Most Anarchists...

[Comrade Jacob]

Why do (or at least I have noticed) most Anarchists not use the materialist (historical and dialectical) analysis in their movement and instead chose an idealist approach?

Can Anarchist please explain?

[The Feral Underclass]

Why do (or at least I have noticed) most Anarchists not use the materialist (historical and dialectical) analysis in their movement and instead chose an idealist approach?

Can Anarchist please explain?

Yes, it's fairly simple to explain: They do.

[Comrade Jacob]

Yes, it's fairly simple to explain: They do.

They do what? Use materialism or idealism?

[The Feral Underclass]

They do what? Use materialism or idealism?

Use a materialist analysis.

[Comrade Jacob]

Use a materialist analysis.

I haven't seen it. Most I've seen are very idealist.

[Comrade Jacob]

Not trying to start a tendency war.

[Comrade #138672]

I think a more interesting question would be: "Do anarchists tend to be idealist? If so, why?"

In that way, it becomes less about statistics (like when you use the word "most") and more about anarchist ideas and praxis.

[The Feral Underclass]

I haven't seen it. Most I've seen are very idealist.

Which analyses would these be?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I haven't seen it. Most I've seen are very idealist.

You really think DiaMat isn't idealist or absurd?

[olahsenor]

Anarchists were useful in the war in Spain but they can also be detrimental for lack of direction. If the war in Spain was done in close collaboration with the Soviet communists like Kim Philby and was synchronized and well orchestrated, we should had won.

[Sasha]

Anarchists were useful in the war in Spain but they can also be detrimental for lack of direction. If the war in Spain was done in close collaboration with the Soviet communists like Kim Philby and was synchronized and well orchestrated, we should had won.

Oh wow, you must be trolling right?

[Црвена]

Can you give some examples of anarchist idealism? Although anarchism isn't explicitly materialist from what I know, unlike Marxism, it's not really possible to be a consistent class-struggle anarchist without employing a materialist analysis.

[olahsenor]

I based my political analyses on the History of Franco in the Spanish Civil war. I do not intend to troll, comrade.

[olahsenor]

Can you give some examples of anarchist idealism? Although anarchism isn't explicitly materialist from what I know, unlike Marxism, it's not really possible to be a consistent class-struggle anarchist without employing a materialist analysis.

That man by his inherent rationale does not need government to assist him in his daily struggle for sustenance and self-governing. That by the logic of things and the universe, each has a niche in society and this universe is self-propelling to reach the point of perfection... (paraphrased by what I read about Anarchism)

[The Feral Underclass]

Can you give some examples of anarchist idealism? Although anarchism isn't explicitly materialist from what I know, unlike Marxism, it's not really possible to be a consistent class-struggle anarchist without employing a materialist analysis.

I don't understand where this idea comes form. Bakunin was explicitly a materialist, as was Kropotkin. These were seminal anarchist thinkers. Anarchist theoreticians didn't feel the need to go on and on about materialism in the academic way Marx did because Marx had already done it. Marx was accepted as the preeminent authority, something Bakunin himself acknowledged.

[Tim Cornelis]

"Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production."

Similarly, simply because Bakunin and Kropotkin styled themselves materialists, does not mean they were, or were good ones.

Marx criticises Bakunin's (alleged) voluntarism here:

"A radical social revolution depends on certain definite historical conditions of economic development as its precondition. It is also only possible where with capitalist production the industrial proletariat occupies at least an important position among the mass of the people. And if it is to have any chance of victory, it must be able to do immediately as much for the peasants as the French bourgeoisie, mutatis mutandis, did in its revolution for the French peasants of that time. A fine idea, that the rule of labour involves the subjugation of land labour! But here Mr Bakunin's innermost thoughts emerge. He understands absolutely nothing about the social revolution, only its political phrases. Its economic conditions do not exist for him. As all hitherto existing economic forms, developed or undeveloped, involve the enslavement of the worker (whether in the form of wage-labourer, peasant etc.), he believes that a radical revolution is possible in all such forms alike. Still more! He wants the European social revolution, premised on the economic basis of capitalist production, to take place at the level of the Russian or Slavic agricultural and pastoral peoples, not to surpass this level [...] The will, and not the economic conditions, is the foundation of his social revolution."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

When I was an anarchist, I employed materialist analysis, but not sufficiently, and only in a limited sense, and I did not realise this. I do feel that anarchism is often based on the idea that wills create revolution, but since anarchism is not, like Marxist currents, very coherent, this is difficult to prove. So what may apply to some anarchists, may not apply to others. Whereas with Marxists, you can be sure that they're all materialists.

