Anarchism = bourgeois?

[Bilan]

Its become common place on this board, as well as with "communists" historically to dub the anarchist movement, or even anarchist politics as "bourgeois", or petit-bourgeois, without actually properly explaining why.

So, for those who feel as if anarchism is bourgeois, state your reasons for why you see this as such.

So, what makes anarchism bourgeois?

[Panda Tse Tung]

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html

Is a work that handles this subject. A quote from the work:


The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

BTW, most Communists label it Petit-Bourgeouis. Not Bourgeouis

[Bilan]

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html

Is a work that handles this subject. A quote from the work:


Let me make evident one thing first.

A critique by Stalin is not going to suffice, particularly if its only short - furthermore, I've read Stalin's critique, and if you go into the Study groups, I responded to the thread.
But lets discuss it, again.


The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual."

That is not an anarchist position.
Anarchists do not seek the suppression of the individual, but that doesn't mean they value it above the 'masses'.
That is patently false.


The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual.

That is actually a principle of anarchists, too.


Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

Slogan of the anarchists:

Everything for everyone!
All power to the people!

and so on.

Next.




BTW, most Communists label it Petit-Bourgeois. Not Bourgeois

They tend to mix it up, just ask Comrade N.

[apathy maybe]

Regardless of whether a particular strand of anarchism or particular anarchists "value" individuals over "the masses" or the other way around, it does not mean that anarchism as a whole (specifically communist anarchism) is in any way shape or form "bourgeois" or "petit-bourgeois".

Indeed, anarchism by its very nature (of opposing hierarchy etc.) cannot be "bourgeois".

As to being "petit-bourgeois" it depends on what is meant. Yes, certain strands of anarchism do promote communities of workers living in free association, and yes, many early anarchists were indeed "petit-bourgeois". But by this term, it simply means a self-employed worker, not someone who employs others.

So, yes, many self-employed workers (part of the "petit-bourgeois") are anarchists.


However, this is only part of anarchist theory and thought, and cannot be extrapolated, honestly, to the entirety of anarchism.

Doing so would be like saying that the acts of Stalin and Company (USSR Inc.?) are indicative of the entirety of Marxism and Marxist thought. Ignoring the history and theory of Trotskists, let alone autonomist Marxists.


In other words, if you ever see someone say that anarchism is "petit-bourgeois" or similar, you say, "You stupid ignorant fucker, if you wish to speak, ask questions only until you actually know what the fuck you are talking about". Then punch them in the face if they persist in being ignorant and spouting stupid statements.


Edit: See attached image for what happened to Bart Simpson when he said something equally stupid, his teacher was so incensed that he was forced to write it out a number of times. (BTW, his teacher isn't an anarchist, just someone who objects to wilful ignorance.)

[Devrim]

I think that it is far to say that some of anarchisms roots lie in the petit-bourgeoisie, particularly artisans. Proudhon is a classic example of this. Yes, he hated the states, and the big capitalists, but he also hated collectivism, which for us is a fundamental point of communism. Proudhon advocated a 'mutalist' society made up of individual artisan production, linked together by free exchange, and free credit. This is not communism, and is a petit-bourgeois vision.

Personally, I think that anarchism today has very little connection to these roots, and I would not characterise anarchism, in itself, as a petit-bourgeois, or bourgeois ideology.

That does not mean that individual anarchists, or certain anarchist organisations do not have this ideology, but it means that I don't charecterise them all as having it.

Devrim

[thejambo1]

i think devrim has summed this very nicely, it does not hold true today, as an ideology, but some people involved in anarchism most certainly will be bourgeois.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think that it is far to say that some of anarchisms roots lie in the petit-bourgeoisie, particularly artisans. Proudhon is a classic example of this. Yes, he hated the states, and the big capitalists, but he also hated collectivism, which for us is a fundamental point of communism. Proudhon advocated a 'mutalist' society made up of individual artisan production, linked together by free exchange, and free credit. This is not communism, and is a petit-bourgeois vision.

Personally, I think that anarchism today has very little connection to these roots, and I would not characterise anarchism, in itself, as a petit-bourgeois, or bourgeois ideology.

That does not mean that individual anarchists, or certain anarchist organisations do not have this ideology, but it means that I don't characterise them all as having it.

Devrim



To be fair, serious anarchists in today's world:

1) take up Marx's analysis of capitalism (rather than Bakunin's or Proudhon's, if they had any); and
2) take up a "lite" version of "Leninist vanguardism" in the form of "platformism".

There are still obvious differences:

1) individual terrorism (the fact that there's no lashing out against individual terrorist attacks indicates that anarchism is still petit-bourgeois in this respect);
2) economics after the revolution; and
3) the state after the revolution (still the petit-bourgeois notion that the "organ to suppress other classes" should go away right there and then, without materialist analysis in defense of this whatsoever).

[apathy maybe]

"1) individual terrorism (the fact that there's no lashing out against individual terrorist attacks indicates that anarchism is still petit-bourgeois in this respect);"

What has this got to do with owning just a small amount of property?

I would suggest, fuck all.

[Tower of Bebel]

About the point raised on economics after the revolution: I don't know what anarchists would do to have a succesful transition from a money economy to a gift economy.

[Black Cross]

1) individual terrorism (the fact that there's no lashing out against individual terrorist attacks indicates that anarchism is still petit-bourgeois in this respect);

...what? maybe that went right over my head, but why don't you explain this just to be certain.

As far as anarchism being bourgoise/ petite-bourgoise, that's just a load of crap. Who cares what some socialist ignoramuses think about your ideology. This just sounds like they're actively trying to create demarcation by alienating anarchists. I, for one, consider anarchists to be my comrades in the struggle against capitalism, and have worked with them before. We may have (slightly) different ideals, morals, etc., but that just comes with the territory. With capitalism as strong as it is, we need all the allies we can get. I'm not about to pick and choose my comrades, especially with the limited numbers we have.

I agree with devrim on the level that, just because some will be (petite) bourgoise, doesn't constitute the assumption that the ideology as a whole is (petite) bourgoise. Just like apathy_maybe said, that would be just as people judging marxists based on Stalin's regime.

