By - Elbrujosalvaje
Well, what about socialism do you reject?
I reject the egalitarianism and redistributionist policies of socialism, but I'll also quickly point out that Marx's slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" isn't really egalitarian or necessarily redistributionist.
i dont think egalitarianism is what you think it is. im exaggerating here but like equality isnt when the collectivist knocks on your door to take your toothbrush and beat up camero.
its more that everyone has the equal right and means to live a fulfilling life and to live long and happy, as opposed to current capitalist ideas for competition and the existence of classes of individuals above others, and the things that come such as “poor” classes of people yadda yadda. it all has to do with class and economics.
its very based upon give what you can and take what you need. id recommend reading some theory on it, i was explained these things pretty effectively in the Bread Book but if you need something shorter or more specific im sure theres something out there for you.
leftist wall of text tldr: egalitarianism/equality is based upon the equal right to a fulfilling life and is a core part of anarchist philosophy, its not to be construed as hostile.
What's the Bread Book you referred to? It sounds like a great read. Do you mean Conquest of Bread? Cuz I looked up "Bread Book" and all I got were cookbooks about literal bread, lol
oh yeah lol [The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread)
bit of a minute to read but its very worth it
If you reject egalitarianism, I have some bad news about anarchism
But people are individuals? If people are individuals, they can't all be equal, nor can they be treated the same way. The only conceivable egalitarianism under anarchy that I can think of, if you can even call it that, is each man has the equal right to be his own self-legislator, since there is no hierarchy or government.
Equality doesn't mean a Harrison Bergeron style world where everyone is punished for being good at things
Worth pointing out that Harrison Bergeron was Vonnegut mocking the conservative strawman of progressivism
Check out radical reviewer on YouTube, he has some great videos breaking down things like the bread book and communist manifesto, you seem to be greatly misinformed about what anarchism means and especially what egalitarianism and communism are.
Equal opportunity is what we strive for with egalitarianism. If you’re gay, black, trans, or all of the above that shouldn’t bar you from achieving your goals in life, but currently it does because of systematic racism. Egalitarianism is striving for equal treatment of people, not equal outcome for all.
Parecon (participatory economics) is another fantastic text explaining how an anarchist society might work, with a genuinely meritocratic outcome. You get out what you put in. Radical reviewer also has a great video on it.
And he’s a dog that dresses in costumes so that’s cool too
Every person can be equal in that they're a human like every other human and, thus, deserve the same rights and opportunities. It's not about equal outcomes or trajectories but an equal start and being treated with the same dignity and respect your fellow human is being treated with. If you don't agree to that then I'm afraid you're likely not on the same page as Anarchism, either.
It maybe kinda sounds like you might find libertarianism to be more your thing?
But anarchism is a form of libertarianism?
I mean right wing libertarianism, where the individual still rules themselves but there isn't a focus on egalitarianism. The comment wasn't at all sarcastic or meant as an attack. It's just that what you were describing in your comments made me think more of right wing libertarianism than anarchism.
So what would you specifically change about socialism to make it less egalitarian/redistributionist?
I mean I guess it depends on what you mean by rejecting communism and socialism lol, but more practically I think it's possible, just depends on what you advocate for instead
Can you give me any examples of noncommunist, nonsocialist anarchism?
Lots of "post-left" reject traditional leftist movement. They still leftists in a weird way, but they don't trust "The Left (TM)". They reject parties, strong ideological labels, syndicalism, etc.
You'll find a lot of different movements under this label, from the old 68' french movement to modern squatter who just try to avoid all organisations, to tiqqun and the invisible committee, Stirnerian. A whole bunch really. But I think it could be interesting to you. You can read "your politics are boring af" on the anarchist library if you're curious!
good question, potentially stirner's "egoism" isn't necessarily socialist, same with some post left ideas
Stirner was explicitly not a socialist. His egoism was only synthesized by socialists later when Engels drew a weird picture of him and inadvertently brought his ideas back in to the zeitgeist for socialists to read and adopt.
That's why I mentionned it in non socialists
Anarcho Capitalism isn't actually anarchist. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical. It is just feudalism again, but with cryptocurrency.
And, for some reason, some kind of floating offshore nightmare garbage island.
Everyone thinks they're Andrew Ryan
It's a plutocracy in all but name only
Principled self governance
anarchocapitalism is not anarchism in any way shape or form, it is an oxymoron
>Anarcho-Capitalism and ~~Anarcho-Individualism~~
we are not affiliated with you
Thats just a juxtaposition though really.
Those terms have meant quite a variety of things. If you reject "socialism" in all of its forms, you've probably rejected key elements of anarchism. But even self-proclaimed socialists generally reject some forms of socialism, so the mere rejection doesn't necessarily clarify much.
I reject the state. I reject all government. I reject all coercion. I reject all hierarchy. I reject all authority, including so-called scientific "authorities," whose opinions cannot be accepted without personal examination of their own methods and personal verification of their own evidence. For this reason, I reject all modern medicine, not only because it is non-holistic, predatory, and abusive, but also because it is mostly and frequently unscientific. I reject all gods, all religions and all spiritualities.
I reject all ideologies, including socialism, communism and capitalism, with the sole exception of what may be called the free or freed (?) market. To the extent I have any ideology at all, it may be described as an ideology of total freedom combined with an ideology of total rejection of all government.
Finally, I believe that guns are the basis of individual sovereignty and an extension of your own personal autonomy. Without them you are a slave to which ever government and which ever oligarch rules over you.
