The Anarchist You Will Hate

[FinnMacCool]

Firstly, no I am not an anarcho-capitalist, though a lot of people say I am for some reason.

What I am is a traditional Libertarian Socialist who has very strong criticisms for the current anarchist movement.

My political idols are George Orwell and Emma Goldman.

See ya.

[More Fire for the People]

So you want to betray all of your comrades to the UK government and have Howard Zinn write a mediocore play about you?

[FinnMacCool]

Well first of all, if that were true that would imply that I follow everyword that came out of Emma Goldman's mouth; I do not.

Second of all, you can not positvily confirm that she betrayed her friends to the government but if you had a reference to do so, I would read it.

Thanks for the warm welcome btw

[More Fire for the People]

Orwell was the one who betrayed his comrades. Emma Goldman was a k00l chica anarchista.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 25 2006, 12:15 AM
Orwell was the one who betrayed his comrades. Emma Goldman was a k00l chica anarchista.
Where do you get that idea from?

[anomaly]

Emma was an anarchist, but Orwell was a Trot...maybe. I'd probably have to ask some Trots how they see him. But, he definitely wasn't an anarchist.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:46 AM
Emma was an anarchist, but Orwell was a Trot...maybe. I'd probably have to ask some Trots how they see him. But, he definitely wasn't an anarchist.
I dunno for certain if he was an anarchist but I still like the way he thinks. He was probably the best analyzer of the conditons in which authoritarians maintain their power and his writings on imperaialism and forgein affairs were fascinating.

Orwell never exactly had a clear political posistion. He was quoted saing, "Every piece I've written as been, whether directly or directly, opposed to authoritarianism and for Democratic Socialism." However, after the whole Spanish Civil War thing, he did support the anarchists as opposed to the "communists" in Spain.

I loved 1984 and Homage to Catalonia. They are probably on my top 10 list of favorite books.

[anomaly]

Haven't read Homage to Catalonia, but 1984 was a very good book. But I never said Orwell was a bad writer. :P

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:13 AM
Haven't read Homage to Catalonia, but 1984 was a very good book. But I never said Orwell was a bad writer. :P
Damn man, if your anarchist that should be like essential reading material. See if you can get it online.

It was interesting because Orwell wasn't really concerned about the politics of the communists and the anarchists because he just wanted to fight fascism but what happened was the POUM became suppressed by the communists (they were labeled "trotsykist") and a lot of them were rounded up and shot.

It's obvious that Orwell has prejudice against the communists but he admits that early on so I would still get it.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:46 AM
Emma was an anarchist, but Orwell was a Trot...maybe. I'd probably have to ask some Trots how they see him. But, he definitely wasn't an anarchist.
Yeah. He was a Trot.

He fought in the Spanish Civil War with the POUM, which was officially "Marxist", but it was mostly Trotskyists.

In 1984, Big Brother has many parallels to Stalin, while Goldstein has many parallels to Trotsky.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+Mar 25 2006, 02:10 AM--> (clownpenisanarchy @ Mar 25 2006, 02:10 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 05:46 AM
Emma was an anarchist, but Orwell was a Trot...maybe. I'd probably have to ask some Trots how they see him. But, he definitely wasn't an anarchist.
Yeah. He was a Trot.

He fought in the Spanish Civil War with the POUM, which was officially "Marxist", but it was mostly Trotskyists.

In 1984, Big Brother has many parallels to Stalin, while Goldstein has many parallels to Trotsky. [/b]
Orwell just picked the POUM at random though. He didn't join them because of their political beliefs.

Also after the Spanish Civil War, his opinion on Communists changed dramatically.

[Black Dagger]

Forget that, i'm thinking of Tolkien :P

[Ian]

Originally posted by FinnMacCool+Mar 25 2006, 05:53 PM--> (FinnMacCool @ Mar 25 2006, 05:53 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:10 AM

[email protected] 25 2006, 05:46 AM
Emma was an anarchist, but Orwell was a Trot...maybe. I'd probably have to ask some Trots how they see him. But, he definitely wasn't an anarchist.
Yeah. He was a Trot.

He fought in the Spanish Civil War with the POUM, which was officially "Marxist", but it was mostly Trotskyists.

In 1984, Big Brother has many parallels to Stalin, while Goldstein has many parallels to Trotsky.
Orwell just picked the POUM at random though. He didn't join them because of their political beliefs.

