Individual anarchism [Archive]

apathy maybe

27th January 2007, 00:54

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+January 26, 2007 12:33 am--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ January 26, 2007 12:33 am)
apathy [email protected] 25, 2007 07:51 pm
Some individual anarchists maybe "terrorists"
That's exactly what the quote implies.

Individualist anarchism consists of various groups, including terrorists. They fight the status quo with unorganized, wanton acts of violence against innocent people. This is called terrorism. [/b]
No! Individualist anarchism is not about violence (except in self defence). Individualist Anarchism has a clear (mainly US) tradition that rejects violence. Individualist anarchism has some roots in liberalism (think Locke), but moved into the socialist strain of ideologies by rejecting both the state, and capitalism (though generally not markets).

(Fun fact: Adam Smith, "the father of capitalism", actually has more in common with individualist anarchists then with capitalism today.)

Individual means single, that is a single anarchist. Individualist anarchism is so called (and make sure you do your own research to verify my claim) because it rejects communism and collectivism. Though by no means do individualist anarchists say that people can't form communes. Individualist anarchism focuses on the freedom of the individual rather then on equality. Having the option not to be forced to be part of a collective of commune is an important part of anarchism, which is why individualist anarchism continues to be important. Trade and markets are not necessarily antithetical to anarchism, so long as those specific aspects of capitalism (such as usury, rent or the un-checked accumulation of control of resources) are not included.

Your definition of terrorism is frankly not very useful in any meaningful conversation, no offence meant. I did say "you can't give a definition that I agree with, 'cause the word is so misused", and I was correct. I'll go through it piece by piece shall I?
"They fight the status quo", umm... maybe. But state terrorism is about re-enforcing the status quo. So that is not a defining characteristic of terrorism. The fact that others fight against the status quo without using violence also means that this is not really relevent.
"with unorganised," where by change the terrorists on 11/9/2001 organised? They seemed pretty organised to me. Seemingly random to the public perhaps? But making bombs and setting them off simultaneously is not "unorganised", so that doesn't fit either.
"wanton acts of violence", let me check what "wanton" means again ... http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/wanton ... ummm. I'll take it you meant it in the third sense given, but I could be wrong. The thing with terrorism, they always feel that have some justification or provocation. Maybe not from your point of view, but that is what make terrorism studies so difficult. (One more note, according to the more useful definitions of terrorism that I have seen, the threat of violence also suffices.)
"against innocent people", I guess you think that if George Bush was killed today that he would be an innocent person. After all many of the targets were heads of states (Presidents of the USA for example, see McKinley for an example.) Of course there were attacks against people in cafes, but what was that quote again? "There are no innocents in the bourgeois"?
"This is called terrorism." No it isn't.

The Feral Underclass

27th January 2007, 01:55

Individualist anarchism distorts the principles of anarchy to satisfy some liberal middle class sensablities and can get to fuck!

apathy maybe

27th January 2007, 15:05

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27, 2007 02:55 am
Individualist anarchism distorts the principles of anarchy to satisfy some liberal middle class sensablities and can get to fuck!
Not that anyone asked you ... But hey.

What are these principles of anarchy? Care to explain them for us?

I find this http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25915 rather good actually, and seeing as individualist anarchism fits that, I find it anarchistic. Obviously anarcho-capitalism does not fit this, and is most certainly not anarchistic.

Individualist anarchism has a tradition as long as communist anarchism. In some ways I find it attempts to apply the "principles of anarchy" more faithfully then communism. For example, violence is only justified in self defence according to individualists, but most communists either reject this or interpret "self defence" much broader then more people would accept.

Unless you can actually back up your statement of individualist anarchism being created to "satisfy some liberal middle class sensabilities [sic]" or whatever it was you meant, I think you should keep your dogmatism out of the conversation.

Fawkes

27th January 2007, 17:33

Reformist anarchists?
that seems like a contradiction to me, anyone hwo's reformist is not anarchist and vice versa
Anarchists can seek reform and not be a reformist.

The Feral Underclass

27th January 2007, 23:41

Originally posted by apathy maybe+January 27, 2007 04:05 pm--> (apathy maybe @ January 27, 2007 04:05 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 27, 2007 02:55 am
Individualist anarchism distorts the principles of anarchy to satisfy some liberal middle class sensablities and can get to fuck!
Not that anyone asked you ... But hey.

What are these principles of anarchy? Care to explain them for us? [/b]
Since when do people need to be asked in order to give an opinion on a debating message board...?

What are these principles of anarchy? Care to explain them for us?

No, get off your arse and read a fucking book. It'll do you good.

Individualist anarchism has a tradition as long as communist anarchism.

So?

In some ways I find it attempts to apply the "principles of anarchy" more faithfully then communism.

That's because you're an idiot!

Anarchism is rooted in class struggle - Not the individual.

For example, violence is only justified in self defence according to individualists, but most communists either reject this or interpret "self defence" much broader then more people would accept.

Liberal bullshit.

Unless you can actually back up your statement of individualist anarchism being created to "satisfy some liberal middle class sensabilities [sic]" or whatever it was you meant

I'd much rather stomp on your face with my big boots and fight in class war than piss around trying to convince pricks like you the virtues of being real.

While you people sit around moralising about violence and creating "space" to live your lifestyle, working class people are being exploited.

Individualist anarchism was developed by middle class people to satisfy their middle class radicalism - It's radical liberalism, designed to placate your middle class perception of the modern world - The middle class renaissance - projecting your middle class prejudice on us by proclaiming you've found the righteous path by "living ethically" and "doing what's right".

It's a bunch of middle class attitude and prejudice bullshit and is as reactionary as fascism. Its defeatist, it's unrealistic and it's anti-worker

I think you should keep your dogmatism out of the conversation.

I think you should fuck off but we don't always get what we want. Working class people have to get use to that very early on. Something middle class fucknuts never need to worry about.

apathy maybe

28th January 2007, 03:21

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 28, 2007 12:41 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 28, 2007 12:41 am)
Originally posted by apathy maybe+January 27, 2007 04:05 pm--> (apathy maybe @ January 27, 2007 04:05 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 27, 2007 02:55 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 27, 2007 02:55 am) Individualist anarchism distorts the principles of anarchy to satisfy some liberal middle class sensablities and can get to fuck! [/b]
Not that anyone asked you ... But hey.

What are these principles of anarchy? Care to explain them for us? [/b]
Since when do people need to be asked in order to give an opinion on a debating message board...?[/b]
Since they add nothing to the actual debate you know.

TAT

What are these principles of anarchy? Care to explain them for us?

No, get off your arse and read a fucking book. It'll do you good.
Fuck you. I linked to one interpretation of "the principles of anarchy". I was asking what your opinion was. I've read books and shit loads of other stuff on anarchy, perhaps even more then you seeing as you are so dogmatic.

Originally posted by TAT

Individualist anarchism has a tradition as long as communist anarchism.

So?So you can go and fuck your stupid fucking self.

Originally posted by TAT

In some ways I find it attempts to apply the "principles of anarchy" more faithfully then communism.

That's because you're an idiot!

Anarchism is rooted in class struggle - Not the individual.
'Tis your interpretation only. And only 'cause you're a "tard". If you can't back up your statements with actual links to actual anarchists or anarchistic writings, well then you lose. I say, anarchism is "rooted in" freedom and non-hierarchy, but hey! what would I know? I'm just a "tard".

Originally posted by TAT

For example, violence is only justified in self defence according to individualists, but most communists either reject this or interpret "self defence" much broader then more people would accept.

Liberal bullshit.Blah fucking blah. You just come out with the most stupid of statements.

Originally posted by TAT

Unless you can actually back up your statement of individualist anarchism being created to "satisfy some liberal middle class sensabilities [sic]" or whatever it was you meant

I'd much rather stomp on your face with my big boots and fight in class war than piss around trying to convince pricks like you the virtues of being real.
Great way to win a debate and convert people to your side!

Originally posted by TAT
While you people sit around moralising about violence and creating "space" to live your lifestyle, working class people are being exploited.
"You people"? Apart from the fact that I'm a student, I'm more working class then you! I don't moralise about violence, I recognise that it is probable that violence will be necessary to bring about a free society. Don't equate me with something that I am not, simply 'cause I accept it as being anarchistic.

Originally posted by TAT
Individualist anarchism was developed by middle class people to satisfy their middle class radicalism - It's radical liberalism, designed to placate your middle class perception of the modern world - The middle class renaissance - projecting your middle class prejudice on us by proclaiming you've found the righteous path by"living ethically" and "doing what's right".Blah, blah blah. Whatever. You're saying that killing people is acceptable for anarchists, even when not in self defence? Well I say that individualist anarchists are better anarchists then you are. By using violence, you are oppressing others, now you are the oppressor. Anarchists by the way shouldn't believe that Marxist bullshit about "dictatorship of the proletariat".

[email protected]
It's a bunch of middle class attitude and prejudice bullshit and is as reactionary as fascism. Its defeatist, it's unrealistic and it's anti-workerBig words from a scary person. I'm quaking in my boots. I think I might give up here right now. Only thing is, I'm not middle class. In fact I'm a student. My parents if anything are now lumpen proletariat (to use the Marxian terminology) but were never "middle class". I live off government hand outs, so do my parents.