Where do I stand?
> including so-called scientific "authorities,
Well, that's an oof.
>I reject all modern medicine
>Where do I stand?
Far away from reality, by the sounds of it.
This is honestly the best answer I found here.
The "freed market" is a term used in left-wing market anarchist spaces (anarchists who don't preclude some form of market exchange and/or find freed market dynamics to be of particular importance to the facilitation and furtherment of anarchist aims), so regarding where you stand, I imagine there'd be a lot for you to resonate with in LWMA critiques if the freed market is the only socialist concept that sits right with you. LWMA can certainly be described as being socialistic and obviously anticapitalist; but, there are many within the tradition who argue against the use of the word "socialism" to describe what they advocate for, which is something I'm of the same mind about. Anarchy needs no supplements, and socialism as an umbrella term is awfully vague and charts my advocacies on an imaginary scale that would suppose that I have any interests in common with statists. Even if the practical application of anarchy is "socialistic" in nature, and that perhaps on some level makes you and I "socialists" in some sense of the word, you sure as hell don't have to use that catch-all term for the furtherment of your own anarchist aims and/or the labeling of yourself. To simply be an Anarchist is enough.
Real life “I am transcend of all -isms” dude
You sound like an ancap.
They said they reject all heirarchies including capitalism though
They reject all hierarchies without giving any definition of what to them constitutes a hierarchy. Ancaps believe capitalist relations are voluntary and so don't constitute a hierarchy. Moreover they reject all "ideologies" which given that an ideology is simply a worldview that's an absolutely preposterous notion, so I ignored it. May as well say "I reject all theories of gravity" (which would actually kinda fit in with their rejection of science lmao).
A hierarchy is something that is involuntary and non-contractual, therefore coercive. If you reject it, you are punished by the collective. Ancaps believe that certain forms of hierarchy are inescapable in a capitalist society, so they're not exactly anti-hierarchy. I for one believe in thorough democratization of the free market, giving us small firms and individual producers, removing all barriers to entry and making it as non-coercive and non-exploitative as possible, so I wouldn't consider myself ancap. I also don't reject all science, just unquestioning obedience to "the science."
The free market always favors economies of scale, and thus those with control of the means of production, and invariably ends in monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels.
I'm a research scientist. It is incredibly difficult to introduce new scientific knowledge. This idea that science is some religious dogma and deviation is punished is simply not true. It's made difficult, yes, but that's to ensure the validity of the claims through the scientific method and peer review. If it weren't for quantum mechanics, an idea that was extremely contentious and still very much in its infancy a century ago, you wouldn't have the internet to be complaining about it on.
There's nothing inherent in free markets that makes them particularly susceptible to monopolies. As for science, no it's not religious dogma, it's a process, but industry-funded science, where there is widespread corruption and regulatory capture, is indeed treated as if it were religious dogma.
Economies of scale win out in the free market because they can produce goods/services more efficiently. This means that larger producers will out-compete smaller ones, leading to market consolidation. The more technically sophisticated and efficient a process is, the higher the capital investment required, and the more the market becomes dominated by progressively fewer actors. This leads directly to the formation of monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels.
And I really don’t understand where you get this impression of science other than it seeping out of antivax nonsense. MOSFETs work because quantum mechanics works, and it has nothing to do with the fact that MOSFET technology research was funded by the MIC. Or jet turbines. Or machine learning. Or high temperature nickel superalloys. Like, please give one example of where you think this is occurring otherwise you’re going to look like an anti-science whacko.
>Economies of scale win out in the free market because they can produce goods/services more efficiently. This means that larger producers will out-compete smaller ones, leading to market consolidation. The more technically sophisticated and efficient a process is, the higher the capital investment required, and the more the market becomes dominated by progressively fewer actors. This leads directly to the formation of monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels.
This is only a problem in a work-or-starve capitalist economy where I get to own and control your labour and the value it produces. Socialism, de-growth, anti-work, and anarchy are what enable the market to be free by removing the incentive and direct means to over produce and monopolize
>Economies of scale win out in the free market because they can produce goods/services more efficiently. This means that larger producers will out-compete smaller ones blah blah blah...
You seem to think that monopolies are inevitable in a free market but I disagree. I think that (1.) inculcating deep suspicion of centralization in the populace, whether political, economic, scientific etc; (2.) abolishing government, thus eliminating all regulatory barriers and corporate welfare and in the process, maximizing competition, and; (3.) the proliferation of worker self-management of cooperatives and individual producers, allowing for greater oversight and democratic control over the means of production, among other things, would eliminate monopolies.
>And I really don’t understand where you get this impression of science other than it seeping out of antivax nonsense blah blah blah...
You sound naive. It's simply a fact that most scientific findings are false positives. It's also a fact that many, if not most study findings cannot be replicated. And it goes beyond vaccines, for which there is no scientific evidence of safety and efficacy. Scientists are not these selfless dedicated seekers of truth that Hollywood makes them out to be (sorry!), but are often biased, corrupted by corporate funding and have numerous conflicts of interest. The Covid-19 "pandemic" is an excellent example of this, but there are others.
I dunno. I see myself as more of a free market anticapitalist than an ancap tbqh.
So how would your ideal economic system work? You’re anti-capitalist and free market, which is all well and good, but how would you organize production?