Also after the Spanish Civil War, his opinion on Communists changed dramatically. [/b]
You don't say?! He sent letters to the British Government (on his own accord!!) snitching on fellow communists.


Snitches get stitches.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+Mar 25 2006, 05:10 PM--> (clownpenisanarchy @ Mar 25 2006, 05:10 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 05:46 AM
Emma was an anarchist, but Orwell was a Trot...maybe. I'd probably have to ask some Trots how they see him. But, he definitely wasn't an anarchist.
Yeah. He was a Trot.

He fought in the Spanish Civil War with the POUM, which was officially "Marxist", but it was mostly Trotskyists.

In 1984, Big Brother has many parallels to Stalin, while Goldstein has many parallels to Trotsky. [/b]
No he wasn't a Trot. He opposed authoritarianism, and yes his democratic socialism was not anarchistic.

The movement against Big Brother in 1984 (I can't remember what it was called) officially lead by Goldstein was just another ploy on the part of the party. It wasn't an actual real movement.

Glodstein was used as the scapegoat for any ills (just as the pig (I can't remember the name either)) in Animal Farm is used.

Anyway, greetings FinnMacCool, if you even shown any sign of even thinking about indvidualist anarchism watch out. The Marxists won't let you into the CC.

[Cult of Reason]

Greetings from another Orwell fan! My favourite book by Orwell is Homage to Catalonia, which is the reason why I am currently (still) obsessed by the SCW.

Homage to Catalonia (an most other Orwell literature) can be found here:

http://www.george-orwell.org/


(just as the pig (I can't remember the name either))

Snowball.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:10 AM
In 1984, Big Brother has many parallels to Stalin, while Goldstein has many parallels to Trotsky.
True, but some say that EMMAnuel GOLDstein was named after EMMA GOLDman.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:18 AM
You don't say?! He sent letters to the British Government (on his own accord!!) snitching on fellow communists.
Too bad he did not live in the USSR, he would make a fine Bolshevik :)

I do not see why you think you will be hated.

I like "Animal Farm" also. It sucks that the CIA used it for propaganda purposes. I see it as a critsism of totalotarian government in general. It probably was aimed at Stalin(and rightfully so). The USSR probably would not have been much different under Trotsky. Stalin after all was just taking over the tyranny of Lenin.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Anyway, greetings FinnMacCool, if you even shown any sign of even thinking about indvidualist anarchism watch out. The Marxists won't let you into the CC.

You wish you could turn it into an anarchist vs. marxist situation, but it isn't. The anarchists dont want individualists either!

[bezdomni]

No he wasn't a Trot. He opposed authoritarianism,
Trots oppose autoritarianism. Orwell at least had sympathies with Trotsky. Animal Farm is an example of this.


The movement against Big Brother in 1984 (I can't remember what it was called) officially lead by Goldstein was just another ploy on the part of the party. It wasn't an actual real movement.
Yeah, but the philosophy of Goldstein was similar to that of Trotsky (if I recall) and the jewness of Goldstein was supposed to be respresentative of Trotsky as well.

Goldstein is obviously not a 100% allegory to Trotsky, but there is definitely a Trotsky influence on Goldstein's imaginary character.


Glodstein was used as the scapegoat for any ills (just as the pig (I can't remember the name either)) in Animal Farm is used.

Yeah, Napoleon was an allegory to Stalin and Snowball was an allegory to Trotsky. Trotsky was used as a scapegoat in the USSR, Goldstein was a scapegoat in 1984 and Snowball was a scapegoat in Animal Farm. All of those characters are either direct allegories or share many of the same characteristics of Leon Trotsky.


The Marxists won't let you into the CC.
I hope that was a joke. The CC is crawling with anarchists.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by nate+--> (nate)The anarchists dont want individualists either! [/b]
Do 'individualist anarchists' oppose capitalism?


clownpenisanarchy
The CC is crawling with anarchists.
I am one of them. Is the fact that the CC is 'crawling with anarchists' a 'bad thing'?

[apathy maybe]

Individualist anarchists oppose capitalism. However, some people seem to think that not supporting a revolution (which individualists don't) means that a person is not a leftist.

I find it hard to understand why, as, like all anarchists, individualists want a classless stateless society where individuals are not forced to do things, and where there isn't hierarchy.