EDIT: an explicit form of idealism among some anarchists came to mind. Some anarchists identify anarchism as a trans-historical movement expressing an innate human desire to live free from authority, tracing anarchism back to the ancient world, such as the ancient Chinese philosopher whose name slipped my mind.

[Sasha]

I based my political analyses on the History of Franco in the Spanish Civil war. I do not intend to troll, comrade.

Speaking as someone with several family members who fought in the civil war, with the international brigades no less, i can say fuck the comintern and their betrayel of the revolution, the spanish people and any socialist integrity with a very rusty, very pointy stick.
You sir, are an idiot

[Бай Ганьо]

Marx was accepted as the preeminent authority, something Bakunin himself acknowledged.

Yeah Bakunin did, but this isn't true in Kropotkin's case.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

It would seem to me that a common misconception is that using the materialist analysis will automatically point to one, correct answer.

But that just doesn't seem to be the case. One can use a materialist analysis and still come to different conclusions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yeah Bakunin did, but this isn't true in Kropotkin's case.

I haven't read them in a long time, but I'm fairly sure that if you read 'Communism and Anarchy', 'Factories, Fields and Workshops' and 'Conquest of Bread', an historical and dialectical materialist analysis runs implicitly, if not explicitly, through them.

[The Feral Underclass]

It would seem to me that a common misconception is that using the materialist analysis will automatically point to one, correct answer.

But that just doesn't seem to be the case. One can use a materialist analysis and still come to different conclusions.

That's a really good point, actually.

[Црвена]

I don't understand where this idea comes form. Bakunin was explicitly a materialist, as was Kropotkin. These were seminal anarchist thinkers. Anarchist theoreticians didn't feel the need to go on and on about materialism in the academic way Marx did because Marx had already done it. Marx was accepted as the preeminent authority, something Bakunin himself acknowledged.

I don't think many anarchists after Bakunin (I don't remember Kropotkin expressly stating that he was materialist, though I've only read a couple of his works) voiced their agreement with the Marxist materialist method. This is probably just a reflection of the divergence of the anarchist and Marxist traditions; the two traditions started in the same place and with the same philosophical basis, hence the agreement of Bakunin and Marx, but they then grew apart and anarchists didn't feel the need to relate themselves explicitly to the Marxist method. Though as I said, consistent anarchism still necessitates materialism.

[Бай Ганьо]

I haven't read them in a long time, but I'm fairly sure that if you read 'Communism and Anarchy', 'Factories, Fields and Workshops' and 'Conquest of Bread', an historical and dialectical materialist analysis runs implicitly, if not explicitly, through them.

Kropotkin rejected dialectics. I'd suggest you (re)read his "Modern Science and Anarchism".

Here some quotes:


[...]

At the present time this history can be written without resorting to either the formulae of Hegelean metaphysics or to ''innate ideas" and ''inspiration from without" — without any of those dead formulae behind which, concealed by words as by clouds, was always hidden the same ancient ignorance and the same superstition.

[...]

Anarchism has already shown that it will not content itself with metaphysical conclusions, but will seek in every case a natural-scientific basis. It rejects the metaphysics of Hegel, of Schelling, and of Kant ; it disowns the commentators of Roman and Canon Law, together with the learned apologists of the State ; it does not consider metaphysical political economy a science.

[...]

when the Anarchists are told, for instance, that — as Hegel says — every development consists of a Thesis, an Antithesis, and a Synthesis ; or that "the object of Law is the establishment of Justice, which represents the realization of the Highest Idea;" or, again, when they are asked, — What, in their opinion, is "the Object of Life?" they, too, simply shrug their shoulders and wonder how, at the present state of development of natural science, old fashioned people can still be found who continue to believe in "words" like these and still express themselves in the language of primitive anthropomorphism (the conception of nature as of a thing governed by a being endowed with human attributes).

