Why do anarchists not consider themselves part of "the Left"?

[sub lumpen filth]

It seems a bit dishonest when libcoms try to complete seperate themselves from the left. I understand the sentiment, but come on, there is no denying Marxism( and even ML) have a lot in common. Is it just out of guilt or?

[Slippers]

I wasn't aware that this was a thing to be honest; anarchists claiming to not be leftists?

[Creative Destruction]

i know that there are "post-left" anarchists who are just lifestylists... but i wasn't aware that all anarchists don't consider themselves "left". that's most likely not true.

[#FF0000]

Some people (anarchist and communist alike) don't consider themselves part of the Left because they see the "Left" as a part of the spectrum of liberal politics.

[bcbm]

i know that there are "post-left" anarchists who are just lifestylists...

this isnt a very substantial critique of postleft anarchism. bob black addresses these criticisms in his 'anarchy after leftism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bob-black-anarchy-after-leftism).'

[Skyhilist]

I have never seen this. If someone claims they're a libertarian socialist, they usually see themselves as part of the far left. One notable exception that comes to mind is people who say things like "the concept of left vs right is wrong/stupid/divisive/whatever" - this seems to occur in things like the Zeitgeist movement and people arguing for a "resource based economy" (basically a type of utopian socialism) - however, it seems weird that someone doing this would also consider themselves a libertarian socialist, since most of these types of people claim to "reject socialism, communism, and capitalism", whatever that's supposed to mean (and it usually means nothing, because in practice these people are generally either utopian socialists or some weird brand of right-wing libertarian).

[Sabot Cat]

I am an anarchist, and I am a leftist. Most of the people at the old anarchist forums identify as leftists.

[Broviet Union]

Basically the Right favors an increase in hierarchy, while the Left favors egalitarianism. Anarchist Socialism is conceived as the most extreme form of egalitarianism imaginable, and it belongs to the Left.

[bcbm]

Basically the Right favors an increase in hierarchy, while the Left favors egalitarianism. Anarchist Socialism is conceived as the most extreme form of egalitarianism imaginable, and it belongs to the Left.

this is a pretty absurd oversimplification

[TheFox]

I consider myself left, but only because right wingers throw me in that category.
I am opposed to ALL forms of government. From communism to democracy to capitalism. All of it is the same in my opinion. Every type of government exists to harm it's inhabitants. To control, to use, to disrespect.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

The funny thing is that, some people think that their ideology is "outside" of the spectrum and doesn't belong on our silly left-right line.

The fact is, you cannot be outside of the spectrum. It is an absolute. As much as one may not like being considered "right" or "left", if you have a particular set of beliefs, you have no choice but to fall somewhere on that line.

That being said, I never really see anarchists claiming this. I usually see it from those third positionist types, who are obviously on the far right.

[Alexios]

The funny thing is that, some people think that their ideology is "outside" of the spectrum and doesn't belong on our silly left-right line.

The fact is, you cannot be outside of the spectrum. It is an absolute. As much as one may not like being considered "right" or "left", if you have a particular set of beliefs, you have no choice but to fall somewhere on that line.

That being said, I never really see anarchists claiming this. I usually see it from those third positionist types, who are obviously on the far right.
You probably haven't been around radical politics very long then, or have just not encountered anything apart from the main tendencies. Fact is that there are a lot of communist groups that don't see themselves as part of the 'left' - Left Comms, councilists, communization-ists, the "Nihilist Communism" people, and some others. People who identify as leftist usually do so because they feel that they share a common base with others regardless of tendency, but you can look at just about any 'popular' left group and see where this leads.

[exeexe]

The only anarchist i see who would fall out of the left right spectrum would be primitive individualist. They just want to live by themselves alone and isolated from society.

As soon as you have some kind of economic interaction with another individual you are taking a standpoint that would put you somewhere on the spectrum.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

You probably haven't been around radical politics very long then, or have just not encountered anything apart from the main tendencies. Fact is that there are a lot of communist groups that don't see themselves as part of the 'left' - Left Comms, councilists, communization-ists, the "Nihilist Communism" people, and some others. People who identify as leftist usually do so because they feel that they share a common base with others regardless of tendency, but you can look at just about any 'popular' left group and see where this leads.

Right…. But my entire point is that it doesn't matter what you want to consider yourself. Like it or not, convenient or not, a specific set of beliefs will put you somewhere on the political spectrum. How can you not be on the political spectrum?

I mean I'm ok with being wrong, I'll just need further clarification.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What anarchists have you been talking to? Aside from quite-understandable critiques of the left/right spectrum, I can't think of any Anarchists having traditionally seen themselves as "anti-leftist". "Anti-communist" maybe, but more in the sense of opposing the tactics and style of politics than opposing the socio-economic model of communism as such. At least not ones who weren't those weird rightwing "anarcho-capitalists", who are just a bougie joke.


I consider myself left, but only because right wingers throw me in that category.
I am opposed to ALL forms of government. From communism to democracy to capitalism. All of it is the same in my opinion. Every type of government exists to harm it's inhabitants. To control, to use, to disrespect.

First, what do you consider the distinction between government and the state, if there is any?

Second, are you familiar with arguments from folks like Marx, Engels and Lenin which discuss the state "withering away" under communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state)?

Third, why would governments exist to "harm its inhabitants"? Harming people for the sake of harming them doesn't sound very productive. The ruling class is more practically minded than you seem to think.

[bcbm]

there's seems to be some confusion that post-left anarchism sees itself 'outside' the spectrum. i don't think this is really true, it is rather a critique and attempt to move beyond 'leftism' as seen through the 19th and especially 20th centuries.

[Devrim]

What anarchists have you been talking to? Aside from quite-understandable critiques of the left/right spectrum, I can't think of any Anarchists having traditionally seen themselves as "anti-leftist".