But lets us go through what you just said anyway.
"middle class attitude" right ... except you never actually backed this up did you? You just mouthed off and didn't provide references.
"prejudice bullshit", what the fuck? How is it that? It promotes freedom and anarchy and it is "prejudice bullshit"? Do you actually know what individualist anarchism is?
"reactionary as fascism"? I guess not. After all, it actually promotes the abolition of the state, capitalism and hierarchy. Individualist anarchists want to bring about a free society.
"defeatist", I fail to see how. Care to elaborate?
"unrealistic", right ... Just as unrealistic as communism is.
"anti-worker", scary! Sure to get the masses on side. Fact that it is completely wrong doesn't mean shit though does it. Individualist anarchism promotes a society of workers working together and trading the results of that work. It aims to eliminate the boss-worker relationship. But you're just talking out of your arse again aren't you.

TAT

I think you should keep your dogmatism out of the conversation.

I think you should fuck off but we don't always get what we want. Working class people have to get use to that very early on. Something middle class fucknuts never need to worry about.True right! I'm so middle class it just shines through my fucking clothes. Idiot. I repeat my remark above, I think you should keep your dogmatism out of this (and all other) conversations. I know it will be hard, 'cause it is such a big part of you. But hey! Try a little. You know fuck all about me, so you can just fuck off. You also obviously know fuck all about individualist anarchism, why don't you try and read a fucking book.

Sentinel

28th January 2007, 04:47

Blah, blah blah. Whatever. You're saying that killing people is acceptable for anarchists, even when not in self defence? Well I say that individualist anarchists are better anarchists then you are. By using violence, you are oppressing others, now you are the oppressor. Anarchists by the way shouldn't believe that Marxist bullshit about "dictatorship of the proletariat".

What, exactly, do you mean with 'self defense' here? And as you have said you aren't an individualist anarchist yourself, what forms of revolutionary violence do you consider acceptable? Just to avoid confusion, and people labeling you as anything you aren't.. :unsure:

For the record, personally I do believe in the 'marxist bullshit about dictatorship of the proletariat' -- that the working class must oppress the bourgeoisie, by seizing power from it in a revolution and exercising it until the bourgeoisie no longer exists as a class. And this while being for worker's autonomy as opposed to party rule and a revolution with a fast dismantling of the state and a quick abolishment of the price system as primary objectives.

How do you envision the revolution..?

As this discussion seems dead serious, I have moved it from Chit-Chat, splitting the diversion on 'anarcho-stalinism' from it.. :mellow:

Kropotkin Has a Posse

28th January 2007, 05:47

No! Individualist anarchism is not about violence (except in self defence). Individualist Anarchism has a clear (mainly US) tradition that rejects violence. Individualist anarchism has some roots in liberalism (think Locke), but moved into the socialist strain of ideologies by rejecting both the state, and capitalism (though generally not markets).

For the record, Joseph Labadie, the man in my quote, was an individualist anarchist.

And apathy, the first dozen times your fellow leftists call you a "liberal" is always the hardest.

For the record, personally I do believe in the 'marxist bullshit about dictatorship of the proletariat' -- that the working class must oppress the bourgeoisie, by seizing power from it in a revolution and exercising it until the bourgeoisie no longer exists as a class. And this while being for worker's autonomy as opposed to party rule and a revolution with a fast dismantling of the state and a quick abolishment of the price system as primary objectives.

I don't even think that the bourgeoisie need to be put down much. After the revolution nobody will listen to them anyways, let alone work or fight for them.

peaccenicked

28th January 2007, 05:49

Posing anarchists as terrorists is pretty deplorable, it might have some historical resonance but today it is far fetched. Considering the current war on 'terror'. It is criminalising a movement that has largely integrated itself into peaceful campaigning and consciousness raising events. What does it say really. Where are the individual anarchists who dress like V for Vendetta and commit terrorist acts.
Oh yeah! Up there on the screen. :ph34r: :D

The Feral Underclass

28th January 2007, 11:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:47 am
For the record, Joseph Labadie, the man in my quote, was an individualist anarchist.
Joseph Labadie was a fucking prick and the quote in your signature is a load of fucking bullshit! It's total nonsense.

"From my point of view the killing of another, except in defense of human life, is archistic, authoritarian, and therefore, no Anarchist can commit such deeds. It is the very opposite of what Anarchism stands for..."-~ Joseph Labadie

Since when is it the "opposite of what anarchism stands for" - Since Joseph Labadie said so?

Fuck off!

I don't even think that the bourgeoisie need to be put down much. After the revolution nobody will listen to them anyways, let alone work or fight for them.

How do you expect a revolution to even be successful if we can't use violence? And it doesn't matter whether we listen to them or not - They'll make us listen and they'll make us work.

EnragÃ©

28th January 2007, 14:42

anarchist reformists (like the anarchist bureaucrats in the Spanish civl war

those werent anarchist reformists

those were idiots (so judged with the benefit of hindsight) who got themselves in a bullshit situation cuz they were to afraid to actually take power/thought it would amount to "anarchist dictatorship"

apathy maybe

28th January 2007, 17:10

Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)What, exactly, do you mean with 'self defense' here? And as you have said you aren't an individualist anarchist yourself, what forms of revolutionary violence do you consider acceptable? Just to avoid confusion, and people labeling you as anything you aren't.. unsure.gif [/b]"Self defence" is really quite simple. If someone attacks you, you defend your self. But you aren't allowed to attack them first. Personally I believe that we are being oppressed by the state and by the various ruling classes. I have no problem with "pre-emptivly" killing heads of state or people in positions of power. If you are high up in the hierarchy, then you're a legitimate target to my mind. The police and military are also legitimate targets, after all they signed up knowing the shit that could happen. Terrorism for me (going back to a different topic) is always attacking "innocents", and for me that doesn't include the scum at the top of society.

As to what I am, I am an adjective free anarchist. I have described this in this http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292250301 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59810&view=findpost&p=1292250301) post. Basically I am an anarchist who wants anarchy. I am not dogmatic in what anarchy is, nor in the best way to get there. I find that "class war" (the removing of power from those who currently have it, probably by using violence) the most probable method of achieving anarchy.

And finally, if people are stupid enough to believe that I am an individualist anarchist because I have defended it as being a legitimate form of anarchism and have attempted to dispel myths or misunderstandings about the issue ... Then they really are stupid. (There are at least a few in the CC right now I know, they are the ones who voted to kick me out in the first place.)

Originally posted by [email protected]
For the record, personally I do believe in the 'marxist bullshit about dictatorship of the proletariat' -- that the working class must oppress the bourgeoisie, by seizing power from it in a revolution and exercising it until the bourgeoisie no longer exists as a class. And this while being for worker's autonomy as opposed to party rule and a revolution with a fast dismantling of the state and a quick abolishment of the price system as primary objectives.

How do you envision the revolution..?Demonstrating that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not an anarchist principle is quite simple. Anarchists don't believe in oppressing anyone. Once power has been removed from those who currently have it, they won't be capable of doing much at all. 'Cause they are a small minority and used to having other people (cops, military, private security) actually doing stuff for them, they won't be capable of doing much. Thus they won't be a problem and we won't need to oppress them. Anarchism is for equality and freedom for all. Mind you, if they keep annoying the vast majority of the population, two simple solutions, exile or death.

As to how I envisage the revolution? I think that shit loads of people will be out on the streets and there will be a little bit of fighting and then we won't have to worry about the scum any more. But I'm probably being optimistic.

Sentinel
As this discussion seems dead serious, I have moved it from Chit-Chat, splitting the diversion on 'anarcho-stalinism' from it.. mellow.gifGood oh.

apathy maybe

28th January 2007, 17:13

Originally posted by RadioFreeJuan+--> (RadioFreeJuan)For the record, Joseph Labadie, the man in my quote, was an individualist anarchist.

And apathy, the first dozen times your fellow leftists call you a "liberal" is always the hardest.[/b]Shit, I don't care about being called a liberal, it is the ignorance that pisses me off.

RadioFreeJuan
I don't even think that the bourgeoisie need to be put down much. After the revolution nobody will listen to them anyways, let alone work or fight for them.Exactly.

apathy maybe

28th January 2007, 17:14

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT) Pathetic.[/b]You are. What a great contribution to the debate. I used to actually have respect for you, did you know? But after your willful ignorance, unwillingness to actually engage in debate and just generally stupidity, well I don't now. Not that you would care I am sure. If you actually got your head out of your arse and had a look around a bit, you might realise that I have demonstrated the weakness of your position, but you don't care do you. You would rather wallow in your dogmatism rather then actually learn anything. Pathetic is right.

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)Joseph Labadie was a fucking prick and the quote in your signature is a load of fucking bullshit! It's total nonsense.[/b]Ladies, gentlemen and others. We have here another example of TAT's great debating style, attack the opposition without any pesking facts to back up the attack. The fact that the quote provide is a good example of individualist anarchist thought on the issue of violence means nothing to the man who would rather slander and insult then engage in debate. My comment earlier about individualist anarchism actually being truer to the principles of anarchy in some regards stands.