[...]

The discoveries of the nineteenth century in mechanics, physics, chemistry, biology, physical psychology, anthropology, psychology of nations, etc., were made — not by the dialectic method, but by the natural-scientific method, the method of induction and deduction. And since man is part of nature, and since the life of his ''spirit" — personal as well as social — is just as much a phenomenon of nature as is the growth of a flower or the evolution of social life amongst the ants and the bees, — there is no cause for suddenly changing our method of investigation when we pass from the flower to man, or from a settlement of beavers to a human town.

[The Feral Underclass]

Kropotkin rejected dialectics. I'd suggest you (re)read his "Modern Science and Anarchism".

I realise now of course that the point you were making was the Kropotkin did not acknowledge Marx as a preeminent authority on materialism. I thought you were suggesting Kropotkin was not a materialist.

I will read Modern Science and Anarchism. It's about time I remembered my past. Kropotkin the anti-dialectician sounds ridiculous, though I can well believe it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Kropotkin rejected dialectics. I'd suggest you (re)read his "Modern Science and Anarchism".

Here some quotes:

Thanks for the quotes. Kropotkin doesn't seem to address Marx's divergence from Hegel. Is this a criticism of dialectical materialism, or of Hegel?

[Бай Ганьо]

Thanks for the quotes. Kropotkin doesn't seem to address Marx's divergence from Hegel. Is this a criticism of dialectical materialism, or of Hegel?

Kropotkin doesn't criticize materialism. Only the dialectical method is criticized and, therefore, even though he doesn't explicitly mention Marx in those passages, Marx is implicitly targeted next to Hegel.

Also in Chapter IX he very briefly explains why in his view Marx's value theory is totally unscientific.

[The Feral Underclass]

Kropotkin doesn't criticize materialism. Only the dialectical method is criticized and, therefore, even though he doesn't explicitly mention Marx in those passages, Marx is implicitly targeted next to Hegel.

There is a fairly fundamental difference between the dialectics of Hegel and the dialectics of Marx, but maybe not enough for Kropotkin.


Also in Chapter IX he very briefly explains why in his view Marx's value theory is totally unscientific.

I will check that out.

[olahsenor]

The fundamental question is how would you organize things when in power? We, hardline Stalinists do not need to explain. We had the answers came 1917.

[BIXX]

Oh shit we don't use materialist analysis you got us

Who even cares what analysis is used I've never understood that. Does it really matter what weird philosophical finding I have when I'm being pepper sprayed, or fired, etc? Or when I react to those things with resistance?

[blake 3:17]

Thanks for those quotes from Kropotkin. I've never read him, but those have me intrigued.

I've generally been interested in the wilder, more 'idealist' side of anarchism, but over time taking anarchism more seriously I'm glad to find sources for a radical philosophy connections to empiricism and pragmatism.

[suneo]

Society do anarchists never think long and they are easily provoked by some elements. That's because people who do anarchists have long suffered and they had lost patience

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

How have you guys never really read Kropotkin? He was pretty cool fr

[Zoop]

A better question: why do opponents of anarchism criticise it, when they know fuck all about it?

[Guardia Rossa]

Oh my, communists claim they transcend bourgeois worldview, but they completely adopted bourgeois worldview on Anarchism.

I don't love anarchism because it doesn't thinks macro, it thinks micro (Direct action and lack of organized structure, or hate for an organized structure, are the things I absolutely hate).

But apart from that, I like most anarchists I meet (Except the ones that yell 23 hours a day "MARXISTS ARE NAZIS, THEY ARE AUTHORITARIAN, THEY WANT TO SHOOT US".... well... I don't.) and generally they are the most devoted of all and if one becomes a communist, he is certainly valuable.

[Zoop]

^ I'm not sure where your knowledge about anarchism comes from, but we don't hate organised structures. Organisation can be centralised or decentralised; we reject the former and accept the latter. This ludicrous idea that anarchists reject organisation derives from the whole "anarchy is chaos" mentality, which is of course, absurd, and the idea that organisation can only be centralised.