It is quite common to hear the term 'leftist' used as a criticism in some anarchist and left communist circles. It is used to refer to 'the left wing of the bourgeois political apperatus' or the 'left-wing of capital'.

Personally I don't like the term myself.

Devrim

[Црвена]

The conventional political spectrum calls left "big-government," and right "small-government," and "no government," isn't an option there, so communists and communist anarchists aren't actually part of that spectrum since all communists want to abolish the state at some point. Also, the spectrum assumes an acceptance of capitalism: the conventional left want a big state regulating capitalism and the conventional right want the government to stay out of economics, and there is no option for abolishing capitalism as well as the state.

[Naroc]

Some of my friends and a lot of the other people i know from the left-"scene" here are anarchists, but they all do call themselves to be leftists. So this phenomenon doesn't seem to be an actual thing around here.

[The Feral Underclass]

Leftism defines a very specific kind of politics, characterised by traditional left tactics and strategies. Many libertarian communists and anarchists are trying to move beyond those kind of failed, stagnant practices.

I would never identify myself as a leftist.

[helot]

The left is too broad a church to be meaningful. By the left people mean anything from the self-emancipation of the proletariat and the destruction of present society to the preservation of capitalism. Shit, there are scabs who are considered left wing! The left includes 3 lots of class interests (prole, petit & huate bourg) which inevitably results in calls for 'left unity' being fundamentally class collaborationist and thus incapable of the revolutionary transformation of society. While of course recognising anarchism is 'of the left' i sigh everytime i'm associated with a class i fight against

[human strike]

I don't identify as a leftist (except when I'm being especially lazy), but then I don't identify as an anarchist either. There are some anarchists who reject the leftist label, but the vast majority embrace it.

[Comrade Jacob]

Anarchists do call themselves leftists...
Unless you get those stuck-up ones that say stuff like: "No, no, we are beyond the spectrum"/"We are our own thing bro".

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchists do call themselves leftists...

Unless you get those stuck-up ones that say stuff like: "No, no, we are beyond the spectrum"/"We are our own thing bro".


Is it just anarchist intellectual pursuits that you find so pretentious, or all intellectual pursuits?

Am I to understand from this little intervention that, in your view, the concept of 'moving beyond' and progressing from failed practices is something to be opposed?

I find that to be a fundamentally conservative point-of-view. Then again it comes as no surprise, since conservative attitudes are pretty much indicative of leftism.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Remus Bleys]

Right…. But my entire point is that it doesn't matter what you want to consider yourself. Like it or not, convenient or not, a specific set of beliefs will put you somewhere on the political spectrum. How can you not be on the political spectrum?
As we all know 1789 French politics is the be all end all of the political spectrum? That's a pretty silly worldview, really, as the "right wing" doesn't exist anymore, to be replaced by the capitalist right wing and the "left wing" is, well, in shambles and has shown itself to be opposed to the communist movement every time. Not even modern day capitalist politics can really be seen as a mere left-right divide.

What makes someone a leftist anyway? A desire for egalitarianism? Engels showed many times that egalitarianism is a bourgeois hypocrisy, that it is the ideology of the bourgeoisie; the worst caricature of marxism is that it is for "equality."

[Broviet Union]

this is a pretty absurd oversimplification

How so exactly?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Post-left anarchy is pretty cool. I like a lot of the anti-work stuff.

[bcbm]

How so exactly?

there's certainly no shortage of 'left' ideologies that have dramatically increased hierarchy, for one. i think the political compass left/right/up/down scale is more useful

[Ele'ill]

i think a lot of people from 'the left', anarchists included, are jumping ship or already have, not that post-left mopey and pessimistic shit is now radikewl or anything but there's a general shift in what folks feel is important/realistic or maybe I am getting older and friends are too and we're going through some opposite to what usually happens where folks get liberalized and a house, job, retirement, dead (instead we live forever as vagrant scavengers and cafe urchins bleeding out intellectually into complete imminent madness)

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

As we all know 1789 French politics is the be all end all of the political spectrum? That's a pretty silly worldview, really, as the "right wing" doesn't exist anymore, to be replaced by the capitalist right wing and the "left wing" is, well, in shambles and has shown itself to be opposed to the communist movement every time. Not even modern day capitalist politics can really be seen as a mere left-right divide.

What makes someone a leftist anyway? A desire for egalitarianism? Engels showed many times that egalitarianism is a bourgeois hypocrisy, that it is the ideology of the bourgeoisie; the worst caricature of marxism is that it is for "equality."

Well I certainly agree that it's a simplistic and unhelpful term. Saying someone is "left" or "right" can have a huge range, which is why people shouldn't just casually label themselves as that without giving a specific name to their beliefs.

But it still stands. It is an absolute that the less reaction, the further left you are. If someone promoted capitalism during feudal times, they would be the furthest left on the spectrum. The spectrum may be absolute in its relation to reaction, but that doesn't mean what's considered left or right can't change as society changes.

Many many fascists claim that they are outside of the spectrum and reject the notion that they are right wing because they claim to offer an alternative modernist worldview, rejecting anything that came from the legacy of the Enlightenment. That doesn't mean that they are correct. Since fascism is the furthest reactionary line one can hold, they are the furthest right, and that will always remain true.

[Remus Bleys]

Isn't the furthest reaction one can get primitivism and fascism be a pretty "modern" ideology, considering that it is not a return to feudalism, but rather an ideology of the real domination of capital?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Isn't the furthest reaction one can get primitivism and fascism be a pretty "modern" ideology, considering that it is not a return to feudalism, but rather an ideology of the real domination of capital?

Primitivism is right there very close to fascism, yes. The reason fascism is a bit further right is because it is actually a mass so-called "populist" movement that makes use of "modernity" to promote reaction on a massive so-called "revolutionary" (their words) scale.

Primitivism doesn't really make use of mobilizing on such a large scale to achieve its reaction. But yeah, that can be debated.

