TOTW: Is anarchy sufficient?

Guest totw by ArtxmisGrahamThoreau

In the early to mid 20th century Japan, there was a tendency of anarchism called "pure anarchism." It was a reaction of communist-anarchists against Syndicalist-anarchists, who the "pure" anarchists saw as being influenced by marxism. today, there are some who reject any assimilation of marxism or other ideas into their anarchism. a religious purification, not unlike the purification or reform movements of religions. you might be "too leftist", "too right-wing" or some other shut-down of conversation.

On an Uncivilized podcast episode, one suggested primitivism finally "jettison the remnants of marxism" from our analysis. While we should be cautious of left-wing or authoritarian tendencies, I don't believe there is a need or cause to reject wholesale any ideas foreign to our tendencies of anarchism. Anarchism partially means freedom, which includes intellectual freedom.

So the questions are -- is anarchism sufficient on its own? Does the inclusion of "non-anarchist" (whatever that means) ideas mean anarchy is not sufficient unto its own end? is that bad? Can liberation come only from anarchy? What about cultural and spiritual regeneration?

There are 55 Comments

“is anarchism sufficient on its own?”

no

“Does the inclusion of "non-anarchist" (whatever that means) ideas mean anarchy is not sufficient unto its own end?”

yes

“is that bad?”

no

“Can liberation come only from anarchy?”

I differ from this orientation. For me anarchy is living freely, in a free way, or being free, not a before and after state after which one is liberated, and certainly not some external thing that liberates me or is my source of freedom.

“What about cultural and spiritual regeneration?”

These are not personal goals or preoccupations of mine.

"For me anarchy is living freely, in a free way, or being free, not a before and after state after which one is liberated, and certainly not some external thing that liberates me or is my source of freedom."

You should be writing add copy for Forever 21.

I'm unaware of any anarchist critique of capitalism that wasn't basically a copy-paste of Marx's critique of capitalism. Maybe Proudhon?

there's the anti-colonial perspectives? which are much more than just a marxist historical analysis, although they benefit from a typical anti-capitalist critique too imo

there's also the understnding that economics and material reality are not the only things that change society.

also some anarchists understand that history is not a progression, much less linear...

Marx's main early critiques were exploitation and alienation (1844 papers), and Capital explained those mechanisms further and their consequences (centralization and concentration of capital/power, the dismal resulting conditions of the worker, expropriation and domination to enclose land and give a constant labor force, etc). None of this has to do with progression or dialectical materialism, which the anarchists never adopted.

I haven't seen any anti colonial analyses that weren't applying Marx's ideas. But again, just an ignorant fool here.

An analytical approach that puts expansionism at the core not the outreaches of capital would be it. And the reason why it wasn't included in any Marxist theory, AFAIK, can perhaps be explained by the dialectical and evolutionary nature of Marxism.

A quest for power accumulation, that is a more Nietzschean approach, translates to a drive for expansion. A drive at the core of every colonial project, from empire down to your more contemporary suburban sprawl. That's also what's really behind the tragedy in Ukraine and Gaza. Capital expansion. Not a dialectic movement.

There's not really a class struggle happening over there, but caste struggle, or just gang wars taking place under state covers, using decrepit nationalist doctrines. That's why Marxists can't really tackle what's going on over there without devolving into batshit positions like Nazbol, pro-Putin Stalinism, Maoism, liberal support of Ukie fascism, Palestine nationalism... NATO and Russia/China represent two gigantic, global financial capitalist expansionist agendas, and they have met their most important point of collision in Ukraine, right on Dnieper river. And these frictions are usually part of the game. This is how war theatres arise.

Same for the real estate industry, that's as we speak driving economies nuts all across Western countries... another elephant in the room for Marxists, yet a pattern that is inherently an aspect of colonialism.

Expansion equals invasion. Anyone dismissing that in 2024 is a fool, or a tool, not worthy of being listened to.

For Marx the desire for new capital markets was the need for expansion, as well as the obvious primitive accumulation argument: take stuff so people have to work for you. This is all in Cap vol 1, and has nothing to do with dialectical materialism.

