Losing my place on the political spectrum?

[RASH chris]

Well, having semi-recently quit school I don't do a lot anymore. I spend most of my time reading. While I have considered myself an anarchist of some sort (probably syndicalist) for quite a while now I'm beggining to question my devotion as I think more and more about radical politics.

Having been a very devout anarchist, and having convinced many others to become anarchists I still feel some strong connection to key anarchist values. I do still consider myself anti-authoritarian, and to some extent anti-state. But as time goes on, and I become more involved with the anarchist movement I have become disillusioned. For the most part, anarchism (at least in the US) seems to have degenerated in to lifestyle politics. Now, as a political person, I see lifestyle politics as disgusting. I think that by promoting anarchism as a "lifestyle" (organisations such as crimethinc) we have destroyed a socio-political movement. And anarchism seems to have greatly lost touch with the labour movement in the US.

I have also began to wonder if a people's revolution can truely occur without some sort of organizing body. I hate to say it, but possibly even a vanguard. This type of thinking has caused me lots of grief lately, as it is quite contrary to my anarchist beliefs.

In addition to seeing a possible need for some sort of organizing group I have also come to the conclusion that, as horrible as this is to say as an anarchist, a transitionary phase (socialism) may, in fact, be necessary. That perhaps, the state and capitalism can't just be given one swift kick in the ass.

I guess what I am asking is this: Is there somewhere that I fit? Thinking that a strong organized body will be necessary to begin and support the revolution, but that it should involve little to no hierarchy. Thinking that a socialist state, again, with as little hierarchy as possible, must be implemented. But still maintaining a strong sense of anti-authoritarianism.

Or is that just to much to ask for?

[rice349]

here you go, this offers a list of differing ideologies as well as organizations to those respective political beliefs...

http://reds.linefeed.org/vocab.html#CA

[redstar2000]

You may find these helpful...

A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082736509&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

A New Type of Communist Organization (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083205534&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RASH chris]

Redstar-WOW! I find those articles to really hit the nail on the head with the way I've been feeling. I think I'll be spending a lot of time in the coming days reading on your website. It's greatly appreciated comrade.

[NovelGentry]

Your new type of Communist Organization is effectively what the GCP is -- or at least the idea behind it. Which mind you -- I personally am leaving behind to start a similar idea on the same grounds. Although it's other members are 100% free to keep it going.

As far as new ways of thinking goes, you might be interested in my book when it comes out anarcho.

Cheers

EDIT: This message wasn't to imply you were copying me... I'm sure your work was out before I even claimed to be communist... just saying -- that's pretty much around the ideas it was based.

[Urban Rubble]

I know how you feel Chris. While never going to the extent of calling myself an Anarchist, I've been in basic agreement with Anarchism for some time now. However, in spite of that agreement there are various things that hang me up about traditional Anarchism (which I won't really get into here).

I find your comments on lifestyle Anarchism interesting. What exactly is it that you disagree with? I'm not exactly sure what I think about groups like crimethinc, but I do find the idea interesting and sometimes I feel like it's the only way we're going to affect any real change. Will you elaborate on that?

I agree, RedStar's site has some good reads on it. I still say he become our new Avakian :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:12 AM
But as time goes on, and I become more involved with the anarchist movement I have become disillusioned. For the most part, anarchism (at least in the US) seems to have degenerated in to lifestyle politics.
Could it not be possible that you are simply with the wrong anarchist group?

I'm not particularly well read on the in's and out's of the American anarchist scene, but I know that IWW and NEFAC are relatively well focused as is the Debs Tendency in the Socialist Party.


I think that by promoting anarchism as a "lifestyle" (organisations such as crimethinc) we have destroyed a socio-political movement.

That's quite a damning statement, and one that I think is unfair. Have you researched the activities of all the anarchist groups in the States?

I can't believe for one minute that all these anarchists groups, from the ones I’ve mentioned to the IAF affiliates have all become lifestylers and "destroyed the socio-political movement."


anarchism seems to have greatly lost touch with the labour movement in the US.

I don't think "seems to" is good enough to be honest. Maybe you should contact NEFAC or IWW to find out what they are up to and how you can get involved?


