What Type of Anarchist am I

[FS98]

Which type of anarchist am I? I believe that workers should gain control of the means of production by organizing into syndicates, I support regulated markets, and I favor and evolutionary methods of achieving socialism rather than revolutionary ones. I would probably say that I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, but as I understand it, anarcho-syndicalism is compatible with other anarchist ideologies. I'm not sure that I'm an individualist anarchist or a mutualism. Individualist anarchists and mutualists seem to support free markets and oppose all regulations.

[TheIrrationalist]

anarcho-anarchist.

is there really that big of a difference between the various anarchist types today? i believe they pretty much work together regardless of your 'type'.

[Heretek]

Reform over revolution? Market 'regulation' over abolition? Worker coops owning their own companies?

Plenty of anarchists (and communists) would say you're not an anarchist. Since anarcho-caps are a thing, that's probably the closest you can come. Maybe a 'market socialist.'

People to work with? The guys organizing Occupy, basically.

Someone once said on this board, "modern anarchists aren't very good at being anarchists."

[John Nada]

Anarcho-Liberalism:

Some things were broadly shared by “anarcho-liberals”: an anti-intellectualism that manifested itself in a rejection of “grand narratives” and structural critiques of capitalism, abhorrence for the traditional forms of left-wing organization, a localist impulse, and an individualistic tendency to conflate lifestyle choices with political action. The worst of both worlds, the “anarcho-liberal” can neither manage the capitalist state nor overcome it, and aspires to do both and neither at the same time.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog...narcho-liberal

But seriously, it sounds like you don't have a well-fleshed out tendency. General strikes and workers expropriating the means of production like in anarcho-syndicalism would be an revolutionary insurrection, not a "peaceful evolution". Coops guided by profitability(the market) is workers' self-managed exploitation. The worker will still have to sell her/his labor to survive. Competition and the periodic recessions will either force an intensification of this exploitation or the worker will be unemployed. It would just so happen that the stockholders happen to at least formally work at the workplace. As Rosa Luxembourg wrote on this:

But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital – that is, pitiless exploitation – becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving.

Bold mine: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lux...ution/ch07.htm From the classic Reform or Revolution, a polemic against evolutionary socialist like Eduard Bernstein. He thought capitalism would peacefully grow into socialism via trade unions, coops and the stock market, just with some regulations to nudge things along: https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...vsoc/index.htm . 117 years later, still proven wrong.

It sounds like you(op) are new to this and are probably going by Wikipedia first. It's not a good primary source except maybe for the references. I'd suggest researching more into various socialist theories from their own works. For anarchism: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/ And because there's a lot of cross-pollination between Marxism and anarchism, and you seem to expect some sort of transitional state: https://www.marxists.org/ Generally all socialist tendencies have about the same end-goal(a classless, stateless society), but differ on how to achieve that.

is there really that big of a difference between the various anarchist types today? i believe they pretty much work together regardless of your 'type'.

Anarchism's probably as diverse as Marxism.

[andrecp]

What do you mean by evolutionary methods? Anarchists don't believe that the new society will appear in a short period of time, it is a long process, but it doesn't come from state reforms.
Myself, I'm more into communialism as the main social organization, although i don't deny the importance of unions to manage production.
Most anarchist branches don't contradict each other and can even complement them

[Kirran]

More info needed to pigeonhole you, really! I personally am not sure where I'd fit in to be honest.

Perhaps you could just look at the Wikipedia pages for anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, eco-anarchism/green anarchism, anarcho-pacifism, anarcho-capitalism and whatever else catches your fancy, and see how many you agree with!

Out of those, I could reasonably be 4/5

[ckaihatsu]

Market Anarcho-Syndicalism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...ho-Syndicalism


This thread seems to be a continuation of the subtopics from the thread above.

Which type of anarchist am I? I believe that workers should gain control of the means of production by organizing into syndicates, I support regulated markets,

Markets imply exchange values and private property, even if (quasi-)collectivized, at the local scale -- competition over exchange values would be unavoidable, since any commune might get more 'stuff' back in an exchange from Commune B, versus Commune A.

And private property has *duties*, like making sure it doesn't somehow *devaluate* in market terms, as through depreciation, burglaries, etc., which then necessitates circumscribed attentions and capital-based work roles like finance, security, etc.

In other words as soon as there's markets, there has to be all of the *overhead* to support such markets, namely banks and an administrative state apparatus, which brings everything back to capitalism, just as exists today.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

@John Nada - That Sunkara article is garbage. It holds up Naomi Klein, an avowed non-anarchist, as a representative of anarchist struggles. His suggestion that "abhorence for traditional forms of leftwing organization" and the lack of "structural analysis of capitalism" are part of a singular politic is laughable, especially in a context where those "traditional forms" have constituted an effective left wing of capital, directing workers time and again into compromise and capitulation.

But! I digress . . .

FS98 - I don't want to be unduly harsh, and I don't want to discourage you from exploring and developing a politics of your own, but . . . you're what I would describe as an "internet anarchist" or a "baby anarchist". Your politics doesn't correspond to the real, living anarchist movements in the world. Anarchist organization in the real world is, by and large, pretty exclusively a game of anti-capitalists.

[(A)]

It sounds OP like you are a Syndicalist more so then an Anarchist. Maybe you are a Sydicalist but share some more libertarian tendency's.

Anarcho-Anything is opposition to the state where as you suggest a regulated market. It is possible you are closer to De-leonism which would be less anarchistic and more focused on the political role of Syndicates while retaining a central government.

As for a evolutionary V revolutionary approach to socialism; It seems to me Syndicalism rides the line between the two as it suggests seizing power of the means of production and using it to coapt or destroy the state.
To be an Anarchist is call for the abolition of all government; not to become the new government.

That being said there are active Anarchist orginisations out their so you should get out their and see what you can do for the struggle and expand your knowledge of it.