American anarchism

[Os Cangaceiros]

Is it just me, or does American anarchism seem to be largely ignored on this website? (It could be just me, and if it is, don't hesitate to inform me.)

I was browsing the list of notable Left intellectuals though, and noticed the absence of any and all American anarchists. I mean, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Voltairine De Cleyre were pretty important intellectual figures in the anarchist movement.

[RedAnarchist]

I don'tknow, its not something I've noticed personally. Perhaps the writer of the list isn't American so didn't know of a lot of American anarchists?

[lvleph]

There a few of "American" anarchists on these boards, including me. However, what do you mean by "American Anarchism"? Are you referring to individual anarchism or worse yet anarcho-capitalism? If so you want find much of that here. This site is for leftist, and those forms of anarchist movements don't fit into a left movement (depending on the definition of individual anarchism).

[RedAnarchist]

Do you mean this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25785) list?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:45 pm
There a few of "American" anarchists on these boards, including me. However, what do you mean by "American Anarchism"? Are you referring to individual anarchism or worse yet anarcho-capitalism? If so you want find much of that here. This site is for leftist, and those forms of anarchist movements don't fit into a left movement (depending on the definition of individual anarchism).
Well, yes, American anarchism is one anarchist movement that is deeply rooted in the Individualist faction of the ideology. However, it's still undeniably left. IAs like Warren believed in the labor theory of value. Kropotkin recognized great American anarchist thinkers like Benjamin Tucker to be legitimate anarchists. In my view, the only way to be an anarchist is to be an Individualist (but I'm biased, obviously, as one.)

To RA: yes, that list.

[JazzRemington]

It's just that we don't get many Individualists here, and the ones we do get are often capitalists using anarchist terminology.

Plus this site is mostly international and has a wide body of people from different parts of the world, where Individualist Anarchism never either caught on or developed. Remember: except for Proudhon and possibly Stirner, Individualist Anarchism is mostly an American phenomenon. Those non-American anarchists who identify themselves as Individualists are often influenced by American writings.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:06 pm
It's just that we don't get many Individualists here, and the ones we do get are often capitalists using anarchist terminology.

Plus this site is mostly international and has a wide body of people from different parts of the world, where Individualist Anarchism never either caught on or developed. Remember: except for Proudhon and possibly Stirner, Individualist Anarchism is mostly an American phenomenon. Those non-American anarchists who identify themselves as Individualists are often influenced by American writings.
I guess that makes sense, in a way.

[Robert]

We have tried to ban all anarchists. They are crypto-roaders. Or running dogs, I can't remember which.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 20, 2007 12:41 am
We have tried to ban all anarchists. They are crypto-roaders. Or running dogs, I can't remember which.
I thought this site was anarcho friendly! :D

After all, I see the omnipresent circle A on the RevLeft site logo...

[Robert]

You keep putting those happy faces on this site, comrade, and we will have to purge you.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 20, 2007 01:38 am
You keep putting those happy faces on this site, comrade, and we will have to purge you.
The emoticon NKVD will be up in my ass faster than you can say blueberry pie, eh?

I'll be on alert. Thanks for the heads up, comrade.

[lvleph]

They are just messing with you. Anarchist are however in the minority here, but I guess we are in the minority in most places.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:17 am
They are just messing with you. Anarchist are however in the minority here, but I guess we are in the minority in most places.
These are the standard responses I recieve when I tell the average person that I'm an anarchist:

1) "Why do you hate America?"
2) "Why are you a terrorist?"
3) "Funny, you seemed like a nice, normal person to me."
4) "Shouldn't you be throwing a Molotov cocktail at some cops right now?"
5) "Were you at that WTO thing?"

I'm not even joking.

[IcarusAngel]

Noam Chomsky is on that list, and I believe he is an American anarchist. Check out Chomsky on Anarchism (http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195525236&sr=1-1), where he draws from a variety of anarchists. Also, there is Anarchism, From Theory to Practice (http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Theory-Practice-Daniel-Guerin/dp/0853451753/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195525236&sr=1-3), a good book that Chomsky is a part of.

I also recommend "Government and the Future" by Chomsky, where Chomsky outlines four paradigms: state-socialism, state capitalism, classical liberalism, and libertarian-socialism. Chomsky believes in the latter, pretty much rejects the others except he sees the classical liberal strain of thought influencing libertarian-socialism.

[Robert]

we are in the minority

We? We???

"Where there's one you'll find another, and then another, until you've come upon a whole nest of them."

Dr. Zayer, Planet of the Apes.

Now I wonder who else may be a crypto-anarchist disguising as a lefty. Ulster? Say it ain't so!

[Robert]

we are in the minority

We? We???

"Where there's one you'll find another, and then another, until you've come upon a whole nest of them."

Dr. Zayer, Planet of the Apes.

Now I wonder who else may be a crypto-anarchist disguising as a lefty. Ulster? Say it ain't so!

