Petty-bourgeois Bugger writes on Monday January 20 2003 @ 07:26PM PST: [
reply | parent ] "For the petty bourgeoisie the mediation of large-scale
organization -- whether capitalist or socialist is felt to be the greatest
threat to its interests which are often expressed in terms of an idyllic
past or utopian future with little reference to the class struggles to
which it is always marginal. Post-leftism is just a variant on this theme.
" Leave the idyllic past and the utopian future alone. It served Rousseau
and Karl Marx equally well. And if "post-leftism" can figure out a way to
stop seeing human beings as "proletarian" and "petit bourgeois" units in
the building of the socialist state and to put the tools of organization in
the hands of the individual (of all classes) then more power to it.
Makhno writes on Monday January 20 2003 @ 10:49PM PST: [ reply | parent ]
Hey, Chuck0, So you want to invite Chairman Chris back into the anarchist
movement? I agree! In fact, I want to extend a personal invitation to Chris
("We all know his real name") Day to come to Chicago so that I and some
fellow anarchists who remember him from his Love & Rage days can give him
the warm welcome he deserves. On a more serious note, I have to say that
not only am I distressed by the knee-jerk attacks on McQuinn's article that
have passed for criticism in this thread, but I am also saddened by the
lack of vision that these posts reveal. When I look back over some of the
writings of classical anarchist authors such as Emma Goldman, Bakunin,
Kropotkin, Malatesta, or Berkman, I see a passion and eloquence that I find
very inspiring. Here, for example, is a quote from Berkman's book, What Is
Communist Anarchism?: Anarchism means that you should be free: that no one
should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you. It means that
you should have a chance to choose the kind of a live you want to live, and
live it without anybody interfering. It means that the next fellow should
have the same freedom as you, that every one should have the same rights
and liberties. It means that all men are brothers, and that they should
live like brothers, in peace and harmony. That is to say, that there should
be no war, no violence used by one set of men against another, no monopoly
and no poverty, no oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow man. In
short, Anarchism means a condition or society where all men and women are
free, and where all enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered and sensible
life. Or this from Malatesta's Life & Ideas: We do not recognize the right
of the majority to impose the law on the minority, even if the will of the
majority in somewhat complicated issues could really be ascertained. The
fact of having the majority on one's side does not in any way prove that
one must be right. Indeed, humanity has always advanced through the
initiative and efforts of individuals and minorities, whereas the majority
is, by its very nature, slow, conservative, submissive to established force
and established privileges. Of course, I did not pick these quotes at
random; I deliberately chose from some of those anarchist authors most
closely associated with the socialist tradition, to give a sense of what I
think McQuinn may have been getting at when he mentioned the individualist
tradition of anarchism, that is a tradition of recognizing the inherent
value of individual human beings. One could also point to such writers as
William Godwin and Benjamin Tucker, who had a very pronounced individualist
tone to their ideas, as well as a finely developed social conscience. None
of this is to suggest that I wholly agree with the ideas of any of those
anarchist thinkers I mentioned above. Indeed, I believe that it is contrary
to the spirit of anarchism to slavishly worship tradition - to forget that
all of the ideas expressed, the words spoken, by these men and women were,
while containing some universal truths, also a living response to the
conditions of their times, and should never be accepted uncritically, or
used to define a standard of what constitutes the One Truth of anarchism.
Let us leave such reification of concepts to the Leftists, as McQuinn urges
us to do. What I like most about the post-left anarchist approach is that
it encourages us to embrace critical theory rather than dead ideology, and
reminds us that Society and Revolution are nothing but oppressive
abstractions if we do not base our revolutionary activity on the firm
ground of our own lived subjectivity as individuals.
From South-East Asia writes on Tuesday January 21 2003 @ 01:42AM PST: [
reply | parent ] A response to "rise"'s lengthy response to the article in
question. In no way should my response be taken to be an endorsement on the
article in question. Anarchism is, indeed, not a form of Socialism. It has
its own separate thinkers, its own separate history, its own separate
ideas. The Bakunin quote you gave indicates as much, for in as much as he
said that liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice, so too did
he said that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality. The words
alone indicate that there exists such a thing as socialism where liberty is
not present - that is Socialism. Not Anarchism. There is nothing
contradictory between his words and that of Benjamin Tucker who sometime
later declared that (all) anarchists are socialists *only* in the economic
sphere - a point that you apparently do not realize given your redundant
question to Chuck as to what sort of economic system he is for. If you view
the post-leftist ideology as privilege and injustice, it would appear that
your very own ideology would be slavery and brutality - socialism without
liberty. It has long been recognized that anarchism is the merger between
liberal-individualism, on the one hand, and socialism, on the other hand.