I have also began to wonder if a people's revolution can truly occur without some sort of organizing body.

Anarchism has never advocated anything else.


This type of thinking has caused me lots of grief lately, as it is quite contrary to my anarchist beliefs.

Disillusionment and negativity is probably a natural part of being a revolutionary, but if we all changed out beliefs every time we got a big politically blue, there would be no workers history.


In addition to seeing a possible need for some sort of organizing group I have also come to the conclusion that, as horrible as this is to say as an anarchist, a transitionary phase (socialism) may, in fact, be necessary.

Of course there will be a transitionary phase, but it's whether you use the state or not to achieve this transition.

As an anarchist, I would assume that you at least understand that irreconcilable contradiction in using a state for this objective?

Do you now disagree with that observation? Do you now believe it possible to use the state to achieve a communist society and if so why?


That perhaps, the state and capitalism can't just be given one swift kick in the ass.

No, it requires a little more than that.


Is there somewhere that I fit? Thinking that a strong organized body will be necessary to begin and support the revolution

Anarchism advocates this.


Thinking that a socialist state, again, with as little hierarchy as possible, must be implemented. But still maintaining a strong sense of anti-authoritarianism.

But that's impossible. A state by its nature is hierarchical because of the institutions it needs to maintain it.

You cannot have a state and no hierarchy, no matter how anti-authotarian your ideals and the authority of hierarchy is detrimental to what you are trying to achieve. Anarchist or not.

[RASH chris]

Anarchist Tension-

I'm not working with any group currently, because I'm hesitant of many groups. Now the IWW is, of course, not what I'm referring to when I say "out of touch" and things like that. The IWW is great, but I'm not in a union. And I looked around of NEFAC a bit, but I've yet to meet any of thier people. And so I'd never give support to a federation if I haven't met people from thier collectives. The debs tendency? I'm not familiar with that. Are we talking about SP-USA cause if so I have looked at the Direct Action Tendency a few times, and while it interests me, I see nothing "anarchist" about it, other than thier stating "anti-authoritarian" a few times with out saying how they are "anti-authoritarian".

No, not all the anarchist groups are of the "lifestyle" sort. Those like the IWW, are great, but they seem to pale in comparison the the "lifestyle" people (when it comes to numbers and how active they are).

Yes I do now believe that a state may be necessary. Though I'd like to find some way around having something so permanent as a "state". Council Communism seems to have sparked my interest lately. As it seems more decentralized than traditional Marxism. And possibly closer to my anti-authoritarian ideals.

I understand that as long as there is a state there will be hierarchy. Maybe I shouldn't say the word "state". But I definitely feel that we need something stronger than I've ever seen the anarchist movement offer.

Urban Rubble- I disagree with lifestyle anarchism cause it essentially abandons traditional anarchism. Especially Crimethinc. Have you read any of thier literature? Being a punk, I'm around crimethinc a lot, because it's pretty much the definition of anarchy in the punk scene (with a fair number of exceptions). It stresses the individual over the community first of all. It encourages readers to "define anarchy for yourself" with slogans like "there is no anarchism, only anarchy, and anarchists" and well, I find that to be fucking retarded. They also advocate that anarchism will somehow be attained by all of us just withdrawing from society. That if we all become squatters and train hoppers that capitalism and the state will just fall apart. Surely you can see the absurdity in this theory actually bringing about anarchism. Personal anarchism has no base in labor organisation, communalism, or well, anything other than "sticking it to the man".

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:22 AM
Your new type of Communist Organization is effectively what the GCP is -- or at least the idea behind it. Which mind you -- I personally am leaving behind to start a similar idea on the same grounds. Although it's other members are 100% free to keep it going.

I will keep the GCP going - do not worry about it. When it comes to
this issue - I do not feel a state is the best way to go. I believe that
there will be a transition period - but in the process of this transition
period - power will remain in the hands of the working class through
community and workplace asseemblies. Of course during the transit
-ion period we will make sure that whatever remenants of the Capitalist
class and the crew of reactionaries that go along with them would be
eliminated. More on this later.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 05:12 AM
I have also began to wonder if a people's revolution can truely occur without some sort of organizing body. I hate to say it, but possibly even a vanguard. This type of thinking has caused me lots of grief lately, as it is quite contrary to my anarchist beliefs.

