Differences

[RGacky3]

Something I've noticed as a difference between the Authoritarian and Libertarian Left is that the Anarchists and more Libertarian Socialists are guided more by Principles (ie. exploitation is bad, power is bad, economy should be organised for the best social good not profet, and so on). Wheras Authoritarian and More State Oriented Socialists, even some Democratic Socialists follow more ideologies, and generally actual persons, (ie. Marxists, Lenninists, Marxists-lenninists, Maoists, Marxists-Lenninist-Maoists, Stalinists, Chavistas), sometimes Capitalist Media makes up new Ideologies such as Castroism, or whatever. But all of those Ideologies are based on people, and teir writings. You'll Generally never hear an Anarchist call himself a Kropotkinist or a Goldmanist or a Bakuninist or even a Chomskyist. I think thats kind of interesting.

You'll generally hear Ideologists talk about concepts such as the Proletarian revolution, the dictatorship of the Proletariate, the different classes, and things like that. Whereas Principle guided leftists, are more concrete, less abstract.

What are your thoughts on this little observation.

[Fawkes]

Kropotkinist
Anarcho-communist


Goldmanist
Maybe an anarcha-feminist.


Bakuninist
Anarcho-syndicalist.


Chomskyist
Someone who thinks anarchism is cool but isn't an anarchist themself.

[Dimentio]

We have invented a new term that is called "Skipper".

[RGacky3]

all of those anarcho-somethings are not attached to any philosopher, for example if I'm a marxist, some one could say "Marx said this" and I'd have to explain what he ment, and how it is a positive thing and how it works.

If I'm an anarcho-syndicalist and someone says "Rudolf Rocker said this" I could just say "so what? I'm an anarcho-syndicalist not a Rockerist" In other words I believe in a theory that Rudolk Rocker wrote a lot about and contributed much too, but he's not the final say on it, I'm not attached to it.

Wheras a Marxist is attached to what Marx said because Marx is the Final say on Marxism.

[Fawkes]

In my original post, I was just saying how a "Kropotkinist" would be an anarcho-communist etc.

[YSR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:33 pm

Bakuninist
Anarcho-syndicalist.
Bakunin was pre-syndicalist, as far as I'm aware.

David Graeber remarks on this towards the beginning of Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, and I think he makes an interesting point. Most major Marxists strands are named after people, whereas most anarchist ones are named after ideas. And the communist ideas closest to anarchism (Left Communism and Autonomous Communism) are named after ideas as well.

Of course, Juche fucks that whole thing up, but it is interesting.

[Fawkes]

Yes but he is considered the father of Anarcho-syndicalism.

[Zeruzo]

Juche is called Kimismn at times though :). Well theres also Luxemburgism... So your not really correct :P.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:42 pm






Something I've noticed as a difference between the Authoritarian and Libertarian Left

What do you mean by the "authoritarian left?" I would really like to know.


is that the Anarchists and more Libertarian Socialists are guided more by Principles (ie. exploitation is bad, power is bad, economy should be organised for the best social good not profet, and so on). Wheras Authoritarian and More State Oriented Socialists, even some Democratic Socialists follow more ideologies, and generally actual persons, (ie. Marxists, Lenninists, Marxists-lenninists, Maoists, Marxists-Lenninist-Maoists, Stalinists, Chavistas), sometimes Capitalist Media makes up new Ideologies such as Castroism, or whatever.

Are anarchists never sectarian? I don't mean to be rude, but that sounds like what you are saying. I just want to understand your argument better.


What are your thoughts on this little observation.

I actually don't know what you are trying to get across. Could you be more elaborate and concise. I don't mean to be rude, I just don't understand what you're saying.

[which doctor]

It also may have to do with authoritarian socialists tending to be more dogmatic than their libertarian counterparts.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:32 am
It also may have to do with authoritarian socialists tending to be more dogmatic than their libertarian counterparts.
Thats kid of what I'm getting at, I don't like the term Authoritarian Socialist, because of the connotation, perhaps Vanguard Socialist is better, basically Socialism that believes in a central government or Socialism from above, whether Democratic, Authoritarian, Democratic-Centrism, Parlimentary or whatever. Of coarse its not true ALL the time.

My ovservation is that these movements tend to revolve around certain people, and Vanguard Socialists tend to be more dogmatic, having a doctrine written by a person, and they tend to seperate based on that.


Are anarchists never sectarian? I don't mean to be rude, but that sounds like what you are saying. I just want to understand your argument better.

Of coarse they are, hell there are Anarcho-Capitalists (strangely enough), that was'nt my point though. Anarchists tend to revolve around principles, not people.

[ComradeR]

Anarchists tend to revolve around principles, not people.
So what?

So what's the point of this thread other then more "splitting hairs" about the differences between Socialists and Anarchists?

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:41 am
We have invented a new term that is called "Skipper".
what was that? never heard about it though :huh:

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:32 am
It also may have to do with authoritarian socialists tending to be more dogmatic than their libertarian counterparts.
Funny, most of the times i see it as the different way around.