Bakunin knew it. Rocker knew it. And so too does the so-called post-leftist
crowd. Do you? It would not appear so, given your attempts to seemingly
purge the legacy of liberal-individualism from the vestige of anarchism. I
would point out that Bakunin is not and was not the sole and only authority
on anarchism. He merely represent his own self - and his words have no
superiority over that of Stirner or Goldman. You gave another quote from
Bakunin that goes "All our philosophy starts from a false base; it begins
always by condering man as an individual, and not as he should be
considered - that is, as a being belonging to a collectivity". I can give
you a rejoinder not from Stirner but from Emma Goldman - "The State,
society, and moral laws all sing the same refrain: Man can have all the
glories of the earth, but he must not become conscious of himself.
Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of
himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent,
that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only
through man's subordination. Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the
unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man. There is no conflict
between the individual and the social instincts, any more than there is
between the heart and the lungs: the one the receptacle of a precious life
essence, the other the repository of the element that keeps the essence
pure and strong. The individual is the heart of society, conserving the
essence of social life; society is the lungs which are distributing the
element to keep the life essence--that is, the individual--pure and
strong." Additionally, I notice that you have described anarchism as having
broken "strongly" from Proudhonian mutualism. Those words alone suggests
that you have a conception of communist-anarchism as being the sole and
pure form of anarchism. Later on, you suggest that a "central strategy" for
anarchist organization was, amongst other things, a "libertarian communist
approach to socio-economic organisation." Where are the non-communist
anarchists? Purged from your revisionist history? I doubt any post-leftist
seek to accomplish a "revolutionary situation", by the way. The title of
this essay is, after all, *rejecting* the reification of revolt. The
concept of the "political left" would only make sense to you if and when
you realize that anarchism, far from being a mere subset of socialism, is a
distinct political movement from the larger umbrellas of socialism - and
liberalism. We stand at one corner, equally distant from socialism as we
are from liberalism. So-called anarcho-capitalists have tried to portray
anarchism as a subset of liberalism without socialism - while you and
others on the "political left" have tried to portray anarchism as a subset
of socialism without liberalism. And you wonder why some other anarchists
think platformists are not really anarchists but more akin to being
marxists - or at least, a synthesis between anarchism and marxism. It was
indeed through platformism that something foreign was brought into
anarchism - namely, the Socialism you so cherish and prize. Anarchism is,
and has always been, both liberal-individualistic and socialistic. Do not
try to deny the one - or the other. *Neither* William Godwin nor Max
Stirner sits safely within the socialist tradition, yet they were amongst
the first three major anarchist thinkers in modern European history. If you
seek to purge Stirner - or Godwin, Tucker, Spooner, etc. - from the
movement that is anarchism, do not be surprised if others too retaliate in
kind and seek to purge you out from anarchism. I would, incidentally, point
out that Emma Goldman's strongest influence was, arguably, Max Stirner
himself - and the words that introduce her well-known essay that defines
Anarchism are from none other than a Stirnerite, John Henry Mackay. She, at
the very least, can be described as a synthesis between Stirnerism and
communism. You ask for where the "fabled anarchist movement the
post-leftists harp on about" that rejects such ideas that you cherish.
Their names include Godwin, Stirner, Heywood, Tucker, Mackay, Spooner, and
numerous others. Go read their writings once in a while instead of clinging
onto Bakunin as if he is the bible of anarchism. Anarchy is far more
complex - and rich - than you otherwise think.
pr writes on Tuesday January 21 2003 @ 05:12AM PST: [ reply | parent ] The
'rise' approach has had long enough to trial and is slipping back,I don't
think a souffle can rise twice.Also it's bad psychology in the NA
context,the individualist anarchist approach is more popular here,deal with
it,and if you cant,then try overseas.Many places could seemingly reap huge
benefits from trad federations,council communism and
anarcho-syndicalism.(you might have to learn another language thats all.)
Now I have a small request for our reverend father,dear ChuckO, how long
must we put up with the stalinist filth that keeps popping up here? The
marxist-leninist monsters killed millions more than (godwins law deleted
expletive)and in worse and slower ways,having them post here is like having
brother number two or some other genocidal authoritarian socialist nutjob
post here,its offensive and distressing and revolting and sickening and why
do the backstabbing,lying criminals come here? Have'nt they murdered enough
anarchists already? Chris Day go die,you suck.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/01/19/2984877
