Why do anarchists not consider themselves part of "the Left"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Rejecting the moniker of "Anarchist" because there is a problem with the term suggests that there is an issue with anyone who does identify as such. Is this so? Would you also dissuade people from being "Anarchists"?

Are you from the UK? If so have you had much experience of contemporary British anarchists and the movement?

There is Class War who have spent £14k on standing local MPs. There is SolFed who are confused about what they are and remain committed to classtivism. There is AFed who are essentially a liberalised talking shop. Then there are the insurrectionary anarchists who spend their time either setting fire to cars as a clandestine act or participating in random black blocs at events that are completely detached from that kind of tactic and do nothing to elaborate it's usefulness and purpose. And the green anarchists who have pretty much vanished into their co-ops and squats.

I met one anarchist recently who informed me that I wouldn't be an anarchist if it "weren't for the Sex Pistols." The last few book fairs have been dominated by inter-personal dramas, petty vendettas and bizarre grudges. They are content in their insularity and have done nothing to build any response to the austerity assault. They remain wedded to outdated practices, cower at the site of real riots, not just carefully orchestrated black bloc ones, and participate in the same pointless spectacles.

This is contemporary British anarchism. It's not fit for purpose.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd be interested in more details on this. Which connotations are you on about?

To put it bluntly, being an anarchist in the UK is to be associated with a gang of losers, poseurs, posturers and incompetents.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Are you from the UK? If so have you had much experience of contemporary British anarchists and the movement?

There is Class War who have spent £14k on standing local MPs. There is SolFed who are confused about what they are and remain committed to classtivism. There is AFed who are essentially a liberalised talking shop. Then there are the insurrectionary anarchists who spend their time either setting fire to cars as a clandestine act or participating in random black blocs at events that are completely detached from that kind of tactic and do nothing to elaborate it's usefulness and purpose. And the green anarchists who have pretty much vanished into their co-ops and squats.

I met one anarchist recently who informed me that I wouldn't be an anarchist if it "weren't for the Sex Pistols." The last few book fairs have been dominated by inter-personal dramas, petty vendettas and bizarre grudges. They are content in their insularity and have done nothing to build any response to the austerity assault. They remain wedded to outdated practices, cower at the site of real riots, not just carefully orchestrated black bloc ones, and participate in the same pointless spectacles.

This is contemporary British anarchism. It's not fit for purpose.

I am from the UK. Yet even if that is the case, why abandon the term? You haven't abandoned the term "communist" despite the Soviet Union, Maoist China, "Socialist" Vietnam etc. so why should the term "anarchist" be dropped in the face of something as paltry as AFed, SolFed, Class War or the various "insurrectionary anarchists" roaming around Britain? My god! And so on.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am from the UK. Yet even if that is the case, why abandon the term? You haven't abandoned the term "communist" despite the Soviet Union, Maoist China, "Socialist" Vietnam etc. so why should the term "anarchist" be dropped in the face of something as paltry as AFed, SolFed, Class War or the various "insurrectionary anarchists" roaming around Britain? My god! And so on.

It has nothing to do with the historical traditions. Contemporary anarchism no longer speaks to our politics, where as the term libertarian communist does. It would be entirely disingenuous to refer to ourselves as anarchists, since we are not.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It has nothing to do with the historical traditions. Contemporary anarchism no longer speaks to our politics, where as the term libertarian communist does. It would be entirely disingenuous to refer to ourselves as anarchists, since we are not.

So you're telling me that an extremely large political philosophy, with a diverse number of practices and ideas, can't speak to your politics? What about post-left anarchy? Is there nothing at all? Also I'm not sure that rejecting the label "anarchist" is a good idea considering that all it means is "one who desires anarchy". It isn't as bad as being an "Ultra-Leftist" surely?

[The Feral Underclass]

So you're telling me that an extremely large political philosophy, with a diverse number of practices and ideas, can't speak to your politics?

In a contemporary UK sense, that is precisely what I am telling you.

But to clarify, we take inspiration from Bakunin and from Specifism, so we remain committed to certain classical anarchist and other (non-British) contemporary anarchist ideas and practices.

What about post-left anarchy? Is there nothing at all?

Such as what?

Also I'm not sure that rejecting the label "anarchist" is a good idea considering that all it means is "one who desires anarchy".

Of course that's not all it means! As I have explained already, the connections and associations inherent in the term 'anarchist' here in the UK are such that to refer to oneself as an anarchist implies a great deal of problematic things.

The question to ask is: what does it mean to be an anarchist in Britain? Very little is the answer, and what it does mean is worth nothing to be proud of.

It isn't as bad as being an "Ultra-Leftist" surely?

Well, clearly that's a matter of opinion.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

In a contemporary UK sense, that is precisely what I am telling you.

But to clarify, we take inspiration from Bakunin and from Specifism, so we remain committed to certain classical anarchist and other (non-British) contemporary anarchist ideas and practices.



Such as what?



Of course that's not all it means! As I have explained already, the connections and associations inherent in the term 'anarchist' here in the UK are such that to refer to oneself as an anarchist implies a great deal of problematic things.

The question to ask is: what does it mean to be an anarchist in Britain? Very little is the answer, and what it does mean is worth nothing to be proud of.




Well, clearly that's a matter of opinion.

Did Bakunin consider himself as "part of the left"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Did Bakunin consider himself as "part of the left"?

I don't know, you'd have to ask him.

[happytrot]

Anarchism same as communism is by itself a power. Communism contains it's own political spectrum, it has a right and a left, the same goes for anarchism. There are many types of anarchism you have your typical anarchists who's ideas vary but you can more often than not place them on the left wing, and anarcho-communism which is an idea that's on the far left of anarchism, you also have anarcho-capitalists (very similar to libertarianism) which an extreme right of the anarchist political spectrum. So you can't place anarchism on the political spectrum as we know it. It would have to be changed drastically to accommodate all ideals.