[Tower of Bebel]

...what? maybe that went right over my head, but why don't you explain this just to be certain.

As far as anarchism being bourgoise/ petite-bourgoise, that's just a load of crap. Who cares what some socialist ignoramuses think about your ideology. This just sounds like they're actively trying to create demarcation by alienating anarchists. I, for one, consider anarchists to be my comrades in the struggle against capitalism, and have worked with them before. We may have (slightly) different ideals, morals, etc., but that just comes with the territory. With capitalism as strong as it is, we need all the allies we can get. I'm not about to pick and choose my comrades, especially with the limited numbers we have.

I agree with devrim on the level that, just because some will be (petite) bourgoise, doesn't constitute the assumption that the ideology as a whole is (petite) bourgoise. Just like apathy_maybe said, that would be just as people judging marxists based on Stalin's regime.

I think the ideology, originating from the radicals during the French Revolution, was petit-bourgeois in it's origin (also see Proudhon), just like all of socialism (many going back to modes of small production).
By implementing scientific socialism (materialism) the anarchist mouvement gradualy became less petit-brougeois.

[The Feral Underclass]

The discussion between me and Floyce White is quite interesting in this respect.

Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/explaing-anarchy-t54260/index2.html?highlight=anarchism+bourgeois)

[Devrim]

To be fair, serious anarchists in today's world:

1) take up Marx's analysis of capitalism (rather than Bakunin's or Proudhon's, if they had any); and
2) take up a "lite" version of "Leninist vanguardism" in the form of "platformism".

So you wouldn't view the anarchosyndicalists as serious, Jacob.

Devrim

[Vendetta]

I think the idea that 'anarchism is bourgeois' is a stupid idea born of sectarian politics.

[Bilan]

I think that it is far to say that some of anarchisms roots lie in the petit-bourgeoisie, particularly artisans. Proudhon is a classic example of this. Yes, he hated the states, and the big capitalists, but he also hated collectivism, which for us is a fundamental point of communism. Proudhon advocated a 'mutalist' society made up of individual artisan production, linked together by free exchange, and free credit. This is not communism, and is a petit-bourgeois vision.

Personally, I think that anarchism today has very little connection to these roots, and I would not characterise anarchism, in itself, as a petit-bourgeois, or bourgeois ideology.

That does not mean that individual anarchists, or certain anarchist organisations do not have this ideology, but it means that I don't charecterise them all as having it.

Devrim

Fair summary, I think I'd go further to state that it has hardly any connection with anarchist politics today, especially with anarchist communist, anarcho-syndicalists, etc.
The few that do hold these politics are, somewhat, a minority within the anarchist movement.


1) take up Marx's analysis of capitalism (rather than Bakunin's or Proudhon's, if they had any); and
2) take up a "lite" version of "Leninist vanguardism" in the form of "platformism".

Neither of these things are necessarily true.
The first, because people can take up analysis's of capitalism not done by Marx, but are similar to his ideas.

Secondly, the 2nd one is considered by a large portion as a betrayal of anarchist principles. But to ignore that, anarchists who are not platformists are obviously equally 'serious'.
As Devrim pointed out, Anarcho-syndicalists.
Then theres anarchist communists.


1) individual terrorism (the fact that there's no lashing out against individual terrorist attacks indicates that anarchism is still petit-bourgeois in this respect);
2) economics after the revolution; and
3) the state after the revolution (still the petit-bourgeois notion that the "organ to suppress other classes" should go away right there and then, without materialist analysis in defense of this whatsoever).

Uh...Individual terrorism is a very broad term, and encompasses alot of things - particularly when "Leninists" start criticising it. It's much like direct action, in that sense.
So, be more specific.

Economics after the revolution?

Kropotokin summed it up nicely:

"Anarchism is political liberation, communism as economic liberation"

nuff said, eh?

As for the state, our politics are pretty damn well clear in that respect.
The state is an organ of class rule, undoubtably. But by its own notion, it perpetuates its own existence within each society, and, in any case, has systematically re-established class systems.
The state is neither desirable, nor necessary after the revolution.

[Devrim]

Fair summary, I think I'd go further to state that it has hardly any connection with anarchist politics today, especially with anarchist communist, anarcho-syndicalists, etc.
The few that do hold these politics are, somewhat, a minority within the anarchist movement.

Yes, I would agree with that. I don't think that there is much of an argument between "hardly any" and "very little".

Bakunin was pretty bad as well though.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes, because "anarchism" is simply one lumpen entity that we can brand "petite bourgeoisie".

:rolleyes:

Oh dear, I forgot: Joseph Stalin said that anarchism is silly bourgeois nonsense, so it MUST be true! Lord knows us anarchists can't compete in the intelligence department with that brilliant Marxist luminary!

I guess that I identify with Murray Bookchin on this issue; as a worker who has witnessed first hand the struggles involved with organized labor, I think that being branded with some form of Marxist jingoism like "petite bourgeoise" or "individualist" (gasp!), especially by students and others who haven't done a days work in their lives is incredibly ironic (and moronic, for that matter).

[Devrim]

Yes, because "anarchism" is simply one lumpen entity that we can brand "petite bourgeoisie".

:rolleyes:


I presume those eyes are directed at me. Maybe you should read what I wrote first:


Personally, I think that anarchism today has very little connection to these roots, and I would not characterise anarchism, in itself, as a petit-bourgeois, or bourgeois ideology.

That does not mean that individual anarchists, or certain anarchist organisations do not have this ideology, but it means that I don't charecterise them all as having it.


Oh dear, I forgot: Joseph Stalin said that anarchism is silly bourgeois nonsense, I am not a Stalinist.


I think that being branded with some form of Marxist jingoism like "petite bourgeoise" or "individualist" (gasp!), especially by students and others who haven't done a days work in their lives is incredibly ironic

I have worked for over 25 years.

Devrim

[Bilan]

I think he was responding to the guy who quoted Stalin.

[Devrim]

1) individual terrorism (the fact that there's no lashing out against individual terrorist attacks indicates that anarchism is still petit-bourgeois in this respect);


What are you going on about here, Jacob?

