How the fuck did many U.S. people fuck up anarchy??

[bootleg42]

Well to put my question better, how the fuck did many figures in the U.S. take something as beautiful as Anarchy and turned it into the nutty free-market thinking that exists in the U.S. (mainly the U.S. at least).

I even read about a free-market anarchy that was anti-capitalism. WTF is that???? Are these people on crack???

So I would like to know, who started turning something as beautiful as anarchy in the nutty free-market bull shit thinking there is today in the U.S.????? When did this happen, how did this happen, etc.

[Forward Union]

So I would like to know, who started turning something as beautiful as anarchy in the nutty free-market bull shit thinking there is today in the U.S.????? When did this happen, how did this happen, etc.

No one turned any ideas into anything. Libertarianism (free-market capitalism) has probably been around as long as contemporary Anarchism.

They've just decided to take the term libertarian. They haven't misunderstood any ideas or anything. They just use one of our words...

[Comrade Krell]

That's what scares me actually, the radical free-market capitalist 'anarchists' and the so-called left-wing ones are practically identical, especially in their irrational hatred of 'the state' or 'authority'. Anarchists reject all authority, so naturally they would reject the authority of a ruling working class. As such I consider them counter-revolutionary class enemies.

[Social Nationalist Warrior]

anarchism is always fucked up. no governent? thats not socialism thats no MARXISM, its gangwars and stupid chaos. you need central socialist workers government to make proletarian MARXIST state.

what are you ingorant? why even post on a MARXIST website if you dont want MARXIST future?

go back to somalia! :lol:

For MARXIST REVOLUTION!
For THE FOURTH WAY!
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

[RedAnarchist]

anarchism is always fucked up. no governent? thats not socialism thats no MARXISM, its gangwars and stupid chaos. you need central socialist workers government to make proletarian MARXIST state.

what are you ingorant? why even post on a MARXIST website if you dont want MARXIST future?

go back to somalia! :lol:

For MARXIST REVOLUTION!
For THE FOURTH WAY!
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

This site is for the revolutionary left as a whole, not just Marxists. And why do you write Marxists like MARXISTS? You're like a Christian who always writes LORD instead of Lord or lord.

[RedAnarchist]

edit - quoted post was trashed.

[Comrade Krell]

edit - quoted post was trashed.
Oh, bourgeois moderation too.... charming.

[RedAnarchist]

Oh, bourgeois moderation too.... charming.

Have you actually read any revolutionary leftist books? Do you know anything other than to spout sectarian crap that belongs in the 19th century?

[Kronos]

So I would like to know, who started turning something as beautiful as anarchy in the nutty free-market bull shit thinking there is today in the U.S.????? When did this happen

A long, long time ago, a fleet of ships sent from God's elected ruling class monarchy came to america to seek new territories to exploit. When they got here, they killed half the natives with biochemical warfare (small pox was a biggy). Those who were left were either tuned into alcoholic slaves, or shot if they didn't willfully convert to Christianity. See, Europe was an imperialist powerhouse back in those days. The monarchies, of course, were chosen by God to subordinate the rest of the planet. So, like a cancer, the white man spread out across the world to dominate everything, a did pretty good at it.

It is funny to think, while looking back at history, that capitalists and Christians alike today see themselves as some kind of result of a grand design or great fortunate revolution in politics. In reality, they are the tail-end of the worst socio-economic disaster to ever take life on this planet. They are the left-overs of a tragedy that isn't yet fully resolved. They are mistakes not yet fixed. They are zombies not yet beheaded. I don't blame them for anything. I blame YOU, comrades, for letting them continue existing.

Now get out there and bag a few capitalists!

[Lord Testicles]

Oh, bourgeois moderation too.... charming.

how exacly is the moderating bourgeois?

[professorchaos]

That's what scares me actually, the radical free-market capitalist 'anarchists' and the so-called left-wing ones are practically identical, especially in their irrational hatred of 'the state' or 'authority'. Anarchists reject all authority, so naturally they would reject the authority of a ruling working class. As such I consider them counter-revolutionary class enemies.
"Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production."

[hekmatista]

Anarchy implies voluntary agreements between producers; one can imagine individual direct producers (not exploiters of the labor of others) "opting out" of the predominant collective arrangements necessary for any high level of material culture. They would have the right to be "individualistic," and their "property" in the traditional sense of goods resulting from their own labor would be respected unless it deprived other producers of their life and liberty.
USA libertarians are something else again. One cannot describe them as individualist anarchists; they are, in fact, statists. They are statists because, as propertarians, they uphold the "minimal" role of the state in protecting "their" property against those whose labor they exploit. Their theoretical approach makes no distinction between use value and exchange value, therefore they can make no sense of the distinction between labor, the basis of value, and labor, the commodity; hence the concept of exploitation does not exist in their artificial universe. They do not understand Marxists or anarchists because to do so would undermine their (usually) petty bourgeois life position.
On a separate point, is Social Nationalist some variety of National Bolshevik? His posts sound like it.