[email protected]
Since when is it the "opposite of what anarchism stands for" - Since Joseph Labadie said so?

Fuck off!The killing of another is oppressing another, it is creating a hierarchy, depriving the victim of freedom, it is authoritarian it is therefore the opposite of what anarchism stands for. Anarchism is about creating freedom, removing hierarchy, destroying oppression. If something attempts to do the opposite of these things, then that is the opposite of what anarchism stands for. So why don't you fuck off instead? (And take your dogmatism with you.)

TAT
How do you expect a revolution to even be successful if we can't use violence? And it doesn't matter whether we listen to them or not - They'll make us listen and they'll make us work.Imagine, a society where everyone has a gun and is equal and free. Now imagine someone trying to make some one else listen or work. They won't succeed. When we finally throw of the shackles of oppression, do you really think that we will bow down and accept them again simple because we are asked to? Violence will be needed, but once the people have demonstrated both a willingness to fight for freedom and a willingness to ignore the demands of the rich and formally powerful, are they really going to be able to force anyone to do anything?
Where does their power come from? From "the barrel of the gun", from their control of the armed forces and police. Once we remove that control and power from them, they'll just be wackos crying in the street. They will be pitied, not feared.

Cryotank Screams

28th January 2007, 18:16

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26, 2007 09:55 pm
Individualist anarchism distorts the principles of anarchy to satisfy some liberal middle class sensablities and can get to fuck!
Exactly, they are not even Anarchists, they are liberal lifestylists.

apathy maybe

28th January 2007, 18:39

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+January 28, 2007 07:16 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ January 28, 2007 07:16 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 26, 2007 09:55 pm
Individualist anarchism distorts the principles of anarchy to satisfy some liberal middle class sensablities and can get to fuck!
Exactly, they are not even Anarchists, they are liberal lifestylists. [/b]
I wonder if you know anything about individualist anarchism either. Did you actually read what I posted? Or did you do a TAT and just go "It's from apathy maybe, it must be crap"?

I can't link to it 'cause it is in the CC, but I wrote a shit load destroying myths like that one. Despite the fact that "lifestylism" is just as valid in an anarchistic sense as "class war", it can't be liberal, 'cause it rejects so much that is essential to liberalism.

So you can fuck off too, read my posts or otherwise learn more about a subject before crapping on about it.

Cryotank Screams

28th January 2007, 19:23

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28, 2007 02:39 pm
I wonder if you know anything about individualist anarchism either. Did you actually read what I posted? Or did you do a TAT and just go "It's from apathy maybe, it must be crap"?

Actually it was based on from what I have read, and historical evidence, what have they ever done for the movement, hmm? Nothing, nor are they involved in revolutionary activities, and are more or less, armchair "philosophers."

Also, I don't know you, so I couldn't say "if it's from apathy maybe it must be crap," though I am starting to think that way, ;) .

So you can fuck off too, read my posts or otherwise learn more about a subject before crapping on about it.

Ooo, strong words, maybe an attempt to make up for something, say an argument perhaps? Also, I again fail to see how individualist Anarchism is anything short of lifestylism, which is by no means valid, and another word for lifestylism, is apathetic bystander who uses revolutionary aethestics to seem outrageous, and cutting edge.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

28th January 2007, 20:41

Actually it was based on from what I have read, and historical evidence, what have they ever done for the movement, hmm? Nothing, nor are they involved in revolutionary activities, and are more or less, armchair "philosophers."

We need people to think and theorise, otherwise it's a bunch of uninformed people with no idea what's going on. It's when these "armchair philosphers" share their information and ideas as we are all doing here that they make their biggest contributions.

It can't always be about how to beat the ruling class; without people to imagine life afterwards were would any of us be?

bcbm

28th January 2007, 20:45

How could an ideology developed and adopted by working-people and criminal radicals simultaneously exist to satisfy middle-class and liberal desires?

Actually it was based on from what I have read, and historical evidence, what have they ever done for the movement, hmm? Nothing, nor are they involved in revolutionary activities, and are more or less, armchair "philosophers."

What have you read?

criminaltrap

28th January 2007, 21:04

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27, 2007 12:54 am
"There are no innocents in the bourgeois"
I know this is not exactly in sync with the actual discussion, but do you all actually belive this? In relation to harming or killing them, that is.

Fawkes

28th January 2007, 21:07

No.

Sentinel

28th January 2007, 21:18

"Self defence" is really quite simple. If someone attacks you, you defend your self. But you aren't allowed to attack them first. Personally I believe that we are being oppressed by the state and by the various ruling classes. I have no problem with "pre-emptivly" killing heads of state or people in positions of power. If you are high up in the hierarchy, then you're a legitimate target to my mind. The police and military are also legitimate targets, after all they signed up knowing the shit that could happen.

Ok, thanks. This self defense thing sounds indisputable better with the elaboration. :D

And finally, if people are stupid enough to believe that I am an individualist anarchist because I have defended it as being a legitimate form of anarchism and have attempted to dispel myths or misunderstandings about the issue ... Then they really are stupid. (There are at least a few in the CC right now I know, they are the ones who voted to kick me out in the first place.)

I used to believe you were one. I no longer do, and asked these questions not merely to get a better picture of your actual views myself but also to safeguard you from mislabeling by others . Thanks for your clarifications. ;)

I disagree with you on lots of stuff though, mostly how you talk about the dictatorship of the proletariat.. I do however somehow get the feeling that we are arguing over labels and words here, and that it's mainly the marxist terminology and rhetoric you have a problem with, not so much actual class war theory..

Cryotank Screams

28th January 2007, 21:45

We need people to think and theorise, otherwise it's a bunch of uninformed people with no idea what's going on. It's when these "armchair philosphers" share their information and ideas as we are all doing here that they make their biggest contributions.

Yea, and we already have people like this, I mean take Mahkno for example (maybe I should put my link to the Mahkno archive back up?), he wrote, and put forth theories, and led a revolution, and so did a lot of Anarchist revolutionaries, what we need is people who theorize, and are active in the revolutionary movement, and furthermore we do not need individualist lifestylist, who are not for social Anarchism, hindering the movement.

Also, the people that had the greatest impact on Anarchism, all the people that put forth numerous theoretical contributions, were social Anarchists, and active revolutionaries; individualist lifestylist, have done little to nothing.

It can't always be about how to beat the ruling class; without people to imagine life afterwards were would any of us be?

We have had revolutionaries also contemplate how a post-revolutionary Anarchist society would function, therefore I again ask, what have they truly done for the movement?

What have you read?

This for starters; a quick overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism)

bcbm

28th January 2007, 22:22

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 28, 2007 03:45 pm
what we need is people who theorize, and are active in the revolutionary movement, and furthermore we do not need individualist lifestylist, who are not for social Anarchism, hindering the movement.

How can people who by and large don't give a fuck about "the movement" hinder it? They don't actively get in its way, they just choose not to participate, so they aren't really hindering anything. Further, I'd suspect many individualists are not opposed to social anarchism and would welcome it, so long as it didn't impinge on their freedom, as that is their primary concern. An anarchist society would certainly offer more freedom than any modern one.

Also, the people that had the greatest impact on Anarchism, all the people that put forth numerous theoretical contributions, were social Anarchists, and active revolutionaries; individualist lifestylist, have done little to nothing.

You're comparing two different strains of anarchism. Social anarchists have made numerous theoretical contributions to social anarchist thinking, but little to nothing in individualist anarchism. Of course the opposite would be true. This criticism falls flat.

This for starters; a quick overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism)

Take it with a grain of salt- Wikipedia's anarchist articles are heavily controlled by an-caps.

The Feral Underclass

29th January 2007, 03:41

Does anyone know who Bakunin is?

Kropotkin Has a Posse

29th January 2007, 03:57

I'd think we'd all rather have to. What are you saying?

The Feral Underclass

29th January 2007, 04:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:57 am
I'd think we'd all rather have to. What are you saying?
So you know who he is?

which doctor

29th January 2007, 04:16

Who?

Black Dagger

29th January 2007, 05:17

Originally posted by FoB+January 29, 2007 02:16 pm--> (FoB @ January 29, 2007 02:16 pm) Who? [/b]
He wrote the 'ABC of Communism', http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/w...0/abc/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm)

Was the president of the Communist International (Comintern) in 1926 and detailed the thesis of "Socialism in one country" put forth by Stalin in 1924, which argued that socialism (in Leninist theory, the transitional stage from capitalism to communism) could be developed in a single country, even one as underdeveloped as Russia.

Poor dude was shot by Stalin, oh wellz :(

bcbm
Further, I'd suspect many individualists are not opposed to social anarchism and would welcome it, so long as it didn't impinge on their freedom, as that is their primary concern. An anarchist society would certainly offer more freedom than any modern one.

You suspect right, all the individualists ive ever spoken have adopted that position.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

29th January 2007, 05:19

He pretty much inspired the whole social anarchist movemnt. He was a communist anarchist who very creepily foretold the possible disasters of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" many years before the USSR. Of course Marx must have taken this personally, and he booted him out of the Internationale.