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Yes, I would agree with that. I don't think that there is much of an argument between "hardly any" and "very little".

Bakunin was pretty bad as well though.

Devrim

I like God and the State. Certainly, it entertained me in my 10th grade math class. :lol:

Bakunin had some pretty bad things going with him, but he was influenced a lot by Marx, to the point that he translated Capital to Russian.

[The Feral Underclass]

On what basis are you attacking Bakunin?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I presume those eyes are directed at me. Maybe you should read what I wrote first:


You presumed wrong.

I was speaking about the tendency to label anarchism "petite bourgeoisie" in general.

[Devrim]

On what basis are you attacking Bakunin?

Elitism, and conspiratorialism, basically the things anarchists attack Lenin on.

Devrim

[Devrim]

You presumed wrong.

I was speaking about the tendency to label anarchism "petite bourgeoisie" in general.

My mistake, I thought the convention was that they referred to something immediately above them.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

On what basis are you attacking Bakunin?

He was also an antisemite.

[Bilan]

You got all this from God and the State?!

[Kropotesta]

He was also an antisemite.
Marx also made antisemitic remarks and were also anti-slavic
not that, that makes it any better.

[Tower of Bebel]

Marx also made antisemitic remarks and were also anti-slavic
not that, that makes it any better.

Marx was anti-slavic? I thought he agitated against the reactionary ideas that comming from some slavic radicals.

[black magick hustla]

You got all this from God and the State?!

Thats not the only Bakunin I read.

[YSR]

You got all this from God and the State?!

Naw, but Bakunin was a big anti-Semite. He wrote about it in other areas. Not unlike Marx. (Despite protestations to the contrary, "On The Jewish Question" is a fucking anti-Semitic tract, get over it.) And his association with Sergei Nechaev is nothing to be proud of.

But like Marx, that doesn't discount all of his ideas. God and the State is rad.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Naw, but Bakunin was a big anti-Semite. He wrote about it in other areas. Not unlike Marx. (Despite protestations to the contrary, "On The Jewish Question" is a fucking anti-Semitic tract, get over it.) And his association with Sergei Nechaev is nothing to be proud of.

But like Marx, that doesn't discount all of his ideas. God and the State is rad.

I was under the impression that Bakunin's association with Nechaev (and his flirtation with terrorist tactics in general) was short lived. Could be wrong, though.

[Bilan]

Thats not the only Bakunin I read.

Dude, your math classes sound dope.
:lol:

[SocialDemocracy19]

They mean anarachism has no relation to ruling classes they say there shouldint be a ruling class, but most communists believe in class struggle through the leadership of a vanguard party who helps organize everything. we need some type of leaders to look to with out them you would just allow everyone to murder eachotehr and steal the marker cant be to free.

[SocialDemocracy19]

T anarachism has no relation to ruling classes they say there shouldint be a ruling class, but most communists believe in class struggle through the leadership of a vanguard party who helps organize everything. we need some type of leaders to look to with out them you would just allow everyone to murder eachotehr and steal the market cant be completely free look how bad it is wen its free in the u.s. all the greed and what not itd be 2000 times worse if no one maintained it at all.

[Bilan]

Social Democracy19, no, that's not at all true, but even so, is not the point of this thread.

[Entrails Konfetti]

The state is neither desirable, nor necessary after the revolution.

I wouldn't say its desirable, or necessary either.

I'd say it's inevitable, because the state arrose when society was divided into classes, after the revolution there are still people with old class prejudices looking to take advantage of the workers organs. The best thing to do would for the workers organs to never be fused with the state, while at the same time having control over the state.

The workers must lop away at the state as much as possible during the transitory period, and they have to remain suspect of the state, they can't identify the state with their own interests, because as we both know the nature if the state is to perpetuate itself.

[nvm]

First of all the idea of consensus is petty bourgeois.
The anarchist idea of the state after the revolution...
The anarchist way of action ( direct action, riots , no work with the unions except for anarcho-syndicalists )
individualism in a large part of anarchist ideologies
no analysis of capitalism ( oh ya you use Marx:P)
And so on and so on


To sum up, anarchists are a bunch of idealist fools
I used to be one when i was 12 , but eventually i grew up !

[Bilan]

First of all the idea of consensus is petty bourgeois.

Do go on.
(furthermore, consensus is not strictly anarchist practice, it's desirable, though, to have consensus within an anarchist org. for example)



The anarchist idea of the state after the revolution...Is petit bourgeois? How?



The anarchist way of action ( direct action, riots , no work with the unions except for anarcho-syndicalists )For one, that's not 'bourgeois' (see title of thread), nor is it 'petit bourgeois'.
None of those are.
Direct Action is something any socialist, anarchist, communist, etc. should support.



individualism in a large part of anarchist ideologiesugh.



no analysis of capitalism ( oh ya you use Marx:P)A. Anarchists do read Marx - it's amazing, huh, anarchists can read Marx, but "Marxists" can't read Kropotkin, Malatesta or Rocker. :ohmy:

B. The Capitalist System - Bakunin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/capstate.html), for example.

Again, not petit bourgeois.



To sum up, anarchists are a bunch of idealist fools
I used to be one when i was 12 , but eventually i grew up !In other words, you became a pompous, arrogant twat?
:lol:

[La Comédie Noire]

I think Devrim said it quite nicely but to go even further I like what Redstar2000 had to say about anarchists namely anyone can be one. You can fit your personal politics to the anarchist label, even deciding to ignore classes all together, or put them under your own politics for a time. That is probably where the "individualist" label comes from.

It can be considered petit Bourgeoisie because it is ignoring class struggle for personal struggle. Something only certain sections of the proletariat and the entire Bourgeoisie can do because of the degree of personal freedom their stations in life allow them. You're basically saying "I'm doing alright under capitalism, so I'm going to try to fight for things under capitalism."

In fact I’m reminded of what Tragic Clown once said “Rosie O’Donnell maybe gay but she is not oppressed because she is Bourgeois.” (excuse the horrendous paraphrasing.)