[Sublevarse]

On a separate point, is Social Nationalist some variety of National Bolshevik? His posts sound like it.

Well, the people who tend to describe themselves as "Social Nationalists" are proponents of the anti-capitalist Strasserite version of Nazism, which heavily influenced National Bolshevism. He may not identify as a National Bolshevik, but it's the same general idea.

[hekmatista]

Thank you for the clarification, comrade. I was pretty sure his endorsement of the "fourth way" was not referring to Gurdjieff mysticism. "Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools."

[non-vio-resist]

Well to put my question better, how the fuck did many figures in the U.S. take something as beautiful as Anarchy and turned it into the nutty free-market thinking that exists in the U.S. (mainly the U.S. at least).

I even read about a free-market anarchy that was anti-capitalism. WTF is that???? Are these people on crack???

So I would like to know, who started turning something as beautiful as anarchy in the nutty free-market bull shit thinking there is today in the U.S.????? When did this happen, how did this happen, etc.

Your post brings up a few questions. First of all, are you talking about what is called anarcho-capitalism when you refer to "free market" anarchy? These are essentially libertarian, free-market radicals who fail to understand the term anarchy. Many anarchists are market abolitionists.

I'd like to know your specific examples of how anarchy has been turned into a "nutty free market" idea. I don't see this. I do see a great deal of immaturity on the left and pseudo-leftist white upper middle class kids who think being revolutionary is throwing rocks at a Starbucks, but you see this with any philosophy. You should be sympathetic as a communist. Nearly every head-of-state leader that called themselves "communist" have been complete despots. I'm not naive enough to reject communism or communists because we both seek, essentially, the same goal only through different means. You're correct that people, many, fail to understand anarchy and bastardize it, but this applies to anything.

[non-vio-resist]

That's what scares me actually, the radical free-market capitalist 'anarchists' and the so-called left-wing ones are practically identical, especially in their irrational hatred of 'the state' or 'authority'.

This is a terribly perverted view of anarchy. First, regarding the claim that those that call themselves anarchists and support free markets (I think you're referring to Libertarians, not to be confused with libertarian socialists), I think an example must be provided to what I consider to be an absurd claim. Libertarian right-wingers and anarchists have nothing in common. In the Libertarian sans-government society, the world will be controlled by all-things private: corporate tyranny. I've never met a genuine anarchist that wasn't, first and foremost, anti-capitalist. I don't think you're going to find a sincere anarchist that would criticize welfare for single mothers or single-payer health care because it's a government program. Rarely would one find a "free market capitalist 'anarchist'" (which is also an oxymoron analogous to saying communist oligarch or communist-capitalist, even more absurd), ie, Libertarian-rightist, that would support any kind of welfare/social program; this is anathema to them. Lumping anarchists and right-wing free market radicals because of the anarchist philosophy that hierarchies can rarely justify themselves, eg, the military, parliamentary bodies, etc., simply because they both oppose government on completely different grounds is absurd and misleading. I would assume 99.99% of communists are anti-war. Well, some radical right-wing isolationists/nationalists (think Ron Paul in the U.S.) are anti-war on pretty atrocious grounds. Simply because two people reach the same conclusion (which anarchists and Libertarians rarely do) does not mean that they have reached the conclusion on remotely similar grounds.



Anarchists reject all authority, so naturally they would reject the authority of a ruling working class.
Yes. Most anarchists including myself oppose undemocratic vanguard parties or Dictatorship of the Proletariat (dop). I personally would not reject this if it was clear and concise that the revolution was coming from the bottom up and every decision was determined democratically. When people control the society in which they live I do not have any opposition. Whether or not this has happened in any states in which there is a vanguard party or dop could be disputed. I do think there is more than a glimpse of hope in countries like Bolivia, Equador, Venezuela, and even Cuba
vis-a-vis capitalist states

As such I consider them counter-revolutionary class enemies.
I would say sectarianism amongst leftists is the biggest counter-revolutionary tactic, but that's just me. I see hope in anarchists, democratic-socialists, communists, etc. fighting side-by-side.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Anarcho-capitalists constitute a very slim (and narrowing) minority in the right-libertarian wing. I've noticed most of the field constructed by proclaimed constitutionalists and minarchists who are more-or-less in denial of the welfare state's relative success compared to 19th century kickbacks.

There are a few lines I fall back on when I want to stump right-libertarians:

1.) Why did social democracies (Germany, Japan, South Korea) industrialize faster, with better living conditions, than market-oriented democracies (USA, Britain).

