hi michael.
>I don't think I'm off base on this.
not sure specifically what you're referring to. but i wasn't trying to
suggest that by associating the two ideas ("lone individual" and "anarchist")
you
were maligning anarchists or anarchism.
>My statement/opinion simply said that an anarchist would not think it's
impossible "for >the lone individual to protect their own basic rights."
>If you thought that I was alluding to folklore, it was not meant that way. I
think that an >anarchist, in its most general meaning (above) could see this
as quite possible. It's only
>an opinion.
speaking in terms of the "most general meaning", any person of almost any
political or philosophical persuasion *could* see this (that the 'lone
individual' could 'protect their own basic rights') as possible. but your
comment made
such a point of view conditional on being an anarchist.
conditionals introduce a sense of specifity. in this case, that there is
something specific about being an anarchist that would allow him/her to believe
such a thing. add to that the fact that people (in the u.s., at least) don't
normally hear/read the word anarchist and think of the paris commune, or the
russian imperial navy, for example. so even if you were thinking in very
general terms, this is not how it reads.
rather, it reads (whether or not you intended it to) as being rooted in the
common misconception of anarchists as being sort of hyper-radical, nihilistic
individualists or sociopaths, and perhaps the stereotype of the bomb-throwing
anarchist as well. not sure i put that very well, but i think you get my
general idea.
anyway, my reply was not intended to level accusations or flame you. just to
inform.
>As for the labor movement, I would argue that the beginning of the labor
movement had >more to do with admirers of Lenin and Trotsky rather than
anarchists.
No. The roots go farther back than that. I'm referring to the late
ninteenth century, roughly 1870's to 1880's.
>Not only did Debs run for president as a socialist, his rise to popularity
was (at least >partly) due to his involvement in the Industrial Workers of the
World. He was only one >of many socialists who volunteered to help the
struggle.
>You said: "they would be replaced with local self-rule by worker's
cooperatives."
>I don't question your history Chris.
actually, i wasn't so much talking about history, as about the political
theory. the history and the debates that rage about it, get rather complex and
sometimes blurry. to whit:
>However, I think "local self rule" quickly gave way to
>a consolidation of power and later collective bargaining.
are you talking about the transformation of political thought in the american
labor movement? or revolutionary russia (whether in terms of ideology or
actual events)?
>The workers cooperatives
>relayed the sentiment of the workers to the larger bodies and (IMO) looked
similar to a
>Soviet, Lenin and Trotsky's interpretation of "worker's cooperatives".
from a leninist or trotskyist perspective, soviets would be the prototype for
social/political organization in the future, after the dictatorship of the
proletariat metamorphosed into a true communist society (utopia?). meanwhile,
they would theoretically be the democratic building blocks for a communist
state (presumably a proletarian representative republican dictatorship, lol)
that
would lead the society to that true communist future.
>That's my understanding of the events. If it doesn't match the consensus
reached by >scholars of that period (which I am not), then I stand corrected.
i'm not sure there is a consensus, but as far as i'm concerned there's no
doubt that in 1918, russia was experiencing a general, unorganized
revolutionary
uprising, among which there were some anarchist elements to be sure. the
bolsheviks merely watched its gathering momentum and opportunistically stepped
in
right as it was reaching critical mass. the debate still rages about how
things went wrong (IMO) from there.
>However, I need you to point me toward the references. . . .
i have read a number of surces on this stuff, though mostly quite a few years
ago. so no titles or authors come to mind. i can only suggest googling
"anarchist" with any one or combination of the following: paris commune;
levellers; haymarket; russian navy; october (or russian, or soviet, or
bolshevik,
etc,) revolution; makhnov; spanish civil war. for a broader background (beyond
october 1918) of socialist thought a/o the international socialist movement,
you
might try looking up "socialist international"
if you have a good public library or university library nearby, you can try
there as well.
>. . .which will teach/convince me otherwise.
actually, i wasn't trying to convince you of any particular interpretation of
history or historical events. just to point out an apparent inaccuracy. :^)
cheers,
-chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike,
in spite of common folklore, anarchism does not mean every man for himself.
sometimes referred to as 'libertarian' socialsim (as opposed to
'authoritarian' models such as communism), the basic tenet is the abolition
of the
detached, alienated authority of government and its dehumanizing instrument
of social
control, bureaucracy. they would be replaced with local self-rule by worker's
cooperatives.
anarchism was a very important current in the early days of the labor
movement (including in the united states) as well as the international
socialist
movement. significantly, the international worker's holiday, mayday, honors
the
anniversary of the police-instigated unrest at a largely anarchist labor
gathering in chicago's haymarket square.
best,
-chris b.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
