explaing anarchy

[new anarchist]

whenever I mention anarchism to my best friend she goes off on a speil about anarchy being a sort of every man for himself, only the strong and violent survive etc, etc. How do you explain the concept on anarchy and revolution to someone who has no skill or intrest in political analyisis and is not very good at usinig reason. I don't want to make a convert, I just want her to understand what I am saying.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by new [email protected] 06, 2006 05:36 pm
whenever I mention anarchism to my best friend she goes off on a speil about anarchy being a sort of every man for himself, only the strong and violent survive etc, etc. How do you explain the concept on anarchy and revolution to someone who has no skill or intrest in political analyisis and is not very good at usinig reason. I don't want to make a convert, I just want her to understand what I am saying.
If you, yourself have studied Anarchist theory and politics it should be relatively easy.

[JazzRemington]

I actually wrote an introduction to anarchism a while back but never got around to getting it published. I would be glad to post it if you're interested.

[Floyce White]

Anarchism is a form of capitalism characterized by maximum family ownership. I describe it in my essays Against Anarchism--For Communism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A20) and Whose Class Struggle? (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A21)

[Chocobo]

Anarchism is a form of capitalism characterized by maximum family ownership.
Ummm, nope.

I'm not gonna bother explaining anarchism down to its roots here becausee its not worth it and who wants to conform under my analysis anyway? If you wanna learn about anarchism i'd suggest you go and read books by Proudhon, Bahkunin, and Emma Goldman. They'll help you learn the basics. To sum up anarchism in an extremly quick sentence:
Anarchism is the light-speed approach to Communism.
Personally, I don't trust anarchism because I don't see it as a solid ideal. I think its much more beautiful then communism, but its too unsure. Not replacing the bourgeois state with anything and expecting people to understand and be able to change that fast? Not uh, too idealist for me. But yah, turn off the T.V. and read!

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 09:21 pm

Anarchism is a form of capitalism characterized by maximum family ownership.
Ummm, nope.

I'm not gonna bother explaining anarchism down to its roots here becausee its not worth it and who wants to conform under my analysis anyway? If you wanna learn about anarchism i'd suggest you go and read books by Proudhon, Bahkunin, and Emma Goldman. They'll help you learn the basics. To sum up anarchism in an extremly quick sentence:
Anarchism is the light-speed approach to Communism.
Personally, I don't trust anarchism because I don't see it as a solid ideal. I think its much more beautiful then communism, but its too unsure. Not replacing the bourgeois state with anything and expecting people to understand and be able to change that fast? Not uh, too idealist for me. But yah, turn off the T.V. and read!
Most anarchists advocate a transitionary period called collectivism which involves time labor vouchers.

[Chocobo]

Most anarchists advocate a transitionary period called collectivism which involves time labor vouchers.
Thats anarcho-communism, not anarchism though.

[[email protected]@ns]

There is no difference between anarcho-communism and anarchy. Anarchy is a whole genre of political ideologies from anarch-collectivism, anarcho-communism, to anarcho-syndicalism. You have to define what type of anarchy you are talking about.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 12:01 am

Most anarchists advocate a transitionary period called collectivism which involves time labor vouchers.
Thats anarcho-communism, not anarchism though.
As an anarcho-communist, I certainly view myself as being an anarchist.

[anarchista feminista]

It has alot to do with personal perception too. I myself see it as community and freedom. Basically, sharing property and ownership being collective. But also having freedom of choice and having the community accepting personal opinion and decisions.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 07, 2006 01:13 am
Anarchism is a form of capitalism
No, it's absolutely not, unless your referring to anarcho-capitalism, and in that case it is not a true form of Anarchism anyway.

[Nusocialist]

Anarchism is a form of capitalism characterized by maximum family ownership. I describe it in my essays Against Anarchism--For Communism and Whose Class Struggle?
Firstly that's complete bullshit anyway.
Secondly I think you have only Mutualism in mind anyway.

[Nusocialist]

As an anarcho-communist, I certainly view myself as being an anarchist.
I think he meant that what was described was anarcho-communism not all of the anarchist political tradition.

[Floyce White]

"No it's not" and "oh, it means a lot of things" are not arguments. Neither is saying "anarchists call themselves" some string of labels. Neither is spitting dirty words. Neither is saying "go read such-and-such."

Disagreement and debate is what a message board is all about. I make my case in my essays. If you disagree, make your case. Don't sit there whining that someone disagrees with you.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 08, 2006 03:16 am
"No it's not" and "oh, it means a lot of things" are not arguments. Neither is saying "anarchists call themselves" some string of labels. Neither is spitting dirty words. Neither is saying "go read such-and-such."

Disagreement and debate is what a message board is all about. I make my case in my essays. If you disagree, make your case. Don't sit there whining that someone disagrees with you.
Reply to what? While I haven't read the 2nd article, the first one is just an incoherent rant.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 08, 2006 06:16 pm
"No it's not" and "oh, it means a lot of things" are not arguments. Neither is saying "anarchists call themselves" some string of labels. Neither is spitting dirty words. Neither is saying "go read such-and-such."

Disagreement and debate is what a message board is all about. I make my case in my essays. If you disagree, make your case. Don't sit there whining that someone disagrees with you.
Floyce, it is unfair to insist people read essays written by you to get an idea of your opinion, you should be more than capable of providing a concise response in this thread.

You make an incredibly controversial (border-line trollish) statement and thus far have not actually backed it up. If you are confident in your opinions you should be able to make your case in this thread, not in an essay, but in a post of reasonable length - and then to take a discussion from there, linking to essays instead of actually summarising your thoughts here is lazy and places an unfair burden on everyone else.

[Cryotank Screams]

Disagreement and debate is what a message board is all about.

I don't really see how posting "Anarchism is a form of capitalism," coupled with two links is an argument.

I mean I would generally think that you would argue and or debate this by condensing your essays, and paraphrasing them to get the basis of what you mean, and then post the links for further explanation.


Disagreement and debate is what a message board is all about.

Which you barely did, so don't get on you high horse.


I make my case in my essays.

Like you said, this is a message board, hence posting a message on here and stating your case would be the preferred method would it not?


If you disagree, make your case.

I will below, briefly, so as to get a possible discussion going.


Don't sit there whining that someone disagrees with you.

I wasn't whining, just commenting, on a seemingly outrageous claim.


Likewise, anarchism tells the dispossessed that co-ops, syndicates, and other temporary asset combinations are “not capitalism,”

Capitalism can be define as a an economic system that the ownership of the means of production, distribution, and trade is in the hands of individuals, and business, based upon free trade, and is primarily a economic system of such things as currency, free-markets, private property, wage slavery, commodity fetishism, state apparatus to ensure some sense of order, and the class system, verticalism, and the inevitable antagonism involved with the system thereof.

Where as Anarchism (speaking specifically of Anarchist-Communism), as you well may know, seeks to abolish the wage system, private property, class, any trace of the state apparatus and or government, free markets, markets in general, in favor for a sort of gift economics, mutual aid, communalism, horizontalism, and in my view is the exact opposite of capitalism.

Definitions aside, I fail to see how collectives, communal property, and general Anarchist economics, could be construed as crypto-capitalist, or capitalistic in nature.

So I guess I will say they are not “capitalism,” until you explain this to me.

Also, I am assuming, by “petty-capitalists,” you are try to refer to Anarchism as some sort of off-shoot of capitalism, or some kind of crypto-capitalist movement correct?


and warns that any opposition to anarchism is “authoritarianism.”

Not so much authoritarian per se, even though I do find most non-Anarchistic positions, and such to be atleast somewhat authoritarian; I would however argue that Anarchism by far seems the most appropiate way to attain the utopia, in which all political, social, and economic systems or movements seek to put into place, and opposition to Anarchism would seem to be almost hypocritical and counter-revolutionary.


To petty capitalists, “anarchism means no hierarchy” above their rule,

There is no rulers, or anything that could be twisted to mean such a thing, so I am not following what you mean by “their rule.”


just as “property” means any claim of possession but their own.

In post-revolutionary conditions, in an Anarchist society, “possessions,” as it is commonly defined would fail to exist, so again I don’t see what exactly you mean by “claim of possession but their own.”

I will by no means attack your “critics,” on Anarchism sentence by sentence, because you didn’t really “critic,” the theoretical mechanics, historical or current movements, in any sort of detailed manner; mainly you just used false aesthetics, armchair Anarchism, Proudhon and his strain of Anarchism, and common coattail arguments, in order to “attack.” Anarchism, and try to construe it into some kind of crypto-capitalism movement.

I did not once, see you mention or refer to Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, or any such other major contributer to Anarchist thought and practice, or other strains of Anarchism, which in my opinoin doesn’t really repersent Anarchism correctly.

[Nusocialist]

"No it's not" and "oh, it means a lot of things" are not arguments. Neither is saying "anarchists call themselves" some string of labels. Neither is spitting dirty words. Neither is saying "go read such-and-such."

Disagreement and debate is what a message board is all about. I make my case in my essays. If you disagree, make your case. Don't sit there whining that someone disagrees with you.
Your essays were just a rehash of the old Marxist petite-bourgious argument against anarchism.
This argument as I said is in reality about mutualism,not anarchism as a whole and it's bs anyway.

[Floyce White]

JazzRemington: "...incoherent rant..."

Seriously, if you find that article difficult, take some courses in remedial reading.

Black Dagger: "...it is unfair to insist people read essays written by you... If you are confident in your opinions you should be able to make your case in this thread, not in an essay, but in a post of reasonable length..."

Your post is ironic on so many levels.

Cryotank Screams: "I would generally think that you would argue and or debate this by condensing your essays, and paraphrasing them..."

To the contrary. Anarchism is the dummied-down, anti-theoretical mannequin I describe. A leaflet can't be long enough to need a summary.

I linked to two leaflets. Get over it.

Black Dagger: "You make an incredibly controversial (border-line trollish) statement and thus far have not actually backed it up."

Cryotank Screams: "...a seemingly outrageous claim..."

You may not be aware of the fact that communists outnumber anarchists by a factor of thousands. Tens of millions of communists basically agree that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology. They find it "trollish" for anyone to assert that anarchism is "against capitalism."