This has a lot to do with the class conciousness that is within the working class
at that point in time and alot to do with material conditions and situations. If the
working class does not have a psychological revolution or a "Revolution of the
Mind" - caused by in part - by the reality that surrounds them and by the kind of
literature and actions we take that would spark that mental revolution, then it
is hard to say if there would be any kind or real worker's revolution at all Christ
-opher. This is why I keep saying - The Mental Revolution must occur before
the Physical Revolution! Just like the Enlightment occured before the capitalist
(Bourgeois) revolutions of the late 1700's and the early-to-mid 1800's which
brought an end to the Fedual era and began the Capitalist Era; our enlightment
must begin before a real worker's revolution takes place...

[Urban Rubble]

Urban Rubble- I disagree with lifestyle anarchism cause it essentially abandons traditional anarchism.

I disagree completely. Lifestyle Anarchism attempts to put traditional Anarchism into practice within the Capitalist system.


It stresses the individual over the community first of all.

Wrong. It stresses that the individual should not be overlooked, not that the individual is more important than the community.


It encourages readers to "define anarchy for yourself" with slogans like "there is no anarchism, only anarchy, and anarchists" and well, I find that to be fucking retarded.

And I find you attitidue "fucking juvenile". You're going to have to do better than "it's fucking retarted".

I think the fact that they tell people to define Anarchism locally is dead on. The most basic thing Anarchists are fighting for is the right to control their own destiny, how can it even be called Anarchism when there are strict guidelines and rules for how Anarchists and their personal communities shoudl function? It seems to me that encouraging people to define their own systems and what works for them is fundemental to Anarchist (or leftist) thought.


They also advocate that anarchism will somehow be attained by all of us just withdrawing from society.

They absolutely do not. You really need to read more of their literature if you really believe that.

They encourage people to find ways to live independently of Capitalism. They encourage you to avoid Capitalism as much as possible. Never have I seen them encourage anyone to withdraw from society or even to stop participating in the Capitalist system completly.

How can you deny that if enough people began to function in this manner that Communism would be pushed forward? It seems pretty simple to me, people begin to reject Capitalism little by little, eventually enough people reject the system and the society we desire evolves from that.

I dont' know if that is the best or most efficient way, but to say it wouldn't work, or that it's "fucking retarted" strikes me as....well, fucking retarted.


That if we all become squatters and train hoppers that capitalism and the state will just fall apart.

Nice oversimplification.

No, actually, like I said, they encourage gradual withdrawl from the system so that the state no longer serves any reasonable purpose. I feel I should note, they have never opposed violent overthrow of the state, they just see that that isn't an option right now (and they're right).


Surely you can see the absurdity in this theory actually bringing about anarchism.

Nope, why don't you attempt to explain what flaws you see instead of making these kind of vague statements.


Personal anarchism has no base in labor organisation, communalism, or well, anything other than "sticking it to the man".

No base? You're just being ridiculous.

And it seems to me that your opposition to groups like crimethinc comes from their lack of emphasis on violent revolution. That leaves me with the impression that YOU are the one who is looking to "stick it to the man" with you black mask and your Ak-47. Lifestyle Anarchism strikes me as being for those truly serious about affecting some real change, if you want to masturbate over fantasies of workers in the streets with guns be my guest, by don't talk shit about people who are actually in the streets making real progress.

Be my guest, try Leninism out one more time. It's worked SO well in the past.

[NovelGentry]

Nope, why don't you attempt to explain what flaws you see instead of making these kind of vague statements.

The vague nature of such counter-anarchism arguments are more often than not born of the vague nature of anarchism itself.

He doesn't know what he's grasping at, and I can't blame him.

[Urban Rubble]

The vague nature of such counter-anarchism arguments are more often than not born of the vague nature of anarchism itself.

What he is attacking (the lifestyle Anarchist principles of groups like crimethinc) is not vague at all. He chose a very specific idea and said it was wrong but did not attempt to tell us why. I just want to know why he believes that lifestyle Anarchism is useless (actually, I believe he implied it was counter productive).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Urban Rubble
It seems to me that encouraging people to define their own systems and what works for them is fundamental to Anarchist (or leftist) thought.