2.) Why is it that health concerns are constantly neglected by private enterprises - especially in some of the most competitive markets, like fast food?

3.) Why is it that I have to be born into a class that puts me at an unfair advantage relative to other people? Not everyone can open up their own small business, and there is no choice for joining a democratic firm.

4.) (Anarcho-capitalists) Are you for real? Private protection agencies? Can I buy up the road leading to your house and charge money every time you need to use it? Then I could buy up all the houses and sell them. Bingo! I'm a rich capitalist. :laugh:

[manic expression]

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production."

Yes, but the difference is that anarchists spurn the state in totality, whereas communists seek to establish a state of the working class; the state will gradually lose importance as class distinctions are weakened and abolished. Marxists comprehend the state and its place in history; anarchists pretend that you can abolish capitalism without suppressing the capitalists. State power is central to the struggle of the working class, and history has proved this time and again.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2

non-vio-resist


Yes. Most anarchists including myself oppose undemocratic vanguard parties or Dictatorship of the Proletariat (dop). I personally would not reject this if it was clear and concise that the revolution was coming from the bottom up and every decision was determined democratically. When people control the society in which they live I do not have any opposition. Whether or not this has happened in any states in which there is a vanguard party or dop could be disputed. I do think there is more than a glimpse of hope in countries like Bolivia, Equador, Venezuela, and even Cuba
vis-a-vis capitalist states

The problem here is that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat IS democratic among the working class, that's the whole point. The vanguard party is simply the organization of the most politically advanced workers, it does not and logically cannot seek interests separate from the workers as a whole.

The workers of Cuba control the society in which they live in. They have a state. Do you oppose Cuba?


I would say sectarianism amongst leftists is the biggest counter-revolutionary tactic, but that's just me. I see hope in anarchists, democratic-socialists, communists, etc. fighting side-by-side.

I don't know if this is possible. Popular Fronts haven't been too successful in the past, and I see no reason why this would change. On the other hand, I've worked with anarchists and observed communists and anarchists working together, so while it's not impossible, I still have concerns. More importantly, the longevity of such an alliance is doubtful as well. It's very easy to work together when you're protesting imperialist war or racist policies, but what happens when you need to start doing the big stuff? There is very little common ground in this regard.

Anyway, it probably varies from country to country. The American left is among the most splintered in the world.

[non-vio-resist]

anarchists pretend that you can abolish capitalism without suppressing the capitalists.

I think this is an unfair assumption and contradicts, in my view, one of the most relevant ideas of anarchism: dismantling unjustified hierarchies. I think "unjustified hierarchies" are synonymous with multinational corporations which, I hope we'd agree, are the biggest threat to civilization in the 21st century. I think dismantling these undemocratic institutions cannot be done without "suppressing the capitalists." It's key to anarchy to strive for non-capitalist society. How would a revolution not suppress those that it opposes?


They have a state. Do you oppose Cuba?

It's no bed of roses but I think opposing Cuba on the grounds that they're a state would be rather immature and counterproductive. I think if I, as an anarchist, an individual, oppose all state systems in the now, then I would be doing more harm. If I say, "hey, Chavez and Morales are redistributing wealth and nationalizing natural resources. But they're "the state" and I oppose "the state" on all grounds," I don't think I would be solving any problems. In Latin America at the moment, societies are showing the will to manage themselves by democratically electing people like Chavez and Morales. Societies managing themselves is a big part of my world view. I live in the U.S. where political choice is confined to a spectrum that goes from centre-right to far right, the Democratic and Republican parties respectively. I still vote for the lesser-of-two-evils candidate, instead of not voting on the grounds that I am an anarchist; I know communists, dogmatic and not, that vote for centrist Dems, too, on the grounds that it's the best we got. I don't think that makes anyone counterrevolutionary. I still support "left" Democrats like Dennis Kucinich in the primaries, even though I do believe hierarchical/top-down institutions should be dismantled.
So, to answer the question of supporting Cuba, I think the history is mixed but it's most important to oppose capitalism, and many of Cuba's policies have my praise. With that said, I don't think it's an archetype of success for communists. I don't think we've seen that state yet. Cuba should be admired, regardless, for it's autonomy and refusal to swallow the neo-liberal pill.


The workers of Cuba control the society in which they live in.

Manic Expression, just as China has what's called a Communist Party, they are the "workers who control the society in which they live in." Like China, those with more wealth in the society are party members. I don't think it's as democratic as you think. I'm not suggesting it's the concentration camp of an island that the western corporate media makes it out to be. I do think that the members of the party have a great advantage over the rest of society in Cuba. That, to me, does not equate Cuba with a society in which all workers control the society. Like I said,though, I don't want to get caught up in Cuba critique.