Cryotank Screams: "...Anarchism..."

...is a common noun. To capitalize it is to make brand identification, and to show out your conformity with one flavor of sectarianism. In response to a critique of anarchism, that capital 'A' just "screams" "dishonest rebuttal." Stop playing to the audience. Address your debate opponent in the second person.

Cryotank Screams: "Anarchism...seeks to abolish...markets...[but] collectives, communal property...are not 'capitalism'..."

"Markets" means "property exchange." It is ludicrous to suggest that some people want to own property, but don't want to exchange it. The only purpose of property is to accumulate through exchange. There is no reason to have a system of "mine" and "yours" except to get more "mine."

That's why communism is anti-property without qualifications or exceptions. To make exceptions--always for something you'd like to be involved with, or already are--is to be a pro-capitalist.

Cryotank Screams: "Capitalism can be define[d] as...verticalism...[while] Anarchism ...in favor [of]...horizontalism..."

You are suggesting that owning several businesses that depend on the same supplier or that have the same customers is "not capitalism," but on the other hand, also owning the businesses that supply raw materials and use the finished good are "capitalism?" Nonsense. Collaborative efforts of businesses in the same industry are commonplace. There are trade magazines, conventions, and business associations devoted to it.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Cryotank Screams: "...and opposition to Anarchism would seem to be almost hypocritical..."

For whom? It is not hypocritical for the dispossessed to oppose all property relations on principle. It is hypocritical for a possessor to try to pass off property relations as "the same as" communism.

Cryotank Screams: "There is no rulers [under anarchism], or anything that could be twisted to mean such a thing, so I am not following what you mean by 'their rule.'"

Small capitalists rule over the dispossessed customers of their merchantry, their tenants, and their employees. To lower-class people, the word "anarchism" means that these small capitalists have no rulers above them. For anarchists to say "that means 'no rulers'" is a lie. It is word twisting. Anarchism has rulers and ruled. Anarchists then cover their lie with another lie, and say "no it doesn't."

It is ridiculous to assert that a word cannot be twisted by the petty exploiters. They twist words all the time. You are under the illusion that their twisted meaning is "the truth," while the straight version is "twisted." That's your problem--not mine.

Cryotank Screams: "...in an Anarchist society, 'possessions,' as it is commonly defined would fail to exist..."

An excuse for "uncommon" definitions? More word twisting, exceptions, and conditions? You already admitted that anarchism is a system with some forms of property. Read your own post.

Cryotank Screams: "...you didn’t really [critique] the theoretical mechanics, historical or current movements..."

Anarchism is a tiny, esoteric, petty-bourgeois literary movement. It has been so for decades before I was born. I am a working-class person. I am writing for working-class readers. There is so little working-class participation in the anarchist movement that there is no need to discuss its current manifestations. Historically, the movement for anarchist capitalism succeeded in trapping and using many rebellious workers for a long time. Capitalism didn't need it in the 20th Century because it was successful in using socialism to co-opt workers' movements.

Cryotank Screams: "...try to construe it into some kind of crypto-capitalism movement..."

You yourself already admitted that anarchism has property forms.

Cryotank Screams: "I did not once, see you mention or refer to Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, or any such other major contributer to Anarchist thought and practice, or other strains of Anarchism..."

I don't need to cite upper-class authority figures to validate my opinions. I had no plans to refer to Proudhon either. It was anarchists who repeatedly cited [i]What Is Property? in response to the tenth Antiproperty essay. I referred to Proudhon because it fit the needs of the writing task. Bakunin or any other upper-class person is not the source of the lower-class perspective on anarchism--any more than Marx or Lenin or any other upper-class person is the source of the lower-class perspective on socialism.

Since I am a lower-class activist, with some years of experience in lower-class struggle, it is possible that my opinions on these issues may be useful to fellow lower-class activists. I don't have the only opinion, and I don't think of myself as knowing any more or better than any other worker. What is needed is for lower-class activists to discuss each others' opinions, rather than those of upper-class persons. It's not a matter of right and wrong. It's nonsense for anyone to put it in those terms. Finding out where we lower-class activists agree and disagree, and why, is a long-term process that will help develop unity in theory and practice.

Nusocialist: "Your essays were just a rehash of the old Marxist petite-bourgeois argument against anarchism."

That's a well-known anarchist one-liner used to blow off serious criticism. It is designed to make its sayer sound as if he personally read all of the Collected Works of Lenin, of Marx and Engels, and the like--and knows the history of the various lines of polemic. You don't. Neither does anyone else who mouths that line. That's why they spout one-liners instead of calmly discussing the issues.

I say loudly that petty capitalists don't belong in the workers' movement. Nowhere did Marx, Bakunin, or other persons of upper-class family origin say "I don't belong here" and stop trying to influence workers' theory and action. Only a few upper-class persons ever helped publish any volumes of workers' speeches and writings. Of these, virtually all were reprints of a handful of cherry-picked works that flatter or don't oppose petty-bourgeois ideologies. (Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs comes to mind.)

New Anarchist, your friend is right and you should listen to her.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by Floyce White
In this series of articles I expose the petty-capitalist deception about communism.

You mean, in this series of articles you expose your deceptions about anarchism.


Some petty capitalists take a different tack. They want to eliminate their bigger rivals, but try to do so by eliminating every currently-big organization. To increase the social power of petty proprietors, they want to break up corporations and privatize state lands, roads, and schools. They seek to overthrow the state and immensely weaken and destabilize its successor regimes. In this way, they hope both to grab state property and to diminish the ability of the state to protect big proprietors. As with socialism, anarchism ignores the combined effect of masses of small exploiters and fights only the few big ones. Socialism tells working-class people that nationalized businesses are “not capitalism,” and alleges that any opposition to socialism is “anti-communism.” Likewise, anarchism tells the dispossessed that co-ops, syndicates, and other temporary asset combinations are “not capitalism,” and warns that any opposition to anarchism is “authoritarianism.” To petty capitalists, “anarchism means no hierarchy” above their rule, just as “property” means any claim of possession but their own.

Ah, I understand now. This author wishes to bash anarchism, and not reply to the so-called deception about communism as before. I wish he would have said that earlier! The fact that he claims that all anarchists only focus on the big businesses is wrong and he does not back it up with facts or any sources. What he does not mention in the phrase "anarchism tells the dispossessed that co-ops, syndicates, and other temporary asset combinations" is that, not that they are "not capitalism," but rather they are to be a fight force against capitalism. He confuses means with ends. If "anarchism means to hierarchy above their rule," then we are not talking about anarchism anymore, are we? He is also confusing "property" and "possession." The so-called "anarchists" he is talking about, which in reality are simply "petty-capitalists" and not anarchists, support private property, whatever it is.


Property claims are made by individuals, but the property system is not a matter of personal initiative. Classes of rich and poor were created and maintained through generations of organized violence. Private property and public property are complimentary co-methods to maintain the dispossession of the lower class. The state owns everything not claimed by families or other institutions. It is just as ridiculous to speak of property exchange without its armed guard as it is to speak of a state without exploitation to defend. Independent or collective, forms of possession and dispossession cannot exist without the state.

It seems he is taking a particular school of anarchism (mutualism) and maintaining that all anarchists are this way. But he forgets that some degree of property existed before the rise of the State in the hunter-gatherer society. According to most modern anthropologists, the tools and the land the individuals used and lived on, respectively, were considered collective property. It seems that capitalism must have always exited then, along with a State. Interesting thinking from a supposed Marxist.


With its explicit rejection of communism, anarchism is always tres chic.

It seems that this wonderfully informed and intelligent author is forgetting about anarchist-communism and a certain individual named Peter Kropotkin.


It is not important because of anarchist writings; they dogmatize the slogans of the bourgeois, anti-feudal revolution.

Again, he makes claims that are evidently well beyond his knowledge of the subject. He seems to be taking the ideas of mutualists and attempting to prove that all anarchists are this way.


In response to the previous article in this series, Against Anarchism–For Communism, many anarchists say that those who use the word “anarchism” as I describe are abusing the term. They insist that its “true meaning” is something else. Most define the term according to its etymology–“no ruler”–and assert that “anarchism means no state.” Hah! The concept of “true meaning,” as with all versions of “absolute truth,” originates from class society and serves to support class society. There is no single definition of any political term that is true to both poor and rich, or among all factions of the rich. Interpretations are prejudiced by property interests or the lack thereof. Without a doubt, all upper-class reasoning defends exploitation. Regardless of how they say it, anarchism means a state.

What this individual asserts is that regardless of how many times he is shown he is wrong, "anarchism" is still petty-capitalist because of a supposed "property owning bias." When proven wrong, he falls back on the old and outdated belief in subjective interpretation. This contradicts his original statement that anarchism is essentially petty-capitalist because, after all, if there is no true definition of a political theory, then how do we know that his definition is true? The last sentence only serves to further demonstrate the contradiction that is seeping from this paragraph.


Some anarchists respond by quoting authority figures such as Proudhon, and cite his 1840 essay What Is Property? This bourgeois social reformer approved of claims of ownership of things of personal use, while he condemned claims of ownership of things used by others.

He makes further evidence that he is only talking about Mutualism, who are the only people who take Proudhon seriously.


Proudhon opposed big business and the vast state-owned properties because these are not forms of personal property. Proudhon also opposed the state because police protect claims of non-personal property. Hah! Do a little semantical struggle here. Replace the idea of “exchange of personal possessions” with the phrase “small business,” and it is clear that Proudhon’s interpretation of “anarchism” is a political movement in the interests of petty capitalists. Since almost all capitalists are small capitalists, his words were not rebellion but apologetics. In the years to follow, the many contradicting definitions of “anarchism” by upper-class authorities mirrored the many competing property interests.