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Agora77+November 19, 2007 09:23 pm--> (Agora77 @ November 19, 2007 09:23 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 02:17 am
They are just messing with you. Anarchist are however in the minority here, but I guess we are in the minority in most places.
These are the standard responses I recieve when I tell the average person that I'm an anarchist:

1) "Why do you hate America?"
2) "Why are you a terrorist?"
3) "Funny, you seemed like a nice, normal person to me."
4) "Shouldn't you be throwing a Molotov cocktail at some cops right now?"
5) "Were you at that WTO thing?"

I'm not even joking. [/b]
I get a lot of stupid people saying stupid things, but nothing quite like that. Most people tell me it wouldn't work and that it would be gang rule. I generally go into an explanation of how that would be prevented.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 20, 2007 02:24 am

we are in the minority

We? We???

"Where there's one you'll find another, and then another, until you've come upon a whole nest of them."

Dr. Zayer, Planet of the Apes.

Now I wonder who else may be a crypto-anarchist disguising as a lefty. Ulster? Say it ain't so!
Ulster? Do you mean the member Ulster Socialist?

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 19, 2007 09:25 pm

we are in the minority

We? We???

"Where there's one you'll find another, and then another, until you've come upon a whole nest of them."

Dr. Zayer, Planet of the Apes.

Now I wonder who else may be a crypto-anarchist disguising as a lefty. Ulster? Say it ain't so!
I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I am definitely not a crypto.

Even if you find a whole nest of anarchists here on revleft, I would still venture to say the majority (or active majority) on this bored seem to be some sort of Marxist.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 20, 2007 12:26 pm--> (lvleph @ November 20, 2007 12:26 pm)
Robert the [email protected] 19, 2007 09:25 pm

we are in the minority

We? We???

"Where there's one you'll find another, and then another, until you've come upon a whole nest of them."

Dr. Zayer, Planet of the Apes.

Now I wonder who else may be a crypto-anarchist disguising as a lefty. Ulster? Say it ain't so!
I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I am definitely not a crypto.

Even if you find a whole nest of anarchists here on revleft, I would still venture to say the majority (or active majority) on this bored seem to be some sort of Marxist. [/b]
According to the 2006 Survey, which you can see the results of here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59810) (the 2007 survey is still being answered at this time) -


Communism: 15%
Socialism: 15%
Anarchism: 13%
Left Communism/Libertarian Communism/Council Communism: 11%
Anarcho-Communism: 10%
Marxism-Leninism: 10%
Bolshevik-Leninism (Trotskyism): 8%
Marxism: 6%
Anarcho-Communist Technocrat: 3%
Maoism: 1%
Situationist: 1%
Leftism: 1%
Pacifist Socialism: 1%

For the purposes of sectarianism:

Some sort of Marxist-Leninist: 19%
Some sort of Anarchist: 26%
Other/Vague: 55%

According to these results, there are more anarchists and "libertarian communists" than Marxist-Leninists. However, the majority of responses were vague (i.e. "communist").

[lvleph]

Okay, so Marxist-Lenist and Anarchists, as single entities, are both minorities compared to the confused. lol jk

[RedAnarchist]

Those results don't cover every single member though, only about 50 or so, but all 50 are probably active members.

[apathy maybe]

I'm one of two or three members who post the most on, and seem to have the best understanding of, individualist anarchism (or so I've noticed).

There are a few threads around, though at least one inaccessible to non-CC members.

One reason it doesn't get much space is because it isn't (generally) a revolutionary theory, and it isn't collectivist.

However, adjective free anarchism sometimes gets press, and individualist anarchism is sometimes included in that.


(Oh, and answer the survey, everyone is allowed to! See the link in my sig.)

[hajduk]

the best way to spread anarcism in America is not websites,the best way for this is to make political platform which will pronounce making the one anarchy state in America,you have to choose one state in America which by statistics documents have potential to accept that kind of system and then will be easyer to make anarchy

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:05 am
the best way to spread anarcism in America is not websites,the best way for this is to make political platform which will pronounce making the one anarchy state in America,you have to choose one state in America which by statistics documents have potential to accept that kind of system and then will be easyer to make anarchy
Anarchist State? huh

[hajduk]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 20, 2007 03:09 pm--> (lvleph @ November 20, 2007 03:09 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 10:05 am
the best way to spread anarcism in America is not websites,the best way for this is to make political platform which will pronounce making the one anarchy state in America,you have to choose one state in America which by statistics documents have potential to accept that kind of system and then will be easyer to make anarchy
Anarchist State? huh [/b]
i dindnt meant the state like state i mean that in one state in America anarchyst make anarchy

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by hajduk+November 20, 2007 04:13 pm--> (hajduk @ November 20, 2007 04:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:09 pm

[email protected] 20, 2007 10:05 am
the best way to spread anarcism in America is not websites,the best way for this is to make political platform which will pronounce making the one anarchy state in America,you have to choose one state in America which by statistics documents have potential to accept that kind of system and then will be easyer to make anarchy
Anarchist State? huh
i dindnt meant the state like state i mean that in one state in America anarchyst make anarchy [/b]
Sounds a lot like Stalin's "socialism in one country" idea, and we all know how well that went.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+November 20, 2007 04:15 pm--> (Jazzratt @ November 20, 2007 04:15 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:13 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:09 pm

[email protected] 20, 2007 10:05 am
the best way to spread anarcism in America is not websites,the best way for this is to make political platform which will pronounce making the one anarchy state in America,you have to choose one state in America which by statistics documents have potential to accept that kind of system and then will be easyer to make anarchy
Anarchist State? huh
i dindnt meant the state like state i mean that in one state in America anarchyst make anarchy
Sounds a lot like Stalin's "socialism in one country" idea, and we all know how well that went. [/b]
what do you mean?

