I thought it's high time we have a general thread about Anarchism, both in theory and in practice. Try to answer these questions as honestly as you can, and when you don't really know, just share us your opinion.
Not gonna lie, I'm a fucking brainlet. I'd appreciate you guys educating me a bit :ˇ)
Disclaimer: In these answers, I am using anarchism to refer to anarchism as it has manifested itself as a historical movement: collectivist anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and synthesis anarchism. I am not including anarcho-capitalism, or anarcho-primitivism, or any other special snowflake brand of reactionary liberalism. I am also not addressing individualist anarchism, or mutualism, because–although I do consider these to be legitimate schools of anarchist thought which have been massively influential in the anarchist movement–they have not been the primary doctrine of any major experiments.
Yes, as long as we are talking about the kind of anarchism I specified in the disclaimer.
No. This is true, only on the most surface level. Anarchists oppose what they call a state (a centralized organization with a monopoly on the use of force), but do not oppose all institutions which would constitute that which Marxists call a state (and organ of class rule). Anarchists do not oppose workers militias, workers councils, or federations of workers councils. It is entirely possible to formulate a revolutionary program that satisfies all conditions of being both Marxist and anarchist. The divide within the socialist movement really has a lot more to do with the Vanguard than it does with the state.
This is only true for English speaking western culture. Marxism has been just quite prominent in Germany and France. Marxism has historically been seen as something foreign to English speaking culture, while anarchism took root in the British and american punk scenes in the 1970's.
Bakunin did not make contributions nearly as important to the socialist movement as Marx, and I don't think many anarchists would dispute that.
No. Anarcho-capitalists do draw from some legitimate individualist anarchists, but they take their points out of context and their ideology as a whole has nothing to do with anarchism.
Yes, although I think we are conceding to much by referring to this "American libertarianism" as such, as there was certainly a libertarian movement in the United States before this bizarre, reactionary, off brand liberalism took hold (ie. the IWW).
Sure, but we shouldn't get too tied down in these Utopian experiments. Lasting socialism can only arise out of existing material conditions. See the attached pdf of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme.
I am unfortunately not blessed with the ability to see into the future. Sorry user :(
...
Thanks guys, I think I learned something from these posts.
No problem user, feel free to ask more questions if you have them
Source?
Not all anarchists are idealist retards
here.
Substantiate your claims or get out.
Here is something that you might want to read if you actually are interested in the history of Anarchism in relation to that of Marxism. It may–with the appropriate contextual research–clear up a few of your misconception.
theanarchistlibrary.org
Communist punk does exist.
dangerousminds.net
Here again.
On the surface, this is an accurate observation. However, it is far from a universal truth, or even a substantiation of your prior claim that Anarchists and Marxists part ways on Marx's critique of utopianism. If this observation is true on more than a surface level, it is made almost useless by the fact that prefiguration and honest analysis of material relations are far from mutually exclusive.
Marxist movements have only ever been successful to the extent in which they utilize so called "anarchist" tactics of building socialism in the here and now. Take the BPP for example. They where devout Marxists, and not of one of the tendencies that you would describe as "closest to anarchism". No, they where Marxist-Leninist-Maoists for fucks sake. An ideology which is the very embodiment of the Great Man naming conventions Graeber is talking about. Yet they –perhaps more than any other movements in the United States– employed tactics that you would probably call "anarchist". They where extremely focused on building socialistic programs for community defense and fulfillment of their communities needs. Not tomorrow, not after the revolution, but today. This was done because of, not despite, their analysis of the material conditions they faced as urban blacks facing poverty and police violence. It is precisely due to their utilization of prefigurative politics that they became what the FBI director at the time called "the greatest threat to internal security of the the country".
Likewise, Anarchist movements have only ever been successful to the extent that the given material conditions allow them to be successful. The revolution in Catalonia would never have gotten to where it did had it not been for the peculiar political situation they where living in.