A nice example of someone with both revolutionary spirit and theoretical backing, if that is indeed your point.

YSR

29th January 2007, 05:27

BR, you realize that TAT said Bakunin, right, not Bakharin? And Fobby was being sarcastic.

Nusocialist

29th January 2007, 07:31

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 28, 2007 09:45 pm
Also, the people that had the greatest impact on Anarchism, all the people that put forth numerous theoretical contributions, were social Anarchists, and active revolutionaries; individualist lifestylist, have done little to nothing.

Are you serious?
They have made many,there are few people who have made as many contributions to the idea of how important state intervention in the capitalist economy is and just how much it goes on and how far capitalism is from a free market and how it needs to be far from them.
And I fail to see how Benjamin Tucker or Josiah Warren were lifestyle anarchists.

The Feral Underclass

29th January 2007, 10:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:19 am
He pretty much inspired the whole social anarchist movemnt.
That's a total understatement. Bakunin laid the foundation for the core principles of anarchism - He essentially "created" anarchism as an ideology.

Anything from that is a development or deviation.

apathy maybe

29th January 2007, 13:03

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+--> (Cryotank Screams)Actually it was based on from what I have read, and historical evidence, what have they ever done for the movement, hmm? Nothing, nor are they involved in revolutionary activities, and are more or less, armchair "philosophers."[/b]
Depends on what movement you are talking about. They aren't involved in "revolutionary activities" because they are not revolutionaries. However, I would contend that individualist anarchists are no more "armchair 'philosophers'" then communist or other anarchists.

The fact is that not only are individualists different from communists on a theoretical basis, but they differ on a practical level too. Communists are more likely to be involved in "class war" or some sort of insurrectionary activity. Individualists are more likely to be "lifestylists" attempting to create a new society outside the bounds of the old. This means creating alternative organisations (Indymedia for example) to the more mainstream ones, as well as non-cooperation with the current authorities.

So, you might not be able to see obviously what they have done, but that doesn't mean that they don't do things.

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected]
Also, I don't know you, so I couldn't say "if it's from apathy maybe it must be crap," though I am starting to think that way, wink.gif .Apologies, I think TAT must think like that though ... (After all, he thinks I'm three years old ...)

Cryotank Screams
Ooo, strong words, maybe an attempt to make up for something, say an argument perhaps? Also, I again fail to see how individualist Anarchism is anything short of lifestylism, which is by no means valid, and another word for lifestylism, is apathetic bystander who uses revolutionary aethestics to seem outrageous, and cutting edge.Hey, my arguments stand up on their own. But it seems that yours don't :P. Yes individualist anarchists are "lifestylists", but it is valid. Those lifestylists who aren't revolutionaries aren't "apathetic bystanders". Lifestylists attempt to live a life that is as authentic to their beliefs, they attempt to minimise their reliance on or support of capitalism. I don't buy sweat shop clothes, does that make me an "apathetic bystander who uses revolutionary aethestics ..."? I try and dumpster dive when I can, again, does that make me an "apathetic ..."? Fuck no.

Mind you, we might have a different definition of "lifestylist". I don't use Bookchin's sectarian definition, valid though his attacks on those who use anarchism as fashion were.

apathy maybe

29th January 2007, 13:04

Originally posted by criminaltrap+--> (criminaltrap)I know this is not exactly in sync with the actual discussion, but do you all actually belive this? In relation to harming or killing them, that is.[/b]No. Though I do believe that there are no innocents in the upper echelons of power ... Be they CEOs of major corporations or prime ministers.

Originally posted by [email protected]
I used to believe you were one. I no longer do, and asked these questions not merely to get a better picture of your actual views myself but also to safeguard you from mislabeling by others . Thanks for your clarifications. wink.gifI'm glad you no longer do, though I fail to see how you ever good have ... Care to explain? After all I always explicitly disclaimed ever being an individualist anarchist. I have called my self an "adjective free anarchist" for years now. Though I am certainly happy that you are defending "my honour" ;).

Sentinel
I disagree with you on lots of stuff though, mostly how you talk about the dictatorship of the proletariat.. I do however somehow get the feeling that we are arguing over labels and words here, and that it's mainly the marxist terminology and rhetoric you have a problem with, not so much actual class war theory..Heck, I have no problem with "class war theory", I just have not only a different take on matters (coming at it from an anarchist perspective), but also a fundamental disagreement regarding what actually makes up "class". I do reject Marxist terminology, because I find it unhelpful, I do reject Marxist rhetoric, because I find it dangerous and even potentially reactionary. My interpretation of class is completely different from a Marxist interpretation, so my interpretation of "class war" is also going to be different.

apathy maybe

29th January 2007, 13:05

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+--> (Cryotank Screams)
[i]Originally posted by RadioFreeJuan+--> (RadioFreeJuan)We need people to think and theorise, otherwise it's a bunch of uninformed people with no idea what's going on. It's when these "armchair philosphers" share their information and ideas as we are all doing here that they make their biggest contributions.[/b]

Yea, and we already have people like this, I mean take Mahkno for example (maybe I should put my link to the Mahkno archive back up?), he wrote, and put forth theories, and led a revolution, and so did a lot of Anarchist revolutionaries, what we need is people who theorize, and are active in the revolutionary movement, and furthermore we do not need individualist lifestylist, who are not for social Anarchism, hindering the movement.[/b]Blah fucking blah. Sorry, but what? Most anarchist theoreticians have not taken part in revolutions. What has Bookchin done again? Or that fellow Kropotkin? But then again, many individualists have attempted to bring about anarchism (and have had as much success as revolutionaries I notice). Individualists are not "hindering the movement", even if they were for the same things as the "social anarchists". They are not part of the same movement (beyond the broad "for anarchy"), and do not hinder the movement by not contributing. (Which is a really strange position to take actually. I don't help you, therefore I am hindering you? If you're not with us, you're against us? WTF?)

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams
Also, the people that had the greatest impact on Anarchism, all the people that put forth numerous theoretical contributions, were social Anarchists, and active revolutionaries; individualist lifestylist, have done little to nothing.
I really doubt that you have read much on individualist anarchism, otherwise you would not make such a claim. Yes social anarchists have put forth numerous theoretical contributions, more so then individualists. The fact that they are more numerous then individualists would have something to do with this. However, one of the first anarchist theoreticians, Proudhon, shares more in common (economically) with individualists then with communists. Of course social anarchists have contributed more to revolutions then individualists, individualists are not for revolution (though I am sure they are not against it either). "ndividual lifestylist[s]" have done as much as social anarchists, there are as many individualist anarchist societies around the world today as there are social anarchist societies. Communes by the way are set up by communist lifestylists, do you have a problem with them too?

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams

Originally posted by RadioFreeJuan
It can't always be about how to beat the ruling class; without people to imagine life afterwards were would any of us be?

We have had revolutionaries also contemplate how a post-revolutionary Anarchist society would function, therefore I again ask, what have they truly done for the movement?The contributions of individualist anarchists have been most welcome to me personally and to many others. They focus on freedom and free association of individuals rather then the economic equality that communists tend to focus on. Other contributions to anarchist theory by individualists include in the area of the use of violence, property and interaction with the present state.

Cryotank [email protected]

bcbm

What have you read?

This for starters; a quick overview <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism>Well, I guess that might explain your deplorable lack of knowledge. Wikipedia is a good starting point for research (most of the time), but on contentious issues and on politics it is often not the best source. The many of the anarchist articles in Wikipedia have major problems, especially those surrounding individualist anarchism, "anarcho-capitalism" and terrorism. If you look through the history and the talk pages (especially for the individualist anarchism article that you linked to), you will see a number of fights between anarchists on the one hand and a fellow called "RJII" who is known to be paid to edit Wikipedia. Another is "Hogeye" who is also an anarcho-capitalist. These people want to create legitimacy for their ideology by linking with with anarchist traditions, though it is obvious to all who know the "basic principles of anarchy" that "anarcho-capitlism" is not anarchistic and cannot be. To show a problem with the anarchy articles on Wikipedia, see the "Anarcho-Monarchism" article.

For some other things to read I suggest, http://question-everything.mahost.org/Soci...sicAnarchy.html (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html) nothing in there contradicts individualist anarchism.
For something on "anarcho-capitalism" I suggest An Anarchist FAQ, actually written by anarchists. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secFcon.html
For a decent read on Individualist Anarchism I present An Anarchist FAQ as well, http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secGcon.html To quote "Thus their vision of a free society and the means to achieve it were somewhat different (although, we stress, not mutually exclusive as communist anarchists supported artisan possession of the means of possession for those who rejected communism and the Individualist Anarchists supported voluntary communism)."
Another section of the FAQ also has relevance to the discussion http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append11.html#app1

apathy maybe

29th January 2007, 13:06

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+--> (black coffee black metal)How can people who by and large don't give a fuck about "the movement" hinder it? They don't actively get in its way, they just choose not to participate, so they aren't really hindering anything. Further, I'd suspect many individualists are not opposed to social anarchism and would welcome it, so long as it didn't impinge on their freedom, as that is their primary concern. An anarchist society would certainly offer more freedom than any modern one[/b]Exactly correct. Not only would individualist anarchist not oppose a "social anarchist" revolution, they would most likely support it on the basis of bringing about a free society. As well, as I quoted above, individualist anarchism and (for example) communism are not mutually exclusive. If any communist society forces people into communes, then it stops being anarchistic. An anarchist society will allow free movement between belonging to the commune and not. Or else it isn't anarchistic.