[hajduk]

my point that now is impossible to make whole America to have anarchy system,but if you make in one country anarchy and shows to others that is god then it will be mutch easyer to make whole America to accept anarchism,what do you think?

[Jazzratt]

The idea of building up leftism in one country at the expense of worldwide revolution. It didn't work out so well.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:35 am
my point that now is impossible to make whole America to have anarchy system,but if you make in one country anarchy and shows to others that is god then it will be mutch easyer to make whole America to accept anarchism,what do you think?
Sounds like "Socialism in One Country."

The idea was that if Communism worked in the USSR, then it was bound to spread through out the world. It did the opposite. I think Cuba's method of supporting revolutions elsewhere works much better.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:37 pm
The idea of building up leftism in one country at the expense of worldwide revolution. It didn't work out so well.
but if we say that we have to take solutions from the future that mean we have 50/50 chances to make anarchy revolution,right?becouse now we have better conditions,internet,media etc.

[Ultra-Violence]

So your talking about anarchist like benjamin tucker?

I dont think hes really talked about here becuase he's an anarcho-capitalist etc....



or are you talking about thr american-anarcist scene right now?


what DO YOU WANT! :wacko:

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 20, 2007 05:07 pm
So your talking about anarchist like benjamin tucker?

I dont think hes really talked about here becuase he's an anarcho-capitalist etc....



or are you talking about thr american-anarcist scene right now?


what DO YOU WANT! :wacko:
i talk about the future of anarchism in America ;)

[RGacky3]

Well, the IWW gets talked about a lot, one of the best homegrown American organizations out there. Noam Chomskys huge now. I think American Anarchists are represented quite well.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected]r 20, 2007 05:36 pm
Well, the IWW gets talked about a lot, one of the best homegrown American organizations out there. Noam Chomskys huge now. I think American Anarchists are represented quite well.
so its possible to make anarchyst revolution in some country in America?

[lvleph]

Originally posted by hajduk+November 20, 2007 12:39 pm--> (hajduk @ November 20, 2007 12:39 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 05:36 pm
Well, the IWW gets talked about a lot, one of the best homegrown American organizations out there. Noam Chomskys huge now. I think American Anarchists are represented quite well.
so its possible to make anarchyst revolution in some country in America? [/b]
Some of us are working on it.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 20, 2007 05:46 pm--> (lvleph @ November 20, 2007 05:46 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:39 pm

[email protected] 20, 2007 05:36 pm
Well, the IWW gets talked about a lot, one of the best homegrown American organizations out there. Noam Chomskys huge now. I think American Anarchists are represented quite well.
so its possible to make anarchyst revolution in some country in America?
Some of us are working on it. [/b]
that is what i am talkin about but it is easyer to make for start in one country then you can spread anarchism all over the America

[lvleph]

Originally posted by hajduk+November 20, 2007 01:02 pm--> (hajduk @ November 20, 2007 01:02 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:46 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:39 pm

[email protected] 20, 2007 05:36 pm
Well, the IWW gets talked about a lot, one of the best homegrown American organizations out there. Noam Chomskys huge now. I think American Anarchists are represented quite well.
so its possible to make anarchyst revolution in some country in America?
Some of us are working on it.
that is what i am talkin about but it is easyer to make for start in one country then you can spread anarchism all over the America [/b]
Well, the model we are working with currently is to form a federation. Currently, we are working on a federation between anarchist groups in our state. hopefully, from there we can get something going with other like groups outside of the state.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 20, 2007 06:06 pm--> (lvleph @ November 20, 2007 06:06 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:02 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:46 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:39 pm

[email protected] 20, 2007 05:36 pm
Well, the IWW gets talked about a lot, one of the best homegrown American organizations out there. Noam Chomskys huge now. I think American Anarchists are represented quite well.
so its possible to make anarchyst revolution in some country in America?
Some of us are working on it.
that is what i am talkin about but it is easyer to make for start in one country then you can spread anarchism all over the America
Well, the model we are working with currently is to form a federation. Currently, we are working on a federation between anarchist groups in our state. hopefully, from there we can get something going with other like groups outside of the state. [/b]
then you should make statistics files about countrys in America which have biggest popularity of anarchist so you can make some kind political anarchy platform in some country which have largest number of anarchist which will choose to make anarchy system in own country

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 20, 2007 05:07 pm
So your talking about anarchist like benjamin tucker?

I dont think hes really talked about here becuase he's an anarcho-capitalist etc....



or are you talking about thr american-anarcist scene right now?


what DO YOU WANT! :wacko:
If you think Tucker was an AnCap, you are quite literally insane.