"But thats not what Marx wanted"
"That is not the true legacy of Lenin"
"So not dialectic of you!"
"Saying that makes you nationalistic and thus not a communist anymore!"
"You cant be a communist and support (fill in something random)"

I see this more on the so-called 'libertarian' left then with leninists who tend to be a little more with their 'feet on the ground'. While 'libertarians' tend to be with their 'head in the sky'. I'm not saying this is de-facto that would be so un-realistic of me, and and absolute i'd expect from the 'libertarian' left.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:19 pm

Anarchists tend to revolve around principles, not people.
So what?

So what's the point of this thread other then more "splitting hairs" about the differences between Socialists and Anarchists?
Its not splitting hairs at all, its an observation and I think a somewhat important one because its about the fundimentals of where a theory comes from and how it is developed. Most Vanguard Socialists follow people and doctrines, almost like a religion, which says a lot about them, whereas most Anarchists follow loose ideas and principles. In other words an Anarcho-syndicalist could be for or against violence, no matter what any of the prominant anarcho-syndicalists said or wrote.

Most Marxists however stick to what Marx wrote, and they defend it, so if Marx is for violent revolution so are they, unless they can explain it away, or interpret it a different way.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by RGacky3+January 07, 2007 02:07 am--> (RGacky3 @ January 07, 2007 02:07 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 02:32 am
It also may have to do with authoritarian socialists tending to be more dogmatic than their libertarian counterparts.
Thats kid of what I'm getting at, I don't like the term Authoritarian Socialist, because of the connotation, perhaps Vanguard Socialist is better, basically Socialism that believes in a central government or Socialism from above, whether Democratic, Authoritarian, Democratic-Centrism, Parlimentary or whatever. Of coarse its not true ALL the time.

My ovservation is that these movements tend to revolve around certain people, and Vanguard Socialists tend to be more dogmatic, having a doctrine written by a person, and they tend to seperate based on that.


Are anarchists never sectarian? I don't mean to be rude, but that sounds like what you are saying. I just want to understand your argument better.

Of coarse they are, hell there are Anarcho-Capitalists (strangely enough), that was'nt my point though. Anarchists tend to revolve around principles, not people. [/b]
Could you answer my other questions too? That'd be helpful. Thanks. :)

[RGacky3]

I actually don't know what you are trying to get across. Could you be more elaborate and concise. I don't mean to be rude, I just don't understand what you're saying.

I think this was your other question.

Umm, actually I don't really know what I'm trying to get across, the point of this thread was to just point out an observation, and see if you guys thought it ment anything, or why it was the case, or what it means, or whatever, just mentioning an observation. Maybe theres a reason for it.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:04 pm
Most Marxists however stick to what Marx wrote, and they defend it, so if Marx is for violent revolution so are they, unless they can explain it away, or interpret it a different way.
You've never seen internal communist party discussions have you?
(Well maybe UK ones, since the UK-communists split up over every disagreement)

[RGacky3]

No I hav'nt but do any of them say that something marx wrote was wrong? Or is it just interpretatinos of marx?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:42 pm
Something I've noticed as a difference between the Authoritarian and Libertarian Left is that the Anarchists and more Libertarian Socialists are guided more by Principles (ie. exploitation is bad, power is bad, economy should be organised for the best social good not profet, and so on). Wheras Authoritarian and More State Oriented Socialists, even some Democratic Socialists follow more ideologies, and generally actual persons, (ie. Marxists, Lenninists, Marxists-lenninists, Maoists, Marxists-Lenninist-Maoists, Stalinists, Chavistas), sometimes Capitalist Media makes up new Ideologies such as Castroism, or whatever. But all of those Ideologies are based on people, and teir writings. You'll Generally never hear an Anarchist call himself a Kropotkinist or a Goldmanist or a Bakuninist or even a Chomskyist. I think thats kind of interesting.

You'll generally hear Ideologists talk about concepts such as the Proletarian revolution, the dictatorship of the Proletariate, the different classes, and things like that. Whereas Principle guided leftists, are more concrete, less abstract.

What are your thoughts on this little observation.
I think it's a rather interesting observation, and to a large extent true, and it's also something I have never really noticed in full before until now, though you will probably get a lot of negative feedback from Marxists, and such, I still think your observations hold weight.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:19 pm

Anarchists tend to revolve around principles, not people.
So what?

So what's the point of this thread other then more "splitting hairs" about the differences between Socialists and Anarchists?
Because the differences are inmense,there can't really be any alliance between the anarchists and state socialists.
Benjamin Tucker wrote an excellent work on the differences.

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:06 am
No I hav'nt but do any of them say that something marx wrote was wrong? Or is it just interpretatinos of marx?
Ohw i dont know, Marxist-Leninist parties with fervent opponents of Marx? :rolleyes:
Of course it does not mean that all Marxist-Leninists fully agree with everything Marx wrote, but the basic lines of Marxism are something that is agreed upon. Beceause it is possible to hold very broad views within this cadre it is possible for Marxist-Leninist parties to hold prety tough discussions.