Also, direction action isn't inherently "macro" or "micro". It depends on how it is used, and for what purpose(s). Anarchists adopt the tactic of direct action in conjunction with broader aims and goals, so the idea that direction action is "micro", when used by anarchists, isn't universally applicable.

[Guardia Rossa]

Oh, you don't hate organized structures, just never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever make use of them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh, you don't hate organized structures, just never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever make use of them.

What are the dozens of anarchist federations, anarchist unions and anarchist Internationals then if not organised structures?

[Comrade #138672]

Oh shit we don't use materialist analysis you got us

Who even cares what analysis is used I've never understood that. Does it really matter what weird philosophical finding I have when I'm being pepper sprayed, or fired, etc? Or when I react to those things with resistance?That is an implicitly materialist position.

[motion denied]

Guardia Rossa, since you're in the South, maybe you're near some FAG (Federação Anaquista Gaúcha) anarchos or any CAB people? They're not anti-organization at all.

But I agree with you: the general everyday "anarchist", given the toxic waste that is the libertarian milieu, is a dumbo. Marxist are much less so, which doesn't put us in any better position though.

[Guardia Rossa]

Guardia Rossa, since you're in the South, maybe you're near some FAG (Federação Anaquista Gaúcha) anarchos or any CAB people? They're not anti-organization at all.

But I agree with you: the general everyday "anarchist", given the toxic waste that is the libertarian milieu, is a dumbo. Marxist are much less so, which doesn't put us in any better position though.

Well, I didn't meant just that by organization. I meant the word in a general sense too. Anarchists repudiate anything related with organization, deep theory, formalized ranks and discipline, etc...

I don't give a fuck if there are anarchists that aren't like this, I can't find one that won't start calling me academic marxist if I discuss any theory too deeply with him.

And honestly I am thinking on joining an anarchist group for more than months. There are no marxist or socialist groups here and creating one will take too much time (and money) so joining in an anarchist group and hoping they don't throw me off a building is the best I can do.

[Guardia Rossa]

It is infinitely ironic that you can spot in an anarchist group the "leader", the "newbies", the "ideologues", and they have a full structure of power, with the corresponding capability of coercion.

>EDIT: I guess this is what Bakunin meant with "Invisible Dictatorship".< ---- THIS PART IS IRONY
Anarchists tend to care more about the name of a thing than the essence of the actual thing.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, I didn't meant just that by organization. I meant the word in a general sense too. Anarchists repudiate anything related with organization, deep theory, formalized ranks and discipline

No they don't! They just don't! I don't know what fucked up experiences you've had or what books you've read, but what you're saying is just plain and simply fucking wrong. Get your head out of your ass. What you're saying is not the lived history and tradition of the anarchist movement.


I don't give a fuck if there are anarchists that aren't like this, I can't find one that won't start calling me academic marxist if I discuss any theory too deeply with him.

Your immature experiences with some idiots calling themselves an anarchist is not the basis for understanding the history and tradition of anarchism.

[Guardia Rossa]

Your experiences with some idiots anarchist is not the basis for understanding the history and tradition of anarchism.

History and tradition don't make revolutions.
Only the proletariat, organized and self-disciplinized can take/destroy the State and supersede capitalism.

This is the reality of anarchism today, just as the reality of marxism today is: revisionists, revisionists, revisionists...

And still you criticize us as if you were the XVII/XVIII's anarchists, making the old order tremble, and most of ours still criticize yours as if we are in the inter-war period and the great Luxembourgist army is right now wrestling NY from USA while liberating Ottoman Arabia, and the Bolsheviks are building industries in China while fighting Indian Imperialism in Pakistan and Tibet.

Like, what the actual fuck.

[The Feral Underclass]

History and tradition don't make revolutions.

What does that even mean? The point is you don't understand what you're talking about but are too stubborn or arrogant to accept it.


Only the proletariat, organized and self-disciplinized can take/destroy the State and supersede capitalism.

What anarchist theoretician or class struggle anarchist organisation disagrees with that position?


This is the reality of anarchism today, just as the reality of marxism today is: revisionists, revisionists, revisionists...