Even the guys over at Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html) admit that Benjamin Tucker was a legitimate anarchist. Oh, not to mention Emma Goldman and Kropotkin both recognized Tucker as one of the great American anarchists. Oh, and I almost forgot, Tucker believed in the labor theory of value. I challenge you to find ONE AnCap who believes in the LTOV.

Jesus fucking christ.

[apathy maybe]

Well well. I was just about to say that Tucker wasn't any sort of capitalist.


Agora77, you know what I said about people not knowing what individualism is? That's an example.

Anyway, some questions, you are anti-capitalist? You are an individualist anarchist? If you answer yes to both of those, I'll fight to get you unrestricted. Individualistic anarchists aren't mean to be restricted around here.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 22, 2007 08:38 am
Well well. I was just about to say that Tucker wasn't any sort of capitalist.


Agora77, you know what I said about people not knowing what individualism is? That's an example.

Anyway, some questions, you are anti-capitalist? You are an individualist anarchist? If you answer yes to both of those, I'll fight to get you unrestricted. Individualistic anarchists aren't mean to be restricted around here.
Anti Capitalist? Yes, simply because capitalism is a form of non-voluntary coercion, the large majority of the time. I recently read an interesting piece by de Cleyre about how both Communism and capitalism are wrong; I think people should manage their own economic affairs. That being said, the economic conditions after anarchy are pretty elastic, in my opinion. Different communites will decide whats best for themselves, be that syndicalism, AnCommunism, co opts, some kind of mutualism, etc. The most important thing though is that they will do so by their own free will and collectively. I'm opposed to any and all non voluntary transaction or interraction.

I oppose the State for obvious reasons.

And yes, I'm an Individualist Anarchist. I'm not even exactly sure why I was banished to the OI ghetto. I didn't make any endorsement of capitalism, which is what I was told...eh. Maybe it's just because I made one to many disparaging remarks about Communism, although some of those were tongue in cheek, hehe.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If we're talking about anarcho-individualism and not anarcho-capitalism, I don't see why this thread is in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

[Ultra-Violence]

well the little that i read on bemjamin tucker is basically he said Eliminate the state but let thier be an unregulted economy etc.. thanx for the heads up though

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Agora77+November 22, 2007 09:16 pm--> (Agora77 @ November 22, 2007 09:16 pm)
apathy [email protected] 22, 2007 08:38 am
Well well. I was just about to say that Tucker wasn't any sort of capitalist.


Agora77, you know what I said about people not knowing what individualism is? That's an example.

Anyway, some questions, you are anti-capitalist? You are an individualist anarchist? If you answer yes to both of those, I'll fight to get you unrestricted. Individualistic anarchists aren't mean to be restricted around here.
Anti Capitalist? Yes, simply because capitalism is a form of non-voluntary coercion, the large majority of the time. I recently read an interesting piece by de Cleyre about how both Communism and capitalism are wrong; I think people should manage their own economic affairs. That being said, the economic conditions after anarchy are pretty elastic, in my opinion. Different communites will decide whats best for themselves, be that syndicalism, AnCommunism, co opts, some kind of mutualism, etc. The most important thing though is that they will do so by their own free will and collectively. I'm opposed to any and all non voluntary transaction or interraction.

I oppose the State for obvious reasons.

And yes, I'm an Individualist Anarchist. I'm not even exactly sure why I was banished to the OI ghetto. I didn't make any endorsement of capitalism, which is what I was told...eh. Maybe it's just because I made one to many disparaging remarks about Communism, although some of those were tongue in cheek, hehe. [/b]
Indeed, I am of a similar position.

What's your opinion on violence? Class war?

Property? Rent? Interest? Profit?

Anyway, I'm off to start a thread in the CC to get you unrestricted, and your answer to the above shouldn't affect your un-restriction (unless you answer "incorrectly" the final four).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+November 23, 2007 10:46 am--> (apathy maybe @ November 23, 2007 10:46 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:16 pm

apathy [email protected] 22, 2007 08:38 am
Well well. I was just about to say that Tucker wasn't any sort of capitalist.


Agora77, you know what I said about people not knowing what individualism is? That's an example.

Anyway, some questions, you are anti-capitalist? You are an individualist anarchist? If you answer yes to both of those, I'll fight to get you unrestricted. Individualistic anarchists aren't mean to be restricted around here.
Anti Capitalist? Yes, simply because capitalism is a form of non-voluntary coercion, the large majority of the time. I recently read an interesting piece by de Cleyre about how both Communism and capitalism are wrong; I think people should manage their own economic affairs. That being said, the economic conditions after anarchy are pretty elastic, in my opinion. Different communites will decide whats best for themselves, be that syndicalism, AnCommunism, co opts, some kind of mutualism, etc. The most important thing though is that they will do so by their own free will and collectively. I'm opposed to any and all non voluntary transaction or interraction.

I oppose the State for obvious reasons.