Makes sense: Proudhon opposed the things he hated. He is correct here in his assertion that Proudhon supported small businesses and personal property, property based on use. But his connections between this "anarchism" and petty-capitalists is faulty. He claims that because Proudhon's theories supported personal property and small, self-employed individuals and petty-capitalists support small, self-employed individuals (but not personal property), that all anarchists are petty-capitalists. But it should be noted that is claim that almost all capitalists are "small capitalists" is incorrect. The petty-bourgeoise is a small class that shrinks constantly every year. But let us mock his logic of replacing phrases. Let us take the definition of "communism" as "a stateless, non-hierarchical society in which the workers have direct access to the means of production and the economy operates on the maxim 'from each accord to ability, to each according to need.'" Replace the words "stateless, non-hierarchical society" and "from each according to ability, to each according to need" with "a State-filled, vastly hierarchical society" and "first come, first served based on the use of money and supply and demand," and we see that all communists are essentially small capitalists! But I suppose the author will assert that there is one true meaning of communism, despite the fact that he claims that there is no one true definition of any political theory.


Many lower-class anarchists, socialists, and radical liberals struggle to raise broad anti-property demands instead of the intrigues of petty-capitalist interests. This is one form of the struggle for communism.

Despite the fact that anarchism isn't communism and serves only the interests of petty-capitalists, of course.


In conflict with the idea that anarchism is a form of capitalism, a few comrades counterpose the expression “anarcho-communism.” This phrasing does not work–precisely because it defines “anarchism” as meaning “no state.”

And heaven forbid that we should ever define something according to how it's been define historically! God forbid that we should do the very thing you have been doing for these two essays! What will those crazy petty-capitalist supporting wackos think of next?


Words have meanings that are defined by the social and political movements of property classes–not by dictionary authors.

Basically, those who do not own property can think up any definition they want for anything. If that is true, the fact that to the common homeless person on the street believes communism is a giant, State run apparatus that oppresses people must be true because this individual does not own property. But if it is true that all definitions of those who own property are false, then that means Engels was wrong in his definition of communism in his book "The Principles of Communism" because he was a factory owner.


It is sheer nihilism to suggest that, for the lower class, “communism” and “anarchism” and “socialism” and “liberalism” and any number of other words all have similar, overlapping meanings, or to suggest that one single word can not and must not have the unique definition of “the struggle of the poor against the rich.”

In addition to the fact that he completely misunderstands anarchism, he also misunderstands nihilism as well. But this is alright, since we must assume that this person does not own property, therefor he can define anything the way he wants.


Some comrades say that “socialism” is the name of the rebellion of the poor, but never show me the leaflets they mass distribute denouncing comrades of capitalist family origins as “the living counterrevolution within revolutionary organizations.”

Some say that anarchism is essentially petty-capitalism, but never show me the leaflets they mass distribute.

[YSR]

The vast majority of (non-U.S.) anarchists are communists, Floyce. Get over yourself. Find a new cause to fight. Like capitalism.

EDIT: By the way, a big thumbs-up for totally derailing this person's thread. Cheers.

[Dante666]

I am a working-class person. I am writing for working-class readers. There is so little working-class participation in the anarchist movement that there is no need to discuss its current manifestations.

Seriously, if you find that article difficult, take some courses in remedial reading.

Honestly your trying to appeal to lower class workers you should respect the fact that not every member of the working class has the money to take courses in remidial english, but then again what do I know I'm just a dumb bourgois who goes to public school. Honestly I believe anarchism and communism are much a like and are based on simmilar philosophies. I also believe you need one for the other.

Getting back to the actual topic I would personnaly just speak plain and simple and referr to stuff they would be interesting. In the modern day world when people think polotics they generally think of democrats, republicans, and the cappitalist debateing about small issues that they plan to change but never will. Personally I would just talk in plain english don't worry about useing long terms infact avoid them.

All this fighting between leftists just halts progress we are all comrades and we should all respect each others oppinions. Fighting among ourselves makes us weak and proclaiming our intellectual superiority over others just discourages others from joining the movement. We need to show support for each other in our struggles with cappitalist society. Debateing with each other is fine and dandy but think about the impact it will have on lets the person who originally posted this. Asking a question of fellow comrades and haveing it turn out to who can disprove who. Oh and Floyce sorry for not reading your essays before posting but I think I will live :P

[Cryotank Screams]

Anarchism is the dummied-down, anti-theoretical mannequin I describe.

Because your a sectarian asshole, whom I don't think has really read (at least in depth) the theoretical concepts behind Anarchism, also your essays are really nothing to brag about, mostly incoherent rants that have no flow, and are based upon nothing.


You may not be aware of the fact that communists outnumber anarchists by a factor of thousands.

Debatable, however even if this is true, there is many factors in making a claim such as this, and that is are the true revolutionary Communists, and also seeing that Communism has more publicity, more area influential power given china, and the former USSR, and is generally seen to the masses as more "legit," than Anarchism.

More or less due to propaganda the bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionaries have made the word Anarchism sadly into an enema image to the masses.


Tens of millions of communists basically agree that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology.

Baseless claim to show a lack of argument, basically your trying to defend yourself and legitimize your argument through a pseudo-mass agreement, and lemming following by stating that "it's not just me, millions of people think as I do, therefore I must be right!"


They find it "trollish" for anyone to assert that anarchism is "against capitalism."

Bullshit, just because you don't see Anarchism as a true revolutionary sect of Socialism, doesn't mean tens of millions of supposed Communists think the same thing.


Stop playing to the audience

I ask you the same thing, I also find it idiotic, to try to argue over semantics, and try to discredit my general argument and position because I deem it prudent to capitalize the 'A' in Anarchism, what does this prove? Absolutely nothing, besides you trying to detract the debate by playing on words, and bringing up something as trivial as capitalization.


"Markets" means "property exchange." It is ludicrous to suggest that some people want to own property, but don't want to exchange it. The only purpose of property is to accumulate through exchange. There is no reason to have a system of "mine" and "yours" except to get more "mine."

Markets are typically defined (at least in modern terms) as places where an exchange of currency or wage for given property takes place, and sense I highly doubt bits of rounded metal and inked paper can be defined as property, you simply can not use such a broad definition as markets are solely the exchange of property.

Also collectives are specific sects that are designed to work together much like "town," and that would be united through federations.

Communal property ownership, is where no one really and or truly owns any property what so ever, property is used by everyone, and is everyones, therefore property doesn't exist.


That's why communism is anti-property without qualifications or exceptions.

Really? Then why have there not been an communal ownership present in any Communist country in history? Why has it all been state capitalism or at the very least a degraded form of state captialism?


To make exceptions--always for something you'd like to be involved with, or already are--is to be a pro-capitalist.

Then I guess you are stating that Communists, or atleast past Communists where pro-capitalists and where capitalists.


You are suggesting that owning several businesses that depend on the same supplier or that have the same customers is "not capitalism,"

No, I did not mention business, and I believe that "business," as commonly defined would be done away with in a post-revolutionary Anarchist-Communist society.


You don't know what you're talking about.

No, that would be you, I was talking about Horizontalism and it’s opposite verticalism,


Horizontalism (Spanish: horizontalismo) is a concept that implies the striving for nonhierarchical power structures and relationships.

Which in a broad sense could be applied to economic relationships, however I was not using that within that context specifically, therefore, you just pulled that out your ass, and only further proved, that you don't know what your talking about, and have no real argument.


For whom?

It would seem hypocritical to Socialism, because the main purpose and end result is a classless, stateless society, based upon equality, mutual aid, and communalism, however Communism merely replaces one ruling class with another, though they call it "dictatorship of the proletariat," it is really dictatorship of the rulers, and party dictatorship, because it is purely an oxymoron to be a ruling worker, it can't happen, and once a worker takes an authoritative position of power, he is a ruler, he therefore ceases to be a worker, and is now apart of the ruling class, thus it is illogical and hypocritical to assert the common Marxist theory of "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Also I find it hypocritical to use a inherently oppressive, and hierarchal apparatus namely the state, to achieve a stateless society, and one without rulers or any such ailments.

There is many things hypocritical and from my perspective counter to the final goals of Socialism existing within Marxist and Communist theory, however unlike you in your grand display of gross and bitter sectarianism, I don't exclude Communists, I would work them and I certainly don't call them crypto-capitalists.


their merchantry, their tenants, and their employees.

There is no "business," so there can be no merchants, there is no "bosses," for the non extent business so there can be no employees, and as for tenets I assume you mean laws, and rules, and the rules and laws will be decide by direct democratic means and will be agreed upon by the entire collective, and there will be no universal rules, rather there will be indigenous and area based rules, meaning it would be decided again by a certain collective, though there may be some obvious similarities.

Seems like you gross argument based upon misinterpretations is falling apart, ;).


For anarchists to say "that means 'no rulers'" is a lie.

No, for you to say it's a lie is a lie.


They twist words all the time.

Funny, your entire argumentive assertions are based on word twisting, sectarianism, and misinterpretations! ;)


That's your problem--not mine.

No, that is very much your problem.


Read your own post.

Proof? See above arguments


Anarchism is a tiny, esoteric, petty-bourgeois literary movement.

Opinionated bullshitry based on nothing.


I am a working-class person.

Really? Judging from your suits, and other pictures it looks like your more well off than I am, infact you look more like a bourgeoisie lawyer or professor than a true worker, therefore I would think twice before casting the stone, ;) .


There is so little working-class participation in the anarchist movement that there is no need to discuss its current manifestations.

Again, based upon essentially nothing, and is really just a bourgeoisie argument, I mean I am apart of the working class, and I know a lot of other Anarchists here are to, and many Anarchists world-wide, therefore this whole argument Communists pull out of there ass only shows a lack of argument, and is really just slander and name calling by bitter sectarians.


You yourself already admitted that anarchism has property forms.

No, I didn't, see all of the above arguments.


I don't need to cite upper-class authority figures to validate my opinions.

Oh please, not this tired out and severly idiotic bullshitry, the main proponents of Anarchist theory in question (Bakunin and Kropotkin I am assuming), renounced everything in favor of the life of a revolutionary, and a life constant chase, and exile, you can't choose where or what position you were born into, therefore that in itself is a stupid argument, and also given that they gave up all this for again a life of chase and exile, all in the name of revolution shows their legitimacy as true proponents of revolutionary Socialist theory and as true revolutionaries; seriously get off this old rant.


Since I am a lower-class activist,

Sure don't look like it.



I don't have the only opinion, and I don't think of myself as knowing any more or better than any other worker.

