that sort of thinking process.

yeah, i was being facetious since 'paul pott' believes all anti-statists are anarchists, including the ones who explicitly aren't.

[Rafiq]

History?

I don't quite follow. Utopian socialists did exist, yes, and they called themselves socialists, however they had no proletarian class basis and therefore socialism as a tendency, socialism of which embodies the interests of the proletarian class and not an idea of an egalitarian utopia, leaves utopian socialists no claim to it. Put it this way, if Utopian socialists have a claim to socialism as a historical tendency, then anarchists and communists do not.

[The Douche]

I don't quite follow. Utopian socialists did exist, yes, and they called themselves socialists, however they had no proletarian class basis and therefore socialism as a tendency, socialism of which embodies the interests of the proletarian class and not an idea of an egalitarian utopia, leaves utopian socialists no claim to it. Put it this way, if Utopian socialists have a claim to socialism as a historical tendency, then anarchists and communists do not.

This bolded part =/= "socialism as a historical tendency", though.

Pretty much, it seems like you don't understand the concept of socialism as a historical tendency, or you just keep choosing to ignore that qualifying phrase of "historical tendency".

Nobody, at any point, has said a thing about the class nature of utopian socialists, what I said, is that they have a claim to socialism as a historical tendency, which only a fool would dispute, considering the term "socialism" was coined by utopian socialists.

You said anarchists represent a "mutation of socialism", this is just incorrect, as anarchism, utopian socialism, and Marxism are three different trajectories which were directly resultant from the historical tendency of socialism.

[baronci]

'paul pott' has a weird axe to grind.

i wonder whether explicitly non-anarchist, anti-state communists are also anarchists?

Communism is also antithetical to the state as written by its founders, so I guess communism is an anarchist ideology too?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

yeah, i was being facetious since 'paul pott' believes all anti-statists are anarchists, including the ones who explicitly aren't.

Didn't get the humour. Now that a mixture of a migraine plus light-headedness plus lack of sleep has made everything seem funny/strange, I totally dig it.

[Art Vandelay]

Modern Anarchism, for all intents and purposes, begins and starts with one man...Nechayev.

[The Douche]

Modern Anarchism, for all intents and purposes, begins and starts with one man...Nechayev.

Hmmmm...


Go on...

[The Feral Underclass]

Modern Anarchism, for all intents and purposes, begins and starts with one man...Nechayev.

Trolololol

[Art Vandelay]

Hmmmm...


Go on...

Jesus christ....:laugh:

[The Douche]

Jesus christ....:laugh:

My initial response to your post was "I wish".

[The Feral Underclass]

"Spiders don't even have pockets"

ccUR7nbvAEM

[Art Vandelay]

If Nechayev's 'Revolutionary Catcheism' and Stirner's the 'Ego and its Own' were the founding documents of anarchism, I'd totally be an anarchist still. :cool:

[Rafiq]

This bolded part =/= "socialism as a historical tendency", though.

Pretty much, it seems like you don't understand the concept of socialism as a historical tendency, or you just keep choosing to ignore that qualifying phrase of "historical tendency".

Nobody, at any point, has said a thing about the class nature of utopian socialists, what I said, is that they have a claim to socialism as a historical tendency, which only a fool would dispute, considering the term "socialism" was coined by utopian socialists.

You said anarchists represent a "mutation of socialism", this is just incorrect, as anarchism, utopian socialism, and Marxism are three different trajectories which were directly resultant from the historical tendency of socialism.

What you consider to be "socialism as a historical tendency" then, is absolutely meaningless in the eyes of any Marxist. Ideology without a class basis is just that, absolutely meaningless. What I am trying to get at, I suppose, is that Utopian socialists, the likes of Thomas Moore, if you will, have no claim to the historical tendency that is socialism, the tendency claimed by anarchists and marxists alike, because the historical tendency of socialism was something that was defined through decades upon decades of class struggle and the spilled blood of the proletariat, the historical tendency that is socialism is not defined simply as anyone who decides to call themselves a socialist, rather, it is defined by the very real struggles which erected it. Bourgeois intellectuals of the enlightenment often saw themselves as ideological heirs of the democracy and republicanism of ancient greece and, later of the Roman Republic. The bourgeois-legal system, rhetorically, is perfumed of the scent that is the roman republic, and this is quite obvious, from the usage of latin blah blah blah. However, although ancient rome fancied itself a republic, bourgeois democracy is definitely not the heir to the republic, as they have a completely different class basis. What I am trying to get at is although bourgeois-liberals may have adopted some of the rhetoric and may have been cosmetically influenced by the Roman Republic, they had absolutely nothing to do with each other ideologically or socially. In this same sense, anarchists and marxist-communists may have adopted the rhetoric or the name that is socialism by utopians, but again they have little to do with each other.