What science and what medicine do you reject? Are you rejecting it in favor of a different way of understanding the world? Or are you just skeptical of particular things that science/medicine have said or claimed?
Any time people coordinate their efforts it’s a state. You can’t have a society without a state. It’s a tool, it can build houses or bombs but it’s always there
I definitely agree with this.
OP has been poisoned by libertarianism. You can’t be stateless. It’s socialism or barbarism
You stand to reassess your views, comrade. Medicine is not predatory nor is it frequently unscientific. The issue with medicine today is the political and economical gain one gets from withholding it from those in need (ex. insulin). As for scientific authorities, you can go read peer reviewed studies but to some degree you have to be able to accept that you won't be able to understand the jargon or study results of experts because, necessarily, they are experts; you don't know or understand what they do. Feel free to study and learn it but the more you learn in one area, the less you know everywhere else.
Somewhere near Anarcho-Primitivism, I guess.
You stand with Anarcho-Capitalism and Agorism. Every form of colletivism, e.g. socialism or communism, is a cancer that undermines the individual liberty.
This is true anarchy, is it not?
Yes, I believe it is. Pro-freedom, pro-guns, pro-individual sovereignty, pro-market, "no gods no masters," antigovernment, antihierarchy, anticommunist, antisocialist and anticapitalist.
I think you're an anarcho-syndicalist, or possibly market socialist.
syndicalists are socialists and have a lot of overlap with communism.
Yes, I'm aware
they said they weren't socialist nor communist.
Tbh I don't think they really understand what those terms mean
Through no fault of their own... Those terms have been so propagandized and tied to the Soviets that the vast majority does not understand them.
I fail to understand how socialism isn't a key component to anarchism. None of this communism/anarchism debate makes any sense to me and it all seems to incredibly counter productive in the context of my country's problem where all left wing representation in government is effectively banned.
Since the left wing representation in the government is banned, you can focus on direct action (which is the anarchist way of doing things).
I'm not sure what form direct action takes, I am not very social due to a panic disorder.
I'd say you should start by getting therapy. Panic disorders can be really detrimental to you, and certainly would get in the way of social interaction. And you can only help others if you're in a relatively healthy space, yourself.
But you can definitely organize with friends, too, if you have anyone interested. :)
I've been in therapy for 35 years, it isn't really helping. I don't have any friends to organize. I'm in a real bad place mentally and there simply isn't sufficient help available.
I mean there is more than just that lmfao you can guerrilla garden, do street art, and stuff like that. Just be ungovernable. Doesn’t mean you have to be a soldier
The terms socialism and communism are extremely broad.
I have some examples:
- Post left anarchists reject association with the left, so they wouldn't identify with socialism or communism which are left-wing ideas.
- Socialism (if you define it as "workers owning the means of production) is at odds with anti-work philosophy (since without work, there are no workers).
- Egoists would reject the popular idea of communism as a "geist"
These are very surface level, just as examples to guide further research.
Anti-work is not anti-labor
yes it is, and that’s a good thing
some that are anti work are also anti labor but it's not inherent lol
I would argue that it is, just some people don't take the idea to its logical conclusion.
But this is not a debate sub, so...
im anti work but not anti labor. i think one should not need to work, but a society without labor isn't a society that would last more than like 4 days before people starved to death.
I think labor should be dictated by oneself. Im only anti labor in the sense that i think someone shouldn't be coerced into labor, and that sense i would argue is not anti labor at all.
Being anti-work is being anti-capitalist.
Being anti-labor is being pro-stagnation.
Even if it is true, I used the term workers, not laborers.
When nobody has to work, the term worker becomes meaningless.
I think most anarchists that consider themselves socialists mean laborers when they refer to workers owning the means of production.
No one should have to be forced to do any labor, and refusal to do so shouldn't mean you should starve to death.
But people require labor to survive, and certainly require it to create the amenities we have today. So "workers owning the means of production" is many times interchangeable with "laborers owning the means of production".
Which is basically just to say everyone should be the owner of their own labor.
I disagree that the only productive thing is labor.
This is basic in anti-work thought.
I'm not saying the *only* productive thing is labor.
But writing, creating art, cooking, even if just for yourself, requires work/labor/effort.
My point is that it feels like that disagreement is semantic. What do you call the effort taken to create a final product? What do you call the effort taken when two or more people must collaborate to achieve a goal? (I'm honestly asking, not trying to do a gotcha, just trying to understand your point)
Because this effort is what I call labor. Someone has to grow food and cook it so we can eat. I say that's part of labour. If/when machines can do it for us, then sure, no one will have to do it, but machines will still need to be build.
When I talk about labor, too, I also include things done not because they need to be done, necessarily, but also done because someone finds it enjoyable — like gardening or sewing.
It follows that as long as there's a society, there'll be people working together to achieve a goal, either because they need to survive (like eat) or because they just want to (like creating a play). That they should be the ones deciding how they'll do it is what I've seen anarchists mean by socialism.
If you define labor this closely to effort, then yeah, you are bound to run into contradictions when thinking about whether it is possible to "abolish labor", because effort is usually a healthy and nice thing (otherwise there wouldn't be sports).
As wittgenstein observed, all philosophy is just playing with words, but this hasn't stopped us thus far, so why stop us now? :p
I believe that terminology is a useful tool as it can help us explain topics with fewer words, as long as of course we know how we use a word.
> What do you call the effort taken to create a final product?
I currently use many words, like work, hobby, learning. But the word I aspire to use the most in the future is play.