And yes, I'm an Individualist Anarchist. I'm not even exactly sure why I was banished to the OI ghetto. I didn't make any endorsement of capitalism, which is what I was told...eh. Maybe it's just because I made one to many disparaging remarks about Communism, although some of those were tongue in cheek, hehe.
Indeed, I am of a similar position.

What's your opinion on violence? Class war?

Property? Rent? Interest? Profit?

Anyway, I'm off to start a thread in the CC to get you unrestricted, and your answer to the above shouldn't affect your un-restriction (unless you answer "incorrectly" the final four). [/b]
Violence - I'm a Pacifist. Although violence sometimes has a place, if utilized as a mechanism of self defense.

Class War - I kind of view the whole "class war" thing as Marxist jingoism. I mean, I'm very, very suspicious of sweeping attempts to divide nations of people along two major class lines, although in some nations this would be a valid way of looking at situations. The bottom line is that people don't fit into neat categorizations such as the bourgeious CEO, or the proletariat coal miner; people need to be looked at on an Individual basis.

However, this being said, I do think there is a place for class war: a war against the ruling class and its acting henchman the State by the oppressed class of the ruled. As an anarchist, I tend to view the State as perpetuating and sustaining capitalism, as opposed to the other way around, the Marxist viewpoint.


Property - As an Individualist, I don't necessarily agree that all property needs to be abolished. I take Proudhon's view on property mostly. While he did say "Property is theft", he also viewed property as potentially liberating, if combined with ones own labor. As a member of the self employed working class, this especially rang true to me.

Rent - I don't have a strict position on this. Although, if you were to take Proudhon's position on property, a Georgian position in which rent is payed to the community at large by laborers who utilize their land might be beneficial.

Interest - Opposed.

Profit - In today's world, it's exploitative.

Hopefully that clarified my positions on some issues. My views have been somewhat murky in the past.

[Cult of Reason]

Request for clarification: you oppose sweeping attempts to divide people along class lines, yet you have no problem with dividing people into nations, which are arbitrary?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:22 pm
Request for clarification: you oppose sweeping attempts to divide people along class lines, yet you have no problem with dividing people into nations, which are arbitrary?
I'm saying that while the Marxist way of viewing people as either a member of one class or another is flawed, at least in my opinion, in some nations it is in fact a valid way of looking at the economic situation; nations which have very little or no "middle class", for example.

[Dr Mindbender]

the class distinction is valid and simple. You have the beourgiose class ie the means of production owners, and you have the proletarian class; the ones who dont control the means of production. How much simpler do you want it?

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 23, 2007 07:33 am
well the little that i read on bemjamin tucker is basically he said Eliminate the state but let thier be an unregulted economy etc.. thanx for the heads up though
When Tucker and anarchists speak of a free-economy, they generally don't mean anything that even remotely resembles capitalism or right-wing "Libertarianism," or what have you.

One of the so-called "monopolies" Benjamin Tucker opposed was "the land monopoly," where capitalists consolidate land through their absurd notation of "property," and force everybody else to work for them, or die.

Tucker, like Spooner, said we should abolish wage slavery and private monopolies, and said: Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means whereby any labourer can be deprived of any of his product.

He made the distinction between anarcho-socialism and state socialism, but he was clearly a leftist-anarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist or anything of the sort.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:31 pm
Property - As an Individualist, I don't necessarily agree that all property needs to be abolished. I take Proudhon's view on property mostly. While he did say "Property is theft", he also viewed property as potentially liberating, if combined with ones own labor. As a member of the self employed working class, this especially rang true to me.
How can you say what is or isn't "liberating" in the economy based on personal experience when you live in an exploitative capitalist society? Everything you do, especially your "self-employment," depends upon the capitalist system. If we had a Proudhon society, your business might not even survive. Capitalism affects everything, including even the guy running hot dog stand on the street. If a corporations secures a new land development project near your hot dog stand, obviously you're going to do more business than the one around the block.

My point is, it's impossible to tell what Proudhon's self-employment would be like unless we lived in his free-society, and unless you're in some third world country cut off from globalization, there's no way to experience that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 23, 2007 10:05 pm
the class distinction is valid and simple. You have the beourgiose class ie the means of production owners, and you have the proletarian class; the ones who dont control the means of production. How much simpler do you want it?
What Marx says about the classes is in my view over simplified. Nowhere is this more apparent than the issue of the petite bourgeious, in my opinion. If Marx was correct, I should be slaving away right now in an oppresive Industrial dystopia. Although I admit, fish farming absolutely terrifies me. Theres an increasing backlash against it, though.

That's not my only criticism of Marx. I have many, many more.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+November 23, 2007 10:21 pm--> (IcarusAngel @ November 23, 2007 10:21 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 08:31 pm
Property - As an Individualist, I don't necessarily agree that all property needs to be abolished. I take Proudhon's view on property mostly. While he did say "Property is theft", he also viewed property as potentially liberating, if combined with ones own labor. As a member of the self employed working class, this especially rang true to me.
How can you say what is or isn't "liberating" in the economy based on personal experience when you live in an exploitative capitalist society? Everything you do, especially your "self-employment," depends upon the capitalist system. If we had a Proudhon society, your business might not even survive. Capitalism affects everything, including even the guy running hot dog stand on the street. If a corporations secures a new land development project near your hot dog stand, obviously you're going to do more business than the one around the block.