Now, of course, that's not all anarchists, some, such as the syndicalists are doing valuable work in spreading information and organizing labour. Others recognize the need to do away with the old society as the only road to change.

Still, I've been to a few BAAM meetings in Boston and I find myself confused. I'm not sure of anyone’s views and some I mistake for liberals because their advocacy does not include class struggle. Some even talk of “peaceful revolution.” But to be fair some have given sound reasoning for advocating certain movements.

Take gay rights and Women's liberation for instance. It makes sense to work with those who are marginalized in society. The alienation they experience causes them to be more critical of capitalist society and more receptive to revolutionary ideas, especially if they are working class. They are, as Marx would call them “the lowest strata of the working class” in their own countries. You could very well be educating and joining the ranks of the future vanguard, if you kin to vanguardism of course.

Lenin scoffed at the idea of not participating in parliaments and trade unions he said we risked becoming “wind bags”, out of touch with the masses and useless. The same can be argued for different issues. We should, as Lenin himself said, "Patiently explain." Explain that environmentalism, animal liberation, gay rights, women's liberation, and better living conditions can't be won under capitalism.

Sorry, had a lot to say tonight.

[Bilan]

It can be considered petit Bourgeoisie because it is ignoring class struggle for personal struggle. Something only certain sections of the proletariat and the entire Bourgeoisie can do because of the degree of personal freedom their stations in life allow them. You're basically saying "I'm doing alright under capitalism, so I'm going to try to fight for things under capitalism."

In fact I’m reminded of what Tragic Clown once said “Rosie O’Donnell maybe gay but she is not oppressed because she is Bourgeois.” (excuse the horrendous paraphrasing.)

Now, of course, that's not all anarchists, some, such as the syndicalists are doing valuable work in spreading information and organizing labour. Others recognize the need to do away with the old society as the only road to change.

I would go further than that and to say, not only is it not all anarchists, but not even half, less than a quarter even!
Similar to those 'communists' who uphold North Korea, China, Vietnam, etc. as deformed workers state with a right to nuclear weapons, etc.
Perhaps even less.



Take gay rights and Women's liberation for instance. It makes sense to work with those who are marginalized in society. The alienation they experience causes them to be more critical of capitalist society and more receptive to revolutionary ideas, especially if they are working class. They are, as Marx would call them “the lowest strata of the working class” in their own countries. You could very well be educating and joining the ranks of the future vanguard, if you kin to vanguardism of course.

I don't think the vanguard would be appropriate, as an anarchist.
None the less, I think that statement holds truth to it, but instead of into a 'vanguard' as such, more into larger anarchist organizations, such as an anarchist federation.



Lenin scoffed at the idea of not participating in parliaments and trade unions he said we risked becoming “wind bags”, out of touch with the masses and useless.

I think that Lenins situation is rather different to our own.
Wasn't Lenin Middle class?

In any case, the Trade Unions here don't even represent the mass of workers (!), and the biggest trade union here (The SDA), is the most bureaucratic and right wing, and is dwindling in numbers.
More importantly, the role of anarchists, and revolutionary communists, is to get involved in industrial unions, and revolutionary organizations which actively advocate, and educate people about libertarian communism, or whatever your fancy.



The same can be argued for different issues. We should, as Lenin himself said, "Patiently explain." Explain that environmentalism, animal liberation, gay rights, women's liberation, and better living conditions can't be won under capitalism.

...and actively struggle toward revolution and a post-capitalist society in the process. :)




Sorry, had a lot to say tonight.

Don't be sorry!

[Devrim]

I think Devrim said it quite nicely but to go even further I like what Redstar2000 had to say about anarchists namely anyone can be one. You can fit your personal politics to the anarchist label, even deciding to ignore classes all together, or put them under your own politics for a time.

It depends what you define as 'anarchist'. To be fair to them, you could say a similar thing about 'Marxists' in that anybody can be one. There is a lot of nonsense passing itself of as Marxist.

I only consider militants in anarchist organisations to be anarchists.

I am not really concerned about individualist scum.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Elitism, and conspiratorialism, basically the things anarchists attack Lenin on.

Devrim

These attacks are based on misunderstandings of history and bare no relevance on his theories. Contradictory as that may seem.

[The Feral Underclass]

He was also an antisemite.

Marx was an anti-slav sexist. Should we dismiss Capital and The German Ideology on that basis?

[The Feral Underclass]

individualist scum.

:scared:

Take it easy Dev. There are many people who would consider themselves individualists who are activists.

[Devrim]

These attacks are based on misunderstandings of history and bare no relevance on his theories. Contradictory as that may seem.

Which attacks, those on Lenin? Are these the theories of Bakunin that they have no relevance to:


It is necessary that in the midst of popular anarchy, which will make up the very life and all the energy of the revolution, the unity of revolutionary thought and action should be embodied in a certain organ. That organ must be the secret and world-wide association of the international brothers
...the army must always be the people - but a revolutionary general staff composed of devoted, energetic and intelligent individuals who are above all sincere - not vain or ambitious - friends of the people, capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instincts. The number of these individuals should not, therefore, be too large. For the international organisation throughout Europe one hundred serious and firmly united revolutionaries would be sufficient ...

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Can you link and date that quote, please.

[Devrim]

Taken from: "The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the IWMA" 1873
The quote comes from 1869.
Devrim

[blackstone]

In fact I’m reminded of what Tragic Clown once said “Rosie O’Donnell maybe gay but she is not oppressed because she is Bourgeois.” (excuse the horrendous paraphrasing.)


Was Rosie able to marry another female in any state she wants to in the US? If not, she is oppressed.

[La Comédie Noire]

Was Rosie able to marry another female in any state she wants to in the US? If not, she is oppressed.

No but she has the money to fly to any state she wishes and get married. she may be able to be socially oppressed in some areas but this does not stop her from living a comfortable life because of her economic situation. Where as gay prolatarians wishing to get married are shit out of luck if they don't live in Massachusetts.

Still it's something to struggle for.

[luxemburg89]

Oh dear, I forgot: Joseph Stalin said that anarchism is silly bourgeois nonsense, so it MUST be true! Lord knows us anarchists can't compete in the intelligence department with that brilliant Marxist luminary!