The historical tendency of socialism, from which you attribute to be the father of three distinct children, "Anarchism, Marxism and Utopian Socialism", simply has never existed. Before Marxists and Anarchists were men like Blanqui and men a la Lassalle, there did exist a real socialist movement which was not utopian in nature. it is from this movement that the historical tendency of socialism was derived. Marxism was never a trajectory of socialism simply because Marxism had absolutely no moral stance in regards to socialism, or should I say 'twist', Marxism was a means of understanding the objective laws of historical motion and the absolute inner workings of the capitalist mode of production, any changes made to socialism were simply a result of this new, revolutionary understanding of society itself. Anarchism, on the other hand, did in fact mutate socialism by adding a moral twist: A universalist objection to authoritarianism and the state, a very distinct adherence to socialism whereas Marxists were free to take whatever position they desired, with some later objecting to the use of a proletarian state and others remaining more orthodox in regards. Simply because Marxism was never a new adherence to socialism, it was perfectly on par with the already existing socialist movement and did not seek to change it's core ideological foundations (like the anarchists did), with the exception of scientific socialism, which even anarchists could not really reject well into the 20th century.

[The Feral Underclass]

If Nechayev's 'Revolutionary Catcheism' and Stirner's the 'Ego and its Own' were the founding documents of anarchism, I'd totally be an anarchist still. :cool:

"The revolutionary is a dooooooomed man"

What a goth.

[The Douche]

I'm not gonna read your post Rafiq.

Why don't you look around and tell me the name of the first person to use the term socialism. And then see how you can reconcile that fact, with your claim that utopian socialists have no relation to the founding of the socialist school of thought and early socialist activity. (i.e. socialism, as a tendency, through the course of history, since it was first theorized on, until the current day)

[Rafiq]

I'm not gonna read your post Rafiq.

Why don't you look around and tell me the name of the first person to use the term socialism. And then see how you can reconcile that fact, with your claim that utopian socialists have no relation to the founding of the socialist school of thought and early socialist activity. (i.e. socialism, as a tendency, through the course of history, since it was first theorized on, until the current day)

Okay. Tell me the first person to use the term liberty and explain to me how liberalism didn't originate thousands of years ago.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm more Bakunin than Bakunin. Tbh, I've read and studied Bakunin moreso than I have virtually any other revolutionary theorist; Anarchist, Marxist or otherwise. I mean I've read Marx, the Manifesto, Kapital, and some of his works that are available on that marxists.org site, Engels was kinda neat but boring but interesting, Lenin, alright, Mao, really, REALLY neat, and the three heads of Juche even more interesting but somewhat equal to Mao. This being said, I've def have read or studied more Anarchist theory and praxis moreso than Marxist. I also have Proudhon and disagree with a lot of his assertions but he is useful. But, that's just me and I'm always reading and shits.

[The Douche]

Okay. Tell me the first person to use the term liberty and explain to me how liberalism didn't originate thousands of years ago.

But the term and idea socialism isn't thousands of years old. Henri Saint Simon is almost universally recognized as the sort of "first socialist".

What are you even arguing though? That Marx invented socialism and the term is synonymous with marxism?

I mean, seriously, Marx was influenced by the socialism of Saint Simon, this is a known historical fact.

I don't know why you're still trying to deny that utopian socialism predates marxism, and played a historical role in socialism.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Mark your calendar. On this one I have to give it to The Douche. Historically speaking they are correct.


But the term and idea socialism isn't thousands of years old. Henri Saint Simon is almost universally recognized as the sort of "first socialist".

What are you even arguing though? That Marx invented socialism and the term is synonymous with marxism?

I mean, seriously, Marx was influenced by the socialism of Saint Simon, this is a known historical fact.

I don't know why you're still trying to deny that utopian socialism predates marxism, and played a historical role in socialism.

[SonofRage]

What you consider to be "socialism as a historical tendency" then, is absolutely meaningless in the eyes of any Marxist. Ideology without a class basis is just that, absolutely meaningless.


Isn't this essentially a philosophically idealist statement? It reads like your argument is that something doesn't exist if it does not match this concept/idea.




What I am trying to get at, I suppose, is that Utopian socialists, the likes of Thomas Moore, if you will, have no claim to the historical tendency that is socialism, the tendency claimed by anarchists and marxists alike, because the historical tendency of socialism was something that was defined through decades upon decades of class struggle and the spilled blood of the proletariat, the historical tendency that is socialism is not defined simply as anyone who decides to call themselves a socialist, rather, it is defined by the very real struggles which erected it.



The same or similar ideas can develop under different material conditions. Also, who is to say that the concept of socialism as conceived of by utopian socialist didn't develop from class struggle whether or not they were conscious of it or not?


Bourgeois intellectuals of the enlightenment often saw themselves as ideological heirs of the democracy and republicanism of ancient greece and, later of the Roman Republic. The bourgeois-legal system, rhetorically, is perfumed of the scent that is the roman republic, and this is quite obvious, from the usage of latin blah blah blah. However, although ancient rome fancied itself a republic, bourgeois democracy is definitely not the heir to the republic, as they have a completely different class basis. What I am trying to get at is although bourgeois-liberals may have adopted some of the rhetoric and may have been cosmetically influenced by the Roman Republic, they had absolutely nothing to do with each other ideologically or socially. In this same sense, anarchists and marxist-communists may have adopted the rhetoric or the name that is socialism by utopians, but again they have little to do with each other.