My point is, it's impossible to tell what Proudhon's self-employment would be like unless we lived in his free-society, and unless you're in some third world country cut off from globalization, there's no way to experience that. [/b]
How can you say what is or isn't "liberating" in the economy based on personal experience when you live in an exploitative capitalist society?

Simply because my labor is my own; I own my labor, and I'm not involved in wage slavery.

Everything you do, especially your "self-employment," depends upon the capitalist system.

Elaborate, please. Certainly my "self employment" would look very different in a non State Capitalist society, but the situation where I would own my own labor would still exist.

If we had a Proudhon society, your business might not even survive.

Perhaps not. Then again, in the economic situation I'm involved in currently, there is always a chance that I could go by the wayside anyway, especially with the increasing "privatization" (read: state control) of fisheries. Any small business owner will tell you its a fine line between prosperity and failure.

Capitalism affects everything, including even the guy running hot dog stand on the street.

No argument. I've never claimed that capital and capitalism doesn't affect me or my livelyhood; I've been exploited by the perversion of the "market" just as everyone else has.

My point is, it's impossible to tell what Proudhon's self-employment would be like unless we lived in his free-society, and unless you're in some third world country cut off from globalization, there's no way to experience that.

So, you're saying the problem is...globalization? Neo liberalism is a fairly recent developement. I would think that the barriers to free society would be more than that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 23, 2007 07:33 am
well the little that i read on bemjamin tucker is basically he said Eliminate the state but let thier be an unregulted economy etc.. thanx for the heads up though
Hey, no problem.

I found this on Infoshop. You may want to read it, if you're interested.

Benjamin Tucker: Capitalist or Anarchist? (http://infoshop.org/library/Elkin:_Benjamin_Tucker_-_Anarchist_or_capitalist)

[RevSkeptic]

The only way Anarchism would work is if we all revert back to primitive agrarianism which not all that bad since we'll be a planet happy simple farmers and hunters working from sunrise to sunset.

No inequality at all. For some people this is a good thing. But, alas this will not last as empires will inevitably form with armies of spear throwers stabbing and enslaving each other.

Before anyone condemn me as a troll there are valid reasons for why this must be.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:00 am
The only way Anarchism would work is if we all revert back to primitive agrarianism which not all that bad since we'll be a planet happy simple farmers and hunters working from sunrise to sunset.
Uh, no, more like we'll be miserable hunter-gatherers who smash human progress and die around 30.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Mrdie+November 25, 2007 09:43 am--> (Mrdie @ November 25, 2007 09:43 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 04:00 am
The only way Anarchism would work is if we all revert back to primitive agrarianism which not all that bad since we'll be a planet happy simple farmers and hunters working from sunrise to sunset.
Uh, no, more like we'll be miserable hunter-gatherers who smash human progress and die around 30. [/b]
Being that the end result of both Communism and Anarchism is the stateless society, I don't understand your criticism.

[Demogorgon]

The views of people like Tucker and Spooner. (And of course other similair but not American thinkers) are to me very interesting, partly because you don't see them expressed too often these days.

I have a good deal of reservations on the subject and ultimately, I have to say, I am pretty Much entirely in the Marxist camp politically, so obviously disagree with them, but I do think that Marxists need to learn from all forms of anarchism and that includes things like individualist anarchism and mutualism, which to me are amongst the richest strains of anarchism.

The only debate you usually get on the subject here is arguing in the CC over whether the position is an opposing ideology or not, so it is certainly interesting to have a proponent of these views here.

Now I have said the noe thing, I have a criticism of your position, that I wonder if you think is valid, and that is to me individualist anarchist thought seems to pre-suppose a sort of idealised agrarian society. How would the ideals be applied to a modern post-industrial society?

[RevSkeptic]

The only way Anarchism would work is if we all revert back to primitive agrarianism which not all that bad since we'll be a planet happy simple farmers and hunters working from sunrise to sunset.
Uh, no, more like we'll be miserable hunter-gatherers who smash human progress and die around 30.

Sure, but people were pretty much equal because things were simple. And by that I mean really simple so that anybody can engage in production.

Becaues the technological base of society is less complex the inherent intelligence required to contribute both to psychological and physical well being is less. You want food? You either stick a spear or arrow into some animal or you plough the ground with seeds. How much intelligence is required for that? The participatory affect for the entire population of capable workers gives people both a sense of accomplishment and tangible physical rewards for expended work.

Contrast this to now where technological development is progressing at a faster and accelerating pace. There's a political reason why some repetitive jobs are not replaced with automation and that involves the oppositional social pressure by the unskilled to preserve what they can only be capable of doing given their inherent intelligence. If you follow the trajectory of current society to it's logical end then it would only mean the obsolescence of a portion of the actual human population due to intelligent technology replacing unintelligent, unskilled labour.

Well, it's up to you if you consider obsolescence of some human beings to be ethical, but then again this is a political forum.