[Remus Bleys]

Fascism didn't really turn the clock backwards, but really kinda secured it its place. I'm not saying fascism isn't bad but fascism is one of the ideologies used to further capital's real domination - not some arch reactionary nonsense that went back to pre capitalism but made capitalism Extra Secure. a lot of leftists have this weird metaphysical fixation on fascism when really fascism isn't "far right" but rather a syncretic.
Like neoliberalism. That isn't left wing but if right wing = reactionary (turning back the clock) then neoliberalism isn't possibly right wing either, as it solidifies capitalism, it doesn't return to some pre capitalist land.

[Thirsty Crow]

But there are no significant contemporary political ideologies that want to "turn back the clock", so it would seem that if this is the criterion used when talking about reactionary politics - there is no such a thing.

[Remus Bleys]

I meant the typical "back in the old days" be this the old days of "laissez-faire," of small businesses and competition, of social democracy, of kings, of feudalism. Reactionary in that regard, wishing for an earlier capitalism. Or even a pre capitalism in some cases. Even fascists want to go back to the good old days of fascism, today they are among the arch reactionaries (or are getting close to it).

[Tim Cornelis]

Is it just anarchist intellectual pursuits that you find so pretentious, or all intellectual pursuits?

Am I to understand from this little intervention that, in your view, the concept of 'moving beyond' and progressing from failed practices is something to be opposed?

Moving beyond the historical experience of the revolutionary left does not negate that you are leftists. You are leftists whether you like it or not. Also, I don't see a lot moving beyond.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Fascism didn't really turn the clock backwards, but really kinda secured it its place. I'm not saying fascism isn't bad but fascism is one of the ideologies used to further capital's real domination - not some arch reactionary nonsense that went back to pre capitalism but made capitalism Extra Secure. a lot of leftists have this weird metaphysical fixation on fascism when really fascism isn't "far right" but rather a syncretic.
Like neoliberalism. That isn't left wing but if right wing = reactionary (turning back the clock) then neoliberalism isn't possibly right wing either, as it solidifies capitalism, it doesn't return to some pre capitalist land.

I see what you're getting at. I don't think reactionary is completely synonymous with turning back the clock or anything. Although turning back the clock is
a reactionary concept.

I agree with your analysis of fascism except that I believe it certainly is right wing. Just because they don't want to start hunting/gathering like our ancient ancestors doesn't mean that they aren't the epitome of reaction. In fact, their ultra nationalist hunger for an alternate modern world is precisely more reactionary than primitivism because they want to apply their beliefs to a modern world.

That sounded pretty damn convoluted, but I'm tired as shit. Hope you get what I'm saying though.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

"Moving beyond the Left" sounds like intellectual masturbation over labels.

[bcbm]

not that post-left mopey and pessimistic shit is now radikewl or anything

hey...


Isn't the furthest reaction one can get primitivism

no


Primitivism is right there very close to fascism, yes.

nope


"Moving beyond the Left" sounds like intellectual masturbation over labels.

its not about labels, it is about praxis.

[The Feral Underclass]

Moving beyond the historical experience of the revolutionary left does not negate that you are leftists.

Since 'moving beyond' those historical experiences and practices is to reject leftism that is precisely what it negates.


You are leftists whether you like it or not.

As already stated, to be a leftist is to embrace leftism and since leftism is something that we are talking about rejecting, that necessarily makes us not leftists. Whether you like it or not.


Also, I don't see a lot moving beyond.

Then pay more attention.

[The Feral Underclass]

"Moving beyond the Left" sounds like intellectual masturbation over labels.

All this statement does is identify your own anti-intelletualism and narrow-mindedness. Referring to ideas as "intellectual masturbation" is simply a lazy way to refuse engagement with those ideas.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

All this statement does is identify your own anti-intelletualism and narrow-mindedness. Referring to ideas as "intellectual masturbation" is simply a lazy way to refuse engagement with those ideas.
What ideas? "Moving beyond the Left" is empty phrase-mongering, so there's nothing to engage with.

[The Feral Underclass]

What ideas?

I see. So you don't actually know what we're talking about.


"Moving beyond the Left" is empty phrase-mongering, so there's nothing to engage with.


That statement would only be true if there wasn't a catalogue of things written, discussed and done in order to do just that.

Perhaps you might consider the possibility that the reason you have arrived at your views is because you haven't taken the time to learn about what is going on in the left.

Please don't mistake your ignorance of current affairs for "empty phrase mongering."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tim Cornelis]

Since 'moving beyond' those historical experiences and practices is to reject leftism that is precisely what it negates.

That is false — unless you analyse the failures revolutionary left and come to the conclusion that capitalism is natural, moral, etc., that is. What it is, at best, is 'moving beyond the historical experience of the dominant revolutionary leftist currents to develop a new revolutionary leftist current' as opposed to moving beyond 'the left' as a whole.


As already stated, to be a leftist is to embrace leftism and since leftism is something that we are talking about rejecting, that necessarily makes us not leftists. Whether you like it or not.

Yeah, a circle is round and this is circular reasoning.

The left-right dichotomy stems from the French revolution as you probably know, with progressives and radicals on the left and conservatives and reactionaries on the right. This evolved into a system of political classification where the the left-wing refers to more social equality, and the right-wing to more social inequality.

With on the left-wing of the political spectrum...
Revolutionary left: egalitarianism (communism, anarchism);
Far-Left (incl. revleft): far reaching equality, but not necessarily egalitarianism ('democratic socialism')
moderate left-wing: government intervention to create equality of opportunity (social-democracy, sometimes social-liberalism)

On the right-wing of the political spectrum...
moderate right-wing: some government intervention for a social safety net (conservative liberalism, social liberalism)
right-wing: affirming social inequality, government scarcely active in redistribution of wealth (liberal conservatism, right-wing libertarianism, Christian democracy)
far-right: affirming social inequality, or enhancing social inequality (fascism, ultra-nationalism, ultra-conservatism, para-fascism)

So unless you reject socialism, anarchism, communism, you are part of 'the Left' whether you like it or not.