Yes, modern anarchists and Marxists are shit, that doesn't mean your characterisation of anarchism is correct.


And still you criticize us as if you were the XVII/XVIII's anarchists, and most of ours still criticize yours as if we are in the inter-war period and the great Luxembourgist army is right now wrestling NY from USA while liberating Ottoman Arabia, and the Bolsheviks are building industries in China while fighting Indian Imperialism in Pakistan and Tibet.

Like, what the actual fuck.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Guardia Rossa]

What does that even mean? The point is you don't understand what you're talking about but are too stubborn or arrogant to accept it.

Isn't it obvious? I don't give a shit if you have the most awsome tradition.
Reading books are not going to make today's anarchists any better than they are, because they are already reading these books.
We need new books. Books that answer our questions of today. Otherwise we will continuously fall to bourgeois ideological propaganda.


What anarchist theoretician or class struggle anarchist organisation disagrees with that position?

I don't doubt this. Read last one.


Yes, modern anarchists and Marxists are shit, that doesn't mean your characterisation of anarchism is correct.

Good. Then it is correct because I am only characterizing today's anarchism, as I have never cited Bakunin but cited anarchists I know and talk to.


I have no idea what you're talking about.

We are not super-duper Gods of Galaxy because 100 years ago we almost succeeded.
Both our theories need deep re-formulation.

Understand now?

Good I dragged away the other discussions too. The original post sucks.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It is infinitely ironic that you can spot in an anarchist group the "leader", the "newbies", the "ideologues", and they have a full structure of power, with the corresponding capability of coercion.

EDIT: I guess this is what Bakunin meant with "Invisible Dictatorship".
Anarchists tend to care more about the name of a thing than the essence of the actual thing.

Says the Marxist oblivious to the cacaphonuos irony crashing down upon their ears...

[Guardia Rossa]

Says the Marxist oblivious to the cacaphonuos irony crashing down upon their ears...

It would be ironic only if I am Stalinist and believe everything dressing in red automatically is communist and awsome.

[Zoop]

It is infinitely ironic that you can spot in an anarchist group the "leader", the "newbies", the "ideologues", and they have a full structure of power, with the corresponding capability of coercion.

EDIT: I guess this is what Bakunin meant with "Invisible Dictatorship".
Anarchists tend to care more about the name of a thing than the essence of the actual thing.

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with Bakunin's "Invisible Dictatorship".

Bakunin was referring to anarchist organisations naturally influencing popular movements, without coercion. If you read what Bakunin wrote, this should be obvious.

[Guardia Rossa]

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with Bakunin's "Invisible Dictatorship".

Bakunin was referring to anarchist organisations naturally influencing popular movements, without coercion. If you read what Bakunin wrote, this should be obvious.

I was being ironic. Next time will leave a sign.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

Isn't it obvious? I don't give a shit if you have the most awsome tradition.
Reading books are not going to make today's anarchists any better than they are, because they are already reading these books.
We need new books. Books that answer our questions of today. Otherwise we will continuously fall to bourgeois ideological propaganda.

History and tradition are important. The problems people face today, while different than the problems of yesteryear, are similar in ways that make studying the past useful. The farther into the past you go, the less specific are the lessons you can draw. Aren't principles, including revolutionary ones, general by their very nature, though? Otherwise they wouldn't be principles. Anarchists do have a tradition worth studying and learning from, and not all of the lessons to draw are bad ones.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It would be ironic only if I am Stalinist and believe everything dressing in red automatically is communist and awsome.

No it's still ironic and still hilarious.

[Zoop]

I was being ironic. Next time will leave a sign.

I highly doubt that, given your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

[Comrade Jacob]

I didn't mean like Kropotkinists, I meant like Bukuninists. Bukunin was an idealist.

[Zoop]

I didn't mean like Kropotkinists, I meant like Bukharinists. Bukharin was an idealist.

Bukharin wasn't an anarchist.

[Comrade Jacob]

Bukharin wasn't an anarchist.

Sorry, I meant to say Bakunin not Bukharin.

[Zoop]

Sorry, I meant to say Bakunin not Bukharin.

Okay, well Bakunin was a materialist.