Originally posted by [email protected]
Does anyone know who Bakunin is?Isn't he that guy who wanted secret societies and stuff ? Duh? He wasn't an individualist anarchist, he was a social anarchist (a collectivist even), what is the point of your question again?

The Anarchist Tension
He pretty much inspired the whole social anarchist movemnt.

That's a total understatement. Bakunin laid the foundation for the core principles of anarchism - He essentially "created" anarchism as an ideology.

Anything from that is a development or deviation. [/b][/quote]Do you know who Proudhon was? Or Godwin perhaps?
To quote Wikipedia (after I just told CS not to), "According to Peter Kropotkin, William Godwin, in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (2 vols., 1793), was 'the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his work.'[9]" The footnote links to http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...niaanarchy.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html) where the quote can be found. Along with comments by Kropotkin on other writers.

As for Bakunin, "Bakunin claimed for each nation, each region and each commune, full autonomy, so long as it is not a menace to its neighbours, and full independence for the individual, adding that one becomes really free only when, and in proportion as, all others are free." (My bold.)

On Tucker, "His criticism of the present state is very searching, and his defence of the rights of the individual very powerful. As regards his economical views B. R. Tucker follows Proudhon."

TAT, I know you like Malatesta, but I am afraid that he would be ashamed to be associated with you. He, after all, advocated "anarchism without adjectives". That is "an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools." The Wikipedia on the subject is actually rather stable and has little conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...hout_adjectives (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism_without_adjectives)

The Feral Underclass

29th January 2007, 15:57

Originally posted by apathy maybe+January 29, 2007 02:06 pm--> (apathy maybe @ January 29, 2007 02:06 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)
RadioFreeJuan @ January [email protected] 2007 06:19 am
He pretty much inspired the whole social anarchist movemnt.

That's a total understatement. Bakunin laid the foundation for the core principles of anarchism - He essentially "created" anarchism as an ideology.

Anything from that is a development or deviation. [/b]Do you know who Proudhon was? Or Godwin perhaps? [/b]
Both of them advocated a form of capitalism. Godwin wasn't an anarchist, he was a minarchist and did not advocate the liberation of working class people or the destruction of exploitation, which is a fundamental anarchist idea. He simply argued for less state intervention and the maximising of "good intentions"

He was a liberal middle class philosopher, nothing more - and this is entirely the point. Individualist anarchism is not rooted in the basis that those exploited by capitalism (the people with real power) should destroy it and create an equal society.

Regardless of any influence they have had on the anarchist movement as a consequence of their "ideas", they were not nor did they ever consider themselves to be anarchists.

Anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle. It emerged specifically on that basis as a rejection of capitalism and ultimately a rejection of statism.

As for Bakunin, "Bakunin claimed for each nation, each region and each commune, full autonomy, so long as it is not a menace to its neighbours, and full independence for the individual, adding that one becomes really free only when, and in proportion as, all others are free." (My bold.)

And I don't disagree with that.

"His criticism of the present state is very searching, and his defence of the rights of the individual very powerful. As regards his economical views B. R. Tucker follows Proudhon."

What does this prove? That Bakunin noted some individuals had happened to agree with him on certain issues?

TAT, I know you like Malatesta, but I am afraid that he would be ashamed to be associated with you.

Perhaps, perhaps not but it's totally foolish to assume you know what his feelings towards me or anyone else would be, so why bother saying it?

However, in a 'Note on Individualism and anarchism' Malatesta does appear to be consolatory towards individualists and he reiterates Bakunin's sentiments that all should be free to associate in any way they choose - But he also says - "I think the question is not about “communists” and “individualists”, but rather about anarchists and non-anarchists" and that is precisely the point!

He, after all, advocated "anarchism without adjectives". That is "an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools."

I don't think that was exactly his point. He did after all define himself specifically as an anarchist communist.

In any case, Malatesta has not seen the disastrous emergence of individualist anarchism and post-left anarchy on the anarchist movement. Malatesta believed in class struggle and said himself, quite clearly:

Malatesta
It is a truth that history has made the proletariat the main instrument of the next social change, and that those fighting for the establishment of a society where all human beings are free and endowed with all the means to exercise their freedom, must rely mainly on the proletariat.[1]

Now regardless of whether Malatesta believed in "anarchism without adjectives" or whether he would be ashamed of my opposition to individualism; Individualist anarchism is a [tragic] distortion of anarchist praxis.

The fact of the matter is class struggle and the working class are the only force in society capable of destroying capitalism, just as Bakunin argued and just as Malatesta argued.

Anything or anyone who says otherwise is wrong, often to the point of being reactionary.

1. 'About my trial: Class Struggle or Class Hatred?' (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/malatesta/trial.html)

bcbm

29th January 2007, 18:21

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 09:41 pm
Does anyone know who Bakunin is?
Some ****.

In any case, Malatesta has not seen the disastrous emergence of individualist anarchism and post-left anarchy on the anarchist movement.

Um... individualist anarchism was certainly around during, and prior to, Malatesta's heyday. The American individualist "anarchists" were the ones that really sucked. In Europe they certainly had their quarrels with the an-socs, but they were also happy to fight it out on the picket line, or just get into shooting matches with cops on the streets.

In any case, neither individualist anarchism nor post-left anarchy have have been "disastrous" for the anarchist movement. I think both have some valid ideas and criticisms. Anarchism should be nothing if not diverse and self-critical.

The Feral Underclass

29th January 2007, 18:29

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 29, 2007 07:21 pm
In any case, neither individualist anarchism nor post-left anarchy have have been "disastrous" for the anarchist movement.
I dunno? I mean, there are many specifically class based Anarchist groups in England, but in terms of attempting to create cohesion and movement activity, these things are largely dominated by individualists.

Take the Dissent Split for example. This happened because individualists didn't want organisation, refused to accept workers existed and went there own way, essentially fractioning a movement that had developed because of the G8.

Now all they do is sit in fields when groups like RAGE, Midlands Anarchist Group and London AF need all the help they can get fighting class struggle.

I think both have some valid ideas and criticisms. Anarchism should be nothing if not diverse and self-critical.

I'm not sure I buy that this is a good thing or even viable.

bcbm

29th January 2007, 18:39

I dunno? I mean, there are many specifically class based Anarchist groups in England, but in terms of attempting to create cohesion and movement activity, these things are largely dominated by individualists.

Take the Dissent Split for example. This happened because individualists didn't want organisation, refused to accept workers existed and went there own way, essentially fractioning a movement that had developed because of the G8.

Now all they do is sit in fields when groups like RAGE, Midlands Anarchist Group and London AF need all the help they can get fighting class struggle.

And if individualist anarchism didn't exist, they would be out there? I doubt it. Some people are always going to disdain organization and certain activities, that's just a fact of life. Deal with the people who are interested and let the others go their own way. It sucks sometimes, but it happens. Believe me, I've dealt with my share of worthless "anarchists."

And anyway, we're talking about a wide range of people here. "Individualist anarchist" can mean a great many things, not all of which involve leaving people hanging. Many individualists fought alongside the socialists, because they were workers getting fucked too!

Personally, I'd like to see more individualists develop along insurrectionist lines.

Fawkes

29th January 2007, 20:52

He was a communist anarchist
Wasn't he an anarcho-syndicalist?

which doctor

29th January 2007, 22:06

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 29, 2007 12:27 am
BR, you realize that TAT said Bakunin, right, not Bakharin? And Fobby was being sarcastic.
Yes, I was. Pretty much every actual anarchist knows him.

apathy maybe

30th January 2007, 14:25

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension (on Proudhon and Godwin+--> (The Anarchist Tension (on Proudhon and Godwin)Both of them advocated a form of capitalism. Godwin wasn't an anarchist, he was a minarchist and did not advocate the liberation of working class people or the destruction of exploitation, which is a fundamental anarchist idea. He simply argued for less state intervention and the maximising of "good intentions"

He was a liberal middle class philosopher, nothing more - and this is entirely the point. Individualist anarchism is not rooted in the basis that those exploited by capitalism (the people with real power) should destroy it and create an equal society.

Regardless of any influence they have had on the anarchist movement as a consequence of their "ideas", they were not nor did they ever consider themselves to be anarchists.[/b]
Did you perchance read that article by Kropotkin? Where he acknowledges Godwin as one of the first people to put forward anarchistic ideas? Or anything at all about or by Proudhon? He's the one who wrote, "anarchy is order", "government is chaos", "property is theft" and a bunch of other lovely catch phrases? The one who wrote "I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist". Even today Mutualism is accepted as a type of anarchism and some people still call themselves mutaulists.