Then pay more attention.

k

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I see. So you don't actually know what we're talking about.
That's one way to read it. The other is how I intended it, to imply there are no substantive ideas behind the phrase-mongering. BCBM said it's about praxis, but "moving beyond the Left" is a silly way to talk about moving away from past failures of praxis.

[The Feral Underclass]

That is false — unless you analyse the failures revolutionary left and come to the conclusion that capitalism is natural, moral, etc., that is. What it is, at best, is 'moving beyond the historical experience of the dominant revolutionary leftist currents to develop a new revolutionary leftist current' as opposed to moving beyond 'the left' as a whole.

The term 'leftism' in the context of this discussion is used to describe a specific set of experiences, ideas and practices within the left.

While your apparent strict obedience to language is technically correct, alas, language evolves, and unfortunately in this particular instance when referring to 'leftism' and 'leftists' we are not talking about twee definitions, but about something entirely different.


Yeah, a circle is round and this is circular reasoning.

I was under the impression that you understood how the term 'leftism' was being employed here. Apparently that is not the case.


The left-right dichotomy stems from the French revolution as you probably know, with progressives and radicals on the left and conservatives and reactionaries on the right. This evolved into a system of political classification where the the left-wing refers to more social equality, and the right-wing to more social inequality.

With on the left-wing of the political spectrum...
Revolutionary left: egalitarianism (communism, anarchism);
Far-Left (incl. revleft): far reaching equality, but not necessarily egalitarianism ('democratic socialism')
moderate left-wing: government intervention to create equality of opportunity (social-democracy, sometimes social-liberalism)

On the right-wing of the political spectrum...
moderate right-wing: some government intervention for a social safety net (conservative liberalism, social liberalism)
right-wing: affirming social inequality, government scarcely active in redistribution of wealth (liberal conservatism, right-wing libertarianism, Christian democracy)
far-right: affirming social inequality, or enhancing social inequality (fascism, ultra-nationalism, ultra-conservatism, para-fascism)

So unless you reject socialism, anarchism, communism, you are part of 'the Left' whether you like it or not.

None of that has anything to do with what we're talking about.


k

You might very well be flippant about it, but since you have a) failed to understand what we are talking about and b) given support to a post that directly admits having no knowledge of the ideas being discussed, you may do you well to take my advice.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's one way to read it. The other is how I intended it, to imply there are no substantive ideas behind the phrase-mongering.

But that statement is ridiculous when you consider the sheer scale of literature that is written on the subject. The only way you could possibly think it is not substantiated as an idea is if you have never taken the time to actually look at what is being said. Either that or you are being duplicitous.


BCBM said it's about praxis, but "moving beyond the Left" is a silly way to talk about moving away from past failures of praxis.

Why is it? If the idea is to "move beyond the left", surely then saying that is absolutely to the point...I mean, you've reduced this discussion down to one about the relevancy of four words. This is precisely the level of engagement that sections of the left have with these ideas. It's tragic.

[Invader Zim]

TAT can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he is alluding to the kinds of thought which contend that the modern left has become stale, tedious and nobody outside of leftist circles gives a fuck (http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/selected/asfuck.php) about anything most modern leftists have to say. Maybe he has a point.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But that statement is ridiculous when you consider the sheer scale of literature that is written on the subject.
If it's ridiculous, do you have specific texts that you think are most helpful? This is Learning, so feel free to share some.

[The Feral Underclass]

If it's ridiculous, do you have specific texts that you think are most helpful? This is Learning, so feel free to share some.

Do you not think it would have been more appropriate for you to begin from this position of wanting to learn, rather than from one of intransigence?

The most familiar texts are probably from Endnotes, but also SIC Collective have written some awesome stuff, there are great articles in Ephemera, Scott Nappalos has written some interesting stuff, Plan C have put out texts, as did Collective Action and the FARJ.

Also, I quite rate stuff that is written in Uprising by Revolutionary Initiative in Canada, although I'm not sure how popular that view is.

[The Feral Underclass]

TAT can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he is alluding to the kinds of thought which contend that the modern left has become stale, tedious and nobody outside of leftist circles gives a fuck (http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/selected/asfuck.php) about anything most modern leftists have to say. Maybe he has a point.

More or less, yes.

I quite like the sentiment of that article.

[bcbm]

If it's ridiculous, do you have specific texts that you think are most helpful? This is Learning, so feel free to share some.

one was posted on the first page of this thread

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Is there even really a 'Left' anymore anyway?

[Sinister Intents]

Is there even really a 'Left' anymore anyway?

I'd have to say no in my opinion, at least not very large if you can call it existent in the USA. Outside 'Murica I'd have to say the left exists. All based on things I've read and seen. I've met no other anarchists or communists in my area, almost everyone is laid neatly to the right.

[TheFox]

What anarchists have you been talking to? Aside from quite-understandable critiques of the left/right spectrum, I can't think of any Anarchists having traditionally seen themselves as "anti-leftist". "Anti-communist" maybe, but more in the sense of opposing the tactics and style of politics than opposing the socio-economic model of communism as such. At least not ones who weren't those weird rightwing "anarcho-capitalists", who are just a bougie joke.



First, what do you consider the distinction between government and the state, if there is any?

Second, are you familiar with arguments from folks like Marx, Engels, and Lenin discuss the state "withering away" under communism?

Third, why would governments exist to "harm its inhabitants"? Harming people for the sake of harming them doesn't sound very productive. The ruling class is more practically minded than you seem to think.
First I would like to apologize for responding so late. I've been busy.

The state= The tool that the government uses to control. The government= The people behind the control.

Yes, I've heard of this argument. Sadly, Marxism (Or whatever you want to call it) defies human nature. Therefor they must keep control of their citizens.