Yes, you do, your writings, and posts are a clear demonstration of this, in both a gross and bitter manner.


Seriously, if you find that article difficult, take some courses in remedial reading.

Please, get off your damn high horse your essays are both simple in form, and they have a serious lack of flow, style, and are serious lack any tangible argument, don't sit there and boast about what essential amounts to a bunch of horseshit.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 02:01 pm

All this fighting between leftists just halts progress we are all comrades and we should all respect each others oppinions.
No we should not.

If a leftist were to go and start talking about how we need to vote for the democrats to enact change, we would vehemently oppose that because that's not how revolutionary change is done.

2+2 will always equal 4, and thus while many ideologies exist, some are closer to describing reality, while others are less. The ones that describes reality less are wrong if we are to do things on a scientific, materialistic and objective basis (which we happen to do).

[RevMARKSman]

Secondly I think you have only Mutualism in mind anyway.



Oh come on.

Even individualist anarchism supports the overthrow of the capitalist system.

And if he's allowed to link to essays, so am I: http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secGcon.html

[Floyce White]

JazzRemington: "...let us mock..."

You mock my positions throughout your post. Exactly the anti-theoretical, anti-discussion attitude that truly represents anarchism. You prove my point for me. Well done!

JazzRemington: "...he also misunderstands nihilism..."

You are pretending that mockery will annihilate the reasoning in these essays. There's no misunderstanding here.

Besides, it's laughable for you to say that you find an essay "incoherent," and then claim that its author "misunderstands."

Dante666: "...not every member of the working class has the money to take courses in remedial English, but then again what do I know I'm just a dumb bourgeois who goes to public school."

In California where I live, it's free. San Diego County calls it Regional Occupational Program (ROP) (http://www.sdcoe.k12.ca.us/rop/). In fact, it's free or very low cost in many countries. But then, as a public-school student, you aren't looking for adult schools, are you?

So you tried an ad hominem of diverting the discussion away from the subject of anarchism, and onto supposedly bad information to suggest that I have bad character and bad intent. Leftism at its finest. Well done!

That little "what do I know" is glaring evidence that you knew you were telling a lie, and you planted the seeds of your cover story in case you got caught. Trying to excuse a lie is itself a second lie.

Dante666: "All this fighting between leftists just halts progress we are all comrades and we should all respect each others opinions."

I am not a leftist. I do not respect pro-capitalist ideas. As far as the words "left" and "progress," I exposed them as meaning ordinary liberalism in one of my first posts at RevLeft (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42555&st=0&#entry1291971763).

Cryotank Screams, you may now apologize for cursing me.

MonicaTTmed, you posted a link to a table of contents, to essays that are deliberately anonymous so their authors cannot be questioned, criticized, or held responsible. A list of editors and writers is provided, but who wrote what? It's the same old nonsense about "group opinion" that asks us to believe that each person associated with the Web site all 100% agree with every single sentence. And that's not true of anything you yourself did not write.

Are capitalists "against capitalism?" No. Political activists from petty-capitalist family origins do not "support the overthrow of the capitalist system."

Who exactly wants to overthrow capitalism? People who are not capitalists. Lower-class people. Political activists from lower-class family origins "support the overthrow of the capitalist system."

There is no mass, lower-class participation in the anarchist movement. It is not possible that anarchist theory and practice are created and defined by lower-class activists. Your link to copy-and-pastes, rephrasings, touch-ups, and arguments over upper-class writings--this does not constitute a lower-class perspective on anarchism.

[Dante666]

So you tried an ad hominem of diverting the discussion away from the subject of anarchism, and onto supposedly bad information to suggest that I have bad character and bad intent. Leftism at its finest. Well done!

That little "what do I know" is glaring evidence that you knew you were telling a lie, and you planted the seeds of your cover story in case you got caught. Trying to excuse a lie is itself a second lie.

You thought about it more than I did I just said things as they came to mind. Californian public school seems really tough in comparson to the complete lack of schools in haiti. There is a large amount of workers in third world countries that are iliterat so I don't know how good your essays would do. To me personally your way to orthodox and offencive towards other movements. I'm not criticing your knowledge, which is obvous by my horrible spelling and grammer which proves I'm obvously no match to your superior intelect, but rather adressing the issue that not to many people will listen to someone who is so aggressive. Its not very productive insulting people who are interested in your theory.


But then, as a public-school student, you aren't looking for adult

I don't know how you can get people to listen to you even if you are trying to advocate for them. And what do you mean by adult schools, schools for children who act like adults or school for adults who need to be taught like children.

[Nusocialist]

That's a well-known anarchist one-liner used to blow off serious criticism. It is designed to make its sayer sound as if he personally read all of the Collected Works of Lenin, of Marx and Engels, and the like--and knows the history of the various lines of polemic. You don't. Neither does anyone else who mouths that line. That's why they spout one-liners instead of calmly discussing the issues.

I say loudly that petty capitalists don't belong in the workers' movement. Nowhere did Marx, Bakunin, or other persons of upper-class family origin say "I don't belong here" and stop trying to influence workers' theory and action. Only a few upper-class persons ever helped publish any volumes of workers' speeches and writings. Of these, virtually all were reprints of a handful of cherry-picked works that flatter or don't oppose petty-bourgeois ideologies
Wtf are you talking about? When you talk about petite bourgeois you are obviously taling about mutualism,most other anarchists are communists and it makes little sense to call them petite bourgeois.
Also Bakunin is an anarchist.
And btw Lenin was a counter revolutionary arsehole.

[Nusocialist]

It shouldn't be anarchists under question it should be Marxists,Marx is not a god or prophet,why the hell do you name yourself after him.

[Nusocialist]

Oh come on.

Even individualist anarchism supports the overthrow of the capitalist system.

And if he's allowed to link to essays, so am I: http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secGcon.html
Oh yes,I realise individualist anarchists are legitimate socialists,as I do mutualists and market socialists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 15, 2006 07:01 am
You mock my positions throughout your post. Exactly the anti-theoretical, anti-discussion attitude that truly represents anarchism. You prove my point for me. Well done!



I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're much older than most of us and I thought that there would be something interesting, if not innovative about these articles. Even if I were to disagree with them, at least it might be fruit for thought.

Apparently not. I read all of these brief little essays and apart from the obvious self-belief and borderline narcissism there really is very little meat to what is already a decalcified set of rhetorical "polemics" - And I use the word polemic as a substitute for rant, but really, that's what I mean.

You have made some staggeringly inaccurate, misleading, and quite frankly astonishingly ignorant posts regarding anarchist theory and praxis.

This quote above for example. I'm assuming, therefore, that you have not read:

The Conquest of Bred (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)
Fields, Factories and Workshops (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/fields.html)
Anarchist Morality (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/AM/anarchist_moralitytc.html)
The State: Its Historic Role (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/state/state_toc.html)

That is just a small selection from Peter Kropotkin's collected work. There is also Bakunin's 'Marxism, Freedom and the State', 'Anarchy and Statism', 'God and the State' or Malatesta's collected works which include 'Anarchist Organisation' or 'Class struggle or Class Hatred'. There is also Murray Bookchin who wrote 'Social Anarchism v Lifestyle anarchism' which theoretically refutes individualism and clarifies the position of class struggle anarchism.

The charge that anarchism is "anti-theoretical" is pointedly absurd, and anyone who had spent five minutes googling the word 'Anarchism' would clearly see that is irrefutably not the case.


Anarchism is a tiny, esoteric, petty-bourgeois literary movement. It has been so for decades before I was born. I am a working-class person.

So the peasant movement in the Ukraine, the workers movement in Spain, the Paris uprising and the modern day anti-globalisation/capitalist movement is what? A figment of our collective imagination?


There is so little working-class participation in the anarchist movement that there is no need to discuss its current manifestations.

The Spanish CNT has about 70,000 members. I am a worker and so are the members of the Anarchist Federation here in the UK...?


Bakunin or any other upper-class person is not the source of the lower-class perspective on anarchism--any more than Marx or Lenin or any other upper-class person is the source of the lower-class perspective on socialism.

So essentially you are admitting that you have taken a popular conception of anarchism and used this as a "perspective" that you assert is ultimately fact, rather than actually reading the hundreds of theoretical works written about anarchism since the First International?

Are we also to take from what you are saying, that we should not pay any attention to Karl Marx but accept hearsay about his "perspectives"? These definitions of upper-class and "lower-class" perspectives makes very little sense in terms of being able to conceptualise political philosophy.

What is a "lower-class" perspective?


I don't think of myself as knowing any more or better than any other worker.

Clearly you do. Why else would you put out these essays, packaged nicely in a website and marketed with a nice little picture of yourself if you did not think your opinions to be, at the very least worthy of taking note of.

If you find your opinion so mediocre and similar to everyone else’s, why bother? Triteness and mediocrity are something the left have abundance of, we don't need another contribution from another pseudo-intellectual hack.


That's a well-known anarchist one-liner used to blow off serious criticism.

No, it's fact and if you want to make an argument against that assertion then make it!


There is no mass, lower-class participation in the anarchist movement.

In the west, which is what I assume you're referring to, there is no "mass" lower-class participation in the 'Marxist' movement either, but this is not because of theoretical bankruptcy, it's due to material conditions in which "lower-class" people live.

Class consciousness requires social upheaval as a pre-requisite and those conditions don't exist.


It is not possible that anarchist theory and practice are created and defined by lower-class activists.

Anarchist theory and practice has already been defined, the question is how we as working class activists use those ideas to challenge capitalism and the state?

The main problem with the first article is that you use the word "petty-capitalist" for half of the article without clearly identifying what that means and, presumably, as a label you have attached to anarchism - But again that distinction isn't made clear either. You go from talking about petty-capitalism to suddenly talking about socialism and anarchism as irrelevant ideas without any sense of consistency of thought? What is the article actually trying to argue?


Your link to copy-and-pastes, rephrasings, touch-ups, and arguments over upper-class writings--this does not constitute a lower-class perspective on anarchism.

What is this "lower-class" perspective?


As with socialism, anarchism ignores the combined effect of masses of small exploiters and fights only the few big ones.