I will use a (maybe too) simple example.
Ask a small child to help with removing some parasite plants or rocks from a field. Watch how immediately they start running around, doing what would be considered menial or meaningless by adults (either as a job, or as labor) with joy. Because they view it as a game, as play.
I know because I've been that child.
Of course, we won't have as much energy as we grow up. But the important thing is to have the vibe. I'll play when I want, for however much I want. Because I enjoy playing. I also enjoy competitive play Let's see who will pick the most cherries off the tree in an hour.
I used farming activities since they are the ones most usually labeled as "important" and "necessary" and "if we don't labor we won't have to eat".
I don't believe that it is appropriate or possible even to view everything as play. But there are other words too. Like art, etc.
On the other hand, if I had to labor using one of the arrangements usually touted by anarchocommunists, I would still be miserable after the initial excitement passed, even if I owned the fruit of my labor and all the other commie rhetoric.
If you want to use the word labor to refer to all these, its fine, however I think that if an alternative is better, lets never be content with good enough.
XD ok, I see what you mean.
Like I said, I think we were just approaching things from a different angle. I'd rather redefine work to no longer mean something coercive, and you'd rather use another word. I think both are fine, the end goal is pretty much the same. And I may even change my mind eventually about which word to use, who knows
I really just wanted to understand where you were coming from. So thanks for explaining :)
> Un-anarchist as it may be assign authority to anyone, when it comes to what post-left Anarchism means, Black and McQuinn are the authorities, because it's their philosophy.
Change the names to Proudhon and Bakunin and remove the post- and you get an equivalent argument that will hopefully make you realize how silly it sounds.
It is *my* philosophy :)
The last paragraph is 100% opinion, with zero arguments to back it up.
Now, before I respond to the rest (which is a clear ad-hominem but I don't mind).
I want you to take a public guess as to what country I am from (that fits the criteria you mentioned).
Where is the ad hominem? They didn't attack your argument or anyone's argument by attacking their character, they focused on historical figures and the origins of their philosophical thought. The origins of that philosophical thought just happened to be, in no small part, a reaction to what they perceived as their persecution on the basis of "wokeism". I use scare quotes because I'm black so that word is likely to mean something different to me than most.
Almost everything this person said consists of personal attacks to either me, post left anarchists or "post left authorities". I was not refering only at this comment specifically.
First, they said that post-left anarchists are right wing (without explaining why).
The argument (from the first comment) was that the ideas that we associate under the umbrela term "post-left anarchy" have no merit and can't be considered anarchist because some people many years ago that "created" this philsophy were POS.
This is pure ad-hominem, because instead of arguing against those actual ideas like for example why Stirner was/wasn't influential on anarchism (as mentioned), they called everything bullshit based on Black's (who was also a snitch) character.
Then proceeded with some patronizing bullshit, namely that young "post leftists" don't know any better, and don't really know what they mean by using the term post left (which is wild coming from someone that uses the extremely simplistic unidimensional left-right model to describe politics).
Afterwards, went on to assume where I am from and that we don't have any actual left in my country.
This subredit is supposedly about explaining topics to people that are not very familiar with them, although I think shitting on "postleftism" is something people new to anarchism should get accustomed too.
>I want you to take a public guess as to what country I am from (that fits the criteria you mentioned).
I don't need to guess. I know you're Greek.
I don't see how that's relevant, though, since what country *you* are from doesn't change what I've experienced with other people in any way, shape or form.
>Change the names to Proudhon and Bakunin and remove the post- and you get an equivalent argument that will hopefully make you realize how silly it sounds.
Not really. I doubt you'll find many people who would not conclude they're dealing with someone who seriously needs to inform themselves better if they call themselves a Mutualist, but when someone mentions Proudhon says 'Proudhon has nothing to do with Mutualism! Mutualism is actually very different from what Proudhon said!'
Unlike Proudhon with Mutualism or Black with Post-Left Anarchism, Bakunin didn't create a term specifically for his personal anarchist philosophy (or if he did, it didn't catch on enough for us to know what it is). But if he had, then saying that the philosophy by that name had nothing to do with Bakunin would be what would *really* be silly.
Not the person you were responding to, but would you have any recommendations for post-left anarchism reads? It's not a concept I fully grasp, but it sounds interesting from the little I know.
Don’t feed the trolls y’all. This dude is trying to infiltrate leftist groups without being thrown out by his alt-right buddies
Not sure where this is coming from, but FYI I'm anti-fascist and anti-Nazi as these are coercive statist ideologies. For the record, I'm also anti-communist. So I'm what you call a "real anti-fascist."
>For the record, I'm also anti-communist. So I'm what you call a "real anti-fascist."
What I mean to say is that I hate all tyranny, whether from the left or from the right. I'm not like Antifa who only hate "Nazis," but have no problem with tyranny from elsewhere.
That's fair, but that's not what being anti-communist communicates. I mean there's a reason why plenty of anarchists are communists, but no anarchists are fascists
Have there been any communist regimes that were or are non-totalitarian? I can't think of any.
Marxists being Marxists doesn't mean that's all communism is. The only recorded time communism has ever been achieved (while being called communism by the people implementing it) was in Korean anarchist communes.