My take on Neech is that the will to power is a desire to challenge oneself to the utmost. This does not require expansionist nationalist policy, but might, in the case of Napoleon and Caesar. It's simply the act of battle, challenge, the need for strength, that makes one strong. Having more property etcetera makes one weak: see his critique of liberalism and what happens AFTER war.

Drive for power accumulation =/= will to power. That's not what I meant up there. Will to Power is the will to overcome your limitations. They can be confused on the surface, but one is a soulless dweeb capitalist seeking to rack easy money out of real estate investments, and the other is a handicapped building their own house despite limitations that would say they can't.

As for the other anon, no, expansion is not primitive accumulation, not even "new markets", which is rather super-reductive; but projected valuation. This is where the need for spectacle (promotion of idealized values, and NOT "commodity fetish", as some Marxians will rule) arises. Marx did not answer why John Smith wrote his Description of New England as a literal promo ad for starting the New Plymouth colony, and then the Compact on the Mayflower, before these colons set foot in Muhrika... or at least I challenge you to find me where it's explained in his writings.

No that's not some irrelevant details. Yes, that is the projection, and where the spectacle (oooor... let's invent a new word: SPECTACULATION!) came from. That is also with this same spectacle that the American nation started being existent. It just kept growing and eventually Hollywood was born, and then the internet. Or why Eurovision and FIFA went so big during the formation of the so-called European Community, and Union? All projected representations and their values. Fostering spectacular (i.e. imagined) communities at a large scale.

Neech did conclude that humans are after power, not strength. At least within the context of the societies he looked into. It's power accumulation that explains wars, not some quest for "strength". STRONK is the least thing that bureaucrats, landlords and the priest class care about. If you've read some of D & G, it is rather the value guiding the Warrior, not the Ruler.

there's the anti-colonial perspectives?
They are Maoists, numbnuts. Duhhhhh...

that's funny, mao was the first guy ever to notice colonialism sucks? yer funny!

i can feel my nuts and but apparently your brain is numb

yes there's mutualist anarchists, and still some anarchists influenced by utopian socialists, but also in a very different but influential vein the Capital Is Power folks, Graeber's critiques are separate from marx, a number of anarchists in the mid to late 20th wrote entirely non-marxist critiques like Alan Carter.

Cool I'll check it out. But I've never seen any Graeber economic analysis that s high school student couldn't tell you . I do like Graeber (as far as rad libs go, and I like Chomsky, come kill me).

i think my point was more that ... noticing that getting colonized sucks and is bad, people were doing that quite awhile before marx was born, therefore, if marxism shows up in anti-colonial analysis, he's just another contributor, albeit a highly influential and useful one

“I don't believe there is a need or cause to reject wholesale any ideas foreign to our tendencies of anarchism.”

In this household, we all champion eclectic self-study.

“Anarchism partially means freedom, which includes intellectual freedom.”

Excuse you?! Partially?!!

I don't want freedom. I want property. Be free from your home and food. They weigh you down. I'll take them.

*Then later on... thug warz n shit*

activist psuedonym and we will be paying top dollar for a spot at neverland ranch w/o your brave and fearless intervention

don’t let haters kinkshame your commie bookshelf. you’re allowed to have boring reading interests, nerd.

When I say “Anarchism partially means freedom, which includes intellectual freedom.” I mean to say anarchism is more than political freedom, meaning political oppression is only part of the struggle. Obvious to most, but wanted to be clear

TL;DR to TOWT: is anarchism's own theory sufficient, and if it isn't, what other sources can or should we pull from?

isn’t the answer for everyone always picking whatever is best suited for one’s needs from what’s available to one. like, drawing from any and all sources is allowed, but one can’t possibly peruse them all, so one discriminates among them and sifts then according to varying criteria, prejudices, and mere convenience (like appearing on the first search results on some popular site or another, be that a forum, or theanarchistlibrary.org, which does not solely host anarchist content)

sufficient for what? sufficient to do what? sufficient for "freedom"? freedom to do what? freedom from what?
lately I've been reading stuff from Indigenous perspectives (north am. & Australian) and curiously "freedom" isn't talked about much. at least in what I've read so far. there is a lot about responsibility to the whole,(the whole as in all four-legged, two-legged, winged, mineral & other people.) right living, right action, that sort of thing. but the idea that one could be free from clan or culture doesn't come up.
I find this of note.

