Communist Perceptions of Anarchism

[Plutocrat]

I occasionally lurk around the forums but I decided to come forward to read what some of the communist think of anarchism.

I literally currently started reading “Demanding the Impossible - A History of anarchism” and there are a lot of phrases and concepts used by anarchist that remind me of an extreme version neoliberalism and paradoxically fascism.
The emphasis on individualism and their rationality in a self-regulating society is what is bothersome.

Well to start people are far from rational, I really can’t remember but social psychology proves this constantly for an example confabulation, poor perception of events and general limitation of memory. There are is a political study in which people are told that the author of a paper is anti-Cuban but writes a pro-Cuban paper and then the reader concludes that the author is pro-Cuban, I’m not entirely sure but it is something along those lines. Examples like those are numerous which reminds of a book called culture and identity, in that book the author summarizes David Humes conceptualization of the self as “The desires of individuals are often polymorphous, contradictory, and rarely reducible to easy calculation. Furthermore, wants are culturally conditioned and vary histrionically....”

Next with “self-regulation” doesn’t this notion have its in origins in divine intervention and what not? Does anyone see the potential for disaster with “self-regulation” and individualism? I apologize for this weak criticism but at the moment I cannot articulate my thoughts or most likely outright wrong but deregulation and libor price fixing come to mind.
Finally to me it seems like anarchism is just a middle class movement that sits on the fence that idolizes the self which again to me seems like a concept that is detrimental to solidarity and self-alienating and reminds me of a passage from the communist manifesto

“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.”

Hell maybe I’m wrong but anarchism leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth and I’m skeptical. Overall I need to gather my thoughts and finish the book instead of jumping back and forth.

I apologize for the long-winded post

[tuwix]

There are many kinds of anarchists and those who focus on individuality in the majority of cases aren't anarchists at all. To be honest, communist and anarchist point of view aren't far away. The real difference is attitude to Lenin, Che, Stalin, Mao. Many communists love them and many anarchist hate them.
Pure Marxism and Anarchism (without Lenin's, Mao's, etc. influence) focus on means of production. They have to be owned by worker. And it doesn't care individual or collective. And impression that all economy must be collective is just distortion after Lenin's inventions.

[Plutocrat]

I see. Yea I read a bit further and the author explains the various forms of anarchism. I thought the authors choice of words were odd and it gave off a very libertarian vibe.

[Blake's Baby]

What do you mean 'libertarian' there Plutocrat? Of course Anarchists are 'libertarian'. The Organisation Platform of the General Union of Anarchists is also known as the Organisation Platform of the Libertarian Communists and the forum 'LibCom' is the forum of Libertarian Communism. Anarchists have been calling themselves 'Libertarian Communists' or 'Libertarian Socialists' for a century or more, as far as I can tell.

[Plutocrat]

Didn’t mean to be ambiguous but I’m referring American libertarianism. But was the term adopted because of the negative connotation associated with communism and anarchism?

[Plutocrat]

never mind my logic is f*****. the author I mentioned earlier explains the difference as

"In general, I define an anarchist as one who rejects all forms of external
government and the State and believes that society and individuals would
function well without them. A libertarian on the other hand is one who takes
liberty to be a supreme value and would like to limit the powers of government
to a minimum compatible with security. The line between anarchist and libertarian
is thin, and in the past the terms have often been used interchangeably.
But while all anarchists are libertarians, not all libertarians are anarchists.
Even so, they are members of the same clan, share the same ancestors and
bear resemblances. They also sometimes form creative unions."

not sure I can get into anarchism though

[Skyhilist]

Anarchists and American "libertarians" are complete opposites. Anarchists want workers to control the means of production... lolbertarians want workers to sell themselves to the highest bourgeois bidder, who will then essentially own their labor. Anarchists want liberation for workers, American "libertarians" want continued wage slavery.

[Plutocrat]

and thats the vibe the book gives off. to be honest I've I barely read a portion of it because of it but I shall persevere lol. what do you recommend

[Skyhilist]

and thats the vibe the book gives off. to be honest I've I barely read a portion of it because of it but I shall persevere lol. what do you recommend

Perhaps you'd enjoy The ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman. I've read a bit of it, and it's a pretty good introductory work IMO.

[Blake's Baby]

Didn’t mean to be ambiguous but I’m referring American libertarianism. But was the term adopted because of the negative connotation associated with communism and anarchism?

Do you mean, did American capitalists who want minimal state intervention call themselves 'Libertarians' because Anarchists, who also call themselves libertarians, had a bad press? I doubt it. I think they did it to appeal to people of a petite-bourgeoise mindset who want the state to stop 'harrassing' them but also think it's OK to force other people to work for you. 'Right-Libertarianism' is the ideology of the petite-bourgeoisie par excellence. 'The state should butt out and leave me to exploit my workers as I see fit, while simultaneously breaking up capitalist concentrations that are bigger than I am'. It's the ideology of unsuccesful capitalists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Most anarchists are communist; I assume that by "communist" you meant to say "Marxist".

I think the anarchist movement can be divided into two broad groups, the class struggle anarchists and the lifestyle anarchists. The latter group is irritating, but irrelevant outside the Internet. Within the former group one should distinguish proletarian anarchists (Malatesta, Serge, Zheleznyak etc.) from petite bourgeois ones (Makhno etc.). The latter are problematic due to their adventurism and individualism. The former, while thoroughly wrong on the question of state and state power, have historically shown a willingness to work with Marxist revolutionaries.