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)Anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle. It emerged specifically on that basis as a rejection of capitalism and ultimately a rejection of statism.[/b]Your anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle. I agree though that all anarchism emerged specifically as a rejection of capitalism and statism, but you mustn't forget Tolstoy (who though didn't call himself an anarchist, was by all accounts), or other pacifist anarchists. Or wait, I forgot, you're a dogmatist and you don't count them as really being anarchistic.

Originally posted by TAT (regarding a quote from Bakunin)
And I don't disagree with that.Good, then why don't you see individualist anarchism as a type of anarchism? Because that is all they want. Freedom.

Originally posted by TAT
What does this prove? That Bakunin noted some individuals had happened to agree with him on certain issues?It was Kropotkin writing on Tucker actually. Tucker being an American individualist anarchist. The quote was to demonstrate to those who believe that individualists have added nothing to anarchism, that they are wrong.

Originally posted by TAT
Perhaps, perhaps not but it's totally foolish to assume you know what his feelings towards me or anyone else would be, so why bother saying it?Based on what I have read on his writings, it would seem to me that he would disagree with your position. And for those who are dead, it is the best way to find out how they might think about a situation today. I said it to try and make you see sense.

Originally posted by TAT
However, in a 'Note on Individualism and anarchism' Malatesta does appear to be consolatory towards individualists and he reiterates Bakunin's sentiments that all should be free to associate in any way they choose - But he also says - "I think the question is not about “communists” and “individualists”, but rather about anarchists and non-anarchists" and that is precisely the point!That is an interesting read you know, and what I got out of it was that while Malatesta might not have thought that the individualists were anarchists (and I am not sure if he is talking about "egoists" who to be sure I too would debate as to being anarchists, or the individualists that I am talking about, Tucker and other "American individualist anarchists" who's anarchism came from a less densely populated land and historically less of a history of class conflict) he acknowledged their right to exist. "But in the long run it is always the searching for a more secure guarantee of freedom which is the common factor among anarchists, and which divides them into different schools." And I find it is this point that is most important. You and I could through anarchist theorists at each other, each saying something different, and we could not come to a conclusion (I presented Kropotkin, and I could present An Anarchist FAQ and so on). But anarchists have a common goal, that is freedom, and I think that Malatesta thought that the individualists desired this freedom, but were simply misguided.

Originally posted by TAT
I don't think that was exactly his point. He did after all define himself specifically as an anarchist communist.

In any case, Malatesta has not seen the disastrous emergence of individualist anarchism and post-left anarchy on the anarchist movement. Malatesta believed in class struggle and said himself, quite clearly:
Originally posted by Malatesta
It is a truth that history has made the proletariat the main instrument of the next social change, and that those fighting for the establishment of a society where all human beings are free and endowed with all the means to exercise their freedom, must rely mainly on the proletariat.[1]Regardless of how he defined himself, he acknowledged the right of other variants of anarchism to exist and to try and bring about anarchism. I too believe that class struggle is the most likely method of bringing about anarchism, and so? It does not detract from the right of individualist anarchism (which does not believe in class struggle) to exist and to be acknowledged as a type of anarchism.

I think maybe you are confusing individualist anarchism as a theoretical movement with some other practical application of some anti-organisational theory. The individualist anarchism that I talk about (which you can read more about at An Anarchist FAQ) is not anti-organisational.

[email protected]
Now regardless of whether Malatesta believed in "anarchism without adjectives" or whether he would be ashamed of my opposition to individualism; Individualist anarchism is a [tragic] distortion of anarchist praxis.
Whatever.

TAT
The fact of the matter is class struggle and the working class are the only force in society capable of destroying capitalism, just as Bakunin argued and just as Malatesta argued.

Anything or anyone who says otherwise is wrong, often to the point of being reactionary.But you say that class struggle is the only method of achieving anarchism, and so on, but so? What success has class struggle had by the way? Over thrown any governments recently? Lets look at Nepal, wait they joined the government! G8 in Scotland or G20 in Melbourne? Hardly class struggle, but it was direct action against the state. And it achieved? fuck all. Until you actually have an example of class struggle working, I think you maybe shouldn't be so dogmatic.

And by the way, I read that piece, and frankly I didn't disagree.

apathy maybe

30th January 2007, 14:40

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)
Originally posted by black coffee black metal @ January 29+ 2007 07:21 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ January 29 @ 2007 07:21 pm)In any case, neither individualist anarchism nor post-left anarchy have have been "disastrous" for the anarchist movement.[/b]

I dunno? I mean, there are many specifically class based Anarchist groups in England, but in terms of attempting to create cohesion and movement activity, these things are largely dominated by individualists.

Take the Dissent Split for example. This happened because individualists didn't want organisation, refused to accept workers existed and went there own way, essentially fractioning a movement that had developed because of the G8.

Now all they do is sit in fields when groups like RAGE, Midlands Anarchist Group and London AF need all the help they can get fighting class struggle.[/b]
Basically TAT, I think you might be directing your hatred at a theoretical idea based on your experience with reality. Correct me if I am wrong with that assumption. Individualist anarchism is not some anti-organisational people sitting in fields, it is people creating alternative structures (like for example Indymedia, Food not Bombs or other organisations setup to challenge the state/corporate hegemony), it is people directly challenging the state in their every day lives, not at some big media stunt or protest.

[email protected]

bcbm
I think both have some valid ideas and criticisms. Anarchism should be nothing if not diverse and self-critical.

I'm not sure I buy that this is a good thing or even viable. Care to elaborate on that?

apathy maybe

30th January 2007, 14:43

For people interested in "anarchism without adjectives" or similar ideas, check out the "adjective free anarchism" thread in Theory.

The Feral Underclass

30th January 2007, 15:00

Originally posted by apathy maybe+January 30, 2007 03:25 pm--> (apathy maybe @ January 30, 2007 03:25 pm) Did you perchance read that article by Kropotkin? [/b]
I haven't denied that he "put forward anarchistic ideas"; in fact I accept the opposite.

The point I am making is, that regardless of some principles he may have introduced, he was not an anarchist in the actual sense of being an anarchist.

Or anything at all about or by Proudhon? He's the one who wrote, "anarchy is order", "government is chaos", "property is theft" and a bunch of other lovely catch phrases? The one who wrote "I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist".

Proudhon lay down foundations for anarchism but he spoke idealistically of moral principles and vague proto-capitalist economic systems. He may have called himself an anarchist, but there was no actual basis in which to be an anarchist.

Even today Mutualism is accepted as a type of anarchism and some people still call themselves mutaulists.

What is anarchism to you?

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)Anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle. It emerged specifically on that basis as a rejection of capitalism and ultimately a rejection of statism.
Your anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle.[/b]

No, actual anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle. If you have ideas, which are the opposite of that, then you are something else.

I agree though that all anarchism emerged specifically as a rejection of capitalism and statism, but you mustn't forget Tolstoy (who though didn't call himself an anarchist, was by all accounts), or other pacifist anarchists. Or wait, I forgot, you're a dogmatist and you don't count them as really being anarchistic.

This isn't about dogmatism, this is about reality. If you are one thing you cannot be the opposite of that, at the same time.

Good, then why don't you see individualist anarchism as a type of anarchism?

Anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle and Individualism rejects that and thus cannot then call itself something that it isn't.

Because that is all they want. Freedom.

What is this abstract word you keep using? "Freedom"? What is freedom? So anyone can call themselves an anarchist if they "want freedom"?

Freedom for who? From what? Anarchism has formulated reasoning for all these questions and found a base in which to understand what freedom is, how it is achievable and why freedom is necessary.

It's not just a word you can say and then all things make sense.

[email protected]
What does this prove? That Bakunin noted some individuals had happened to agree with him on certain issues?It was Kropotkin writing on Tucker actually. Tucker being an American individualist anarchist. The quote was to demonstrate to those who believe that individualists have added nothing to anarchism, that they are wrong.

I don't agree that Tucker "added" anything to anarchism. He simply agreed with what people before him had said.

It does not detract from the right of individualist anarchism (which does not believe in class struggle) to exist and to be acknowledged as a type of anarchism.

The rest of your post implies that I somehow want to take away peoples "rights". I don't advocate that. People can freely do what they want, call themselves what they please but that does not negate facts and reason.

TAT
Anything or anyone who says otherwise is wrong, often to the point of being reactionary.But you say that class struggle is the only method of achieving anarchism, and so on, but so? What success has class struggle had by the way? Over thrown any governments recently? Lets look at Nepal, wait they joined the government! G8 in Scotland or G20 in Melbourne? Hardly class struggle, but it was direct action against the state. And it achieved? fuck all. Until you actually have an example of class struggle working, I think you maybe shouldn't be so dogmatic.

That's so nonsensical I simply don't have the patience or inclination to argue with you.

Quite honestly, what is the point of this paragraph? What is it you're trying to prove? That class struggle doesn't work or that it hasn't been successful?

Regardless of any of your nonsense, the fact remains that the only people who have the power to bring down capitalism are the working class. Now, if class struggle will never work, then capitalism will never be destroyed - but if it hasn't been successful yet, it is because it hasn't been successful yet.