In fact I'd go as far as to say Marxist methodology is anti-communist. Governing bodies like the Soviets and PRC are nothing more than a grift, whether or not the intention at their formation was to work towards communism
And how long did the Korean anarchist communes last? A few years? Why was it not stable enough to last longer? The fact of the matter is *there has never been a successful communist non-totalitarian society.* This is because: **All communism inevitably devolves into autocracy. No exceptions.** This is what history teaches us. Communitarianism or "primitive communism" is a different story. On a small scale, that may work and has worked historically in hunter-gatherer, agropastoral and even some early urban societies. But I don't see communitarianism working in more complex and highly urbanized societies.
Marx never defined what communism is, contrary to what some people think. It was just some vague future state after the demise of capitalism. So we can't really say whether Marx was communist or anarcho-communist, as usually understood, or whatever. The truth is Marx disdained coming up with utopias and believed that it was up to the workers to figure out what communism would be by dismantling the oppressive structures of bourgeois society.
It didn't end because it wasn't stable, it ended because Imperial Japan wanted to commit crimes against humanity. Any other group of similar size would have fared the same.
>All communism inevitably devolves into autocracy. No exceptions. This is what history teaches us.
What examples of "communism devolving into autocracy" do you have if there was only one recorded instance of communism existing?
>Marx never defined what communism is, contrary to what some people think. It was just some vague future state after the demise of capitalism.
>The truth is Marx disdained coming up with utopias and believed that it was up to the workers to figure out what communism would be by dismantling the oppressive structures of bourgeois society.
He actually specifically described it as stateless. Its a stateless, classless, moneyless, socialist society.
>So we can't really say whether Marx was communist or anarcho-communist, as usually understood, or whatever.
...what? I mean like... what??? He was entirely and demonstrably a non-anarchist communist. What of his works have you read that lead you to believe this could even be called into question?
>It didn't end because it wasn't stable, it ended because Imperial Japan wanted to commit crimes against humanity. Any other group of similar size would have fared the same.
So it wasn't that substantial to begin with?
>What examples of "communism devolving into autocracy" do you have if there was only one recorded instance of communism existing?
I never said there was only one recorded instance of communism. There have been many recorded instances of communism: the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba etc. All of them became totalitarian dictatorships.
>He actually specifically described it as stateless. Its a stateless, classless, moneyless, socialist society.
Which literally tells us nothing. How are resources to be distributed in such a society? How does one determine who needs what in the absence of supply and demand curves? How is the withering away of the state to be achieved? How do we create classlessness? How does the dictatorship of the proletariat govern without becoming a literal dictatorship? Communism is just a giant placeholder for Marx. In his more mature works he admits he doesn't know what "communism" is.
>He was entirely and demonstrably a non-anarchist communist. What of his works have you read that lead you to believe this could even be called into question?
Read the preface to *Das Kapital*. He says himself he has no use for readymade utopias. You seem to think Marxism is a form of totalitarian social engineering. It isn't.
Thank you for outing yourself
All anarchism is a form of socialism in it's broadest (not necessarily the Marxian one) definition.
Really? What about Stirnerism, anarcho-primitivism, lifestyle anarchism, philosophical anarchism, agorism, post-anarchy and Left-Rothbardianism?
Yes. It depends on your definition of socialism.
The main point is the following: If it weren't some form of socialism, why even be anarchism to begin with? Not all ideologies pre-suppose you actually want a good outcome for all individuals in a society. That's why there are Egoist Fascists, who will obtain what pleases their ego by bringing about a regime that crushes anybody not me through the machinery of the State, for example. These Egoists would *not* be socialists.
In this sense, socialism is treated as any system that seeks to genuinely put the reigns of society in the hands of, well, society. It differs from the Marxist definition of Socialism, clearly. It is through this definition that the claim is regularly made that all forms of anarchism are socialism.
>In this sense, socialism is treated as any system that seeks to genuinely put the reigns of society in the hands of, well, society.
What about the individualist anarchist who values his own individual sovereignty over society?
Why are you more important than anyone else in society? I guess you can express yourself that way, but does that mean you would stubbornly not cooperate with others because you think your beliefs are greater than everyone else’s?
Ignore the people who seem clueless about individualist anarchism.
What you say is true, that the individualist values their own sovereignty more, but why would that person want individual *anarchism* if they genuinely don't care about others being able to also maintain their sovereignty? If they really only cared about themselves, they would simply seek to move into a comfortable position in the current system. Fundamentally, the pursuit of anarchism is due to a desire for all to enjoy the benefits we think a human deserves, it is about what is just.
What does that even mean tho? How does individual anarchism even differ from regular forms of anarchism? Do you think people shouldn't come together to try and organize how they want to live collectively?
I've read a bit on post-left and while there's some interesting stuff there (anti-civ, anti-work, etc), the individualism always seemed, to me, purely philosophical nonsense.
Unless you're subscribing to some Ayn Randian view of the world, Anarchism still cares for their fellow human being's ability to express autonomy and sovereignity. The world doesn't end at your skin; a core value that the left has is a concern and care for others well-being; you can't just neglect everyone else. Furthermore, you're not going to get away from society. That's literally just people living together. Insofar as you wish to partake in life with other people, you will always be a part of society.
We should care that everyone has the ability to exert their own individual sovereignty to the maximum extent possible, without impediment. Isn't that what it means to place individuals over the collective, in this case society?
This is always my favourite part of discussions because it means I get to talk about Emma
TL;DR: Yes, but also no.
>The new social order rests, of course, on the materialistic basis of life; but while all Anarchists agree that the main evil today is an economic one, they maintain that the solution of that evil can be brought about only through the consideration of every phase of life, — individual, as well as the collective; the internal, as well as the external phases.