to me, anarchy still is about no rulers, meaning no one is above anyone. I am not more important than that lark or that rock or Aunt Viv.
the way north american anarchists speak of freedom though, makes it sound like everyone wants to be an isolated individual with no connection to anyone else because that would curtail the precious freedom.

freedom from the system imposed from above at the point of a gun and the threat of poverty, that is one thing. the freedom to be isolated and disconnected is another.

also, freedom is such a jargon word... it was illuminating when i first listened to one of the adam curtis series and was reminded that everyone, from thatcher to whoever, extols freedom as a value, and how that makes it sus on the face of it.

or maybe it’s that almost everyone is sus, since they use words like freedom to mean the opposite, or to entice you so they can achieve the opposite, and therefore it makes sense to be misanthropic, and an anti-social anarchist. hell is other people, freedom is solitude. fucking demagogue

I think both the way Thatcher used the word freedom and the way you use freedom show similar ideological components. and, for myself, this idea that freedom is doing what you want whenever you want regardless of what happens to the other beings (think water, air, birds, moss, Redwoods, oceans, etc etc) around you, that seems shortsighted.

you can be a longsighted eco-friendly ecologist then. why be an anarchist if it's not the single sole value you uphold to a ridiculous and unreasonable extreme? want to be moderate about freedom? freedom, in moderation? be liberal.

Alright, let's do the thought experiment: you do whatever to whomever whenever. How long do you think anyone else will want you and your bad behavior around?

Freedom FROM oppression, coercion, exploitation etc etc etc, this is my line

Freedom TO do anything anywhere anytime, yeah, that gets dicey right quick.

that's also like THE distinction between american libertarian brainworms and ...more compelling theories about the beautiful idea

Let's see, let's consider your premise: How long do I think anyone else will want [you taking my sarcastic remark pointing to faulty reasoning] and [your false assumptions and convenient strawmen] around?

a) nothing bad, and everything good (etc etc, compatible with the aspirations of many political rhetorics and projects, and cultures]
b) the boogeyman strawmen of caricature egoists that only exists online to bolster the weak arguments of leftists?

anarchism does have to do with freedom, doesn't it? if anarchists are not the ones who like freedom the most, then who is? maybe they're cooler. if you value economic equality more than anything, maybe you are a communist first, and if you value sustainable indigenous lifeways more than anything, then maybe you're that first, and anarchist second.

a total lack of "economic equality" completely undermines all other concepts of freedom, that's the point of the old "socialism or barbarism" maxim.

a "weak argument" says who? the billionaires and their bootlicks?

you can't change the world, lumpy. you can't even make a good try. and yes, i mean you. so be free in this world as it is, in your lifetime, or die a slave. yes, the world is unequal, and you cannot equalize it with good intentions. the weak argument comes from the moralism that the quirkiness of some self-aggrandized fools is the root of all evil. lots of levelheaded individuals making calculated decisions to leverage their material resources to benefit those they care about in an altruistic and philanthropic way, while enslaving and murdering those they don't care about. so whether you're particularly annoyed at egoists due to your ideological bias is neither here nor there. world leaders can be progressive liberals and governments are full of well-meaning greater-good technocrats, as well as lazy corrupt opportunists, etc etc. The point is that the anarchism of impossible projects to reform the economy is a boring utopia, which is the worst kind, since it's not only impossible, but it's also tedious to consider.

yeah i wasn't seeking a pedantic lecture from your pulpit? i was pointing out how the last thing you said was asinine

guess you got confused tho? does that happen to you a lot? people are like "uh ... no. that's wrong."

but you hear "PLEASE EXPLAIN MORE, I JUST LOVE YOUR VOICE"

Yes lumps ol' chum, you can't change the world, life isn't one big free hobo train ride to the garden of eden in teh skYyy, noOoo, it's pAin, frUstrAtion, sEEthing , ressEntimEnt. YUo cAn dO it, lUmpy, chIn uP, chEst oUt, eYes strAIght aHead, oNe foOt forwArd at A tIme, nOt 2, yoU wiLL fInd youR pAradIse, evEn in teH gUtter. AmOr fAti!