They have good intentions, but anytime you control another person, you're harming them. Even if you want to help them.

I'm tired right now so I don't know if I'm making sense but I hope you figure out what I mean anyway. :grin:

(By the way, Had to remove the link so I could post this.)

[Ele'ill]

hey...

No I meant it has burned off its radi-fad shell and actually become a thing worth noting not that the ideas are new but shit tends to resurface over time and there is new applicable significance to a lot of things as we discover new revelations about our global situation like how the biosphere is gonna probably die before the sun swallows us. That entire sphere that tends to overlap and flirt with one another, nihilism, communisation, [email protected], post-left, post-civ and anti-civ, individualist has become a bit more serious. I don't know why it seems more genuine now than before other than its either me or its what we now know that we didn't know 10-20 years ago not that I would have been reading stirner or post-civ stuff when I was five yo anyways but still

[Anti-Traditional]

You've only got to look at Leftism in practice to know that real revolutionaries should have nothing to do with it. How can a Left Communist or an Anarchist be put in the same bracket as groups that support Nationalisations and so-called 'Anti-Imperialism'?

[Tim Cornelis]

You've only got to look at Leftism in practice to know that real revolutionaries should have nothing to do with it. How can a Left Communist or an Anarchist be put in the same bracket as groups that support Nationalisations and so-called 'Anti-Imperialism'?

Because that's how classification works. If we're talking about ideology of politics, left communists and anarchists fall in the same brackets as fascists.... So therefore these are not ideologies and politics?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Because that's how classification works. If we're talking about ideology of politics, left communists and anarchists fall in the same brackets as fascists.... So therefore these are not ideologies and politics?

Tf are you talking about man?

[human strike]

But there are no significant contemporary political ideologies that want to "turn back the clock", so it would seem that if this is the criterion used when talking about reactionary politics - there is no such a thing.

I know lots of socialists who want to turn back the clock.

[BIXX]

I don't really consider myself part of the left because a lot of the ideas and praxis produced by the left are shit. Almost all of them, it seems to me. Plus I hold that leftism is acutely assimilated into the grips of capital, as it was a positive movement to be identified and easily suppressed, so now leftists just play a role within a social order.

I don't consider myself part of the post left because, despite having more interesting thoughts and ideas, I've never really experienced much in terms of a material difference between the two. Also a good amount of post-leftists just wanna critique "PC-ness" so they can say racist/sexist shit and get away with it, and this delegitimize the critique against PC-ness. Furthermore some post-leftists fail to escape the positivist trap.

I will say that a lot of my own ideas collide with the ideas of post-leftists.

I just call myself a nihilist, because I have no alternative to give, no positive to affirm and thus be assimilated by society, rather I am a queer and I recognize myself as a denial of a future for this society, or any society. I deny the future and the past for a life in the here and now. And that is the biggest reason I'm not a leftist.

[consuming negativity]

I don't really consider myself part of the left because a lot of the ideas and praxis produced by the left are shit. Almost all of them, it seems to me. Plus I hold that leftism is acutely assimilated into the grips of capital, as it was a positive movement to be identified and easily suppressed, so now leftists just play a role within a social order.

I don't consider myself part of the post left because, despite having more interesting thoughts and ideas, I've never really experienced much in terms of a material difference between the two. Also a good amount of post-leftists just wanna critique "PC-ness" so they can say racist/sexist shit and get away with it, and this delegitimize the critique against PC-ness. Furthermore some post-leftists fail to escape the positivist trap.

I will say that a lot of my own ideas collide with the ideas of post-leftists.

I just call myself a nihilist, because I have no alternative to give, no positive to affirm and thus be assimilated by society, rather I am a queer and I recognize myself as a denial of a future for this society, or any society. I deny the future and the past for a life in the here and now. And that is the biggest reason I'm not a leftist.

You sound like someone who would enjoy reading Albert Camus.

[Supposed Mocha]

Well there are all those self proclaimed Anarcho Capitalists and Objectivists which are everywhere, whom of course see the Left as the devil taking away their toys and daring to ask that they share a little something.

Of course in my experience so far, most also live at home with parents so I don't really see their point of view whatsoever. But as for traditional terms of Anarchism, I identify as one and never thought that some would differ themselves from the Left. But I could understand if they were afraid that calling themselves Left Wing would mean they're Statist or something.

But that's just my two cents and understanding.

[Blake's Baby]

It'a not that 'Left Wing' means 'statist' as such, more that (in the words of the Socialist Party of Great Britain) 'Left Wing and Right Wing are part of the same capitalist bird'.

The Right might want big government or small government, it doesn't really matter, but it typically wants workers to be paid low wages and for money to be in the hands of 'entrepreneurs' or other captains of industry. The Left generally wants big government, so that it can control the flow of money to adopt a more Keynesian form of economic management while maintaining the social peace. Generally.

Both are tactics for the management of capitalism.

Revolutionaries, on the other hand, including most Anarchists, don't want capitalism to be managed but destroyed. Which puts revolutionaries outside of the spectrum.

EDIT: this graphic, though a bit basic and cheesy, explains what I'm getting at I think:

http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y436/slothjabber/spectrum_zps45e4bd49.png

[EoLE]

I wouldn't have thought there were any widespread belief that anarchism is not of the left. Maybe more like it's just apolitical so far as state politics are concerned. But there is some understandable disdain and frustration towards what statist politics calls 'the left' (ie 'liberals'). Maybe this disdain and frustration could be summed up with a protest cry that would probably suit most people on the left in mainstream politics.
"What do we want?"
"Piecemeal change!"
"When do we want it?"
"Eventually!"

[adipocre]

I think its possible that Ancaps think they are apart of the right. Or maybe they consider themselves in the middle.

[Geiseric]

Anarchism is more postmodern than it is materialist. Its founders I.e. bakunin and proudhon were all over the place with their petit bourgeois idealism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism is more postmodern than it is materialist.