It's true that this practice has been nearly, though not completely, universal among anarchists.

Only a minority of anarchists -- the platformists, primarily -- actually seem to want anarchism to mean something specific.

What's been the outcome of this approach? It seems to me that it's meant that anyone can say or do anything and still call themselves an "anarchist".

And mostly be accepted by other anarchists as an "anarchist comrade".

So when the neophyte asks, "what's anarchism?", the most accurate possible reply is "whatever works for you".

As far as I know, only the primitivists and the "anarcho-capitalists" have been rejected as fakes by most anarchists.

But don't forget the "Celebrity Anarchists for Kerry" last fall. One of them -- a woman who calls herself "Starhawk" (or something like that) -- picked up a favorable reference in crimethinc's latest (and otherwise very good) analysis of the successes and failures of demonstrations (I posted a link to it in the Practice forum).

How did that happen? How can you be an anarchist and at the same time tell people to vote for a capitalist prick like Kerry?

Some people suggest that revolutionaries "must choose" between some puffed-up Leninist "great leader" (hi there, Bob!) "or" wade into the swamp of confusion that presently characterizes anarchism.

That's a rotten "choice"!

There are, I think, serious and effective anarchist groups that do get things done...and if you're lucky, you'll find one of those.

But you've got to hunt for them. (Tip: avoid any group that upholds veganism.)

You see, "lifestyle anarchists" can be just as dogmatic and overbearing as any Leninist; the difference is that Leninists are usually dogmatic about important stuff...lifestyle anarchists are often dogmatic about trivia.

Among them, it's not so much "do your own thing" as it is "do our thing...or hit the road, Jack."

Leninists, of course, "got it wrong"...and no sensible person wants to climb into the coffin with that stinking corpse.

But if this is really going to be "the anarchist century", then serious anarchists are going to have to decide what anarchism really is...and what it isn't.

Anarchists need a coherent paradigm...otherwise they'll remain a sub-culture that some will admire and others disdain, but that no one will take seriously when revolutionary opportunities arise.

Once upon a time, in Spain, they had a paradigm or at least the makings of one.

Now, they don't. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JazzRemington]

My main problem with lifestyle anarchism is that it is in some way selfish, they only care about living a certain way and not promoting their ideas.

Granted, lifestyle anarchism DOES put anarchism into practice in everyday life but I do not condone JUST lifestyle anarchism. Anarchists should focus on spreading their ideas and not occupy themselves with living a certain way. Therefore, I tend to promote a sort of "combonation" of both lifestyle anarchism and social anarchism. Meaning, one should put anarchism into practice in his or her every day life but at the same time take part in the national and international movement as a whole, because, simply, you are not alone.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:12 PM
While I have considered myself an anarchist of some sort (probably syndicalist) for quite a while now I'm beggining to question my devotion as I think more and more about radical politics.
This appears to be a good sign, if you are having doubts, this is a chance to put serious thought into the issues and re-affirm/improve your political ideas.


Having been a very devout anarchist, and having convinced many others to become anarchists I still feel some strong connection to key anarchist values.

You know, where you say "anarchist," I could see some sort of religion in its place.


I have also began to wonder if a people's revolution can truely occur without some sort of organizing body.

The people ARE an organizing body.


I hate to say it, but possibly even a vanguard.

I think we have all thought about this and probably rejected/accepted it on a different time-table.
I don't see why the workers couldn't run the society but if that was unproductive, we could just have those that are leftists ensure that everyone has a chance to get a decent education and of course, keep the reactionaries from taking power.


This type of thinking has caused me lots of grief lately, as it is quite contrary to my anarchist beliefs.

"Anarchist" is just a title; your actions and understanding of political issues is more important than a label. I suggest you look into the issues and the rest will follow.
As long as we are leftists, it doesn't really matter now; we can talk it out as it is applied to real life. The important part is that you always fight illegitimate authority and don't let individuals take power.


In addition to seeing a possible need for some sort of organizing group I have also come to the conclusion that, as horrible as this is to say as an anarchist, a transitionary phase (socialism) may, in fact, be necessary.