>A thorough perusal of the history of human development will disclose two elements in bitter conflict with each other; elements that are only now beginning to be understood, not as foreign to each other, but as closely related and truly harmonious, if only placed in proper environment: the individual and social instincts. The individual and society have waged a relentless and bloody battle for ages, each striving for supremacy, because each was blind to the value and importance of the other. The individual and social instincts, — the one a most potent factor for individual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the other an equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness and social well-being.
>Man’s true liberation, individual and collective, lies in his emancipation from authority and from the belief in it. All human evolution has been a struggle in that direction and for that object. It is not invention and mechanics which constitute development. The ability to travel at the rate of 100 miles an hour is no evidence of being civilized. True civilization is to be measured by the individual, the unit of all social life; by his individuality and the extent to which it is free to have its being to grow and expand unhindered by invasive and coercive authority.
>Socially speaking, the criterion of civilization and culture is the degree of liberty and economic opportunity which the individual enjoys; of social and international unity and co-operation unrestricted by man-made laws and other artificial obstacles; by the absence of privileged castes and by the reality of liberty and human dignity; in short, by the true emancipation of the individual.
>Political absolutism has been abolished because men have realized in the course of time that absolute power is evil and destructive. But the same thing is true of all power, whether it be the power of privilege, of money, of the priest, of the politician or of so-called democracy. In its effect on individuality it matters little what the particular character of coercion is — whether it be as black as Fascism, as yellow as Nazism or as pretentiously red as Bolshevism. It is power that corrupts and degrades both master and slave and it makes no difference whether the power is wielded by an autocrat, by parliament or Soviets. More pernicious than the power of a dictator is that of a class; the most terrible — the tyranny of a majority.
What you're saying is true, no individual is held above any other. But collectives are made up of individuals, therefore no one is above the collective and the collective is above no one. You can't emancipate one without the other because doing either leads to both
What is meant by rejecting socialism?
Historically, those words have all been used somewhat interchangeably to describe an economic and social system where the community makes its own decisions rather than decisions handed down by some ruling authority. They all refer more or less to an eventual classless, moneyless, hierarchy-free society, mostly disagreeing only on the process of getting there and not really the end goal.
That said, certain tendencies and factions have tried to lay claim to those words. Socialism is often most associated with a socialist state, and tied to social democrats that seek to use elections and the state to bring about social change. Communism is often associated specifically with Marxist-Leninist tendencies that focus on rejecting the bourgeois state and replacing it with a supposedly temporary workers state, until the state "withers away" into true communism. Anarchism itself has often been misunderstood as many Leninist tendencies tend to attack anarchism, and at least in the US the right-wing has attempted to co-opt the terms "libertarian" and "anarchist" to mean "anarcho-capitalism" which isn't anarchist at all but really talking about the removal of all state regulations in favor of a neo-feudal market system.
So depending on what is meant by these terms, you may or may not associate with them.
Yes. Anarchy can stand on its own.
Egoism, Agorism, Anarcho-Nihilism…..
All of them are Anarchists, all of them, while having overlapping ideas with socialism and/or communism, flat out reject them
That's an interesting question... and we've got a major problem of how these terms are used/discussed in media/schools etc and how that gives s very skewed idea of them.
Short answer: Not really but a little bit
Socialism is an umbrella that includes both. Just to get that out the way.
The ultimate goal of Anarchism and Communism is the same: a stateless, classless, society.
The differences come in how to achieve that.
An Anarchist can reject the idea of using a state apparatus to achieve Communism, and a Communist can consider an Anarchist revolution unrealistic.
Ultimately though the objective is the same, so an Anarchist can reject the use of the state as a tool of course, however rejecting Communism as a whole is not really possible, especially considering, for example, AnComs, An-Syndicalists etc etc and how these various ideologies cross over and differ.
There's a reason the twin flags is such an iconic symbol right, broadly speaking, Ans and Coms should and do unite against the Fascists, the Capitalist state, Corporate power etc and in community projects and building.
They then also do their own praxis separately, in theory Coms trying to prioritise building class consciousness for e.g.
The most important thing to remember is you know, Communism is not what you've been told your whole life.
I don't know about this, since some anarchists clearly reject communism as a statist ideology, particularly the individualist anarchists. The problem with communism is centralization which brings us back to coercive hierarchies and a state to enforce the central planner's diktat.
As an individualist anarchist, I don’t think Anarchist Communism or Libertarian Communism is at all a statist ideology
Communism is a stateless society so to claim it’s a statist ideology shows that the person making the claim has no understanding of what communism is and simply parrots what he/she has been told
Communism is a classless,stateless and moneyless society, soviet union not are communist
Anarcho-Nihilism, Egoism, and Agorism are Anarchist schools of thought that, while having some overlapping similarities with socialism and/or communism, are neither
Yeah, I'm not a communist or an ancap and I think socialism became a meaningless signifier. I align with market anarchism or mutualism.
Isn't mutualism socialist?
eh socialism can mean a lot of things. Most mutualist would consider themselves socialist including Prud'hon. But some people like op of the comment don't feel the label describes their positions well enough.
Fair enough, but how's that?
I'm sorry but I don't understand your question.