How can the early and mid-19th century be considered postmodern? Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism and modernism wasn't a thing until the 20th century...


Its founders I.e. bakunin and proudhon were all over the place with their petit bourgeois idealism.

What place is this?

How can Bakunin be considered a follower of idealism when he repeatedly accepted Marx's thesis on materialism, even praising him for his work?

Are you able to explain these inconsistencies between your views and reality?

[Geiseric]

How can the early and mid-19th century be considered postmodern? Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism and modernism wasn't a thing until the 20th century...



What place is this?

How can Bakunin be considered a follower of idealism when he repeatedly accepted Marx's thesis on materialism, even praising him for his work?

Are you able to explain these inconsistencies between your views and reality?

Anarchism and fascism alike were precursors to postmodernism as we know it today. The growth of these philisophical trends happens before they are formalized in concrete theory, however they both place more importance on the spectacle and subjective factors rather than objective and material.

Im not comparing them as ideologies, they are different, however they are both divorced from reality and the process of their conceptions and implementation both stem from petit bourgeois ideology of different stripes.

Bakunin was such a materialist that he wanted to exterminate the jews! Saying he understood materialismbut chose not to connect it to real life is laudible. Twas no more materialist than any other conspiracy theorist. Materialism is a modernist philosophy, both anarchism and fascism rose in reaction to marxism and liberalism (respectively) so i'm predisposed to use your argument against you.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah you are just talking out of your ass actually but thanks for sharing

[PhoenixAsh]

Please source Bakunin calling for the extermination of the Jews.

You have repeated this statement time and time again and you have repeatedly been proven not only false but completely idiotic for your contiuous assertion of this exact statement.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism and fascism alike were precursors to postmodernism as we know it today.

No they weren't...:confused:


The growth of these philisophical trends happens before they are formalized in concrete theory, however they both place more importance on the spectacle and subjective factors rather than objective and material.

That sentence is literally nonsense. The "spectacle and subjective"? What the hell are you talking about? I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.


Im not comparing them as ideologies, they are different, however they are both divorced from reality and the process of their conceptions and implementation both stem from petit bourgeois ideology of different stripes.

The accusation that anarchism comes from "petit bourgeois ideology" is so discredited that it always surprises me that people continue to use it. If we were to seriously interrogate the premise for your views we would soon discover that they are nothing more than posturing. But I invite you to try at least.


Bakunin was such a materialist that he wanted to exterminate the jews!

Bakunin was a materialist because he accepted Marx's thesis on history and class struggle. Since he never once articulated the view that he wanted to exterminate Jews, or anything remotely similar, it is impossible for you to draw that conclusion.


Saying he understood materialismbut chose not to connect it to real life is laudable. Twas no more materialist than any other conspiracy theorist.

Laudable? Are you drunk?

Which of his works do you contend is akin to a conspiracy theory or that is somehow divorced from reality? Which of his ideas do you think is specifically at odds with materialism?

[PhoenixAsh]

Or do we have to do a re-re-re-rehash of the Marx/Engels quotes on sexism, racism and anti-semitism so you can dig your way into hypocracy by trying to explain how those quotes are out of context, satirical, jokes, not serious, not a reflection of conotemporary thought or should be taken with a grain of salt...

[Geiseric]

Or do we have to do a re-re-re-rehash of the Marx/Engels quotes on sexism, racism and anti-semitism so you can dig your way into hypocracy by trying to explain how those quotes are out of context, satirical, jokes, not serious, not a reflection of conotemporary thought or should be taken with a grain of salt...

Oh my god. You are as despicable as CNN. The most racist thing marx said was calling laselle a "jew nigger" other than that there are no examples of racism from marx and engels. Of course youll cherry pick text that is taken OUT OF CONTEXT like the last thread. However their views on anthropology are outdated is nothing compared with the oblivious anti semitism Bakunin and Proudhon are guilty of.

[The Feral Underclass]

I call troll.

[Five Year Plan]

I was enjoying the discussion about (some) anarchists not considering themselves part of the left. Why are we now debating who said what racist or anti-semitic thing? If you want to have that discussion, why not restart the thread from a month ago about that very topic, the one that died because people realized it was a pointless and rather stupid discussion?

[The Feral Underclass]

I was enjoying the discussion about (some) anarchists not considering themselves part of the left. Why are we now debating who said what racist or anti-semitic thing? If you want to have that discussion, why not restart the thread from a month ago about that very topic, the one that died because people realized it was a pointless and rather stupid discussion?

Surely if you've read the thread you can see why we started talking about...

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh my god. You are as despicable as CNN. The most racist thing marx said was calling laselle a "jew nigger" other than that there are no examples of racism from marx and engels. Of course youll cherry pick text that is taken OUT OF CONTEXT like the last thread. However their views on anthropology are outdated is nothing compared with the oblivious anti semitism Bakunin and Proudhon are guilty of.

The oblivious anti-semitism?

Bakunin definitely expressed some anti-Semitic sentiments, but he never called for the persecution of Jews; he never called for their discrimination and he certainly never called for them to be exterminated. That is simply a lie.

[Five Year Plan]

Surely if you've read the thread you can see why we started talking about...

I know. It was a way for me to gently try to steer the conversation away from subpolitical attacks about which figure 200 years ago said in some letter things we would consider reactionary today.

[The Feral Underclass]

I know. It was a way for me to gently try to steer the conversation away from subpolitical attacks about which figure 200 years ago said in some letter things we would consider reactionary today.

What do you expect from a Trotskyist?

[Five Year Plan]

What do you expect from a Trotskyist?

Speaking as a cannibal-Trotskyist, I don't think it's fair at all to point to geiseric's posts as being representative of anything other than geiseric.

[The Feral Underclass]

Speaking as a cannibal-Trotskyist, I don't think it's fair at all to point to geiseric's posts as being representative of anything other than geiseric.