That's an astonishing claim to make. Firstly, your argument seems to assume that because anarchists don't deal, practically, with the petty-bourgeoisie that we somehow support its existence. That's an incredible piece of logic and actually one that you have failed to substantiate.

Secondly, your argument completely negates any sense of class perspective. Destroying capitalism requires an organised class to force capitalisms material mechanisms to cease. That means that we need workers who work directly within the functions of capitalism to stop working and take control of those means of production.

It is absolutely true that the propagandising of ideas must be done generally throughout the working class, and it is, whether you believe that or not, but we cannot elude to the idea that the only people who can bring down capitalism are those who work directly within it. Fighting shop and small business owners is not going to destroy capitalism.

This is a fact and if you believe otherwise you'd better provide some kind of reason why.


Likewise, anarchism tells the dispossessed that co-ops, syndicates, and other temporary asset combinations are “not capitalism,” and warns that any opposition to anarchism is “authoritarianism.”

:lol:

When? Where? A co-operative and syndicate that exists within capitalism is of course apart of the capitalism system, who would dare argue otherwise?

Authoritarianism is not defined based on opposition to anarchism and that assertion eludes ad hominem. It's not a founded argument, it's a personal judgment on anarchists.

Authoritarianism refers to political authority as it’s manifested in Marxist praxis and the transitional phase of communism. Of course many post-left anarchists use the term anti-authoritarianism to refer to cultural and social authority, which of course we can all sympathise with, but even this does not have anything to do with your absurd assertion that "authoritarianism" is defined as the opposition to anarchism.


There is no single definition of any political term that is true to both poor and rich, or among all factions of the rich. Interpretations are prejudiced by property interests or the lack thereof. Without a doubt, all upper-class reasoning defends exploitation.

But that's just not true. We have seen countless "upper-class" people reason against exploitation. Karl Marx being on of them...


Regardless of how they say it, anarchism means a state.

I read through the rest of the article and you don't elaborate on this assertion.


Some anarchists respond by quoting authority figures such as Proudhon, and cite his 1840 essay What Is Property?

What anarchist ever quotes Proudhon? No contemporary anarchist organisation or group does? Proudhon is defunct as an anarchist theoretist, if at all he ever was a significant player in the first place.


Some comrades say that “anarchism is a method” of opposing the violence that upholds property claims, but never show me where they write that employers, landlords, merchants, and investors are incapable of this method and “must step aside and become sympathizers without voice and vote.”

:rolleyes:

You'll need to read a book about anarchism by an anarchist in order for you to achieve such a thing.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 15, 2006 02:01 am
Cryotank Screams, you may now apologize for cursing me.


Cursing is the spice of language, I am sorry if it offends your bourgeoisie infected ears; thus (as it is no probably obvious at this point), you will get no apology from me, because it is not necessary for me to apologize.

Also thanks, for not answering my arguments by the way, I didn't know you wanted to close our argument so briefly, maybe you ran out of sectarian idiocy to espouse?

[Cryotank Screams]

It is not possible that anarchist theory and practice are created and defined by lower-class activists.

Really? The same could be said Marxists, or any other Leftist sects, but the fact remains that Anarchism is always on the side of the working class, the lower class, the "under-dogs," and the workers, never has it changed this position, therefore it only makes logical sense that Anarchists are lower and working class activists, and that Anarchism as both a movement, and philosophy, employs activism of the lower and working classes.


Your link to copy-and-pastes, rephrasings, touch-ups, and arguments over upper-class writings--this does not constitute a lower-class perspective on anarchism.

Anarchism is solely a working class movement, and fights for only the lower classes, and the workers, but what could be said for Marxists or specifically Marxist-Leninists?

They fight for states, governments, state capitalism, and vanguards that rule above the workers, yet you do not attack them? Pure hypocrisy!

[Floyce White]

I apologize for the delay in responding. I have not been near a computer.

Dante666, if you were playing chess with a total stranger and you got into a hopeless situation, you would shake his hand and thank him for an interesting game. You wouldn't make snide comments about how he was too aggressive, you really weren't trying, or the like. You should extend the same courtesy to comrades that you would give a total stranger.

Nusocialist: "...you are obviously talking about mutualism..."

Not any more than I'm talking about non-partnership small business, or about other forms of small-holding partnership such as syndicalism.

Nusocialist: "...most other anarchists are communists..."

"Most other?" Other than bourgeoisie? A workers' struggle is communist only when those workers say it is. You cannot decide this for others. "New Socialist," you haven't even decided this for yourself. Besides, it's two-faced for anyone to call himself a "communist" when around communists, but an "anarchist" when around anarchists.

Nusocialist: "...and it makes little sense to call them petite bourgeois."

You're making the false insinuation that I said that working-class people somehow become the owners of small capital if they label themselves "anarchist." Misrepresenting the argument of a debate opponent is always dishonest, but it's just plain stupid when the original is so easy to check.

The Anarchist Tension: "Firstly, your argument seems to assume that because anarchists don't deal, practically, with the petty-bourgeoisie that we somehow support its existence. That's an incredible piece of logic and actually one that you have failed to substantiate."

I failed to substantiate it because I never said it.

Capitalist-class people, whether anarchist or not, deal with the existence of themselves by doing more acts of exploitation.

Working-class people, whether anarchist or not, deal with the existence of capitalists by doing anti-capitalist struggle.

The Anarchist Tension: "Secondly, your argument completely negates any sense of class perspective. Destroying capitalism requires an organised class to force capitalisms material mechanisms to cease. That means that we need workers who work directly within the functions of capitalism to stop working and take control of those means of production."

Perhaps you did not read the prior Antiproperty essays where I brought up these issues years ago.

The Anarchist Tension: "I read all of these brief little essays..."

But you didn't find any "sense of class perspective" there. That's very interesting in light of your question...

The Anarchist Tension: "What is a 'lower-class' perspective?"

...and your statement...

The Anarchist Tension: "The main problem with the first article is that you use the word "petty-capitalist" for half of the article without clearly identifying what that means..."

I also use the words "struggle" and "exploitation" without clearly identifying what they mean. The essays are written for working-class activists who already understand basic political vocabulary.

The Anarchist Tension: "Fighting shop and small business owners is not going to destroy capitalism."

I disagree. Lower-class people fighting their actual upper-class exploiters is the only way to destroy capitalism.

The Anarchist Tension: "The Spanish CNT has about 70,000 members."

In a country of 40 million. Tiny and esoteric to be sure. And that's your best example. If accurate, it still doesn't make a dent in the overall literary character of the anarchist movement worldwide. Far more importantly, nothing can erase its last six decades of virtual non-existence. There were many massive workers' struggles during those years. For almost all of those struggles, anarchism had no part whatsoever. The working-class movement continued without anarchism. The logical conclusion is that anarchism is not part of the workers' movement.

The Anarchist Tension: "So the peasant movement in the Ukraine, the workers movement in Spain, the Paris uprising and the modern day anti-globalisation/capitalist movement is what?

It's not clear to which events you refer. There have been many Paris uprisings--including a few months ago. If you are asserting that the anti-globalization movement is an anarchist movement, you are making a false generalization. If you are asserting that the anti-globalization movement is the working-class movement--the one and only anti-capitalist movement--you are mistaken.

If you understand that there's a working class and a capitalist class, and that anarchism isn't the movement of the working class, what's left? Exactly. Anarchism is a movement of the capitalist class.

Anarchism is parasitic to the anti-capitalist movement exactly the same way that every other economic, social, and political movement of the bourgeoisie is parasitic to the proletariat.

The Anarchist Tension: "So essentially you are admitting that you have taken a popular conception of anarchism..."

"Popular?" I wouldn't put it in bourgeois-vulgar terms. Not a "popular" conception but a lower-class conception. Consider that the alternative is to pick from the sewer of upper-class conceptions.

The Anarchist Tension: "Why else would you put out these essays, packaged nicely in a website and marketed with a nice little picture of yourself if you did not think your opinions to be, at the very least worthy of taking note of."

A moderator of a Web site with political writings and some pictures complains that another Web site has political writings and some pictures.

The Anarchist Tension: "Triteness and mediocrity are something the left have abundance of, we don't need another contribution from another pseudo-intellectual hack."

Then why did you post links to anarchist dogma? Why did you insist that workers must get their information about anarchism from a few generations of "intelligensia" from the nobility and capitalist class? You could just as easily have posted links to the writings of current anarchist activists from ordinary lower-class families. In particular, you could have posted links to the parts of their writings that make what you think are valid criticisms of the anarchist movement.

The original post that started this thread was asking for ways to respond to criticisms of anarchist views. I suggest taking them seriously.

Floyce White: "I don't have the only opinion, and I don't think of myself as knowing any more or better than any other worker. What is needed is for lower-class activists to discuss each others' opinions, rather than those of upper-class persons."

The Anarchist Tension: "If you find your opinion so mediocre and similar to everyone else’s, why bother?"

"Everyone else?" I wouldn't put it in bourgeois-vulgar terms. My opinions are similar to those of other workers. There is a shortage of workers' political writings compared to the widely disseminated views of the left wing of capital.

The Anarchist Tension: "Class consciousness requires social upheaval as a pre-requisite and those conditions don't exist."

For whom? Only bourgeois need to become "starving artists" to understand doing without. Poor people know they're poor. You're confusing class consciousness and class perspective with the memorization and regurgitation of dogma. But of course, that's the role of leftist dogma: to convince workers that a few rich people have the magic words that explain the world, and that workers should "follow the leader" instead of relying on their own experiences and reasoning.

The Anarchist Tension: "...your absurd assertion that 'authoritarianism' is defined as the opposition to anarchism... What anarchist ever quotes Proudhon?"

Your complaints are misdirected. Take them up with your fellow anarchists.

The Anarchist Tension: "...Kropotkin...Bakunin..."

Rich people are never going to admit that they want their servants to also be their political servants. The only way to understand anarchism is to discuss it with fellow poor people.

The Anarchist Tension: "We have seen countless 'upper-class' people reason against exploitation. Karl Marx being one of them..."

Exploiters are "against exploitation" only of the other factions of the upper class. To say otherwise is to be suicidally naive or to deliberately use a classic ad hominem fallacy.