[blake 3:17]

The Marshall book is massive and while useful in some ways, is a little wonky in terms of its political outlook. I'd suggest just making note of any individuals or movements that you're interested in and following up on them.

[cyu]

From http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=4794

Capitalism is compatible with anarchism only as much as capitalism is compatible with democracy or Christianity - in other words, it's not compatible at all.

However, many people do believe compatibility exists. This belief exists because capitalists have a lot of money. They are able to throw that money at "think tanks" to develop ideas to basically fool the noobs into believing all sorts of nonsense that will keep the wealthy in power.

This type of behavior has been going on ever since great disparities in wealth existed, and ever since the wealthy felt the need to justify their power, lest the masses knock them down from their perch.

Also from http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalist...025/index.html

Before he won the award, it looked like Hayek was washed up. He was considered a quack and fraud by contemporary economists, he had spent the 50s and 60s in academic obscurity, preaching the gospel of economic darwinism while on the payroll of ultra-rightwing American billionaires. Hayek had powerful backers, but was out on the fringes of academic credibility.

that all changed as soon as he won the prize in 1974. All of a sudden his ideas were being talked about. Hayek was a celebrity. newspapers treated his mumblings about the need to have high unemployment as if they were divine revelations. Margret Thatcher was waving around his books in public, saying “this is what we believe.”

Billionaire Charles Koch brought Hayek out for an extended victory tour of the United States, tapping Hayek’s mainstream cred to set up and underwrite Cato Institute in 1974 (it was called the Charles Koch Foundation until 1977).

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Most anarchists are communist; I assume that by "communist" you meant to say "Marxist".

I think the anarchist movement can be divided into two broad groups, the class struggle anarchists and the lifestyle anarchists. The latter group is irritating, but irrelevant outside the Internet. Within the former group one should distinguish proletarian anarchists (Malatesta, Serge, Zheleznyak etc.) from petite bourgeois ones (Makhno etc.). The latter are problematic due to their adventurism and individualism. The former, while thoroughly wrong on the question of state and state power, have historically shown a willingness to work with Marxist revolutionaries.

I see some flaws here.

-communist does not mean Marxist per sé
-Most anarchists are communist, but... (see first point)
-Why would anarchists be wrong about state and state power? Anarchists think the same about the state as Marxists do. State power has never been an issue. Only the question about how to procede after the revolution.
-shown a willingness to work with Marxists? What is that supposed to mean? There is a thing called 'common enemy'. Besides, there is more to Marxism than just Stalinism and the likes. Why would i (as an anarchist) prevent a revolution?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Didn’t mean to be ambiguous but I’m referring American libertarianism. But was the term adopted because of the negative connotation associated with communism and anarchism?

American political discourse has a habit of using terms that are familiar to people all over then world, but have meanings that are more or less unique to American politics. I'm not sure where this habit came from but it caused an awful lot of confusion for me when I first started to read political material.

[Ele'ill]

Most anarchists are communist; I assume that by "communist" you meant to say "Marxist".

I think the anarchist movement can be divided into two broad groups, the class struggle anarchists and the lifestyle anarchists. The latter group is irritating, but irrelevant outside the Internet. Within the former group one should distinguish proletarian anarchists (Malatesta, Serge, Zheleznyak etc.) from petite bourgeois ones (Makhno etc.). The latter are problematic due to their adventurism and individualism. The former, while thoroughly wrong on the question of state and state power, have historically shown a willingness to work with Marxist revolutionaries.

I don't think this is accurate. There are a lot of 'lifestyle vegan animal-lib etc.. anarchists' that are sufficiently in-tune with class struggle myself included. In fact I have not met one of these 'lifestyle' anarchists who wasn't. Adventurism and individualism as a broad brush slur is pretty bunk too.

[Skyhilist]

Most anarchists are communist; I assume that by "communist" you meant to say "Marxist".

I think the anarchist movement can be divided into two broad groups, the class struggle anarchists and the lifestyle anarchists. The latter group is irritating, but irrelevant outside the Internet. Within the former group one should distinguish proletarian anarchists (Malatesta, Serge, Zheleznyak etc.) from petite bourgeois ones (Makhno etc.). The latter are problematic due to their adventurism and individualism. The former, while thoroughly wrong on the question of state and state power, have historically shown a willingness to work with Marxist revolutionaries.

Makhno is an individualist now? Last I checked anarcho-communism was not individualist... and I don't really see how he was "petite bourgeois" either. It seems you're just throwing around the typical labels that are used to condemn someone on this site without any real meaning (petite bourgeois, individualist, counterrevolutionary, liberal, etc.).

[Bronco]

Also seems a little strange to say that lifestyle anarchism basically only exists on the internet

[Os Cangaceiros]

Makhno was born into an extremely impoverished peasant family. Later he worked as a painter and an iron worker; it was around this time when he became politically active. So no, he wasn't exactly "petty bourgeois".

And as others have said, there really is no clear divide between "lifestyle anarchism" and "class struggle anarchism". Anarchism has had a dual character as a personal philosophy and as a program of political economy ever since the First International, there was no supposed golden age of "pure" class struggle anarchism in which there was never a question of personal philosophies or lifestyle choices in accordance with said philosophies.

[Ele'ill]

nevermind, op deleted their post