Some people compare Individualist Anarchism to lifestylism. I guess there are some correlations, but the fact remains that individualists focus on the goal of anarchism, and try and convince others to join them. They want anarchism now, not after a mythical general strike.

It is not revolutionary in the same sense as "class-war" anarchists, but individualists still want anarchism.


Oh, am I am not an individualist, though certain people seem to think I am. I am just sympathetic to certain of their views. Just like I am sympathetic to communist anarchism. I would support a revolution, possibly even a Leninist one, I even "work" towards revolution though it does not seem possible now.

[anomaly]

How do these 'individualist' anarchists propose we get to anarchism if not by revolution?

But, yea, I would still consider such an anarchist a 'comrade'. I'd probably just criticize them for being 'idealists' and 'reformists'! :lol:

[apathy maybe]

In the CC is a long thing about Individualist Anarchism I wrote. It started out civil, be then people started calling me an individualist and wanting to restrict me. But it is in there somewhere.

Individualist anarchists want anarchism now, they work to build alternative structures outside the state-capitalist structure (and thus can not be called reformist as they are not reforming the old structure, rather they are building a new system along side the old).

If people stop using government money to "buy" things, then government money becomes worthless. If people stop using the capitalist economy and go for a barter/trade market system, then shops disappear.

If people stop voting in elections, stop responding to bureaucrats, ignore the rules, then they become worthless.

It is no more idealistic then a general strike.

(Imagine if everyone squatted! Woops, no more rent market.)

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:31 AM
I am one of them. Is the fact that the CC is 'crawling with anarchists' a 'bad thing'?
No, I used to be an anarchist. I therefore have very few problems with anarchists.

Anyone who wants to end capitalism and construct a classless society (without nuclear war or race war) is a comrade of mine. We aren't going to get anywhere by dividing ourselves, anyone who would refuse to revolt against capitalism alongside someone who slightly deviates from their own ideas is a reactionary. Ew, a Leninist! Don't let it touch you! :lol:

We can worry about the issues that we discuss here after capitalism is gone. The main problem is people are so hung up on their dogmatic issues that they can't even agree on how revolution is to be done! My opinion is as long as it is a popular worker's movement to abolish capitalism with the ultimate aim of destroying class society and minimizing innocent casualties - it is a revolution that I could get behind.

Oh yeah, and there has to be dancing too. And music. I like music.

[FinnMacCool]

You know I just talked to an individualist anarchist today and I have to say it was truly enlightening. I realized that anarchism itself and individualism are completely different ideas. Individualism is simply the idea of changing around one persons life so therefore it doesn't really conflict with the principles of marxism or anarchism whatsover.


Oh yeah, and there has to be dancing too. And music. I like music.


That reminds me of a quote from Emma Goldman


IF I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution."

[anomaly]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+--> (clownpenisanarchy)Ew, a Leninist! Don't let it touch you![/b]
I'll have to use that sometime! :lol:

But, on a more serious note, you do understand that there are solid reasons for anarchists disagreeing so strongly with Leninists. Leninists' idea of immediate 'post-revolutionary' life is completely at odds with anarchism. Essentially, you want a hierarchical centralized state; we don't.

That being said, I probably would support a 'Leninist revolution' (though I don't think one is likely...an anarchist or Marxist one seems much more 'realistic' to me) simply because it's some type of change...then afterwards I'd focus on dismantling the Leninist state! :D

I just hope the Leninists wouldn't shoot me like they shot anarchists last time... :o


apathy maybe
It is no more idealistic then a general strike.
Certainly. I really don't support the idea of a 'general strike'. Good old fashioned revolution seems the best method, in my opinion.

But, I'm guessing I'd agree with a lot of individualist anarchists on many things. I'm also quite the pragmatist: if their ideas were working, I'd support them. If revolutionary ideas were working, I'd expect individualist anarchists to support revolution.

However, getting back to earth, I see no reason why individualist anarchists should be excluded from CC, based on what you say.

[Black Dagger]

Certainly. I really don't support the idea of a 'general strike'. Good old fashioned revolution seems the best method, in my opinion.

Say what?

How can you not support the idea of a general strike? They're the best kind of strike! :P

General strikes will likely accompany any major revolutionary upheavals in the highly industrialised countries.