I guess that I identify with Murray Bookchin on this issue; as a worker who has witnessed first hand the struggles involved with organized labor, I think that being branded with some form of Marxist jingoism like "petite bourgeoise" or "individualist" (gasp!), especially by students and others who haven't done a days work in their lives is incredibly ironic (and moronic, for that matter).

Now while I agree that you should not be labelled in that way and I, speaking as a Socialist ('communist' seems too fragmented and ambiguous a phrase at the moment) think anarchism is a revolutionary theory and not remotely petit-bourgeois. What I object to is your disgusting theory that students do not do any work. Do you have any idea how hard students work on their studies? Do you condemn history students because they are writing essays til their fingers are raw on the Soviet Union simply because they don't work in factory 9 to 5? It's the same but their factory is called a school, or a college, or a university. Do you condemn all anarchists, socialists and communists who go to college and study theories. Am I a useless layabout because I study Literature? Do you seriously think that it takes no effort for me to spend hours a day researching and reading up on texts to rack my brains for a new interpretation? Is leftism not about equality and appreciating art and science together with labour and encompassing all three into the value of human life? Is it wrong for someone to use their brain as a tool of labour rather than their hands - does that make them less credible as a leftist in your eyes? I would suggest, Agora77, that if you do not want to be pre-judged and labelled having done nothing to harm anyone that you do not commit prejudice yourself and label other groups who have done nothing to harm you.

I think you really owe every student here an apology, hopefully by PM but I doubt that will happen because pride, that great vice of the individual 'Revolutionary', will rear its ugly head.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Now while I agree that you should not be labelled in that way and I, speaking as a Socialist ('communist' seems too fragmented and ambiguous a phrase at the moment) think anarchism is a revolutionary theory and not remotely petit-bourgeois. What I object to is your disgusting theory that students do not do any work. Do you have any idea how hard students work on their studies? Do you condemn history students because they are writing essays til their fingers are raw on the Soviet Union simply because they don't work in factory 9 to 5? It's the same but their factory is called a school, or a college, or a university. Do you condemn all anarchists, socialists and communists who go to college and study theories. Am I a useless layabout because I study Literature? Do you seriously think that it takes no effort for me to spend hours a day researching and reading up on texts to rack my brains for a new interpretation? Is leftism not about equality and appreciating art and science together with labour and encompassing all three into the value of human life? Is it wrong for someone to use their brain as a tool of labour rather than their hands - does that make them less credible as a leftist in your eyes? I would suggest, Agora77, that if you do not want to be pre-judged and labelled having done nothing to harm anyone that you do not commit prejudice yourself and label other groups who have done nothing to harm you.

I think you really owe every student here an apology, hopefully by PM but I doubt that will happen because pride, that great vice of the individual 'Revolutionary', will rear its ugly head.

You probably could have consolidated that into a few sentences and I still would've gotten your point. That said, I see your point.

So: I apologize to anyone I may have offended.

I just get infuriated when someone "talks down" to me.

[apathy maybe]

Just to say an extra thing, lots of students work at actually jobs as well. You know, because they can't survive otherwise.

Which means that they often end up working 40 hours a week studying (I never did, but I'm just too smart for my own good), and another 20 hours at a part-time job, washing dishes, serving behind bars or whatever (I never did that either, but only 'cause my parents are multi-millionaires).

So, yeah, while I perfectly understand having a problem with ignorant fuckers talking down to people, you shouldn't say that students don't work (even if some of them don't).

[Bilan]

I do both: Work and go to school.

Agora77, good essay for you to check out: "On the Poverty of Student Life" by the Situationist International.

:)

[evolutionary]

anarchism dont care just for the workers anarchism cares for the humanity does that makes him burgoise?

[poop transfusion]

how about, anarchism is not bourgeois, it is utopian? anarchists consistently say things like, 'we don't want to tell you what anarchism would be like, because that would be predetermining things, that would be forcing the new society into a mould'. that's a poor excuse for not having any real ideas at all. at least a communist can tell you what they want to do. and as far as the original founders of the doctrine, all had serious problems
kropotkin - supported the allies WWI, russian chauvenist
proudhon - antisemite, male chauvenist, french patriot, reformist, capitalist
makhno -antisemite, gang rapist?
bakunin - supporting nechayev, consistently advocating instant revolution when unwarrented, which just gets militants killed.
stirner - amoralist and nihilist (see bakunin x nechayev)

[redwinged blackbird]

The Bolsheviks cravenly endorsed/enforced Taylorism, thus ensuring that production in the "U" "S" "S" "R" developed along lines more or less identical to its contemporary development under traditional (bourgeois) capitalist management.

Ergo, Leninism is fundamentally bourgeois in character.

[Bilan]

how about, anarchism is not bourgeois, it is utopian? anarchists consistently say things like, 'we don't want to tell you what anarchism would be like, because that would be predetermining things, that would be forcing the new society into a mould'. that's a poor excuse for not having any real ideas at all.

Except not all anarchists say that, nor do we not have any ideas on how it would be organized; what we don't claim is that we know exactly how it would look, and that anyone who claims they do, is full of shit.



at least a communist can tell you what they want to do.

I'm an anarchist communist, and I can too. :)

And as for your list, put them in order.


proudhon - antisemite, male chauvenist, french patriot, reformist, capitalist

Yep, totally agree. Absolute douchebag. Except he wasn't a capitalist, but a 'mutualist'. However, Marx, in "The Poverty of Philosophy" pretty much owned Proudhon.

[qupte] bakunin - supporting nechayev, consistently advocating instant revolution[/quote]

Oh wah-wah. What a crappy critique.




kropotkin - supported the allies WWI, russian chauvenist

He didn't so much support the allies as he supported the defeat of Germany, but again, we all reject this position of Kropotkin, not uphold it.
We don't have personality cults within our movement, Leninist.



makhno -antisemite, gang rapist?

Makhno's "antisemitism" has been debunked.
And gang rapist?
Shut your trap, moron.



stirner - amoralist and nihilist (see bakunin x nechayev)

Also an individualist.