Yes, there needs to be some sort of social reconfiguration; people won't just magically be ready for a classless society. I am not afraid to say it; we need a system that can effectively combat counter-revolutionary activity and aid people in the adjustment to post-capitalism (without rulers obviously).


That perhaps, the state and capitalism can't just be given one swift kick in the ass.I agree with others that have said it cannot be done; 24 hour anarchism cannot work because reactionary views do not just evaporate over-night.
This requires the action of society over time, everyone must learn to take back the control rulers have over their lives.


I guess what I am asking is this: Is there somewhere that I fit?
Yes, you are a leftist and do not need to seek any sect. Non-sectarian leftism is the only way the left can ever progress because the right is united against us.


Thinking that a strong organized body will be necessary to begin and support the revolution, but that it should involve little to no hierarchy. Thinking that a socialist state, again, with as little hierarchy as possible, must be implemented. But still maintaining a strong sense of anti-authoritarianism.

Or is that just to much to ask for?

Seems reasonable to me. We need some sort of organization of the workers and now it needs to be foremost of communists, possibly those going by the title "anarchist."
I would just say that the workers need to be in power as a whole without any rulers, then once the oppressive force of reactionary ideology is dispelled, we will just be working for the benefit of all humanity in a classless society :hammer:

[RASH chris]

I'm not saying that personal anarchism isn't anarchism. I mean, those "crimethinc travel kids" as we call them most certainly are anarchists and are living an anarchist life (or damn close). But I don't see that as actually bringing about change. It seems (to me) that personals anarchism provides you with a way out of the system but ignores bringing a revolution. So yeah, I guess that's why I am against personal anarchism, cause I jerk off to guerrilla warfare. Sorry, but the average person is not going to withdraw from capitalist society. But they could be brought to see the usefulness of things like the IWW and eventually destroy the state.

I just think that it's more important to work on large scale things than freeing yourself.

[Urban Rubble]

What's been the outcome of this approach? It seems to me that it's meant that anyone can say or do anything and still call themselves an "anarchist".

I don't think that. Obviously there are certain things one must do and that one cannot do in order to be legitimately called an Anarchist. However, the Anarchist society I picture is one where actual policy is defined democratically and locally. I do not believe that an Anarchist society will have a rigid set of guidelines for how a particular community "must" function.



I'm not saying that personal anarchism isn't anarchism

No, you said it was "fucking retarted".


Sorry, but the average person is not going to withdraw from capitalist society. But they could be brought to see the usefulness of things like the IWW and eventually destroy the state.

Why can't they do both? Why do you think that withdrawing from Capitalist society (in a reasonable manner) means that you have to stop supporting groups like the IWW?


I just think that it's more important to work on large scale things than freeing yourself.

I think it's important to do both. Encouraging people to live as Anarchists IS large scale.

But I get what you're saying. All I want to know is why you think that "personal" Anarchism means you have to stop fighting the state?

[nochastitybelt]

Jazz R, don't you mean "insurrectionary" anarchism not "social" anarchism?

I think most Active (activist) anarchists are Insurrectionalists. I don't know about the rest or even if those are "Anarchists" in a true sense. Insurrectionary Anarchists are in open revolt against the State AND Capitalism. At all times. It's always been that way. I think it stems from the tendency to be so against the mechanism of Capitalism that they try as they might do ANYTHING to make sure they are not contributing to that system. This is where I think they compensate in Lifestyle--- in making a conscious choice between two things, --- between either relying on the Capitalist system to provide currently or figuring out a way to provide it themselves. If one is intent on destroying something, Capitalism in this case, it would be pretty defeatist to the whole communist movement to bolster it up where they don't have to.

There is a definite anarchist movement out there focused on collective labor organizing. Just to be sure, not all anarchists are "crimethinc travel kids." I am not a kid (deep into my 30's) and there are many others who aren't. There are these people.

http://www.newformulation.org/contributors.htm

I agree with Urban Rubble, that if you don't acutally believe in The State, or in the lifestylest part, than avoid those and concentrate on Labor organizing in an anarchist tense.

