Results 1 to 20 of 41
Making Sense of Anarchism
I've been Anarchist or Anarchist-leaning for a very long time, but I've never quite understood the different tendencies and what they all mean. Summarization is in order.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." (Fredrick Douglass)
´We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary.´ (Malcolm X)
´Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.´ (Rosa Luxemburg)
Why do you care so much about tendencies? That's not even a real thing outside of this forum, kind of. Also anarchism is, for the most part, notoriously undogmatic. I for one am not defined by my "tendency" - I've cobbled together a set of opinions and thoughts, from the works of many, not by blindly following a sole source.
Kinda what Hrafn said. Case in point, I'm both part of a small collective that describes itself "We are Marxists, unapologetically." On the other hand, I'm part of an organization which doesn't so much as mention Marxism in its basis of unity. All concerned are aware of my dual engagement, and nobody objects. All of which is to say that different tendencies tend to be more of a spectrum, or constitute certain leading ideas in certain times/spaces/organizations than they are discrete, easily identifiable tendencies organized around singular organizations or thinkers.
That said, I do think one can point to certain ideas that influence anarchists: platformism/especifismo, insurrectionism (itself divisible into nominally French communist and Italian individualist thought), materialist/autonomist feminism, and so on (one could go on at some length). These ideas tend to be something of a "palette" however, with every anarchist and anarchist group painting its own picture from these (and so many others).
The life we have conferred upon these objects confronts us as something hostile and alien.
Formerly Virgin Molotov Cocktail (11/10/2004 - 21/08/2013)
Although Hrafn is right, to a point, there are some very different approaches to anarchy. I don't time to discuss each one thoroughly, but here's a very rough breakdown. The way I see it, there are two major "sides" to anarchy:
1. Social Anarchy (Sometimes called Libertarian-Socialism)
Anarcho-Communism
Anarcho-Syndicalism
Anarcho-Collectivism
Anarcho-Mutualism
Post-Left Anarchy (sometimes, though I would say that it leans more toward the individual side)
Social anarchy tends to focus on the needs and purposes of the individual as a part of a group, rather than solely as an individual. Social anarchists, which I suspect make up the majority of anarchists on this website, are strongly influenced by Marxist thought. Social anarchists reject individualist anarchism as being too self-centered and competition focused, which they feel would likely lead a capitalistic system.
Prominent Thinkers
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Mikhail Bakunin
Peter Kropotkin
Murray Bookchin
Noam Chomsky
Emma Goldman (also a prominent thinker in anarcha-feminism)
Rudolph Rocker
Alexander Berkman
Max Stirner
Bob Black (A Post-Leftist, but it's complicated)
Lucy Parsons
2. Individualist Anarchy
Anarcho-Mutualism (this one is a little difficult to place)
Egoist Anarchism
Agorism
Left-Wing Market Anarchism
Post-Left Anarchy
Individualist anarchy tends to focus on the needs, purposes, actions, and desires of the individual him/herself, rather than on the individual as part of a group. As Illegalist concisely stated, individualist anarchists "believe that revolution, the liberation of the collective of society, starts with and should emphasis the actions of the individual". Individualist anarchists put a high value on independence, and reject social anarchism as being too oppressive by subjecting the individual to the will of the group.
Prominent Thinkers
William Godwin
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (he's been claimed by both sides)
Max Stirner
Henry David Thoreau
Renzo Novatore
Voltairine de Cleyre (she started out an individualist, but later moved towards mutualism. I'll put her here, to signify her early theoretical opposition to Goldman. She was another influential anarcha-feminist).
John Zerzan (also an influential anarcho-primitivist)
Renzo Novatore (also an influential illegalist/insurrectionist)
Friedrich Nietzsche
Lysander Spooner
Within the two sides, we have other types of anarchy:
Tendencies/Specialisms Within Anarchy
Green Anarchism/Anarcho-Naturism/Anarcho-Primitivism (Anarcho-Primitivism is closely linked with Post-Leftist anarchy)
Veganarchism
Anarcho-Pacifism
Christian Anarchism (Leo Tolstoy was a big figure in this category)
Black Anarchism
Anarcha-Feminism
Queer Anarchism
Insurrectionist Anarchy
Post-Leftist Anarchy (Yeah, it's kinda all over the place)
Many of these tend to lean to one side or the other, but they don't have to be on either side.
Nutjob Anarchy
Anarcho-nationalism
Post-Leftist Anarchy (it belongs in this category as well, depending on how far it's taken)
Anarcho-Capitalism (American Libertarianism)
These guys are just insane.
Anarchy without Adjectives/Synthesis Anarchy
These approaches try to eliminate the strong divisions among anarchists of different schools, in order to pull them together in solidarity and tolerance in order to make the cause stronger.
Platformism
This approach calls for stronger political "platforms" among anarchist parties, seeking to make anarchism a more legitimate, more publicly accessible political option. This movement is controversial (especially among Post-Leftists) because their call for stronger organization is seen by some as contradictory to the spirit and nature of anarchy.
As you might have noticed, a lot of these schools of thought don't fit perfectly into their categories, there is a lot of overlap and sharing of ideas. But overall, enough said. Do some more research for yourself if you're curious.
Last edited by The Disillusionist; 26th November 2014 at 18:46.
That's a whole bunch of words that I don't think can be backed up and even if they could, wouldn't apply to life outside of internet activism. Tendencies are not important, take everything that makes sense and ditch anything that doesn't.
Man is but a goat in the hands of butchers
The vast majority of those approaches fundamentally disagree with each other about the shape that an anarchist society should take and about the way that society should be achieved. This isn't just a bunch of internet clubs, these are schools of thought with diverging foundations that go back 200 years.