More important anarchists: Malatesta, Rocker, Durruti, off the top of my head.
:)

[poop transfusion]

i thought that there were allegations by people who knew makhno,one Voline, for instance, that he 'did' stuff with his wife, the wives of other officers in that militia of his, not entirely with the consent of these women. maybe it was some sort of bizarre peasant thing, but i read it in the later part of The Unknown Revolution. If you'de be willing to clear this up for me, i'll retract. i no longer have access to that book but if its online i can cite page #.

[Bilan]

A testimony is evidence, but not proof, and in this case, is irrelevant.

[pave_the_planet]

can someone explain "platformism" for me please?

[Os Cangaceiros]

kropotkin - supported the allies WWI, russian chauvenist
proudhon - antisemite, male chauvenist, french patriot, reformist, capitalist
makhno -antisemite, gang rapist?
bakunin - supporting nechayev, consistently advocating instant revolution when unwarrented, which just gets militants killed.
stirner - amoralist and nihilist (see bakunin x nechayev)

You're insane.

First off, Proudhon wasn't a capitalist. He supported his own brand of economics, called mutualism. Him and Marx engaged in a little pointless tit-for-tat, and he pretty much got nowhere, except for "What is Property?". (Although Marx didn't "own" Proudhon; in fact, he made several false claims regarding his former friend.) Second, should someone like Stirner, who put forth important ideas that need to be analyzed, be written off as an "amoralist"? The answer to that question is NO.

In case you didn't realize it, many famous Communists historically have been less than "angelic" in terms of how politically correct their views today would be. That doesn't mean we should write them off.

[poop transfusion]

mutualist is capitalist. anyone who proposes an end state using some form of money, after the revolution, parlaimentary victory, general strike, etc., is a capitalist. his economics were not as advanced as say, marx (he wasn't too clever;) - its a theme, who translated Capital into russian for the first time? bakunin ahahahahaha)
stirner is only a progenitor of postmodernism - that intellectual game whiuch middle class intellectuals play with each other. what ideas did he put forth, only that 'what i can seize, is mine. what you can prevent me from taking, is yours'. (thats a paraphrase)
I would write such people off, communists or anarchists.
and for a previous post, rocker ended up a social democrat:ohmy:

[Os Cangaceiros]

mutualist is capitalist. anyone who proposes an end state using some form of money, after the revolution, parlaimentary victory, general strike, etc., is a capitalist. his economics were not as advanced as say, marx (he wasn't too clever;) - its a theme, who translated Capital into russian for the first time? bakunin ahahahahaha)

Fascinating. And what's your definition of "money", pray tell? Would a coupon, chit, or labor note qualify as "money"? If the answer to that question is "yes", then I suppose that the anarchist communes in Spain during the civil war were unabashed capitalists. If the answer to that question is "no", then Proudhon wasn't a capitalist, and orthodox mutualism /=/ capitalism.


stirner is only a progenitor of postmodernism - that intellectual game whiuch middle class intellectuals play with each other.

O Noz! Not teh postmodernism!


what ideas did he put forth, only that 'what i can seize, is mine. what you can prevent me from taking, is yours'.

1) His critiques on religion and Christian morality.
2) Egoism - specifically, the idea that, whether one acts in an selfish or altruistic manner, all choice begins with the individual; the implications of this for an egalitarian society is obvious. Friedrich Engels recognized this, incidentally: "But what is true in his principle, we, too, must accept. And what is true is that before we can be active in any cause we must make it our own, egoistic cause-and that in this sense, quite aside from any material expectations, we are communists in virtue of our egoism, that out of egoism we want to be human beings and not merely individuals."

Amongst other things.


(thats a paraphrase)

Ya don't say....


I would write such people off, communists or anarchists.

Then you have no concept of listening to those who have different viewpoints than you do, and should therefore be written off yourself.


and for a previous post, rocker ended up a social democrat:ohmy:
I'm sure that Proper Tea is just devastated by this bit of info. :crying::rolleyes:

[Crest]

No. Anarchism =/= Bourgeoisie.

My belief is, like, "planned soviet" anarchy in a way. There is a government, but it has virtually no power. No veto power, no special rights in the law making process, no right to enforce plans/laws/whatever without proper vote from all members of the Soviets, etc.

[poop transfusion]

1.dude. i can paraphrase if i want. i'm not looking thru a huge text to rebutt someone on a forum, unless i really have to.

2. i said, write off. this does not mean that i do not READ THEM FIRST, and consider what they say.

3. and for stirner, on egoism, etc. so what if he said it first, other people said it BETTER. tell me, have you read neitzsche? or even ayn rand? oh noz! not ze aynen randen!!!

4.stirner's book is only a petty reaction to hegel which marx OWNED in the German Ideology, though he probably shouldn't have spent as mu ch time on it as he did.

5.money? even a labor voucher is money. marx said that too. a community stockpile which people draw things from 'to each according to need' isn't, information in a computer system which was designed for distributing goods this way is not. paper that an INDIVIDUAL, not collective, uses as money, that's what i'm calling money here. if anarchists used a variant of money in spain, you can be sure that money as we have it now would soon have cropped back up. WHY did they not abolish money?? tell me that.

6. postmodernism sux.

[poop transfusion]

crest -
like a coordinating body? a group which offers proposals and reccomendations, right?
i'd go for that, though i don't think it can just 'happen' - u have to go thru stages first, get from here to there.


how can you be trotskyit and maoist @ same time - just curious?

[Crest]

A. Proposals can come from any member of any soviet. And yes, it would probably have to happen in stages.

B. Reject what was inspired by Stalin in MLM ideology... Once your there, it isn't that difficult to reconcile them. Actually, getting rid of Stalin's influence is all it takes.

[Os Cangaceiros]

1.dude. i can paraphrase if i want. i'm not looking thru a huge text to rebutt someone on a forum, unless i really have to.

Uh-huh.


2. i said, write off. this does not mean that i do not READ THEM FIRST, and consider what they say.