Contrast this with agrarian anarchism where the lowliest of intelligence was required to kill an animal or put seeds into the dirt. There were still kings and queens, but this is simply the natural development of a ruling hierarchy you would expect in any type of social animal including bees and ants. But, the development of human ingenuity. Well, that's something else altogether because it upsets the "regular" operation of the ant colony so to speak. The few geniuses able to make labour saving devices would mean the rest of the colony would have to invent some make work for those whose labour have been saved in order to avoid social rebellion and collapse.

Although even then with this invention of make work like advertising, marketing, speculation and public relations as "jobs", collapse is inevitable, but it would simply be a long drawn out affair.

But, having said that. I'm not in favour of universal agrarian anarchism, but I predict that the future would mean the break up of the human family into separate branches of development. It's inevitable because the distance between the few geniuses that understand and make technology work and the rest of the people engaging in "work" is simply too great. And this distance isn't something political like inequality of "wealth" between the kings and queens of the colony and the workers that can be bridged with redistribution of "wealth" which is really politcal claims on ownership, but the distance between someone who could only be capable of spearing an animal or putting seeds into the ground (or the modern equivalent of this like factory assembly line work) and someone who could invent things.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Agora77+November 25, 2007 06:54 pm--> (Agora77 @ November 25, 2007 06:54 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:43 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 04:00 am
The only way Anarchism would work is if we all revert back to primitive agrarianism which not all that bad since we'll be a planet happy simple farmers and hunters working from sunrise to sunset.
Uh, no, more like we'll be miserable hunter-gatherers who smash human progress and die around 30.
Being that the end result of both Communism and Anarchism is the stateless society, I don't understand your criticism.[/b]
Stateless =/= regression. Stateless societies were impossible before. Capitalism has allowed us to achieve them. Industrial development is a pillar of Communism. (since industrial development also allows the faster production of produce)

From Principles of Communism, 1847:
Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time?

No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations. Private property has not always existed.

When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.

So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society’s productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development. The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians.

It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.

Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Agora77+November 23, 2007 05:55 pm--> (Agora77 @ November 23, 2007 05:55 pm) How can you say what is or isn't "liberating" in the economy based on personal experience when you live in an exploitative capitalist society?

Simply because my labor is my own; I own my labor, and I'm not involved in wage slavery. [/b]
I don't understand how you can say you are not involved in wage slavery. Do you need to earn a wage? If you take responsibility to provide for a family, the answer should be yes. If you need to earn a wage then you are involved in wage slavery. If you are selling your labor you are actually propagating wage slavery, by requiring someone else to pay for the goods you provide through your labor. So we all perpetuate wage slavery. I am not saying that at this moment, in a current system, that we really can do much about this. But, you are delusional if you think you are not involved in wage slavery.


[email protected] November 26, 2007 03:16 am
Stateless =/= regression. Stateless societies were impossible before. Capitalism has allowed us to achieve them.
What about tribalism? That was stateless.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:56 am
What about tribalism? That was stateless. I should of said Communist.

[RGacky3]

Stateless societies were impossible before. Capitalism has allowed us to achieve them.

How so?

Also I think its wrong to think of Anarchism in terms of Revolution, of coarse Anarchists are interested in revolution, but we are also very interested in small changes, and smaller acts of resistance and other Anarchist Ideas, for example Food not Bombs has nothing to do with revolution perse.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:31 pm

Stateless societies were impossible before. Capitalism has allowed us to achieve them.

How so?

Also I think its wrong to think of Anarchism in terms of Revolution, of coarse Anarchists are interested in revolution, but we are also very interested in small changes, and smaller acts of resistance and other Anarchist Ideas, for example Food not Bombs has nothing to do with revolution perse.
Food not Bombs is a revolution of social change. Food not Bombs wants to point out that the government is spending its money in the wrong place, and that too many people waste. If we stopped both of those things, everyone could eat. It is a way of looking at social injustices/inequalities. It is a revolutionary idea, that by providing food to anyone we can change things.

[RevSkeptic]

Food not Bombs is a revolution of social change. Food not Bombs wants to point out that the government is spending its money in the wrong place, and that too many people waste. If we stopped both of those things, everyone could eat. It is a way of looking at social injustices/inequalities. It is a revolutionary idea, that by providing food to anyone we can change things.

You're missing the point. Shouldn't we all be low tech. so that the natural order of work = survival be put into practice for everybody?

Thought of from both the right and left perspective in the political spectrum: work = right to live.

Historically both from Hitler who stated: "Those who refused to struggle forfeits his right to live"

and from various radical leftist ideologues who imply that the idle were exhibiting bourgeois tendencies who need to be mentally "reformed" into productive workers or put into jails as refuseniks.

Some of the responses I've seen by posters here seem to suggest this instinctual rationalization that probably comes from the way people evolved from earlier times where everybody needs to take part in sustenance production just to survive. Slackers weren't tolerated ever so those who seem to slack off in digging the fields or hunting the game get the sharp end of the stick poked into them.