Im not saying there aren't differences but the way you're approaching it like they are cut and dry is offbase along with a lot of the people you're listing as significant influences. Which all misses the point anyway because I've never encountered anarchists who self identify like this, the way some marxist cults will. Just talking about this is making me cringe
Man is but a goat in the hands of butchers
Yes. I think it is particularly important to know the history of whatever political tendency or tradition you are thinking of embracing. Anarchism has a long history, with many different flavors that don't always coincide in their views and is represented by a number of different organizations. I don't ascribe to anarchism, which I believe has worthy goals, but is utopian in its views on how to achieve them.
You didn't read my second to last sentence.
And yes, you have a point. I identify as a social anarchist rather than as a specific type of social anarchist, because all of the various schools of social anarchist thought have some validity in my mind. However, identifications can be very useful. They let people know where you're coming from and how their own ideas relate, and so can be very helpful in facilitating discussion and the sharing of ideas.
Lol @ insurrectionary anarchism being defined as "lifestyle/specialist"...
It doesn't have an ideological framework from which to build an anarchist system, it's just a means of achieving said anarchism through personal behavior (i.e. lifestyle). And it was only charity that kept me from putting it in the "Nutjob" section.Lol @ insurrectionary anarchism being defined as "lifestyle/specialist"...
You think being an insurrectionist is a lifestyle choice? I can accept that it is more of a tendency than a framework for establishing an anarchist system, but I think it is churlish to be as dismissive as your viewpoint implies.
I'm not using the word "lifestyle" in a derogatory sense, I just mean that those forms of anarchism tend to focus more on the actions of the individual rather than on "a framework for establishing an anarchist system," as you say. If you've got a better word, I'd be happy to edit it in.
Describing the work and struggle of insurrectionists as a lifestyle choice is, I think, derogatory. Those militants don't pick insurrectionism like they would a hat or a dietary choice. For them it's a struggle of survival between the working class and their enemies, and some of them go to war with earnest, often risking their lives and freedom to do so. It's not a particularly respectful (or accurate) way to describe their politics.
I would describe it as a tendency within anarchism.
Last edited by The Feral Underclass; 25th November 2014 at 21:54.
anarchy without adjectives is leftist, objectively, and rather than "trying to mash all anarchists together" is up there with anarchist communism in terms of how many people self-describe their views in such a manner.
anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-nationalism, and the other shit you've listed are not actually anarchism and even if they were would not be useful or otherwise fit to be listed alongside real anarchist "tendencies" (since we're using this term).
individualist anarchy is not "teenager anarchy" and you gave an absolutely terrible description of it.
you also left out emma goldman as a thinker which isn't wrong in the sense of being incorrect but is wrong as in there's no fucking way noam chomsky or murray bookchin should be there when she isn't. also, max stirner wasn't an individualist anarchist.
i know you said it is a rough overview but the rough overview has a lot of inaccuracies and frankly i just really was turned off by the idea of including non-leftist anarchy on here and decided to pick at the rest while i was bothering to reply
I got my categories off of wikipedia. I put them in there because they are popularly considered to be associated with anarchism. I don't like anarcho-capitalism either, but it's still considered to be anarchism. I don't have a problem with making fun of those categories, but it wouldn't be fair to leave them out completely.
I wasn't interested in arranging anarchy by what is "leftist"or not. I didn't really have a choice with post-leftism, because of the name, but I believe that the Social/Individual spectrum is a better gauge of anarchist diversity than the Left/Right spectrum.
I did leave out Emma Goldman, which was an oversight. I'll put her in there. Max Stirner wasn't an individualist anarchist himself, but his ideas are important.
I consider individualist anarchism to be complete trash. The naive teenager comment was just an observation of the people who tend to be most drawn to individualist anarchist tendencies, especially to anarcho-capitalism in the American context.
My description wasn't intended to be all-encompassing, I was essentially just trying to give a lot of things for people to search for on wikipedia or whatever.
Note: Communer kind of beat me to making some of the points I make in the following reply, but I´m gonna post it as intended anyway.
First of all considering Bookchin and Chomsky more notable than Emma Goldman, Rudolph Rocker, Voltairine de Cleyre, Alexander Berkman, John Zerzan and Renzo Novatore (there is not one womanyou mention as prominent, btw) is just ridiculous. I guess women who engaged in actual struggles and left permanent mark on anarchist theory are not as important as self- important academic male celebs.
Second, that pretentious megalomaniac Murray Bookchin is by no means an anarchist, he even admitted so himself in the end.
Your contempt for post- left anarchy is blatantly obvious of course. I´m not gonna make a lot of effort here to defend it´s merits. Suffice to say it is not really a unified tendency (as you indicate yourself) and covers stuff from primitivism to ideas which deserve the label of Social anarchism just as much as the tendencies you lump together into that category.
What unites post- left anarchy is they are critical of the relationship of anarchism to the traditional and authoritarian left. Something I would actually consider quite necessary and healthy, even though it does not lead to desirable conclusions in all cases.
As a wiser man wrote:
"Anarchists are having an identity crisis. Are they still, or are they only, the left wing of the left wing? Or are they something more or even something else? Anarchists have always done much more for the rest of the left than the rest of the left has ever done for them. Any anarchist debt to the left has long since been paid in full, and then some. Now, finally, the anarchists are free to be themselves."
"Give me a place to stand, and I will sit on your face."
- Trotsky in the opening speech to the third congress of the Fourth International.
Describing insurrection as lifestylist is wrong and I think that entire list is tainted by Lantz's priors and his reformist pacifist worldview.
People have described the problems with it already, but I'll also add that primitivism should be under post-left anarchism, and Stirner should be under left-anarchism too, as he is also claimed by both sides.
Weren't you a pacifist?
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
I had it as my tendency for a while for fun, since people take tendency way too seriously.