No worries, I'm wondering how the label wouldn't describe someone's position well enough. Like I don't expect you to tell me how they feel, but an example would be helpful
Well I guess they might feel that socialism is associated with anti market ideologies to often for them to use it for example.
sure. It doesn't matter, because so many others have called their project socialism. Thing is, as a market leftist, I just don't agree with most other leftists about what capitalism actually means, therefore the prescription, socialism, is also flawed.
That's funny. You and I would probably agree on a lot of things, but I lay most of my criticism into leftism as a label, not socialism. Your gripe with socialism/capitalism is probably similar to mine with left/right
Oh I don't consider myself a "Leftist" either I was just trying to be descriptive so I don't get mistaken for an ancap here lol "market anti-capitalist" would have been better
Yeah that sounds entirely reasonable to me. Don't know why you're getting downvoted and I'm not lmao
Communism, yes. Socialism, not so much. From communism to mutualism, all anarchist movements adhere to some form of socialism.
There is post-left anarchy.
post left is not quite an organized movement, if you ask 4 PL their opinions you may see 4 different opinions, a PL can literally be an ancom that rejects the term ancom, post left is a very varied term
It is not enough to be anti-capitalist. You must be pro-something else, or your actions are meaningless, and probably harmful.
Anarcho Communism is the most direct, ideological approach to anarchy.
Anarcho Syndicalism is a movement to fully commit to socialist action to bring about the end of capitalism- and reshape the world under what are essentially workplace-oriented communes.
Communalism/Social Ecology may as well just be a separate, tailored plan to bring about a modern communist anarchy with consideration for Green concerns.
If you're not somewhere on this spectrum, it sounds a lot like you're a loner. And if you're a loner- you're not really an anarchist. You're just a person who makes peace with their place in the hierarchy, disobeys petty authority, and makes no effort to actually challenge its existence.
Individualism should be a path to sympathy- not cutting yourself off from the whole.
Yes you have to be pro something. I would be pro-market, but favoring individual producers and worker-operated and owned small firms. Basically free market anticapitalism or leftwing market anarchism. I'm pretty sure that puts me on the spectrum, while remaining fully anticommunist at the same time.
By the way I'm not convinced communism is the best way, nor the most effective at bringing about anarchism given all the horrors of the last century.
About the only thing AnComs have in common with AuthComs is they call themselves communists.
Its literally a diametrically opposed ideology.
You would have trouble being less anti-stalinist than being AnCom
Yes. Early American individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Dyer Lum were pretty explicitly *anti-* communist, and saw collectivization of property as something capable of oppressing individuals.
This only answers half the question, as both Benjamin Tucker and Dyer D. Lum considered anarchism and themselves to be socialist.
If you've recently suffered traumatic brain injury maybe
I guess you could be a lockean and market anarchist, rather than being commited to use & occupancy norms. I think you would still need to be commited to non-domination though. Which means not supporting hierarchical relations in the workplace if there is to any noticeable degree structural violence in that society funnelling people into wage labour roles.
Anarchism is the state of no government at all… kind of ridiculous people associate any political ideology with anarchism…
"Politics" is just group decision making.
And what if someone doesn’t want to participate in the group decision making?
They... don't participate? I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to imply here. Please be a little more direct.
[little bit more to it](https://raddle.me/f/Anarchism/134806/entry-points-politics)
I think all of those are using the term "politics" to refer to statecraft, but people regularly talk about the "politics" of the local knitting group or whatever, which is what I mean. It's inseparable from interpersonal relationships, in that sense.
We are all likely familiar with the joke that "democracy is two lions and a gazelle deciding what is for dinner" but in my mind small scale politics is indistinguishable from 3 people deciding where to go to dinner.
What bothers me about "3 people deciding where to go to dinner" as politics is how it naturalizes social collectivities as political entities.
I'm sure some groups are made up of people who love to act and relate *in the name of the group* rather than being open about and sensitive to conflicting interests. I'm sure some folks constantly find themselves backed into a corner where they have to vote on the most basic shit, democratically construct *the decision*, or otherwise imitate 'statecraft'.
That's where politics emerges and anarchy dissolves. Maybe we should learn to distinguish, so that we can learn to navigate anarchic relations. Even if in today's contexts we're used to being citizens, members of over-arching political entities.
I mean… yes, it is 100% anti-government, but it is also anti-capitalist
Not really. A self governed society is still political, even if they don't vote for representatives. There would still need to be systems available for mutual aid and distribution of resources. People would still need to decide how to maintain peace and meet the greatest human needs. You could try to be a hermit and live on your own, but there are already cities built. There is no reason to think an anarchist city would be full of individuals who only look after themselves, so they would have to collaborate and form a society. Anarchy is not necessarily "no government", it is no hierarchy. You can have a government as long as the people in it are no more powerful than anyone else and the position they hold has no means of seizing power or control. There are plenty of books on the topic of anarchist theory if you want to learn more about how society could function within anarchy.
The United States is a “self governed” society. Self governed means the people govern over each other. Government in an anarchical sense is not external. It’s an internal state of mind. Society still functions and distributes resources but on a voluntary, moral basis, not a political one.
Most people in this group are statists who think Anarchy is a political standpoint… just saying.
I never said society would not function either. However it’s a blend of those who do not want to participate and only would like to be resourceful unto themselves mixed those who are communal and seek more cooperation. Anarchy does not mean “no hierarchy” it means that there is no legitimacy to any authority vested in one human over another. It is universal. Pol-Itics implies division between humans and is useless and antithetical to anarchy.