Ideas can become a material force and have a dialectical development of their own. The fact that the end result is very different does not preclude there being a dialectical relationship.




The historical tendency of socialism, from which you attribute to be the father of three distinct children, "Anarchism, Marxism and Utopian Socialism", simply has never existed. Before Marxists and Anarchists were men like Blanqui and men a la Lassalle, there did exist a real socialist movement which was not utopian in nature. it is from this movement that the historical tendency of socialism was derived. Marxism was never a trajectory of socialism simply because Marxism had absolutely no moral stance in regards to socialism, or should I say 'twist', Marxism was a means of understanding the objective laws of historical motion and the absolute inner workings of the capitalist mode of production, any changes made to socialism were simply a result of this new, revolutionary understanding of society itself. Anarchism, on the other hand, did in fact mutate socialism by adding a moral twist: A universalist objection to authoritarianism and the state, a very distinct adherence to socialism whereas Marxists were free to take whatever position they desired, with some later objecting to the use of a proletarian state and others remaining more orthodox in regards. Simply because Marxism was never a new adherence to socialism, it was perfectly on par with the already existing socialist movement and did not seek to change it's core ideological foundations (like the anarchists did), with the exception of scientific socialism, which even anarchists could not really reject well into the 20th century.



This just strikes me as very ahistorical, one-sided, undialectical thinking.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

[Rafiq]

But the term and idea socialism isn't thousands of years old. Henri Saint Simon is almost universally recognized as the sort of "first socialist".

What are you even arguing though? That Marx invented socialism and the term is synonymous with marxism?

I mean, seriously, Marx was influenced by the socialism of Saint Simon, this is a known historical fact.

I don't know why you're still trying to deny that utopian socialism predates marxism, and played a historical role in socialism.

I'm not even daring to say Marx invented socialism. I am saying that before Marx AND after utopian socialism did there exist a class struggle based socialist movement that is the real father of both anarchist and Marxist socialism. When marx wrote the communist manifesto, the communist movement was well alive and not utopian.

I'm not denying utopian socialism predates all forms of socialism, I am simply stating that the historical tendency of socialism that is shared by anarchists and Marxists is not shared by utopian socialists. You really should read my post. I'm saying Marxists didn't really alter class struggle socialism the way anarchists did with their moral proclamations and therefore anarchism can be considered a mutation while Marxism was simply a logical addition.

[The Douche]

I'm not even daring to say Marx invented socialism. I am saying that before Marx AND after utopian socialism did there exist a class struggle based socialist movement that is the real father of both anarchist and Marxist socialism. When marx wrote the communist manifesto, the communist movement was well alive and not utopian.

I'm not denying utopian socialism predates all forms of socialism, I am simply stating that the historical tendency of socialism that is shared by anarchists and Marxists is not shared by utopian socialists. You really should read my post. I'm saying Marxists didn't really alter class struggle socialism the way anarchists did with their moral proclamations and therefore anarchism can be considered a mutation while Marxism was simply a logical addition.

You. Are. Wrong.

You have not done one. single. thing. to support this argument. Saint Simon was a utopian, he was a massive influence on Marx. This is historical fact, the utopian socialist ideas influenced Marx's socialism. Marx, the utopians, and anarchists have a shared historical tradition.

See man, this is how an argument works, I make a claim, then I provide context and historical data that supports my claim.

[Rafiq]

You. Are. Wrong.

You have not done one. single. thing. to support this argument. Saint Simon was a utopian, he was a massive influence on Marx. This is historical fact, the utopian socialist ideas influenced Marx's socialism. Marx, the utopians, and anarchists have a shared historical tradition.

Allow me to surprise you: Marxists don't have a claim on the "historical tendency of socialism" because of Marx's ideas, but because of the actual Marxist character the proletarian-socialist movement took. Again, I suppose what we are debating about here is how exactly "socialism as a historical tendency" is defined. As far as "tendencies" go, they are virtually only limited to this website, Revleft. When you say "socialism as a historical tendency", try to exclude that very limited understanding of what a tendency is. Socialism as a historical tendency is defined by it's material relationship to capitalist relations and class struggle, not the ideas of intellectuals. Hegel and French materialists had a much more significant influence on Marx's socialism than Saint Simon did, Marx absolutely and utterly despised utopianism.

Secondly, Saint Simon was a philosopher, a member of the bourgeois intelligentsia, he may have influenced the intellectual component of many socialist movements, but he himself was not an active participant in the socialist movement, I have never heard of "Simonist" socialists who either developed or were a product of proletarian consciousness, who actively engaged in class struggle to claim what I would call historical legitimacy.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

"We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines . . . we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists . . . We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."

damn, thanks for clearing that up Murray Rothbard!
I wanted to add that in that same essay Rothbard proposed that they call themselves nonarchists to distinguish themselves from actual anarchists