[nochastitybelt]

RS, there is a coherent paradigm, local councils, collectives, self-management, federations, but one that is up for interpretation as the least of their tenets is to be dogmatic about it.

Non-lifestyle anarchist: "I'm hungry... Let's eat at Mcdonalds."

[NovelGentry]

RS, there is a coherent paradigm, local councils, collectives, self-management, federations, but one that is up for interpretation as the least of their tenets is to be dogmatic about it.

My issue is this... the fact that you consider there to be a coherent paradigm amongst anarchists seems inherently... non-anarchist. There may indeed be a coherent paradigm for SOME anarchists, maybe even a majority, but to consider it the anarchist paradigm just seems utterly contradictory.

[Urban Rubble]

My issue is this... the fact that you consider there to be a coherent paradigm amongst anarchists seems inherently... non-anarchist. There may indeed be a coherent paradigm for SOME anarchists, maybe even a majority, but to consider it the anarchist paradigm just seems utterly contradictory.

Agreed.

[nochastitybelt]

What is contradictory? Anarchism is NOT a big Free-for-all. There is a typical pattern of ideas and values that they hold that would make someone called an anarchist. They are usually Anti-state, anti-hierarchy, anti-centralization, Pro-decentralization, pro-concensus forums, pro-people's councils, etc. And they share some basic tenets and agreements with Marxist's such as they are anti-capitalists, anti-slave/wage labor, anti-imperialists, anti-class division, etc. Yeah, I know there are some who don't fit that profile and call themselves "anarchists" just as there are many communists who also don't stand by the tenets of classical communism. But the political theory is still intact, regardless.

[waltersm]

make your own party

[antieverything]

I'm currently working on organizing a Communist Dance Party.

[redstar2000]

I couldn't pass this one up...


Originally posted by nochastitybelt
Non-lifestyle anarchist: "I'm hungry... Let's eat at McDonald's."

The sensible reason not to"eat" at McDonald's has nothing to do with politics...the "food" is shit!


There is a definite anarchist movement out there focused on collective labor organizing. Just to be sure, not all anarchists are "crimethinc travel kids." I am not a kid (deep into my 30's) and there are many others who aren't. There are these people.

My understanding is that some American trade unions are indeed hiring syndicalist kids to do "labor organizing" (the hours are very long and the pay is very low)...but those kids are not doing syndicalist organizing but just ordinary "bread & butter" business unionism.

And here is an article from your link...

Power, Subjectivity, Resistance: Three Works on Postmodern Anarchism (http://www.newformulation.org/4glavin.htm)

I did not read it closely...but it seems to me that in theoretical terms, anarchism is evolving into another post-modern, subjectivist "ethical option" or even "moral option".

That is, anarchism "has no basis" in objective reality which, in the post-modern paradigm, is "unknowable" anyway.

Whatever this is, it's no foundation for proletarian revolution.


There is a typical pattern of ideas and values that they hold that would make someone called an anarchist. They are usually anti-state, anti-hierarchy, anti-centralization, pro-decentralization, pro-consensus forums, pro-people's councils, etc. And they share some basic tenets and agreements with Marxist's such as they are anti-capitalists, anti-slave/wage labor, anti-imperialists, anti-class division, etc.

Yeah...sort of. But you really never know. When someone says they're "an anarchist", you don't have too much of an idea of what they'll say next.

A lot of this comes from the fact that anarchists have "values" -- the "paradigm" that they do have is a "moral one".

A "cry of outrage" is not a materialist analysis. It doesn't tell you anything about what has happened or what could happen.

That's what a revolutionary paradigm is supposed to do -- allow us to figure out "what's going on" and what we can do next to change the world.

Without it, you end up saying something like "if everyone would just be nice, then the world would be a better place".

Well, it would...but that's not how things work.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[NovelGentry]

What is contradictory? Anarchism is NOT a big Free-for-all. There is a typical pattern of ideas and values that they hold that would make someone called an anarchist. They are usually Anti-state, anti-hierarchy, anti-centralization, Pro-decentralization, pro-concensus forums, pro-people's councils, etc. And they share some basic tenets and agreements with Marxist's such as they are anti-capitalists, anti-slave/wage labor, anti-imperialists, anti-class division, etc. Yeah, I know there are some who don't fit that profile and call themselves "anarchists" just as there are many communists who also don't stand by the tenets of classical communism. But the political theory is still intact, regardless.