Heyo im new to this whole imageboard think folks, i hope i can very well educate you about real FREE anarchism. i will answer some questions, i dont understand some of the words you using here, hahaha very complicated, you milleneals love making up new words,
Marx oppresed both FREEDOM of speech with his communism idealogy
Anarchist capitalism is the only anarchy that has ever worked, for example we all know america is great that is becouse of its superior freedoms, something anarchist capitalism offers
ANarchist FREEDOM capitalism, like alawys
I hope you got educated today folks
They are from the same roots but Marxism was "cut off" as soon as it was reified as Marxism and gave up revolutionary theory for political theory.
Because the State knows and understands other States, specialists of power function the same everywhere. "Nothing resembles a representative of the bourgeoisie more than a representative of the proletariat."
He did not. He lost a political battle when Marx convinced the First Internationale to commit suicide by moving to New York.
No. They had some attempts are justifying their delusions by trying to dig up thinkers who said things that could be misinterpreted into supporting them but even that was just for justification and not inspiration.
Communes, coops, etc. can "work," but they will never be enough.
Towards a conclusive victory, hopefully.
I don't know what point you're trying to make, but it has little to do with mine and Graeber's argument about what seperates marxism from anarchism.
How do you expect new forms of lasting socialism to arise when every attempt is shouted down as utopian?
OP here, what is your exact tendency?
I see you are trying but even shitposting has standards.
Interesting experiment, thanks for sharing. Checked out one of their albums. Know any more marxist punk?
...
The main difference is that anarchists realize that "certain period of time" never ends. No one with power relinquishes that power. There is always justification for maintenance of the bureaucracy and one will be made if one can't be found. ML is predicated on ideas of how history will unfold that are wildly off this planet, and repeatedly demonstrated to be false (which is why you see special pleading from MLs every time they talk politics).
Because the west associates communism with the USSR, totalitarianism, and failure. Those things are less marketable than "fuck the system", which appeals much more to the angsty 15 year olds who have everything figured out.
They both lost to history and psychology.
It's real. The line of reasoning is as follows
- anarchists oppose physical coercion of others
- a collectivist/communist society requires that people work in order to receive (e.g. to each/from each) and requires that people work within the communal system (not take more than the group thinks they need, etc.).
- because one is not free to consume or work as they see fit in this system, the enforcement of the collectivist system amounts to coercion
- in this sense, a communist confederation is still a state because it leverages coercion to keep people operating in line with the specific collectivist ideology
- in other words: democracy is a different form of tyranny
- the alternative is a contract-based system, where every social, political, and economic transaction is mutually agreed upon
inb4 ML societies will have a surplus of everything so there will be no scarcity or limits on consumption
On a global scale? No.
Jamming itself through the exit doors of 19th century political thought
*when every attempt has been destroyed by the state and the bourgies.
FTFY
But tbh, there are always critics on every side of every revolution for one thing or another. It's not ideologically sound, the political climate isn't right, etc etc. I think that it's not about being a contrarian, armchair critic nor a hopeless idealist, but to recognize the material conditions and strategic disadvantages and the mistakes of that movement so that it might prevent another revolution in the future from failing. I don't think it excludes trying to support current socialist experiments it's more about being realistic about it and adjust accordingly to the investment you give it.
I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I know, criticism of socialist experiments by other socialists has never been a major reason for the failure of said experiments. If they are utopian, they will fail to be consequential by their own merits.
It should be pretty straightforward. You have asserted that to be interested in building socialism today, wherever one can, is a defining feature of anarchism. This assertion is correct. You also asserted that this defining feature is what sets anarchism apart from Marxism. This assertion is incorrect, and the distinction it represents is only accurate in terms of Marxist and anarchist literary tradition and stylistic framing, not content.
I provided a counterexample of an organization that was definitively Marxist, but still was interested in building socialism in the here and now. I then asserted that this practice does not contradict their Marxist theory, but rather was a a direct result of their Marxist theory, and of the material conditions they faced.
As far as I can tell, as long as I did not misrepresent your argument, make any logical miscalculations, or use incorrect facts, the distinction you draw is indeed superficial.
1. Marxism and anarchism come from the same root in the sense of discontent with the state of things, but they both have their own complex histories that intersect. The major difference is not whether a state is necessary but whether to destroy it immediately with capitalism vs to try to "reform" the system more slowly.