I think Geiseric's attitudes is entirely representative of Trotkyism's long tradition as a violent and manipulative enemy of anarchism.

It comes as no surprise to me that Trotskyist would lie about the founder of anarchism.

[Five Year Plan]

I think Geiseric's attitudes is entirely representative of Trotkyism's long tradition as a violent and manipulative enemy of anarchism.

It comes as no surprise to me that Trotskyist would lie about the founder of anarchism.

I don't think this is place to shift the discussion from "Anarchists are anti-semitic fascists!" to "Trotskyists are lying and sociopathic manipulators!" If you wish to discuss my Trotskyism with me, I am more than happy to do so in another thread or in private messages.

[The Feral Underclass]

I have no interest in hearing a Trotskyist defend a tradition that has seen the murder of hundreds of anarchists.

[Five Year Plan]

I have no interest in hearing a Trotskyist defend a tradition that has seen the murder of hundreds of anarchists.

Ok, then proceed with your discussion about why anarchists don't consider themselves part of the left.

[Geiseric]

Bakunin called jews parasites in a letter to marx, who he was supposedly "calling out" for being part of an anti bakunin, international jewish conspiracy. Theres nothing different between his and Henry Ford's ideology regarding jews.

[Brutus]

Bakunin called jews parasites in a letter to marx, who he was supposedly "calling out" for being part of an anti bakunin, international jewish conspiracy. Theres nothing different between his and Henry Ford's ideology regarding jews.

Right, and how does this negate anarchism as an ideology of social-revolution, which calls for the liberation of all, regardless of race, gender and so on?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Bakunin called jews parasites in a letter to marx, who he was supposedly "calling out" for being part of an anti bakunin, international jewish conspiracy. Theres nothing different between his and Henry Ford's ideology regarding jews.

Aside from this total bs, sure why not. It's your lie, tell it how you want to baby.

[Zoroaster]

I have no interest in hearing a Trotskyist defend a tradition that has seen the murder of hundreds of anarchists.
It's amazing how anarchists will blame Marxists for many incidents, but never bring up the Red Terror of the Spanish Civil War, in which 38,000 people died simply because they held different opinions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bakunin called jews parasites in a letter to marx, who he was supposedly "calling out" for being part of an anti bakunin, international jewish conspiracy. Theres nothing different between his and Henry Ford's ideology regarding jews.

You are a troll. And I suspect a drunk one at that.

[Brutus]

It's amazing how anarchists will blame Marxists for many incidents, but never bring up the Red Terror of the Spanish Civil War, in which 38,000 people died simply because they held different opinions.

Oh no! Red terror! Such a hideous thing!

We shouldn't shed liberal tears over reactionaries. Anarchism, however, (or at least some currents of anarchism) represents a proletarian consciousness. There's a difference between placing a white guard and placing an anarcho-communist before a firing squad.

[helot]

It's amazing how anarchists will blame Marxists for many incidents, but never bring up the Red Terror of the Spanish Civil War, in which 38,000 people died simply because they held different opinions.


Wait, are you on about the killing of landowners, industrialists, politicians, clergy, the burning of monastaries and churches and the killing of people associated with right-wing groups? Is this supposed to paint anarchists as barbaric as the red terror was perpetrated by pretty much every left group.

That last line "simply because they held different opinions" is dishonest btw.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's amazing how anarchists will blame Marxists for many incidents, but never bring up the Red Terror of the Spanish Civil War, in which 38,000 people died simply because they held different opinions.

Erm, because it's not relevant...

[Zoroaster]

Erm, because it's not relevant...

Yeah, sorry. I thought I'd sound smart.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Anarchism isn't a homogeneous political philosophy, it has multiple variants. So people here are starting off on the wrong foot by attacking "anarchists" without actually individuating certain tendencies or ideologies within the category. Some of these tendencies are "leftist" while some are not. This voids a lot of arguments because they essentially are resting upon strawmen. Anarchist "A" might be supportive of the Spanish Civil War participants (Anarchist ones) due to being an Anarcho-Syndicalist with pro CNT-FAI sentiments, whereas Anarchist "B" might completely hate on what the Anarchists did there and see it as a failure from within and not from without, perhaps because "B" is an individualist. Then there are people who are just "Anarchists" (without adjectives in a sense) who are deliberately pluralist... you get the idea.

Plus, how does the LCi relate to Anarchism? It apparently has rejected the moniker, but is that not foolish? Anarchism itself isn't stuck in the 20th century, but many Anarchists are. That doesn't require a rejection of the term "Anarchism". If Anarchism is not part of the left, but many Anarchists are, then the issue concerns the Anarchists and not Anarchism. Do you see where I'm getting at?

EDIT:

If this is the "Left" then Anarchism does not necessarily have to be part of the "Left".

The Left has...

a. old and rigid forms of organisation
b. specialisation of roles, both within organisations, and between radicals and the masses
c. representation
d. ideological thinking
e. categorisation of (or perpetuating the categorisation of) people into state-sponsored identities (gender, skin color, religion, etc)
f. valorisation of work

[The Feral Underclass]

It's not that LCI reject anarchism in its classical form, but that it rejects the moniker of anarchist because of its contemporary connotations and connections.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It's not that LCI reject anarchism in its classical form, but that it rejects the moniker of anarchist because of its contemporary connotations and connections.

So what does that mean for people who call themselves "Anarchists" and hence, are "Anarchists"?

[The Feral Underclass]

So what does that mean for people who call themselves "Anarchists" and hence, are "Anarchists"?


I don't understand the question.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I don't understand the question.

Rejecting the moniker of "Anarchist" because there is a problem with the term suggests that there is an issue with anyone who does identify as such. Is this so? Would you also dissuade people from being "Anarchists"?

[helot]

It's not that LCI reject anarchism in its classical form, but that it rejects the moniker of anarchist because of its contemporary connotations and connections.


I'd be interested in more details on this. Which connotations are you on about?