Upper-class people flood society with their "countless" opinions on everything. They deliberately shout down and drown out the opinions of lower-class people. Economic hardship, police repression, lack of formal education, and all other forms of silencing of lower-class dissent--this is not the same as lower-class approval of upper-class opinions.

Your reasoning is superficial.

[Nusocialist]

I fail to see how anarchists are not socialists and some far-right authoritarian dictator like Lenin or Stalin, who used built another class system,can be called socialists or communists.

[RGacky3]

Something I've noticed about Floyce White something I've noticed with a lot of Marxists. He puts the world into 2 sets, Working class and Capitalist class, and whichever class your in defines EVERYTHING about you. That people who come from a Capitalist class cannot make decisions based on Morality, and that people from the working class cannot make opportunistic decisions decisions, which is completely silly.

Also the doctrine of the "petite bourgeois." Lets think about this, lets say a collective of workers control a shoe factory and they work it as a collective, democratically and reap the rewards collectively, they arn't exploiting anyone, everyone is fine. Now lets say its just 1 guy making shoes, who's he exploiting? Just because he's his own boss and he reaps the rewards of his work how does that make him something dangerous, or bad? You make it seam like if your not a wage-worker working for someone you are obviously part of the Capitalist class and an enemy, again another silly concept.

You also say that if Anarchism is'nt a movement of the working class it MUST be a movement of the Capitalist class. Most anarchists arn't tha simplistic when it comes to human nature, Anarchism is about getting rid of power, both economic and political, if you say its not a movement of the working class, your partially right, its not ONLY the movement of the working class, but thats a big part of it. You talk about the Anti-Capitalist movement as if there is only one, and everything else is pro-Capitalist. a Very silly argument.

Your all in all a silly person, that makes huge jumps to conclusions and huge generalizations and really has taken theory far far away from reality.

[RevMARKSman]

MonicaTTmed, you posted a link to a table of contents, to essays that are deliberately anonymous so their authors cannot be questioned, criticized, or held responsible. A list of editors and writers is provided, but who wrote what? It's the same old nonsense about "group opinion" that asks us to believe that each person associated with the Web site all 100% agree with every single sentence. And that's not true of anything you yourself did not write.

Source site: www.infoshop.org (yes it is down, visit flag.blackened.net for another anarchist site)

You can contact them if you want to argue. Or you can argue with me and some of my anarchist comrades will be glad to join in.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 05, 2007 01:02 am
Capitalist-class people, whether anarchist or not, deal with the existence of themselves by doing more acts of exploitation.
That's just not true.


Working-class people, whether anarchist or not, deal with the existence of capitalists by doing anti-capitalist struggle.

That's not true either. The majority of working class people don't do anything connected to anti-capitalist struggle...


Perhaps you did not read the prior Antiproperty essays where I brought up these issues years ago.

I read it and there is no class perspective.


I also use the words "struggle" and "exploitation" without clearly identifying what they mean. The essays are written for working-class activists who already understand basic political vocabulary.

Nice dodge.

The word "struggle" and "exploitation" aren't abstract political definitions. I am a working class activist and have more than a basic understanding of political vocabulary and snipping together different Marxian terminology without explaining what you mean is pointless in any instance.


The Anarchist Tension: "Fighting shop and small business owners is not going to destroy capitalism."

I disagree. Lower-class people fighting their actual upper-class exploiters is the only way to destroy capitalism.

How?


The Anarchist Tension: "The Spanish CNT has about 70,000 members."

In a country of 40 million. Tiny and esoteric to be sure. And that's your best example. If accurate, it still doesn't make a dent in the overall literary character of the anarchist movement worldwide.

No Marxian political organisation in the west can avoid being tiny or esoteric - We live in a period of reaction.

The CNT however is one of the biggest in the world and your attempt at dismissing it is clearly just a way to avoid admitting your total lack of understanding of the current political climate.


Far more importantly, nothing can erase its last six decades of virtual non-existence.

You clearly no nothing about anarchist history. Anarchism has been in the forefront of political struggle in various sizes depending on the nature of the material conditions in which that struggle existed throughout history.

Anarchism is tiny and esoteric, just like Marxism is because we live in a time of reaction and all revolutionary movements will be that way in that instance.


The Anarchist Tension: "So the peasant movement in the Ukraine, the workers movement in Spain, the Paris uprising and the modern day anti-globalisation/capitalist movement is what?

It's not clear to which events you refer.

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about. You know nothing about anarchist history.


If you are asserting that the anti-globalization movement is an anarchist movement, you are making a false generalization.

No, I'm not. The anti-globalisation movement was started by anarchists and anarchists make up the majority of it.


If you understand that there's a working class and a capitalist class, and that anarchism isn't the movement of the working class, what's left?

Neither is the Marxist movement and I'm not asserting that to be petty. There are material reasons why this isn't the case and it has nothing to do with your subjective hypothesis about anarchism and class.

In a period of reaction these movements will not contain the working classes because the working classes see their interests else where. That's what periods of reaction create - moments of support for the ruling classes.

While capitalism prevails, so will the ideas and beliefs in its existance prevail.


Anarchism is a movement of the capitalist class.

This is a bullshit assertion and you have failed adequately in explaining it. How is it a "capitalist class movement".


Anarchism is parasitic to the anti-capitalist movement exactly the same way that every other economic, social, and political movement of the bourgeoisie is parasitic to the proletariat.

You're eluding ad hominem. Back up your assertions with an argument or shut the fuck up!


a lower-class conception. Consider that the alternative is to pick from the sewer of upper-class conceptions.

This is an idealist conception of history that totally negates the basis of Marxism. Matter precedes consciousness? So what we think anarchism is, is what it will become; rather than anarchism being created out of its material conditions? Which it was...

You're probably the most un-Marxist Marxist on this forum I've ever met.


A moderator of a Web site with political writings and some pictures complains that another Web site has political writings and some pictures.

I don't have a website, with my picture on, dedicated to myself and then go onto other websites and say "I don't think my opinion is that important." Of course you do, that's why you wrote the essays and put them on a website.


Then why did you post links to anarchist dogma?

Those people weren't pseudo-intellectual hacks like you. They were people who observed and participated in actual class struggle and formed their beliefs based on that in very specific ways.


Why did you insist that workers must get their information about anarchism from a few generations of "intelligensia" from the nobility and capitalist class?

Because without, at the very least an understanding of the basic concepts, you cannot call yourself an anarchist.

Your logic is totally absurd. Someone who was born into a wealthy family creates an idea that specifically calls for the destruction of wealth and the creation of a communist society but cannot be listened to because he was born into a wealthy family...Well, why not?

Your argument makes no rational sense.


You could just as easily have posted links to the writings of current anarchist activists from ordinary lower-class families. In particular, you could have posted links to the parts of their writings that make what you think are valid criticisms of the anarchist movement.

I could have. The point was, however, that you claimed anarchism had no theoretical basis and I was proving you wrong. Something you seemingly now have accepted.


The original post that started this thread was asking for ways to respond to criticisms of anarchist views. I suggest taking them seriously.

Your criticisms aren't serious. In fact, they don't make any sense - So what is anyone supposed to do?


The Anarchist Tension: "Class consciousness requires social upheaval as a pre-requisite and those conditions don't exist."

For whom? Only bourgeois need to become "starving artists" to understand doing without. Poor people know they're poor.

Class consciousness is the understanding that ones class has the ability to destroy its antagoniser.

Historically that consciousness has only ever been created when there is a massive shift in the material conditions that force society to be analysed and the prevailing justifications don't make sense anymore. All communist revolutions being examples of that.

What is your argument based on? At the moment it just appears to be rhetoric? What reason do working class people have to accept what you or I have to say about anything? Working class people have to see it for themselves before they will listen to an alternative.

The idea that we can just "convince them" negates history and is based in no objective analysis whatsoever.


The Anarchist Tension: "...your absurd assertion that 'authoritarianism' is defined as the opposition to anarchism... What anarchist ever quotes Proudhon?"

Your complaints are misdirected. Take them up with your fellow anarchists.

You made the assertion, now defend it! I don't know any anarchist who would argue that authoritarianism is defined by someone’s opposition to anarchism.


The Anarchist Tension: "...Kropotkin...Bakunin..."

Rich people are never going to admit that they want their servants to also be their political servants. The only way to understand anarchism is to discuss it with fellow poor people.

:wacko:

"Poor" people will most likely tell you that anarchism means "chaos, violence, greed, survival of the fittest".

None of those things are the basis for anarchism.


The Anarchist Tension: "We have seen countless 'upper-class' people reason against exploitation. Karl Marx being one of them..."

Exploiters are "against exploitation" only of the other factions of the upper class. To say otherwise is to be suicidally naive or to deliberately use a classic ad hominem fallacy.

A nonsensical evasion.


Upper-class people flood society with their "countless" opinions on everything. They deliberately shout down and drown out the opinions of lower-class people. Economic hardship, police repression, lack of formal education, and all other forms of silencing of lower-class dissent--this is not the same as lower-class approval of upper-class opinions.

What?! This makes no sense.

So "upper class people" explain why we have economic hardships and police repression but because working class people don't accept their definitions it’s because the people making the defintion are upper class and that we shouldn’t approve of it if the working class don't?

:blink:


Your reasoning is superficial.

Your reasoning is insane.

[Fawkes]

People, especially Floyce, this is not the place to be debating the stupid idea that anarchism is capitalism. If a mod could please split this thread I'm sure the thread-starter would appreciate it. (It won't be too dificult because as soon as Floyce posted, nobody else said anything about the original question). Anyway, to answer the thread-starters original question: when your friend tells you that anarchism is every man for himself, tell her that that is in fact what capitalism is and then go on to explain why. It'll be much easier to defend your position if you first denounce the opposing position.

[apathy maybe]

This http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25915 thread is a great little introduction.

Basically, anarchists are against oppression and hierarchy. They see the state as an illegitimate source of oppression. There are no good reasons for justifying the power of the state over anyone, I did not consent, I do not consent. Therefore, I should not be ruled (using liberal theory I know). Capitalism has problems as well, some how a minority of people end up having a excess of power (through their control of resources, protected and backed up by the state and private security firms).

