Log in

View Full Version : [STUDY GROUP] Basic Anarchist Theory, Lesson 1



JazzRemington
9th February 2006, 16:10
I'm not sure if this is more for the subforum in the Research area. If it is, please someone move it.

It is rather difficult to find a proper point to start "teaching" anarchist theory. On the one hand, some people begin with simply discussing the "founding fathers" of the theory, and on the other some people just jump into the different schools. I have opted to attempt a "synthesis" of the two methods and discuss the different schools and the major thinkers with in each. Please note that because of my busy schedule of school and work, lessons will be infrequent. No texts are required, but links to several texts by the individuals mentioned will be provided for individual benefit. These lessons only cover the basics of the theory, as further research is suggested for the interested student. All texts can be found at the Anarchy Archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/index.html)

For our first lesson, we will begin our discussion on anarchist theory by discussing briefly the two main schools of anarchist thought: Individualist and Social. We will note their differences and similiarities in brief (leaving the details for further lessons). Finally, We will look at the main ideas of the "founding father" of anarchist thought, Pierre Joseph-Proudhon.

Individualist Anarchism
Individualist Anarchism is more centered toward the autonomy and sovereignty of the Individual. Individualist Anarchists believe that the individual should not be forced to be part of any group what-so-ever. They believe in markets, possession of property based on use, defense agencies to protect individuals and/or their property. They do not believe in usury (rent, profit, taxes, etc.) and believe that Capitalism is a State monopoly. Individualist Anarchism is largely an American idea, but there are a few Individualists in Europe and around the rest of the world as well.

Social Anarchism
By far the largest and most well known of the two schools, Social Anarchists focus on groups and organizations. While they also respect the individual, they believe that an individual's needs and desires are best realized within groups (communes, collectives, etc.). Social Anarchists do not believe in private ownership of property, and tend to focus on individuals being organized into communes, collectives, or other types of groups. There are several "sub-schools" within Social Anarchism, such as Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Collectivism, and Anarcho-Syndicalism.

THere are a few similarities between the two schools. While Individualists tend to prefer a peaceful "evolution" into an anarchist society by-way of individuals setting up alternative institutions, social anarchists tend to believe in a revolution, albeit usually violent. But both schools are not exclusive of one another's tactics: social anarchists believe that setting up alternative institutions is important, but will not be enough to over throw the State and capitalism. Both schools are anti-capitalist, anti-State, and are socialist.

Pierre Joseph-Proudhon
A 19th-century Frenchman, Proudhon was most famous for originating the phrase, "property is theft," though he is not well known for originating the phrase, "property is liberty." He is the first person to call himself an anarchist and adopt the word "anarchism" to describe his theories.

Proudhon developed a system called "mutualism," where workers owned their own businesses and exchange goods and services in a market where prices were based on agreements between then. He did believe in private ownership of property, but only ownership based upon use. A worker who is using a hammer himself to build a table is acceptable. He called this "possession." He labelled any other form "private property." He defined the term to mean the ownership of anything what one does not use directly, such as owning a hammer that someone else uses. Proudhon advocated that individuals should be self-sustaining, but can "combine" when production required it.

He advocated changing society into anarchist society by setting up mutual banks that would make interest free loans, as he believed interest (along with rent, taxes, etc.) to be wrong, to workers who would use the money to start their own businesses in hopes of out competting the capitalists. It was only later in his life that he would see that such operations turned slowly into capitalist ventures.

He is also well known for being largely chaotic in his writtings. At one point he openly supported government support of mutualist operations, but later in his life published works that condemned government. He even ran for several seats in the French government. He is known to be the originator of Collectivism, Syndicalism, and even COmmunism to a degree.

Recommended Reading
What is Property? (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProProp.html)

Anarchy Archives' Proudhon Archive (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/Proudhonarchive.html)

Our next lesson will delve deeper into the Individualist Anarchist school of thought.

outsydrka
28th March 2006, 20:31
ok, slowly grasping the whole idea, with the help of the data on the whole forum really. but one thing...i know anarchists are pro and contra property. but what kind of property are we talking about here? because i'm against property, if you mean millions of money, huge villas and this kind of stuff. but what about that tiny stuff that i'm sure a lot of people 'posess', such as a CD, or a teddy bear, for that matter, or just a book that means something special to them? is this considered as propery as well, and if yes, is anywhere a limit, or is everything to be abolished?

chimx
28th March 2006, 21:58
there are no mutualists around today. proudhon should be understood within his historical context. he was an french artisan in the mid-19th century when that area was beginning to feel the effects of industrialization. proudhon was reactive to capitalist development out of concern for the loss of artisan tradesmanship.

it was this mid-century reaction that saw the Lyons uprising of the early 1840s, the development of the luddites, etc. though artisans often identified themselves as laborers, they were a far cry from being the same proletariat that marx envisioned.

in regards to the foundations of communist doctrine, though marx was influenced by proudhon, i would rest greater emphasis on babeuf and the jacobin tradition.

claro de luna
2nd May 2006, 18:35
but what kind of property are we talking about here? because i'm against property, if you mean millions of money, huge villas and this kind of stuff. but what about that tiny stuff that i'm sure a lot of people 'posess', such as a CD, or a teddy bear, for that matter, or just a book that means something special to them? is this considered as propery as well, and if yes, is anywhere a limit, or is everything to be abolished?

Well Outsydrka, I think here we are talking about villas, money and even the place where you live. Everything is owned by the governement. You can be transferred from a house to another if the governemnt wishes to do so.

You do not own anything. A book or a teddy bear, that you can own.

Morpheus
18th May 2006, 03:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:58 PM
there are no mutualists around today.
Yes there are. See http://mutualist.org/

OneBrickOneVoice
20th May 2006, 03:11
Wait a second, mutaulists believe in evolution? Lol I can see it now the American Anarchist Party.

Fistful of Steel
20th May 2006, 03:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 02:11 AM
Wait a second, mutaulists believe in evolution? Lol I can see it now the American Anarchist Party.
Who doesn't believe in evolution? :huh:

(Besides the most radically stupid religious types)

Everyday Anarchy
20th May 2006, 04:56
Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+May 19 2006, 08:35 PM--> (Fistful of Steel @ May 19 2006, 08:35 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 02:11 AM
Wait a second, mutaulists believe in evolution? Lol I can see it now the American Anarchist Party.
Who doesn't believe in evolution? :huh:

(Besides the most radically stupid religious types) [/b]
If that was a joke, excuse me, I'm tired. LeftyHenry isn't meaning evolution as in the progress of species. Instead, he's using it to mean a gradual "transition" into anarchy.
Evolutionists believe we should try to build our system within the current system and just let it gradually become.
Revolutionists believe we should overthrow the current system to implement our system.

Fistful of Steel
20th May 2006, 05:42
Ahh, I never knew that. Thanks for clarifying.

emma_goldman
18th June 2006, 23:28
Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+May 20 2006, 12:36 AM--> (Fistful of Steel @ May 20 2006, 12:36 AM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 02:11 AM
Wait a second, mutaulists believe in evolution? Lol I can see it now the American Anarchist Party.
Who doesn't believe in evolution? :huh:

(Besides the most radically stupid religious types) [/b]
Hmmm... I don't believe in evolution. I believe in natural selection. ;)

firstname
22nd May 2007, 03:56
umm... natural selection is within evolution.