[The Feral Underclass]

Rejecting the moniker of "Anarchist" because there is a problem with the term suggests that there is an issue with anyone who does identify as such. Is this so? Would you also dissuade people from being "Anarchists"?


Are you from the UK? If so have you had much experience of contemporary British anarchists and the movement?

There is Class War who have spent £14k on standing local MPs. There is SolFed who are confused about what they are and remain committed to classtivism. There is AFed who are essentially a liberalised talking shop. Then there are the insurrectionary anarchists who spend their time either setting fire to cars as a clandestine act or participating in random black blocs at events that are completely detached from that kind of tactic and do nothing to elaborate it's usefulness and purpose. And the green anarchists who have pretty much vanished into their co-ops and squats.

I met one anarchist recently who informed me that I wouldn't be an anarchist if it "weren't for the Sex Pistols." The last few book fairs have been dominated by inter-personal dramas, petty vendettas and bizarre grudges. They are content in their insularity and have done nothing to build any response to the austerity assault. They remain wedded to outdated practices, cower at the site of real riots, not just carefully orchestrated black bloc ones, and participate in the same pointless spectacles.

This is contemporary British anarchism. It's not fit for purpose.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd be interested in more details on this. Which connotations are you on about?


To put it bluntly, being an anarchist in the UK is to be associated with a gang of losers, poseurs, posturers and incompetents.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Are you from the UK? If so have you had much experience of contemporary British anarchists and the movement?

There is Class War who have spent £14k on standing local MPs. There is SolFed who are confused about what they are and remain committed to classtivism. There is AFed who are essentially a liberalised talking shop. Then there are the insurrectionary anarchists who spend their time either setting fire to cars as a clandestine act or participating in random black blocs at events that are completely detached from that kind of tactic and do nothing to elaborate it's usefulness and purpose. And the green anarchists who have pretty much vanished into their co-ops and squats.

I met one anarchist recently who informed me that I wouldn't be an anarchist if it "weren't for the Sex Pistols." The last few book fairs have been dominated by inter-personal dramas, petty vendettas and bizarre grudges. They are content in their insularity and have done nothing to build any response to the austerity assault. They remain wedded to outdated practices, cower at the site of real riots, not just carefully orchestrated black bloc ones, and participate in the same pointless spectacles.

This is contemporary British anarchism. It's not fit for purpose.

I am from the UK. Yet even if that is the case, why abandon the term? You haven't abandoned the term "communist" despite the Soviet Union, Maoist China, "Socialist" Vietnam etc. so why should the term "anarchist" be dropped in the face of something as paltry as AFed, SolFed, Class War or the various "insurrectionary anarchists" roaming around Britain? My god! And so on.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am from the UK. Yet even if that is the case, why abandon the term? You haven't abandoned the term "communist" despite the Soviet Union, Maoist China, "Socialist" Vietnam etc. so why should the term "anarchist" be dropped in the face of something as paltry as AFed, SolFed, Class War or the various "insurrectionary anarchists" roaming around Britain? My god! And so on.


It has nothing to do with the historical traditions. Contemporary anarchism no longer speaks to our politics, where as the term libertarian communist does. It would be entirely disingenuous to refer to ourselves as anarchists, since we are not.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It has nothing to do with the historical traditions. Contemporary anarchism no longer speaks to our politics, where as the term libertarian communist does. It would be entirely disingenuous to refer to ourselves as anarchists, since we are not.

So you're telling me that an extremely large political philosophy, with a diverse number of practices and ideas, can't speak to your politics? What about post-left anarchy? Is there nothing at all? Also I'm not sure that rejecting the label "anarchist" is a good idea considering that all it means is "one who desires anarchy". It isn't as bad as being an "Ultra-Leftist" surely?

[The Feral Underclass]

So you're telling me that an extremely large political philosophy, with a diverse number of practices and ideas, can't speak to your politics?

In a contemporary UK sense, that is precisely what I am telling you.

But to clarify, we take inspiration from Bakunin and from Specifism, so we remain committed to certain classical anarchist and other (non-British) contemporary anarchist ideas and practices.


What about post-left anarchy? Is there nothing at all?

Such as what?


Also I'm not sure that rejecting the label "anarchist" is a good idea considering that all it means is "one who desires anarchy".

Of course that's not all it means! As I have explained already, the connections and associations inherent in the term 'anarchist' here in the UK are such that to refer to oneself as an anarchist implies a great deal of problematic things.

The question to ask is: what does it mean to be an anarchist in Britain? Very little is the answer, and what it does mean is worth nothing to be proud of.


It isn't as bad as being an "Ultra-Leftist" surely?


Well, clearly that's a matter of opinion.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

In a contemporary UK sense, that is precisely what I am telling you.

But to clarify, we take inspiration from Bakunin and from Specifism, so we remain committed to certain classical anarchist and other (non-British) contemporary anarchist ideas and practices.



Such as what?



Of course that's not all it means! As I have explained already, the connections and associations inherent in the term 'anarchist' here in the UK are such that to refer to oneself as an anarchist implies a great deal of problematic things.

The question to ask is: what does it mean to be an anarchist in Britain? Very little is the answer, and what it does mean is worth nothing to be proud of.




Well, clearly that's a matter of opinion.

Did Bakunin consider himself as "part of the left"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Did Bakunin consider himself as "part of the left"?

I don't know, you'd have to ask him.

[happytrot]

Anarchism same as communism is by itself a power. Communism contains it's own political spectrum, it has a right and a left, the same goes for anarchism. There are many types of anarchism you have your typical anarchists who's ideas vary but you can more often than not place them on the left wing, and anarcho-communism which is an idea that's on the far left of anarchism, you also have anarcho-capitalists (very similar to libertarianism) which an extreme right of the anarchist political spectrum. So you can't place anarchism on the political spectrum as we know it. It would have to be changed drastically to accommodate all ideals.