Anarchists wish to create a world where all are equally free, where oppression does not exist and so on. See also the thread stickied in Learning.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd be interested in a response Floyce?

[Floyce White]

I believe the various points of view were adequately presented.

[apathy maybe]

Yes indeed. You consistently fail to recognise the theoretical and practical history of anarchism, you respond to a long post rebutting many of your key ideas (by JazzR) with a few sentences focusing on irrelevances, you insult people for the knowledge of English (never mind that RevLeft is an international board and that for many people English is not their first language), you attack An Anarchist FAQ for the fact that it is not 'academic', that is the authors "cannot be questioned, criticezed or held responsible" (did you try writing an essay explaining why they are wrong and then asking them to respond?), and you generally make a fool of yourself.

Other people explain how you simplify anarchism, ignore large chunks of theoretical and practical contributions, most of them acted civilly (and no problems if they didn't), and some even attempted to respond to the thread starters questions! Shit!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 07, 2007 07:30 am
I believe the various points of view were adequately presented.
Yes, you presented your point of view and it was shown to have many flaws and inconsistencies. Are you not even going to attempt to justify or rectify them? The only other option is to concede that your point of view is unfounded and utterly baseless.

[Floyce White]

The Anarchist Tension, you think it is an "ad hominem fallacy" to disagree with you about the class character of a political movement. It is not. It is plainly obvious that you do not understand how to have a comradely and serious discussion on this or any other topic. You post a lot, so you must enjoy politics. Well, you will enjoy it a lot more, and get much more out of the contributions of others, if you understand the conventions of the discipline. I very strongly suggest that you take some college courses on argumentation/debate, logic, and written English.

Comrade, I'm being honest with you. This has nothing to do with this one particular thread or any disagreement between us. Just to convey your own opinions better, you really should learn to format your ideas in the way that others expect to hear them. You and Apathy Maybe seem to be quite frustrated that whatever message you believe that you spelled out very plainly--seemed so lacking in facts and so invalidly constructed that it made no sense at all to me.

Merely slapping the "anarchist" label on yourself doesn't make you a special person. You have the responsibility to do the hard work to learn how to conduct yourself in a written discussion. Same as I did. Same as millions of other political activists must do. If you are unwilling to learn at least the essentials of this specialized form of communication, I must conclude that you have no messsage and no principles, and that you're making a big noise about how you're all indignant and offended just to try to impress and recruit newbies.

Right now, that's what I believe. There's only one way you can prove it wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 09, 2007 08:04 am
Comrade, I'm being honest with you.
No you're not. You're attempting to evade addressing my points by criticising some alleged inability to convey them in the first place.

That's clearly not true. You made some incoherent argument, I have refuted it and now you refuse to continue the discussion based on some spurious ad hominem assertions about my ability to construct an argument.

I find it ironic that someone who complains about the elitist and inaccessible nature of anarchism can be so condescending towards people based on their ability to construct formal logic. It's funny how you are doing exactly the same as what you criticised anarchism for being. Clearly you don’t even have a grasp of your own arguments, let alone anyone elses.

I don't mind being patronised, it's the nature of being young, but at least have the decency to concede when you're wrong. Otherwise you're just a hypocrite.

Now address my points.

[Floyce White]

You will not address me in that manner. I am not your servant.

[Pandii]

new anarchist-

I think that to get a better grasp on what anarchism is, and how you can refute your friends thoguhts on it that the first step you should take is to read Anarchist writings, or even surf around the net to find meanings and facts that can back you up.

A good start might be Marxist Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/n.htm#anarchism)

Hope this helps.

Floyce White - Although I know and can admit I am still learning the ropes of my own thoughts about my politcal standing, I think you are an outright ass. You have totally changed the subject fromthe original post and have done little more than insult others who give factual and backed-up examples of their beliefs, or gone off on tangets about semantics or people swearing at you. You may not be a servant to The Anarchist Tension, but by not changing your agruments EVEN after being proven wrong, you are a servant to your own foolishness.

[Floyce White]

Pointing out fallacies is not a fallacy. Refusal to reply to insults or false assertions is not conceding anything.

I am not inclined to further tutor such an uncomradely person.

[KC]

Floyce, just go away. Nobody here likes you.

[Floyce White]

Zampano, aren't you the provocateur with the former nickname of "Lazar?" You so discredited yourself that you had to change even your alias.

As I said, anarchism is virtually non-existent among workers' struggles, and has been so for decades. "Go away nobody likes you?" That's what workers say to anarchism! It's hilarious that an anarchist would use that line in reply to a criticism of anarchism!

Give it up. Your cause was lost two generations ago. You're humiliating yourselves and the cause you think you're promoting. Any lower-class activist with the least amount of experience and reading can crush your arguments. The fact that you use such bad arguments exposes your inexperience and lack of knowledge.

[Raoul Duke]

well i am an anarchist but you can't go from capitalism to anarchism without great difficulty so thats why i have figured out the only way to get an anarchist state


view my blog because i outline my idea, your feed back would be greatly appraciated whether you agree with me and think that this IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO, or if you think its a load of crap please tell me but tell me why you think it won't work

PLEASE READ MY BLOG

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 15, 2007 08:29 am
Any lower-class activist with the least amount of experience and reading can crush your arguments.
You've been unable to.

If you want to have a debate about these issues then present them and I will be happy to discuss it with you?

I don't think you're prepared to do that though. Probably because you have a fear of being proven wrong. It's a common trait in old people.


The fact that you use such bad arguments exposes your inexperience and lack of knowledge.

Which you have done an outstanding job of doing!

Floyce, you're a hack! A fraud and a liar! You make arguments assuming you're the fountain of originality and when they are refuted you rely on ad hominem attacks and evasion until you outright refuse to engage anymore.

You have failed at you attempt in convincing people that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology and you have made no further attempt to justify your opinion.

If you want to continue debating without all this petulance then present an argument. Otherwise, you'll continue embarrassing yourself. Patronising people just makes you look like a fool.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Bringing out the question of whether anarchism originated within the petty bourgeousie has nothing to do with whether it's a viable theory anyways.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:09 am
Bringing out the question of whether anarchism originated within the petty bourgeousie has nothing to do with whether it's a viable theory anyways.
And Floyce's response to that is: "You're all too stupid to really understand".

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by new [email protected] 06, 2006 01:36 pm
whenever I mention anarchism to my best friend she goes off on a speil about anarchy being a sort of every man for himself, only the strong and violent survive etc, etc. How do you explain the concept on anarchy and revolution to someone who has no skill or intrest in political analyisis and is not very good at usinig reason. I don't want to make a convert, I just want her to understand what I am saying.
To get back to the original statement....... I have explained anarchism to people before that knew nothing about it. Once I explained it to someone wearing an Alex Jones NWO conspiracy theory shirt. The first thing you have to talk about when you bring up anarchism is that it is not chaos. Anarchism is structure, it is organization, it is unionism. Bring up unions and people will be surprised that anarchists have anything to do with them. Anarchism is a pure form of direct democracy in communes. Not bourgeois democracy where you hide in a booth and check one of the same five or so talking heads.

People will say that if there are no cops than what is to stop someone from killing your family. To reply what is stopping someone from killing your family with cops in society? Absolutely nothing. The same thing that would stop someone from killing your family now would stop them in an anarchist society.... You. Your brother, your sister, your mother, your father, your neighbor, your comrade. You also have to point out that a lot of murders now are over coming up in the capitalist system. Armed robbery that ends in murder would have no place in an anarchist society where everything is communal. What is the need to rob someone for something that you have a stake in?

This is what anarchism means to me. You have to find out what it means to you before you can verbalize it. Before talking about things that are foreign to people about anarchism like abolishing work and private property talk about democracy, organization and love.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Raoul [email protected] 29, 2007 09:40 am
well i am an anarchist but you can't go from capitalism to anarchism without great difficulty so thats why i have figured out the only way to get an anarchist state


view my blog because i outline my idea, your feed back would be greatly appraciated whether you agree with me and think that this IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO, or if you think its a load of crap please tell me but tell me why you think it won't work

PLEASE READ MY BLOG
There can not be an anarchist state. Those are clashing opinions. The problem with state socialism as a means to communism is that the state is always too powerful and the transition to communism has never happened because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

An anarchist state would likely not lead to anarchism but just another reformist, bureaucratic mess.

[apathy maybe]

You know why no one else respond to that piece of crap? Because the author obviously doesn't know what they are talking about (or at least that is why I didn't respond).

Why bother?

[Raúl Duke]

Am I the only one who thinks that Floyce always trolls on any thread involving anarchists, anarchy, and anarchism? :blink: :unsure:


"Go away nobody likes you?" That's what workers say to anarchism! It's hilarious that an anarchist would use that line in reply to a criticism of anarchism!


Don't many workers say the same about Marxist-Leninism?

In your first essay; all you do is talk about "lifestylism." Other people have criticize this in a much better manner than you (like...RedStar2K) yet no where in your "essay" do you go step by step in refuting anarchist theory (i.e proving that communism can't be reach without a socialist state or whatever you are advocating, proving that anarchism can't "defend the revolution", etc.)

In my opinion, I think other leninists have tried much better than you in refuting anarchism; yet, you come here with a "know it all" bluster thinking you're some big deal Marxist "lower class" intellectual or something

It seems you live in your own world and like TAT seemed to point out, you know almost nothing of the current political climate. No revolutionary movement is large in the 1rst world at this moment. We live in a period of reaction (especially in the US)

[Chicano Shamrock]

Why are you guys even responding to him? It is obvious he knows nothing of what he is talking about.

[Sonnie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 05:21 am

Anarchism is a form of capitalism characterized by maximum family ownership.
Ummm, nope.