2. Because anarkiddies exist and marxkiddies don't. There's an ongoing attempt to smear Marxism as a joke movement with the cultural marxism meme, but anarchy has already become synonymous with molotov cocktails and graffiti from a long line of propaganda. Porky found it more convenient to just ignore Marxism and tell people that communism doesn't work.
3. Even though Bakunin had good points against Marx, he was totally absolutely intellectually outclassed. Marx was far from perfect but he's a one in several billion titan who will probably never be outdone until we surpass human limits with neural implants or something.
4. Capitalism is a hierarchy - if not between capitalists and proles than between property and people. Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy. Therefore anarcho-capitalism is incoherent. But wait there's more. I don't even have to get into the proper definition of anarchy. I can debunk anarcho-capitalism using their own idea of anarchy, i.e. statelessness. Capitalism needs a state in order to function, because there needs to be an agreed-upon standard arbiter for property law. Ancaps argue that you can hire private firms to settle such disputes but the porkies would simply hire whomever would side with them, rendering that concept useless and boom we have feudalism where everybody belongs to some lord or other who has to independently enforce law (basically a bunch of microstates). This is inconvenient as shit and highly risky. Porkies vastly prefer markets where instead of death the worst consequences are your business going under and you getting a golden parachute. As such anarcho-capitalism will literally never ever happen and the ideology functions only to pull people toward the right so they can become crypto-fascists and then actual fascists.
5. There's a billions proofs that anarchist communes can work. The problem is how to get them to work on a global scale without threat of destruction by imperialism. Answer is you have to destroy capitalism, which means that until capitalism has collapsed or is collapsing enough to not be a threat, no anarchist commune is safe (or any other commune or socialist experiment for that matter). The mere existence is an ideological threat to capitalism although they pose little material threat because the environment is one of market competition and the cycle of capital will always outcompete a humane system because capital can sacrifice everything for its profit while the other inherently can't (without becoming capitalism itself).
6. Through the mud of liberals looking for a better answer but who won't question any of their assumptions and bring tons of ideological baggage with them. The useful path is probably communization, syndicalism, or dare I say cooperatives so that we shore up communities with structure and resources so that we have something to fall back on when the crises hit. The fascists sure as shit will. Whether we succeed or not who the fuck knows. It's hard to predict where people will turn when the system they have spent their whole life playing into folds under them. The important thing is that we are there to respond so the fascists don't get to them first because they will most likely side with the first people to approach them with a coherent-seeming plan.
Marx got Bakunin kicked out of the International though, they took away his voice from the socialist public.
Get out of this thread or I'll bully you without your voluntary consent
Worthwhile replies, thanks for another kind of perspective.
Anarchy is the real life version of >>>Holla Forums
I'm sure it'll work great.
Hey salty boy, why don't you fuck off instead of posting your butthurt passive aggressive reddit snark in every thread?
b-but user, that would violate his nap!
I'll violate his nap and his asshole too
No. Marxists stole May 1 from anarchists. That was the day when anarchists were sentenced to death after the Haymarket massacre.
Sid Vicious called himself an "anar-keist" and an anti-Christ. His whole act was pretentious commerical bullshit. He had no credibility in the punk rock scene back then. Working-class Marxism was were skinhead culture originated. When skinheads were infiltrated by neo-Nazis Americans didn't want to be skinheads anymore. Some other British pop culture trends like drum-n-bass and acid house had underground support but never really caught on in mainstream America.
Not because of anything objective. Marxists are like a fundamentalist cult that are waiting for some future event when the shit hits the fan.
Anarcho-capitalism stops you from blowing shit up when it creates economic instability.
Freetown Christiania is a tourist attraction funded by "capitalist" business owners.
Who cares, really?
see re: fundamentalist cult
Indeed. This doesn't contradict my point though. Would he have had the influence necessary to do such a thing if he wan't already a more influential figure within the movement?
What IS post-left anarchy? From what little i've read it seems reactionary and focused more on one-upping other leftists than anything substantial.
By some reports Bakunin's post-split international was bigger. Marx getting Bakunin kicked out speaks more towards Marx's relations with leaders within the international and Bakunin's association with Sergey Nechayev than popular opinion within the 19th century socialist movement.
Some decent critique of failed leftist tactics drenched in lifestylist shit and packaged in a near-incomprehensible way. it's better than memechin