As history proves, the workers can fight capitalism and the state and in fact do so daily. Perhaps I'm dogmatic, but so what? At least I know what needs to be done and that's half the fucking battle.

The Feral Underclass

30th January 2007, 15:19

Originally posted by apathy maybe+January 30, 2007 03:40 pm--> (apathy maybe @ January 30, 2007 03:40 pm) Basically TAT, I think you might be directing your hatred at a theoretical idea based on your experience with reality. [/b]
Then you're wrong.

Individualist anarchism is not some anti-organisational people sitting in fields

I'm not saying that it is.

it is people creating alternative structures (like for example Indymedia, Food not Bombs or other organisations setup to challenge the state/corporate hegemony), it is people directly challenging the state in their every day lives, not at some big media stunt or protest.

I know perfectly well what individualists do, but none of these things are going to bring down capitalism and the state.

The only people who can do that are the working class, and if they don't want to do it then we're fucked. The struggle should be within communities and workplaces, not in activist ghettos and squats.

No matter how many independent news services we create, direct actions we do against abstract industrial corporations, fight for animal rights and the environment as a collective of activists, capitalism and the sate will continue to exist.#

Originally posted by [email protected]

bcbm
I think both have some valid ideas and criticisms. Anarchism should be nothing if not diverse and self-critical.

I'm not sure I buy that this is a good thing or even viable. Care to elaborate on that?

I've been on the peripheries and inside the anarchism movement for 5 years. In that five years one thing has become glaringly obvious to me - Theoretical and tactical disunity.

After the G8, the Dissent Network had a meeting in Sheffield and at this meeting the Wombles made a proposal to organise a 'Consulta' to discuss the possibility of creating a network in which all anarchist organisations across the country could form into one decentralised structure, which operated on the basis of campaigns.

This meant that any group in one part of the country could co-ordinate with another group on the same issues and uses the formal network structure to share ideas, tactics, and expertises and to make contacts etc.

The Anarchist Federation and RAGE supported this proposal. I was mandated to be apart of the organisational framework of getting this consulta off the ground. What happened was, the "individualists" and eco-warriors officially split from Dissent and formed their own group and organised a climate change action camp - essentially refusing to participate in a class-motivated structure.

Momentum was lost, key figures in that process got disillusioned and the proposal failed and it failed because individualists etc could not form a theoretical basis with Organisationalists and class struggle anarchists.

In every meeting I have ever attended there has been an argument between class struggle anarchists and individualists, either about working class politics, pacifism or organisation and even though this Consulta was aimed at trying to bridge the gap, it just wasn't ever going to happen.

Even in Matilda social centre the "individualists" refused to form any political basis and rejected working class politics as "dead". This disunity can be bridged if people want it to be but I sense that these differences are irreconcilable at the moment.

The Grey Blur

30th January 2007, 15:53

:lol: I like how the armchair Anarchists are even more sectarian that the active "Leninists"

Anyway, on Bukunin, isn't it widely accepted the guy was a useless nutter? My anarchists comrades have told me they take only his quotes and don't even bother with the rest of his writings as organisationally and theoretically he was crap. I thought all modern-day anarchists pretty much accepted that...?

The Feral Underclass

30th January 2007, 16:02

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 30, 2007 04:53 pm
:lol: I like how the armchair Anarchists are even more sectarian that the active "Leninists"
I do admit, my political activity is down to a minimul at the moment, but I suspect I have done more in my eleven years of political activism than you could even begin to imagine. I'm also pretty confident that Apathy Maybe is an active anarchist.

Don't piss around with me kid, you have no fucking clue.

My anarchists comrades have told me they take only his quotes and don't even bother with the rest of his writings as organisationally and theoretically he was crap. I thought all modern-day anarchists pretty much accepted that...

They take his "quotes"? What does that even mean?

Bakunin founded anarchism. If they don't bother with his writings and organisational and theoretical "crap" then on what basis are they an anarchist? Do they smash stuff?

The Grey Blur

30th January 2007, 16:45

As in he proposed isolated circles of Anarchists inflitrating movements or something ridiculous but that he had a few good slogans...eh, I dunno really and couldn't be bothered either.

Don't piss around with me kid, you have no fucking clue
:lol: You sound like a mafia-type character

The Feral Underclass

30th January 2007, 16:49

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 30, 2007 05:45 pm
As in he proposed isolated circles of Anarchists inflitrating movements or something ridiculous but that he had a few good slogans...eh, I dunno really and couldn't be bothered either.
Yeah, it can be quite taxing on the brain.

Don't piss around with me kid, you have no fucking clue
:lol: You sound like a mafia-type character

Do I?

I just find it slightly annoying when teenage boys like you start mouthing off about armchair revolutionaries to people like me...It's kinda cute really.

bcbm

30th January 2007, 23:37

No, actual anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle.

Anarchism is a rejection of all authority.

The Feral Underclass

31st January 2007, 00:51

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 31, 2007 12:37 am

No, actual anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle.

Anarchism is a rejection of all authority.
That's it?...

bcbm

31st January 2007, 03:14

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 30, 2007 06:51 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 30, 2007 06:51 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 31, 2007 12:37 am

No, actual anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle.

Anarchism is a rejection of all authority.
That's it?... [/b]
That's the common denominator of the different anarchist schools.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

31st January 2007, 03:16

And thus the reason why "anarcho-capitalism" isn't anarchism. Business would still have bosses.

Black Dagger

31st January 2007, 05:35

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 29, 2007 03:27 pm
BR, you realize that TAT said Bakunin, right, not Bakharin? And Fobby was being sarcastic.

:AO: Joke.

chimx

31st January 2007, 07:49

No, actual anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle.

I assume you take anarchism to mean exclusively that which is derived from Bakunin and are ignoring the multiple influences that predated him. I suggest you refer to what you are talking about as "Bakuninism" or something, because anarchist thought is not exclusive to some dead Russia.

That said, Bakunin may have described himself as a materialist on paper, but that did not make him one. I have made threads on this before. One of his biggest denouncements of Marx was that he lacked an emotive, empathetic understanding of struggle and revolution which would lead to authoritarianism.

Anarchism is a rejection of all authority.

I would refine that to mean the destruction of unnecessary power institutions, be they political or social. Anything beyond that, i.e. federated labor unions, is purely hypothetical.

Nusocialist

31st January 2007, 08:17

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 30, 2007 04:02 pm

Bakunin founded anarchism. If they don't bother with his writings and organisational and theoretical "crap" then on what basis are they an anarchist? Do they smash stuff?
Huh? What about Proudhon?

The Feral Underclass

31st January 2007, 10:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 08:49 am

No, actual anarchism is a materialist ideology rooted in class struggle.

I assume you take anarchism to mean exclusively that which is derived from Bakunin and are ignoring the multiple influences that predated him.
I'm not ignoring the "multiple influences", I'm simply stating that Bakunin consolidated all these principles into an ideology with an obejctive, materialist base.

He did, for all intents and purposes create anarchism as an ideology.

I suggest you refer to what you are talking about as "Bakuninism" or something, because anarchist thought is not exclusive to some dead Russia.

Anarchism is though.

That said, Bakunin may have described himself as a materialist on paper, but that did not make him one. I have made threads on this before. One of his biggest denouncements of Marx was that he lacked an emotive, empathetic understanding of struggle and revolution which would lead to authoritarianism.

:wacko:

Yet more of your crackpot bullshit.

The Feral Underclass

31st January 2007, 10:13

Originally posted by Nusocialist+January 31, 2007 09:17 am--> (Nusocialist @ January 31, 2007 09:17 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 30, 2007 04:02 pm

Bakunin founded anarchism. If they don't bother with his writings and organisational and theoretical "crap" then on what basis are they an anarchist? Do they smash stuff?
Huh? What about Proudhon? [/b]
What about him?

apathy maybe

31st January 2007, 11:07

OK, so the discussion has branched into a "What is anarchism" rather then a "What is individualist anarchism". But hey, I don't mind.

I won't respond point by point to everything people have said, rather I will outline what I think anarchism is, presenting links to support what I say. I'll explain why I think that "class war" isn't a necessary prerequisite for being a type of anarchism. I hope in doing this I'll answer all everyones questions and address everyones concern.

Firstly though, I'll just address the 'viability' of class struggle. TAT, you continue to say that the only people who have the power to bring down capitalism are the working class, I don't dispute this, I just think that it would make your case stronger if you could actually demonstrate an example of this happening before. Until you can, your case has as much strength as the 'lifestylist' or a 'Leninist', 'cause they haven't succeeded either. It doesn't matter if you are correct or not, you have to demonstrate it.
Now a question, do you oppose "lifestylist" communists, those who set up communes apart from capitalism?

I don't actually have time just now to finish this "post", I'll come back later and actually do what I said I would.

bcbm

31st January 2007, 11:15

I'm not ignoring the "multiple influences", I'm simply stating that Bakunin consolidated all these principles into an ideology with an obejctive, materialist base.

Anarcho-communism...

You sound like the Leninists who claim that one has to except Lenin if they accept Marx.