[Comrade Jacob]

Okay, well Bakunin was a materialist.

Many who claim to follow his line aren't. I realise this has become a shit-slinging thread. That may have been caused by my admitted ignorance on the subject and misphrasing.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why was Bakunin a materialist?

[Comrade Jacob]

Understand that I respect some anarchists like Emma Goldman and Kropotkin.

[BIXX]

That is an implicitly materialist position.

So every materialst who critiques idealism is actually an idealist, cause they think what is going on in someone's head matters?

[The Feral Underclass]

Why was Bakunin a materialist?

Because he accepted that matter was the basis of reality and all phenomena. He also accepted Marx's views on the development of history being based on the material conditions of society and consequently the antagonism between classes.

[Rafiq]

Why do (or at least I have noticed) most Anarchists not use the materialist (historical and dialectical) analysis in their movement and instead chose an idealist approach?

Most Marxists in 2015 who are a part of "movements" fail to do this.

If most 'Marxists' have no notion of materialism and the dialectic, why would anarchists?

What really is an "anarchist movement"? There were anarchists and Marxists both in the IWW here in the United States. To think that a 'movement' can exist only in terms of its identity is silly. There is more in common between many petty bourgeois "Marxists" of the cold war, and the Makhnovists than between them and Marxists. There is more in common between propagandists of the deed and the RAF, Brigate Rossa, etc. than between both to syndicalism and old social democracy (and early Bolshevism) respectively.

Identity-mongering is really useless. Not that anarchism is not distinct - but that these are our controversies, controversies of the Left.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I didn't mean like Kropotkinists, I meant like Bukuninists. Bukunin was an idealist.

History has proven this not to be so.

[Tim Cornelis]

Did Bakunin and his followers believe that socialism was possible in any and all stages of human development, as Marx alleges?

[Luís Henrique]

Why do (or at least I have noticed) most Anarchists not use the materialist (historical and dialectical) analysis in their movement and instead chose an idealist approach?

Can Anarchist please explain?

If they do that, it is a shame.

But a greater shame is the fact that most Marxists fall into idealist approaches. Or, even, do not understand what historical materialism is.

Luís Henrique

eta: damn, Rafiq beat me into that.

[Comrade Jacob]

Yes, even a lot of 1st world Marxists fall into idealism and fail to apply the materialist analysis as well.

[Comrade #138672]

So every materialst who critiques idealism is actually an idealist, cause they think what is going on in someone's head matters?No. Unless they believe that idealism is the major cause of failure, which would be ironic indeed. But it is not like criticizing idealism is itself idealist.

[BIXX]

No. Unless they believe that idealism is the major cause of failure, which would be ironic indeed. But it is not like criticizing idealism is itself idealist.

But there's no point to criticizing it unless you think its a pint of failure

[Црвена]

But there's no point to criticizing it unless you think its a pint of failure

It might not be the cause of failure, but it's still incorrect and a reflection of more things which we disagree with, so we criticise it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes, even a lot of 1st world Marxists fall into idealism and fail to apply the materialist analysis as well.

Compared to the third world ones who get hopped up on narcotics and kidnap women?

[Rafiq]

Yes, even a lot of 1st world Marxists fall into idealism and fail to apply the materialist analysis as well.

Actually no, if anything the opposite is true - discounting the intelligentsia of the third world in the universities who by no means represent what you're aiming at, i.e. the guerrilla "Marxists" of the third world.


Compared to the third world ones who get hopped up on narcotics and kidnap women?

I assumed you are referring to... What, shining path? Such "Marxists" even by those standards are exceptions, not rules of "third world Marxists".

What you say is so silly. In Nepal they were liberating women from brothels. What are you actually talking about? As far as narcotics go, virtually every single "Marxist" group in the third world is very conservative - I think even in India the Naxals prohibit alcohol. The same went for African Communist guerrillas during the cold war too.

[BIXX]

It might not be the cause of failure, but it's still incorrect and a reflection of more things which we disagree with, so we criticise it.

Why would you criticise something if it doesn't matter? Seems a bit... Pointless? If it's not a point of failure that someone is an idealist who cares? And if you think its a point of failure you're an idealist.