>Anarchy does not mean “no hierarchy” it means that there is no legitimacy to any authority vested in one human over another.
You just described what hierarchy is…
How many people here actually believe that authority is legitimate?
That sort of depends on how you define authority. If you mean authority in the sense that someone has the power to force, coerce, or manipulate you, then yes, obviously we are opposed to that. Here’s a quote from Mikhail Bakunin you ought to read.
“Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even m special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person.”
So to reiterate, if by authority, you mean that someone is allowed to force/coerce you to do something, then no, anarchism is not in favor of that.
Ok so why does everyone use these “anarcho-communist” Anarcho-capitalist” anarcho-socialist nonsense? Those are all forms of rulers and control “authority” it makes no sense whatsoever. How can anyone in this group be an anarchist if they still believe that others have the right to tell you what to do and how to spend, give, share et cetera.
I'm not usually the type to suggest others read more theory... But in your case, I really think you should read at least a little. Seriously... Anarchy... The word is literally an antonym of hierarchy. Politics exists where people coexist. If a commune holds a vote to decide how resources are distributed, that's political. If two homesteads discuss land use for cattle, that's political. If someone commits murder and the community has to decide their punishment, that's political. Politics and government aren't necessarily "one person has power and another one doesn't." No one is more important than anyone else, which is why there is bound to be division, which is why politics would still be a thing within anarchy. A lateral government structure, one which grants no official power but aids in organization, is not antithetical to anarchist theory. Also, the US is not self governed, it is controlled almost exclusively by the wealthy.
Hierarchy is a part of life and value systems. Holy smokes. I have been an anarchist for 6 years and read a lot. Are you confusing hierarchy with authority? Those are two different things. One being man made and the other being natural.
There is no voting for resources in an anarchy… it’s about morality not mob rule…
Politics has no place in an anarchy.
I just cannot believe there are people fighting hierarchy it makes no sense…
Also Anarchy is the Antonym for Authority…. Not hierarchy…. Humans have simple innate value systems as do animals. It’s natural….. nothing to fight against. However authority is not natural and not legitimate hence “no rulers”
Okay... What are you reading that led you to this? Who is telling you that anarchists can't use democracy as a tool for maintaining peaceful cohabitation within their communities? Are you certain that you are not a bit confused?
Hierarchy and authority are broadly interchangeable, anarchy being the literal opposite of hierarchy is anti-authoritarian. But it is important to know that there is such a thing as justifiable authority. Parents can have justifiable authority over their children. Similarly, teachers have authority over students. Does this mean parents and teachers couldn't exist in an anarchist society? No, those authorities are not ruling authorities.
Individualists might not like the idea of voting and they probably wouldn't have to if they had the ability to live on their own, away from society. But it would make no sense for collectivists not to eventually use political tools like voting to maintain peace and insure equal access to resources.
I would point to distributists like Dorthy Day as an example of an anarchist who was opposed to most main stream socialism.
In the widest sense, anarchism is just the absence of hierarchy, so any system that seeks to free people from a class system is anarchist.
It’s very Anarchistic to reject all forms of authoritarianism.
Absolutely. There are plenty of schools of anarchism that reject both socialism and capitalism. Many egoists, post-leftists, and left-wing market anarchists don't consider themselves socialists.
> In a libertarian or anarchist world, some people might be unaffiliated anarcho-capitalists, contracting with various firms for services. But if we look at markets today, we see instead contractual communities. We see condominiums, homeowner associations, cooperatives, and neighborhood associations. For temporary lodging, folks stay in hotels, and stores get lumped into shopping centers. Historically, human beings have preferred to live and work in communities. Competition induces efficiency, and private communities tend to be financed from the rentals of sites and facilities, since this is the most efficient source of funding. Henry George recognized that site rents are the most efficient way to finance community goods because it is a fee paid for benefits, paying back that value added by those benefits. Private communities today such as hotels and condominiums use geoist financing. Unfortunately, governments do not.
> Geoist communities would join together in leagues and associations to provide services that are more efficient on a large scale, such as defense, if needed. The voting and financing would be bottom up. The local communities would elect representatives, and provide finances, and would be able to secede when they felt association was no longer in their interest.
Yes. While these tenants can be helpful for creating conditions for anarchy, they still are factors largely reliant on the state, but not exclusively. Little communism is practiced in the home, small socialism in the community.
>No gods, no masters, but let me keep my anarcho-boss
That's not how it works, mate
>Is it possible to be anarchist while rejecting communism and socialism at the same time?
>Yes it is called anarcho capitalism
Why you gotta lie to me like this?
Ancaps are spooks
I think you're mixing your labels up
you have no idea what these terms mean - but that's okay, not really your fault, just please try to not spread misinformed takes
pleasure, communist anarchist, your opinion is useless therefore it is a spook and should be disproved
Voluntarists , agorists, acrats, egoists , étc
Voluntaryists aren’t anarchists, they’re redundant propertarians who believe the only form of coercion is if a gun is pointed at your head
In what r u based to tell that? Those are criminals, criminals who autocalls voluntaryists are just of their minds. The gov and elite works just like u say
Well it totally makes sense to me. You do you I will do me. If you want to be in your Anarcho communist community cool I will just check out Anarcho freedom and if that's not going as good as the commy one I will move there. Communities with open borders, peace and love. Wouldn't it be amazing to just be able to choose what type of government or nongovernment you wanted to live under with your feet in the same country or state instead of forcing everyone to live the way you think they should.