I'm not gonna bother explaining anarchism down to its roots here becausee its not worth it and who wants to conform under my analysis anyway? If you wanna learn about anarchism i'd suggest you go and read books by Proudhon, Bahkunin, and Emma Goldman. They'll help you learn the basics. To sum up anarchism in an extremly quick sentence:
Anarchism is the light-speed approach to Communism.
Personally, I don't trust anarchism because I don't see it as a solid ideal. I think its much more beautiful then communism, but its too unsure. Not replacing the bourgeois state with anything and expecting people to understand and be able to change that fast? Not uh, too idealist for me. But yah, turn off the T.V. and read!
Of course, there being many different sorts of anarchism that could all exist at once, there would be some sort of bridge. Probably something like in anarcho-communism. In anarchism though, there is not just one revolution. It is a continuous revolution to ensure freedom instead of just being trapped by another status quo.

[Question everything]

I'm not an Anarchist, but when I was talking to a Trotskyite, who favoured a "strong centralized" government, (After asking him to sign up for Revleft and mentioning that it was a Forum for Communist Socialist and Anacrhists) he said that Anarchy would would "It's as bad as capitalism everything would be run by biker gangs". I tried to argue with him but I don't really know enough about anarchy to give a proper rebuttle.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 03, 2007 06:10 pm
I'm not an Anarchist, but when I was talking to a Trotskyite, who favoured a "strong centralized" government, (After asking him to sign up for Revleft and mentioning that it was a Forum for Communist Socialist and Anacrhists) he said that Anarchy would would "It's as bad as capitalism everything would be run by biker gangs". I tried to argue with him but I don't really know enough about anarchy to give a proper rebuttle.
He was probably thinking of the misconception that Anarchism is chaos.

[Question everything]

he is. but how do I fix that, what's the simplest way to try and dissuade him, keep in mind his not some reactionary cappie idiot, but I don't really think he is a hardcore commie either :unsure: .

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 04, 2007 02:32 pm
he is. but how do I fix that, what's the simplest way to try and dissuade him, keep in mind his not some reactionary cappie idiot, but I don't really think he is a hardcore commie either :unsure: .
First off let him know that Anarchism is not chaos. That is a myth. Anarchism is order and structure but it is decentralized. Well being a Communist he should understand who the proletariat are. How would biker gangs control the proletariat? The workers would be the majority and this "biker gang" would probably be a small minority. For one what would be the purpose of a biker gang to be in control? Control of what? Private property would be abolished. The proles would probably be armed since this would have to be after the revolution.

Read a bit of this FAQ for some quick answers.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html

[Question everything]

thx. I haven't seen him since. I haven't really talked to the guy, I met him on a chance. His locker is beside my french class and he has a giant soviet union flag in there.


The workers would be the majority and this "biker gang" would probably be a small minority.

by biker gang I would presume he meant that without gouvernment Gangs would get powerful.


Control of what? Private property would be abolished.

I don't think he knows that, if he does he presumes that it would break down in to chaos so fast that it wouldn't take effect.

[Floyce White]

RadioFreeJuan: "Bringing out the question of whether anarchism originated within the petty bourgeoisie has nothing to do with whether it's a viable theory anyways."

You would benefit from reading prior posts made by members before raising challenges that have already been well beaten. As I said in the thread The principle of proletarian dictatorship:

"Thousands of petty bourgeois--and collectively, tens of millions--involve themselves in the organizations and movement of the working class in every country and in every generation. This is not an unfathomable collage of individual personal narratives. This is not a matter of the 'good character' or 'lack of prejudice' of individuals. This is not workers and capitalists hand-in-hand for 'human issues' that 'transcend class.' It is a mass phenomenon that goes to the very core of petty-bourgeois being. Petty capitalists are capitalists. Being capitalist means using others to accumulate property and therefore more power over others. Capitalists intervene in workers' organization to co-opt them to fight en masse for bourgeois causes. It is Pollyanna to play it off as a few 'active supporters' here and there."

Here's something about how honesty has different meanings to the different classes (sorry I forgot which thread I snipped it from):

"Poor people are exploited and struggle to end exploitation. Rich people do as they please. Some rich people please to call themselves 'communists' so they can infiltrate the struggle of their tenants and employees, and manipulate it to serve their narrow property interests."

And then from the thread Workers state - never spoken of":

"I don't see any problem in denying admission to the workers' party of persons of petty-bourgeois family origins. They can do lots of important and responsible work toward overthrowing capitalism anyway. Whether or not these failed bourgeois and rebellious bourgeois ever became proletarianized can best be determined when their children are well into adulthood. People have class as families, not individuals.

"Petty bourgeois will always ask for favors, special consideration, exceptions, get in front of the line, a little more, to be the speaker for a group, and so on. Workers are trained from birth to go along, don't rock the boat, endure humiliation, serve others, wait their turn, and defer to the outspoken and pushy, bossy types. Petty bourgeois know that other capitalists do exactly the same and won't say a word, and they know that workers will cow as always. That's why they don't belong in a workers' party. The very request for us to make a special consideration is itself proof that they do not belong. . . .

"I personally don't want them around. Period. No condition is acceptable to me. If I were in a workers' party and some of them were allowed in, I'd quit.

"I think a lot of poor people know exactly what I mean.

"Some poor people are going to quit in disgust when a few well-meaning persons of petty-bourgeois background are allowed in. I'd rather the poor people who hate the rich stay. And we all know that the real purpose of admitting the well-born is to dominate over and push aside the low-born.

"Every fiber of my being says it's wrong."

CompañeroDeLibertad: "And mine as well, along with every member of the Free People's Movement and Communist League.

"I'll say one thing, the majority of people in the FPM had never been in another communist organization before. After learning what communism and class struggle was about, many who I've talked to just thought it was common sense that communist groups be made up only of workers. When told that most parties had more petty bourgeois members than proles, they were outright shocked."

Karl Marx (quoted by CompañeroDeLibertad): "But within a workers’ party they [petty bourgeoisie] are an adulterating element. Should there be any reason to tolerate their presence there for a while, it should be our duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no say in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. That time, moreover, would appear to have come."

Severian: "From that paragraph alone, it's clear Marx is talking about people who are not only petty-bourgeois, but hold and advocate petty-bourgeois ideas; if you read that paragraph in the context of the letter, (it's in section III) it's even clearer that he's talking about the advocates of openly petty-bourgeois ideas."

CommunistLeague: "Actually, it depends on how you define how one attains a 'proletarian viewpoint.' Being a materialist, and understanding that social being determines consciousness, I understand that to mean that one must actually become a part of the working class. Now, you're willing to hold on to your bourgeois idealism and believe that if one just has 'good thoughts' (i.e., thinks they have a 'proletarian viewpoint') they can be a healthy part of a revolutionary organization; you are welcome to do so. Just don't be dishonest and call that a proletarian party. Call it what it is: a petty-bourgeois liberal therapy group."

Floyce White (from earlier in the thread): "As with any person of upper-class family origins, we must take Marx's ideas with a grain of salt. I often tell new comrades to start their reading with The Communist Manifesto. At the same time, I tell them to notice that Marx used the word 'class' in an extremely loose manner. You can't divorce someone's ideas from his or her social background. No one--and I mean absolutely no one--is 'above class.'"

CompañeroDeLibertad: "So what class was Marx when his children starved to death and he had to pawn his clothes for paper to write on?"

Floyce White: "If Marx couldn't get a job because of his public political activism, that's no different from what millions of other activists face. How's Marx so special? Lots of bourgeois opposition party activists also face that. We must avoid the ad hominem fallacy that says that 'good intentions' and 'selflessness' can invalidate solid theory whenever you want it to.

"Income does not determine class. Family ownership or non-ownership of things used by others determines class. Marx chose to abandon his family ways. Fine. But he had a choice I never did. At what point in his life did he 'become a worker?' 40? 60? It's a fantasy game--and I'm not playing."

RadioFreeJuan, I have absolutely no reason to believe that any petty bourgeois thinks about the world the same way I do. I sometimes say that if rich people really believed in the self-organization and self-mobiliation of the working class, they wouldn't push their ideas but instead would use their resources to print and distribute annual volumes of the writings and speeches of working-class activists. I didn't invent the idea. Some universities and unions actually have labor libraries. Yet petty bourgeois political activists keep spreading the same dogma from the same few dozen of their own. That's no coincidence. Millions upon millions of working-class activists, literate and highly knowledgeable about current events and labor history, and not a one of them is supposed to be able to express theory any better than some rich guy who lived and died a century ago? No way!

In the movement of the working class, let's discuss how fellow workers think about anarchism. You can always find some petty bourgeois at leftist meetings and Internet chat who will discuss bourgeois ideas and nothing but bourgeois ideas.

The Anarchist Tension: "...you rely on ad hominem attacks..."

You already said in an earlier post that you think it is an "ad hominem fallacy" to disagree with your opinion about the class character of a political movement. Disagreement with you is not a logical fallacy. If anything, it's a sign of a sharp mind.

The Anarchist Tension: "You have failed at you attempt in convincing people that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology and you have made no further attempt to justify your opinion."

Since you have no grasp of logic or how it applies to argumentative proof, you are no judge of what is a convincing argument and what is not.

You know, maybe you would feel less Tension if you tried to learn something from what comrades post, instead of trying to bluff your way through conversations? Or go get a girlfriend or something. Sheesh!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 06, 2007 10:51 am
The Anarchist Tension: "...you rely on ad hominem attacks..."

You already said in an earlier post that you think it is an "ad hominem fallacy" to disagree with your opinion about the class character of a political movement.
No I didn't.


The Anarchist Tension: "You have failed at you attempt in convincing people that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology and you have made no further attempt to justify your opinion."

Since you have no grasp of logic or how it applies to argumentative proof, you are no judge of what is a convincing argument and what is not.

So you keep saying, yet you continue to actually address my points. If, as you claim, my arguments are illogical, you should have no difficulty in refuting them.


You know, maybe you would feel less Tension if you tried to learn something from what comrades post, instead of trying to bluff your way through conversations?

Well, you have used ad hominem attacks against me and patronised me while refusing to address any of my points so how on earth would I have the chance to 'learn' anything from what you're saying?

Not to mention that your original argument was so flawed it's practiaclly laugable.


Or go get a girlfriend or something. Sheesh!

First of all, I'm gay and secondly I don't see how having a relationship with someone has anything to do with this argument, you strang man!

It is incredible that you have turned this argument into such petulance. Why don't we get back onto point and discuss your assertions. Or, you could just admit you don't know what you're talking about.