To write off means to look at what someone said, and then disregard it's importance. I don't agree with someone like Marx, but I certainly don't write him off, because I recognize his influence and the quality of some of his ideas.


3. and for stirner, on egoism, etc. so what if he said it first, other people said it BETTER. tell me, have you read neitzsche? or even ayn rand? oh noz! not ze aynen randen!!!

Yes, I've read both Nietzsche ("Thus Spoke Zarathustra", and currently reading "The Gay Science") and a bit of Rand, although not much, as I consider her a poor writer with half baked ideas. Neither of them came before Stirner. What's your point? I read things from many different philosophies and sources.


4.stirner's book is only a petty reaction to hegel which marx OWNED in the German Ideology,

Wrong; Marx didn't own anyone in the German Ideology. Or maybe you think that petty namecalling qualifies as "owning"?


5.money? even a labor voucher is money. marx said that too. a community stockpile which people draw things from 'to each according to need' isn't, information in a computer system which was designed for distributing goods this way is not. paper that an INDIVIDUAL, not collective, uses as money, that's what i'm calling money here. if anarchists used a variant of money in spain, you can be sure that money as we have it now would soon have cropped back up. WHY did they not abolish money?? tell me that.

Because they were sinister cappies, of course!

Perhaps they should've used computer systems, eh? :laugh:


6. postmodernism sux.

A brilliant critique, to be sure. You should write a book.

[poop transfusion]

answer the question. IF they were communists of the anarchist variety, WHY did they not instantly abolish money and institute communism. could it be perhaps that... transitional stages are needed before capitalism can be totally destroyed?:lol:

[poop transfusion]

nobody COMES FROM stirner. its just him. i meant they were both egoists.
writing off blah blah youre playing games with words. postmodernist?
i read. i decide. sometimes i borrow. what i mean by writing off here doesn't seem to mean what you do, or you are just being deliberatly difficult.

[bcbm]

Who ever argued that we could go instantly from capitalism to anarchism? The dispute is whether or not a state is necessary during such a transition.

[poop transfusion]

for crest...
there's not much left when you subtract stalin, mao's support of stalin.
are you thinking in terms of strategy, everyone knows he was a brilliant military theorist, or in terms of specific things that happened in the russian and chinese revolutions?

[poop transfusion]

usually, its the anarchists who talk about instantly abolishing capitalism + state.um, let's see. bakunin, kropotkin, malatesta, makhno, durruti etc. i'm not arguing for that

[bcbm]

Destroying capital and the state with revolution is a process. They will both be attacked and dismantled at the same time, but an anarchist society will obviously not spring fully formed out of this, though most of its structures will be developed by the time a "revolution" can occur.

[Crest]

for crest...
there's not much left when you subtract stalin, mao's support of stalin.
are you thinking in terms of strategy, everyone knows he was a brilliant military theorist, or in terms of specific things that happened in the russian and chinese revolutions?Revolutionary strategy.

(This doesn't have much to do with the topic of the thread. Perhaps if we are to continue, we should do so via PM?)

[Ultra-Violence]

From a working class chicano 2nd generation Anarchy is Bougie again this is from my personal experinces all anarchist are a bunch of spoiled rich "White" kids who dont want to do anything so its like "Anarchy man, fuck the system dude" and "Animal Liberation man its like so wrong" ZOMG ALF ZOMG ELF! fuckng stupid random bullshit that doesnt help the cuase and theyll go fucking break out fucking mokeys and minks from labs and shit and then thier fucking 2 million people IN PRSION! IS THEIR NOT SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT PICUTRE! fucking retarted IMO BUT they have good intentions so ill give em that BUT YOUR STILL NOTHING BUT RICH WHITE PRIVELGE KIDS! DONT TRY TO ACT POOR ITS NOT FUN! YOU LYING TO YOURSELF!

srry had to vent

[Jazzratt]

From a working class chicano 2nd generation Anarchy is Bougie again this is from my personal experinces all anarchist are a bunch of spoiled rich "White" kids who dont want to do anything so its like "Anarchy man, fuck the system dude" and "Animal Liberation man its like so wrong" ZOMG ALF ZOMG ELF! fuckng stupid random bullshit that doesnt help the cuase and theyll go fucking break out fucking mokeys and minks from labs and shit and then thier fucking 2 million people IN PRSION! IS THEIR NOT SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT PICUTRE! fucking retarted IMO BUT they have good intentions so ill give em that BUT YOUR STILL NOTHING BUT RICH WHITE PRIVELGE KIDS! DONT TRY TO ACT POOR ITS NOT FUN! YOU LYING TO YOURSELF!

srry had to vent

Jeus christ, what a confused and unreadable pile of wordsalad.

Firstly, your personal experience counts for very little - there are just far too many anarchists for you to judge them entirely on the ones you have met. I do like how you have singled out the animal rights activists because it's, firstly, obvious that they are a fringe of anarchism composed of the more boneheaded of our group (and all tendencies have boneheads) and, secondly, you've helpfully shown to the pro-animal liberation crowd that what they are doing does actually harm people's perception of anarchism. The rest of your rant was just poorly concieved and I doubt you even thought about what you were writing.

[Hit The North]

I've got to say that most Anarchists I've met have been into animal rights - and I must have met hundreds in the past three decades. I don't knock them for that. Someone's gotta stick up for the beagles.

Also, a contingent of mainly West Yorkshire hunt sabbers I traveled with down to London were amongst the most gleefully violent rioters during the Poll Tax riot in 1990, so respect where it's due.

I don't agree with the Anarchists, but some of the best activists I've known have organized under that banner.

[Kropotesta]

From a working class chicano 2nd generation Anarchy is Bougie again this is from my personal experinces all anarchist are a bunch of spoiled rich "White" kids who dont want to do anything so its like "Anarchy man, fuck the system dude" and "Animal Liberation man its like so wrong" ZOMG ALF ZOMG ELF! fuckng stupid random bullshit that doesnt help the cuase and theyll go fucking break out fucking mokeys and minks from labs and shit and then thier fucking 2 million people IN PRSION! IS THEIR NOT SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT PICUTRE! fucking retarted IMO BUT they have good intentions so ill give em that BUT YOUR STILL NOTHING BUT RICH WHITE PRIVELGE KIDS! DONT TRY TO ACT POOR ITS NOT FUN! YOU LYING TO YOURSELF!

srry had to vent
way to sound like an idiot
However it sounds like you've encounted some primivitivists.....:scared:

[Ultra-Violence]

Jeus christ, what a confused and unreadable pile of wordsalad.