Or if you prefer a libertarian veneer over basically the same primitivist mindset: Those who failed in their particular farming or hunting duties get to starve to death because it's entirely their fault. Which in a way it is in a primitive agrarian society where everybody could only afford enough personal physical labour expenditure to keep themselves alive.

But, hasn't modern technology upset this natural balance of work = reward = survival in it's entirety? True, many people need to work to survive from the money that can buy the necessities of life, but how much of this work is really necessary for actual material production. And we even go further high tech. by harnessing the intelligence of the few geniuses in the population to roboticize and automate almost all unskilled work then how much further work would become extraneous, but is simply "make work" to satisfy the primitive instinctual mindset of work = survival?

If we rely on welfare after the labour of the less intelligent is made redundant then how are these redundant populations of people going to do with all their time? Increase the population of redundant people?

What is the logical conclusion of this then?

I think the conclusion is inevitable: either go back to the way we were and be all happy hunters/farmers or we split into different variants of the human species of happy inventors and the happy farmers.

[lvleph]

I don't speak for all of Food not Bombs, obviously. But, I know the Food not Bombs, with whom I participate, does not believe as you state "we all be low tech. so that the natural order of work = survival be put into practice for everybody"

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by Demogorgon
I have a good deal of reservations on the subject and ultimately, I have to say, I am pretty Much entirely in the Marxist camp politically, so obviously disagree with them, but I do think that Marxists need to learn from all forms of anarchism and that includes things like individualist anarchism and mutualism, which to me are amongst the richest strains of anarchism.

Jon Elster, writing in his Making Sense of Marx, supported mutualism as a possible stepping stone to communism. I can't recall where, but he was talking about the DotP and Marx's views on the evolution from Capitalism to Communism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 26, 2007 01:56 pm--> (lvleph @ November 26, 2007 01:56 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:55 pm
How can you say what is or isn't "liberating" in the economy based on personal experience when you live in an exploitative capitalist society?

Simply because my labor is my own; I own my labor, and I'm not involved in wage slavery.
I don't understand how you can say you are not involved in wage slavery. Do you need to earn a wage? If you take responsibility to provide for a family, the answer should be yes. If you need to earn a wage then you are involved in wage slavery. If you are selling your labor you are actually propagating wage slavery, by requiring someone else to pay for the goods you provide through your labor. So we all perpetuate wage slavery. I am not saying that at this moment, in a current system, that we really can do much about this. But, you are delusional if you think you are not involved in wage slavery.


[email protected] November 26, 2007 03:16 am
Stateless =/= regression. Stateless societies were impossible before. Capitalism has allowed us to achieve them.
What about tribalism? That was stateless. [/b]
I depends on what you mean by "wage", I suppose. Personally, I'm in a profit share agreement, so I don't collect a standard "wage", as it is normally defined. If you're saying I need to work to live, well, then yes, I would be engaged in wage slavery. But that isn't wage slavery as it is commonly known today. I have a lot of freedom with my job. I could tell the processors to fuck off any day I want to, and direct market product straight to the consumer. A lot of people up here do that. It takes a lot of time, capital, and effort, but it is done successfully.

Some fisherman also have co-operatives, one of which became extremely successfull. Just because something exists in a capitalist system doesn't automatically make it shit.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the concept of "wage slavery" isn't an all or nothing concept. Sure, if you're going to say that I need to work because I need money to survive, then yeah, I guess I am engaged in wage slavery. But at the same time, it's also an undeniable fact that I have more freedom to do what I want than the average 9 to 5 prole.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:39 am
The views of people like Tucker and Spooner. (And of course other similair but not American thinkers) are to me very interesting, partly because you don't see them expressed too often these days.

I have a good deal of reservations on the subject and ultimately, I have to say, I am pretty Much entirely in the Marxist camp politically, so obviously disagree with them, but I do think that Marxists need to learn from all forms of anarchism and that includes things like individualist anarchism and mutualism, which to me are amongst the richest strains of anarchism.

The only debate you usually get on the subject here is arguing in the CC over whether the position is an opposing ideology or not, so it is certainly interesting to have a proponent of these views here.

Now I have said the noe thing, I have a criticism of your position, that I wonder if you think is valid, and that is to me individualist anarchist thought seems to pre-suppose a sort of idealised agrarian society. How would the ideals be applied to a modern post-industrial society?
I don't necessarily believe that AI has to exist in an agrarian society. Most of the prominant AI theorists had their philosophy develope in the time period between 1850 to 1900, so the Industrial Revolution was already in full swing by then. In fact, AI doesn't necessarily preclude any voluntary arrangment between individuals to better themselves, so it's entirely possible that communes, syndicates, and the like would exist. In fact, it would probably be likely, as man is a social animal. On the other hand, AnComs remain somewhat evasive, in my opinion, about what would happen to people who break off from communes to form their own competing "business" elsewhere. The hallmark of the philosophy is voluntary association, although Mutualism goes along with it as a particularly fitting economic model. I'm very much opposed to the idea of forced collectivism or "the greater good". The greater good has been an excuse for governments to murder hundreds of millions of people, and I think history has shown that we can't entrust leaders with that kind of power any longer.