[bezdomni]

But, on a more serious note, you do understand that there are solid reasons for anarchists disagreeing so strongly with Leninists. Leninists' idea of immediate 'post-revolutionary' life is completely at odds with anarchism. Essentially, you want a hierarchical centralized state; we don't
Yeah. I got it. ;)


That being said, I probably would support a 'Leninist revolution' (though I don't think one is likely...an anarchist or Marxist one seems much more 'realistic' to me) simply because it's some type of change...then afterwards I'd focus on dismantling the Leninist state! :D
Like I said, a revolution won't happen with only one "brand" of revolutionaries. I am friendly to the anarchist movement and certain maoist movements (like the one in Nepal). No rational person would support, let's say...Trotskyists and ONLY Trotskyists, or Stalinists and ONLY Stalinists (although plenty do). This is the biggest problem I see with the revolutionary movement today - a refusal to get along.

I have serious disagreements with both anarchists and Stalinists, but I can usually keep a civil conversation with them (assuming they can with me - a triat not typical of CLers), because when it comes down to it - we are all (theoretically) working for the same goal. The disagreement is over how we get there.


I just hope the Leninists wouldn't shoot me like they shot anarchists last time... :o
I would be against it. We've learned from our mistakes.


However, getting back to earth, I see no reason why individualist anarchists should be excluded from CC, based on what you say.
They either deny or ignore class struggle and are counter-revolutionary. Individualist anarchists are about as capable as the Shakers or Oenidas when it comes to revolution. Sure, the spoons might be pretty - but capitalism is still there!

[anomaly]

Originally posted by BlackDagger+--> (BlackDagger)General strikes will likely accompany any major revolutionary upheavals in the highly industrialised countries.[/b]
I meant that general strikes on their own wouldn't be very effective. If they accompany revolutionary upheavals, they probably would be a very good thing.


clownpenisanarchy
Sure, the spoons might be pretty - but capitalism is still there!
Ok...now I'm extremely confused. Apathy maybe told me that Individualist anarchists oppose capitalism...they just have a different idea of how to destroy it.

Which is it?? :huh:

[FinnMacCool]

Honestly, when people use the words "counter revolutionary" as an excuse to exclude people or restrict peoples rights, I can't help but think of all the totalitarian communist countries that were and are in power.

That's how it starts. Then expressing a different opinion becomes "counter revolutionary". Do you guys honestly want to put your communists through a meat grinder so they all come out the same?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+Mar 25 2006, 08:10 AM--> (clownpenisanarchy @ Mar 25 2006, 08:10 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 05:46 AM
Emma was an anarchist, but Orwell was a Trot...maybe. I'd probably have to ask some Trots how they see him. But, he definitely wasn't an anarchist.
Yeah. He was a Trot.

He fought in the Spanish Civil War with the POUM, which was officially "Marxist", but it was mostly Trotskyists.

In 1984, Big Brother has many parallels to Stalin, while Goldstein has many parallels to Trotsky. [/b]
No, he was not, he was a democratic socialist, read his essays.



You don't say?! He sent letters to the British Government (on his own accord!!) snitching on fellow communists.


He was no communist, in fact he dispised most 'communist' organisations and the list was penned in 1949 a period where most 'communists' were supporters of the USSR, which at the time was run by one of the most corrupt men in human history, as Orwell well knew having seen it first hand.

The most logical conclusion is that Orwell was asked by a friend to provide a list of people he considered to have communist sympathies; in the name of anti-Stalinism.

Not to mention that many names on the list were of very vocal people, mainly journalists and the like, it hadly would have taken a genius to note the very public views of Charlie Chaplin. It is not like Orwell investigated these individuals as a spy and grassed them up.

People who claim he was a snitch are full of shit, which is quite ironic consider they don't know shit.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:21 PM
Ok...now I'm extremely confused. Apathy maybe told me that Individualist anarchists oppose capitalism...they just have a different idea of how to destroy it.

They "don't like" capitalism but typically refuse to take part in class struggle. They are like the lifestylists who favor living outside of capitalism.

Furthermore, I see too many parallels between Individualist Anarchism and Objectivism/Libertarianism. Working class liberation is a mass movement, not an individual one.

I'll admit that I haven't "read up" on individaliist anarchism, but through the several that I've met - this tends to be the manner in which they think. If a self-declared individualist anarchist believes contrary, make another thread and link it to this one - that way this introduction thread doesn't end up being ridiculously long. :P

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+Mar 28 2006, 09:06 AM--> (clownpenisanarchy @ Mar 28 2006, 09:06 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 10:21 PM
Ok...now I'm extremely confused. Apathy maybe told me that Individualist anarchists oppose capitalism...they just have a different idea of how to destroy it.