While there may be shared ideals and "values" as you put it, the majority of anarchists who present this paradigm, present it as the means by which anarchism itself develops. THIS is what is inherently non-anarchist.

By actually putting across ideas as the "anarchist platform" you seek to say that the anarchist movement itself has a direction more, that there is a doctrine. As shown in my original post with the quote from Proudhon, classical anarchist theory would view this, in itself, as government. Regardless of whether it takes the form of a state or whether it is centralized or decentralized -- the means by which one says "This is the anarchist paradigm... decentralized workers councils, elected delegates (not representatives), etc." is a means which in itself voids what Proudhon would have considered freedom from coercion and authority.

Again, this may be the stance of a majority of anarchists, but to say it is anarchism itself, is completely false.

[redstar2000]

And I almost overlooked this one...


Anarchism book release party Wed April 6th

Book release party for I Am Not A Man, I Am Dynamite! Friedrich Nietzsche and the Anarchist Tradition edited by John Moore, with Spencer Sunshine (Autonomedia).

Many people will think of this book’s proposal, to join anarchism and Nietzsche, as audacious. Nietzsche is still linked in many peoples minds to fascism, and anarchism to simplistic notions of political or social organization. However, anarchism — the political project which aims at the abolition of all forms of power, control and coercion — remains entitled to appropriate the work of one of the greatest iconoclasts of all time. Although Nietzsche was rather harsh on his anarchist contemporaries, he nevertheless shared with them a vision of the total transformation of everyday life.

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/146857/index.php

Yes, Nietzsche was indeed "rather harsh" on his anarchist contemporaries.

OVER-MAN AND THE COMMUNE (http://www.newleftreview.net/Issue31.asp?Article=07)

What next? "Blood and Iron: Otto von Bismarck and the Anarchist Tradition"???

You folks see what I'm getting at here?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[nochastitybelt]

Mcdonalds =shit. No argument there. just to note: the point wasn't against eating meat/supporting veganism-- I could'nt care less that. but dropping $$ in global-Corp. when there are other choices.

I hadn't read any of those reviews I linked--- I actually put it up to show that anarchist theory isn't just coming from apolitical individualist crimethinc kids stomping around the streets but some credible scholars and activists critiquing and discoursing the merits.

I did read that book review since you pointed it out. There are actually three, there. One of the books appears to be in part about The Patriot Act and Electronic Information gathering. Postmodernism is so broad that I would have to read the books to get the gist of what they are trying to fully convey. I am more of a Critical theorist myself, more concrete than ontological postmodernism posits which the Nietzche stuff is probably coming from. Political postmodernism generally relates in terms of the onset of Late Capitalism.
so, the postmodern dimension attempts to analyze coercive and cultural superstructures, while giving way to diversity, which can't be ignored, that stems directly from an economic base, and asks the questions of why these things exist, the historical bases, and offers suggestion in how to alter them.

Marx's theory is no different in paradigm, really. His whole theory and magnum opus "Capital" and "Communist Manifesto" rests on the same "cry of outrage" of the moral/ethical antithesis of justice and fairness to cause a material analysis of it. He laid it out empirically and scientifically, but the crust of it to show that it is objectively morally unjust, suggesting it should be revolted against and overthrown, with the working class having to relate subjectively to revolt against it. It has to mean something to them personally to act against it collectively.



Novel Gentry,

Proudham was a mutalist, though.

There is a paradigm, a general set of consensual principles and a goal among left anarchists. That doesn't void these non-coercive associations as the idea is based on volitional participation

If it should be called something other than "anarchism" is besides the point. the Historical tradition goes back to the 19th century with Bakunin, and still, those basic ideals, principles and theory remains the same.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by nochastitybelt
Marx's theory is no different in paradigm, really. His whole theory and magnum opus Capital and Communist Manifesto rests on the same "cry of outrage" of the moral/ethical antithesis of justice and fairness to cause a material analysis of it. He laid it out empirically and scientifically, but the crust of it to show that it is objectively morally unjust, suggesting it should be revolted against and overthrown, with the working class having to relate subjectively to revolt against it. It has to mean something to them personally to act against it collectively.