Firstly, your personal experience counts for very little - there are just far too many anarchists for you to judge them entirely on the ones you have met. I do like how you have singled out the animal rights activists because it's, firstly, obvious that they are a fringe of anarchism composed of the more boneheaded of our group (and all tendencies have boneheads) and, secondly, you've helpfully shown to the pro-animal liberation crowd that what they are doing does actually harm people's perception of anarchism. The rest of your rant was just poorly concieved and I doubt you even thought about what you were writing.

for thos most part yes i was just writing what came to mind and my personal experince can cnat for alot IVE TALKED TOO AND METS TONS OF ANARCHIST! i mean every shade u can possibly think of in l.a and thiers anarchist who are down etc.. but for the most part thier just spoiled kids who are whinin like i said they have good intentions but i mean get over it you live in a fucking million dollar home me on the other hand not so lucky BOTTOM LINE ANARCHIST=HIPPYS! Rich hippy i might add with lots of bud too.

[Kropotesta]

for thos most part yes i was just writing what came to mind and my personal experince can cnat for alot IVE TALKED TOO AND METS TONS OF ANARCHIST! i mean every shade u can possibly think of in l.a and thiers anarchist who are down etc.. but for the most part thier just spoiled kids who are whinin like i said they have good intentions but i mean get over it you live in a fucking million dollar home me on the other hand not so lucky BOTTOM LINE ANARCHIST=HIPPYS! Rich hippy i might add with lots of bud too.
still looking like an idiot

[blackstone]

I'm a working class Black male...and an anarchist.

There goes your theory out the window.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I so fucking poor, hafta buy water from water store, computer and tv the only source of entertainment, but we never have vacation and we even did not have enough money to celebrate christmas or new york eve. This theory is fucking totally outdated.

[Crest]

U-V, I was barely able to read that second post, and I appreciate you bashing the primitivists, but I seriously doubt that anarchists are all spoiled bourgeois white boys... especially considering the above two posts.

Some of the poorest proletarians I've ever met were advocates of anarchy. I've encountered rich anarchists too, but most of them embraced the system with the lower class in mind. I've met very few bourgeois who want the system out of greed, though I do suppose they're out there.

You said it yourself. You didn't think before you opened your trap. Keep it shut until you have something intelligent and well thought out to say.

[Ultra-Violence]

I'm a working class Black male...and an anarchist.

There goes your theory out the window.


Ok and so? whats your point im not talking about a theory or making shit up im talking about my reality and thats the truth i mean im sure in other places in way diff. but in l.a no its not sadly thats the truth.



"I so fucking poor, hafta buy water from water store, computer and tv the only source of entertainment, but we never have vacation and we even did not have enough money to celebrate christmas or new york eve. This theory is fucking totally outdated. "
^^^^
feel for you man been their but like i said im talking about my suroundings thats what im surrounded with

"Some of the poorest proletarians I've ever met were advocates of anarchy. I've encountered rich anarchists too, but most of them embraced the system with the lower class in mind. I've met very few bourgeois who want the system out of greed, though I do suppose they're out there.

You said it yourself. You didn't think before you opened your trap. Keep it shut until you have something intelligent and well thought out to say. "
^^^^^
Oh of course ive met anarchist who are on my level if not worse im not talking about them im talking about the fucking brat who lives in the suburbs comes down here on their fucking bike telling me what the fuck anarchy is!? you see what im getting at i mean dont get all but hurt over silly crap shit IM ANARCHIST (at least consider my self) so!? the point is?

and last time i checked i didnt have to think before i posted anything and i dont give a fuck!

anarchy man lets go tagg the A on walls man:lol:

[Ultra-Violence]

And just a little side not Kropotkin ( a man whos ideas im a fan of) WAS A PRINCE! HOW BOUGIE IS THAT! POW! whooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ahahahahahah

[Luís Henrique]

And just a little side not Kropotkin ( a man whos ideas im a fan of) WAS A PRINCE! HOW BOUGIE IS THAT! POW! whooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ahahahahahah

I don't care if Kropotkin was a prince; I care that he supported Russian chauvinism in WWI.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

And just a little side not Kropotkin ( a man whos ideas im a fan of) WAS A PRINCE! HOW BOUGIE IS THAT! POW! whooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ahahahahahah

Technically that makes him more an Aristo than a Bougie - and so with a good reason to oppose capitalism?

[black magick hustla]

some anarchist strands are clearly communistic and revolutionary, others like this crimethinc.org are a steaming pile of bourgeois shit.

[Jazzratt]

You're still going at it with wild strawmen based on your limited personal experience then UV? Can you, perhaps, calm down and think rationally about the history of anarchism and even what serious anarchist organisations, federations and unions there are? It's obvious, naturally, that there will be a few bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements to anarchism, but for really patronising petit-bourgeois attiudes, I think it is best to look at trotskyites. I would not, however, argue that trotskyism is a "bourgeois" ideal, that kind of blind (and ultimately meaningless) attack is best left up to those without so many brain cells to rub together.

Take, for example, the majority of anarchist members on this board - do they talk at all times about animal rights and other non-class interests? No. That's because class struggle anarchism (i.e anything but mutualism or "anarchist" capitalism) does exactly what it says on the fucking tin.

[Ultra-Violence]

^^^^
Thats the sad thing tho only on this board do i find meaningfull debates and i love to read em all hence my low post count but thats the thing ITS ONLY ON THIS BOARD! come on now i KNOW you know what im talking about and its not a big deal a majority are spoiled brats!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dir1tkQftww&feature=related

^^^^
Thats your anarchy man face reality sad Listen at 2:47


trotskyist i never met one in my LIFE! but i bet you thier boring