They "don't like" capitalism but typically refuse to take part in class struggle. They are like the lifestylists who favor living outside of capitalism.

Furthermore, I see too many parallels between Individualist Anarchism and Objectivism/Libertarianism. Working class liberation is a mass movement, not an individual one.

I'll admit that I haven't "read up" on individaliist anarchism, but through the several that I've met - this tends to be the manner in which they think. If a self-declared individualist anarchist believes contrary, make another thread and link it to this one - that way this introduction thread doesn't end up being ridiculously long. :P [/b]
Individualist anarchists are opposed to capitalism. While many of them favour some form of market for goods, they are opposed to essential parts of capitalism, such as rent and the accumulation of unused property.

While as an ideology individualist anarchism is opposed to violence that is not defensive, it is not opposed to demonstrations, protests and individuals might well take part in actual violence against the state.

The two main parts of individualist anarchism (which are actually linked) are before and after.

Before is how to get to anarchism, individualists promote the building of alternative structures and using these as opposed to the state/capitalist structures. Most individualists will not participate in direct violence against the state/capitalist structures, as such violence is not seen as self-defence. Some will however. As such individualists do favour living outside capitalism, but also promote other (generally non-violent) steps to encourage others to not be a part of capitalism.

After anarchism is achieved individualists promote the idea of individuals living as the wish, so long as the way of living does not impact on others. Thus they do not oppose people joining communes, but object to people being forced to join communes.

Certain ideas in individualist anarchism are shared with libertarianism and liberalism, however, as they are fundamentally opposed on a number of other points, I don't think that you can link the two beyond that. It is like saying that Marxism has links to Hegalism. They do have similar ideas, but no one who knew anything about the two would say that they wanted the same thing.


I must say that I am not an individualist anarchist (I have to keep saying this, otherwise people might think that I was one). And as to making a new thread, a mod can split off the bits into a new thread in theory.

(And again, should you want more info, see the thread in the CC.)

[Nicky Scarfo]

Orwell just picked the POUM at random though. He didn't join them because of their political beliefs.


I don't think he picked it at random. He went with a group from the Independent Labor Party, which had fraternal relations with the POUM. The ILP, like the POUM, was not officially "Trotskyist" but did have Trot influence.


You don't say?! He sent letters to the British Government (on his own accord!!) snitching on fellow communists.

Please provide a link. Thanks.



Snitches get stitches.

Hell yea.

[Ian]

this article mentions it (http://www.counterpunch.org/snitch.html)
"Over the past couple of years the matter of George Orwell's snitching has been a public issue. Orwell, in the dawn days of the cold war and not long before his own death, compiled a snitch list of Commies and fellow travelers and turned them over to Cynthia Kirwan, a woman for whom he'd had the hots and who worked for the British secret police. Now, Orwell is Hitchens' idol, and he lost no time in defending Orwell's snitch list in Vanity Fair and The Nation. Finally, CounterPunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn wrote a Nation column giving the anti-Orwell point of view, taking the line that the list was mostly idle gossip, patently racist and anti-Semitic, part and parcel of McCarthyism. Bottom line snitching to the secret police wouldn't do. Hitchens seemed genuinely surprised by our basic position that snitching is a dirty business, to be shunned by all decent people."

also here (http://www.mobylives.com/Orwell_Reed.html)

[Ian]

Nicky, were you involved with the Gotti Trial?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:58 AM
That being said, I probably would support a 'Leninist revolution' (though I don't think one is likely...an anarchist or Marxist one seems much more 'realistic' to me)
Yes, because they've been wildly succesful so far...

Anyway, welcome to the new member. The Orwell discussion can be found here, if you're curious:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43949

[Honggweilo]

though cowards flinch and traitors sneer , we will keep the red flag flying here :P

[Ian]

I dunno if you realise (it's not a widely known fact) but the next verse of the Red Flag is 'The working class can kiss my arse, I've got the foreman's job at last' :P

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I can see anarchists and marxists working together. As an anarchist, I would never work towards a Leninist revolution. I would also be skeptical of a marxist revolution, to be honest.

Welcome - I am sure you will find people who agree with you and people who don't - as you would anywhere else. I admire Orwell and Goldman, too, although I don't agree with all their views.