Certainly one can read Marx's works as "cries of outrage" against an objectively unjust social order that should be overthrown.

But Marx just doesn't say that it "should" be overthrown but that it will be overthrown -- that the evidence, in his eyes, points towards the inevitability of the overthrow of capitalism...something that will happen as a consequence of the very "laws" by which capitalism operates.

Capitalism creates within itself "the seeds of its own destruction".

I think a lot of people (certainly not just most anarchists but even a lot of people who call themselves communists) find this "hard to swallow".

It "violates" free will.

And because of that, Marxism is seen as "authoritarian".

Although Marxism does not constrain the behavior of any given individual at any given time, it does assert that large numbers of people over lengthy periods of time are highly probable to behave in certain ways and not in other ways.

And many people "don't like" like this view or "meta-narrative", for lots of different reasons.

But without it or something like it, the anarchist is "in trouble" when faced with the question why?.

That is, why would people who have lived in and adapted to hierarchy ever choose to live without it?

One can say that it's "a moral decision" -- people are "good" when they have the chance to be and anarchism offers greater opportunities for "good" behavior than hierarchal societies.

One can also argue that it's "a rational decision" -- people are rational when they have the chance to be and anarchism offers greater opportunities to behave rationally than hierarchal societies.

Those are not necessarily "weak" arguments; there's clearly evidence in favor of both of them.

Yet I find them "incomplete" and even, in a way, "wistful". If those arguments were really sufficient in and of themselves, then there's no reason that we should ever have developed class society or hierarchy at all. If people lived in a classless society 50,000 years ago, why did we ever move away from that?

Why should the "bad guys" (hierarchs) have won out then or ever? It just doesn't make any sense in terms of the anarchist "narrative".

It seems to me that there are two historical possibilities in the coming decades of this century.

1. Anarchism will appropriate Marxist materialism and thereby become a genuine meta-narrative in its own right. It will dump the life-stylists and focus on proletarian revolution.

2. Marxism will appropriate anarchist anti-authoritarianism and thereby become a fully liberating meta-narrative. It will dump the Leninists and focus on the self-emancipation of the proletariat.

Either outcome is fine with me!

At this point, I'm inclined to wager on the second outcome as being the more likely...but I would not be horribly shocked if the first outcome turned out to be the one that actually materialized.

It is the present situation in what passes for the revolutionary movement in these dark days that is clearly inadequate and unsatisfactory.

Choosing "which way" to be wrong always is.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[(R)evolution of the mind]

It "violates" free will.

"Free will" is only an illusion.



But Marx just doesn't say that it "should" be overthrown but that it will be overthrown -- that the evidence, in his eyes, points towards the inevitability of the overthrow of capitalism...something that will happen as a consequence of the very "laws" by which capitalism operates.

But without it or something like it, the anarchist is "in trouble" when faced with the question why?.

That is, why would people who have lived in and adapted to hierarchy ever choose to live without it?


I do not infact disagree with the self-destructive nature of capitalism, but the end of capitalism will happen exactly because of the living conditions it creates. Either most if not all human and other life on earth is destroyed, or people finally realise that there are alternatives to capitalism, hierarchy and all the suffering it creates.


there's no reason that we should ever have developed class society or hierarchy at all. If people lived in a classless society 50,000 years ago, why did we ever move away from that?

Class societies likely developed by mistake along with the division of labour as farming societies developed. Suddenly some had a leisurely and respected job like guarding a grain storage and had the time to think about the universe, learned that they can control people with their knowledge, and developed religions and so on. Obviously the mistake made was not realised until hierarchy had become the "natural" order of things. Who knows, maybe it was necessary to allow hierarchy to develop as a side effect of division of labour for the development of (useful) knowledge and technology to a level where people could (if the economical system allowed for it) lead rather leisurely lives compared to ancient times, but even if that is the case, there's time for everything and the time of hierarchy is hopefully nearing its end. It is time to correct this ancient mistake and start anew.