The Feral Underclass

31st January 2007, 11:24

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 31, 2007 12:07 pm
Firstly though, I'll just address the 'viability' of class struggle. TAT, you continue to say that the only people who have the power to bring down capitalism are the working class, I don't dispute this, I just think that it would make your case stronger if you could actually demonstrate an example of this happening before. Until you can, your case has as much strength as the 'lifestylist' or a 'Leninist', 'cause they haven't succeeded either. It doesn't matter if you are correct or not, you have to demonstrate it.
Russia, China, Spain. All these are examples of mass working class action tearing down capitalism.

In any case, this isn't about "demonstrating" with 'empirical evidence' the case for class struggle. It's about relying on the facts. Class struggle isn't just a tactic, it is a reality.

Class struggle is for life, not just for demonstrations.

Now a question, do you oppose "lifestylist" communists, those who set up communes apart from capitalism?

In your eager, incapable ranting, you have missed one crucial point - even though I've repeated it several times - that I don't oppose individualist methods per se, nor do I oppose people doing them. I've done these things and will do it again...

The point here is not my personal feelings towards Individualists - although you'd very much like to make it about that - The point here (and I apologise to everyone for repeating myself) is that Individualism is not a viable way of destroying capitalism or the state - and you all must realise that.

However, instead of realising it, individualists reject working class politics, some reject organisation out right and they focus on issues such as the environment and animal rights, which are co-opted liberal agenda points and no more of a threat to global capitalism as my grandmother.

Create squats, create communes, eat of bins, makes zines, do DIY - these are justifiable things - but do not proselytise that these things can and will destroy capitalism, the state and create an anarchist society - Because they won't.

The only people capable of such change are those who have the power directly over capitalism - And that isn't people who opt out of capitalist society in order to live in a reclaimed house.

I'm not patronising, it's just the facts.

The Feral Underclass

31st January 2007, 11:29

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 31, 2007 12:15 pm

I'm not ignoring the "multiple influences", I'm simply stating that Bakunin consolidated all these principles into an ideology with an obejctive, materialist base.

Anarcho-communism...
If we're going to be picky, mutualism actually.

You sound like the Leninists who claim that one has to except Lenin if they accept Marx.

Do I? Well, I'm sorry about that? Nevertheless Bakunin did consolidate all these principles into an ideology that he called anachism - specifically a class struggle, materialist based ideology to destroy capitalism and smash the state.

As I've said, if people want to call themselves anarchists, that's up to them, but that does not take away from the fact that anarchism is a specific ideology with specific tenets - It's not, as our enemies are so easily capable of claiming - A free for all.

bcbm

31st January 2007, 11:34

Holy shit did I write except instead of accept? I need to sleep.

If we're going to be picky, mutualism actually.

Bakunin was a mutualist? Hmm.

Nevertheless Bakunin did consolidate all these principles into an ideology that he called anachism - specifically a class struggle, materialist based ideology to destroy capitalism and smash the state.

An ideology called anarchism already existed by that point. Bakunin certainly helped consolidate a certain kind of anarchism, but that does not make other kinds "not anarchist."

As I've said, if people want to call themselves anarchists, that's up to them, but that does not take away from the fact that anarchism is a specific ideology with specific tenets - It's not, as our enemies are so easily capable of claiming - A free for all.

Nobody is claiming it is free for all, but that you definition that is purposely limited and excludes the individualists is false- individualists are anarchists because they are opposed to all authority!

The Feral Underclass

31st January 2007, 11:47

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 31, 2007 12:34 pm

Nevertheless Bakunin did consolidate all these principles into an ideology that he called anachism - specifically a class struggle, materialist based ideology to destroy capitalism and smash the state.

An ideology called anarchism already existed by that point.
No it didn't.

Nobody is claiming it is free for all, but that you definition that is purposely limited and excludes the individualists is false- individualists are anarchists because they are opposed to all authority!

I don't accept that the defintion of anarchism is "opposition to authority". That's just ridiculous.

The Feral Underclass

31st January 2007, 12:00

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 31, 2007 12:34 pm

If we're going to be picky, mutualism actually.

Bakunin was a mutualist? Hmm.
Of course, I meant collectivist.

bcbm

31st January 2007, 12:04

No it didn't.

So when Proudhon called himself an anarchist, he was referring to...? Or when Joseph Déjacque was writing "La question révolutionnaire?" Bakunin didn't begin developing his anarchist ideas until the 1860's, and anarchism and anarchists certainly were around before then- I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

I don't accept that the defintion of anarchism is "opposition to authority". That's just ridiculous.

Not merely opposing, but rejecting. An- without, archos- rulers, authority. Come on.

The Feral Underclass

31st January 2007, 12:11

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 31, 2007 01:04 pm

No it didn't.

So when Proudhon called himself an anarchist, he was referring to...?
I don't know? Anarchist was a term used to describe his attitude towards government - He never called what he believed anarchism and never defined anarchism as an ideology.

Mutualism was his bag.

Bakunin didn't begin developing his anarchist ideas until the 1860's, and anarchism and anarchists certainly were around before then- I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

Bakunin was the first person to use the term "anarchism" to decribe his ideology.

he was influenced by Proudhon and by Godwin et al who helped him consolidate all these principles into a materialist, class based ideology that he called - Anarchism.

I don't accept that the defintion of anarchism is "opposition to authority". That's just ridiculous.

Not merely opposing, but rejecting. An- without, archos- rulers, authority. Come on.

I'm well aware of the orgin of the word, but to simply state that anarchism is a "rejection of authority" is patently absurd.

bcbm

31st January 2007, 12:32

I don't know? Anarchist was a term used to describe his attitude towards government - He never called what he believed anarchism and never defined anarchism as an ideology.

"The Revolutionary Question" which I mentioned, by Joseph Dejacque is about anarchism, from a self-described anarchist. By the time of the International, there were anarchists around... obviously they believed in something, be it "anarchy" (which had been used by Proudhon) or "anarchism-" the point remains, Bakunin was not the only person thinking about anarchism, nor was the the first collectivist to arrive on the scene.

I'm well aware of the orgin of the word, but to simply state that anarchism is a "rejection of authority" is patently absurd.

Why? That is the common thing that all anarchists believe in. Obviously it is more complex than that, and different groups and individuals add different things, but at the core anarchism is a rejection of authority, specifically government and capitalism.

The Feral Underclass

31st January 2007, 12:50

Bakunin was the first person to coin the term "Anarchism" - Fact

Whether other people were around proposing ideas here and there is of no consequence except insofar as Bakunin took them and formed them into a coherent, materialist, class based ideology that he named - Anarchism

End of story. No more! I'm bored of this debate.

However, you should check out these guys - I love them: PUNK (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=101559574) - 'Bullshit Torquebows' is a formidable song.

bcbm

1st February 2007, 04:12

And individualist anarchists are anarchists - Fact.

And "anarchism" was not coined by Bakunin, it was coined during the French Revolution.

The Feral Underclass

1st February 2007, 22:16

Split the banter from this topic:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292254034 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61958&st=0&#entry1292254034)

apathy maybe

3rd February 2007, 15:35

TAT: Let's just agree to disagree on whether "class struggle" is the only valid method of achieving anarchism shall we? 'Cause we both believe in it. And yes I did miss in my "eager, incapable ranting," that you did not condemn individualistic methods etc. Sorry about that.

So shall we leave that discussion behind us?

Lets get onto Bakunin and "mutaulism". To be picky, Bakunin was a collectivist, Proudhon was the mutualist. But you did fix that so, moving on ...

I said earlier I would post what I thought anarchism was. Rather then doing it here, I'm going to be posting it in 'my' other thread, on adjective free anarchism. Which can be found http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61805

Feel free do direct all queries about what I think of anarchism to that thread. Where I discuss why I think individualist anarchism is anarchism, as well as other sorts. Enjoy.

The Feral Underclass

3rd February 2007, 17:10

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 03, 2007 04:35 pm
TAT: Let's just agree to disagree on whether "class struggle" is the only valid method of achieving anarchism shall we
You do understand that this makes no [material] sense. This argument isn't just about individuals wanting to be "right" and then getting annoyed when other people don't agree. This is about reality - You know, the thing around you...?

The argument of class struggle is an objective, materialist one. Capitalism is a process of production. That means it exists to "produce" things. In a capitalist system this is done for the purpose of profit by exploiting other people and is protected by the state.

Capitalism makes things in order to exist; it has functions and industry that creates a mechinism in order for the system to survive - not just in terms of the state, but in terms of its infrastructure.

In order to destroy that system what do you think needs to be done? The answer is, simply and exclusively, that the the "things" it produces, the functions, industries and mechanisms it uses to exist need to stop; once they stop capitalsim can no longer operate.

How else do you expect capitalism to stop, without it stopping? And who else can stop it but those who work within it? I mean, if they work in it it will continue and if they don't then it won't. People who opt out of work, are students, activits have no actual and real power over capitalism because what ever they do capitalism will still continue to operate. The only people who do have power are workers - That's not a preference, it's a fact.

It's quite obvious really...