I HATE BORING NECKBEARDED MARXISTS LECTURING ME IN A CONDESCENDING TONE,,,I WILL NOT TAKE IT! I AM A PURE ANARCH RISING OUT OF THE ASHES OF IDEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT!

go get em, tiger

is anarchism sufficient on its own?

Anarchy is a starting point, just as "who is in charge here?" is a starting point. is a starting point sufficient on its own? obviously not, otherwise it would be an ending point.

Does the inclusion of "non-anarchist" (whatever that means) ideas mean anarchy is not sufficient unto its own end?

Often its intrusion, not inclusion, and non-anarchist ideas are coming from a different frame of reference than anarchy. Anarchy can only support ideas with its basic assumptions about the world. Ideas stemming from different ideological bases are presentations of that basis, to recognize them as "non-anarchist" ideas is to recognize that they come from a different set of assumptions, and thus have limited applicability to the anarchic orientation.

...is that bad?

If its bad to misrepresent ideas by association with ideas stemming from different assumptions, then yes.

Can liberation come only from anarchy?

Anarchy is liberation, it does not come from it. Stop looking for a political ideology to free you, its just another story to trap and channel your conscious activity. The project is to create a ***stable*** anarchy, one that doesn't devolve into authoritarian forms.

What about cultural and spiritual regeneration?

Give people space,. Stop promoting a human monoculture, abandon mass society, stop importing and exporting shit, people will find themselves and eachother and the regeneration will happen in that space. Mass society suffocates us all.

artxmis seems to have a fairly specific idea of what "anarchism" and its theory means, i guess primitivism, and im indifferent to that. in my experience every anarchist i've met has had a syncretic approach, drawing from all kinds of sources however haphazardly to put together their particular way of stating their case.

setting that aside, my view is that there is something i may as well call anarchy which describes the kind of perspective of a person who is willing to throw out the stories theyve been given about what they need to survive, thrive, be secure etc in favor of determining for themselves how to do so. understanding the stories we're given is a huge part of that, and it's not anarchist theory or writing alone that's useful for doing so. but the art of it is finding what's useful and turning it towards ones own purposes, not just substituting one flag for another.

as for broader social questions, how to fight, how to describe the sort of general condition of the capacity to resist or the character of the forces that really exist or the possibilities for cutting out spaces for living more freely or whatever, i recommend an ecumenical approach. just as at the level of the individual (or the intimate more generally, the house, family/friends, etc) the idea is to find whats useful and use it. but when you speak as if you are everywhere you cant really, meaningfully share those weapons, because youre talking over a huge diversity of hyper-local, down to the individual, circumstances and contexts that your strategy and your vision can only ever be something like a signal to. limiting your approach in that context to one discipline seems ridiculous to me. better to highlight, draw out, nurture what you find to be useful, clarifying, helpful, dangerous to the people you'd like to endanger etc from wherever you find it and present all of it as possibility. draw people to the approach, the perspective, by showing just how many places and contexts it appears in. ask people to consider it for themselves, and especially to find each other to talk to about it. then the specifics may follow.

I'm too lazy to log into my actual account, but this is Artxmis

I mean I would disagree that my Anarchism is narrow or specific. I think part of the reason I made this TOTW was accusations of being too marxist or not anarchist enough by others (I excluded that to not keep It too personal)

That said, I appreciate your response and think eclecticism (you say ecumenical) approach is generally Correct. Thanks!

fair enough, cant pretend i'm familiar with your game as they say. not trying to be pedantic but it would be interesting i think to suss out if there's a difference between eclecticism and ecumenicism here, maybe more in terms of discerning what to exclude or not to exclude and less whether to engage in it at all. have anything on it you'd recommend?

eclectic- Selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources, systems, or styles.

ecumenical-Of worldwide scope or applicability; universal.Of or relating to the worldwide Christian church.

goldilocks zone achieved! it's the highest of compliments

if you're doing it right, you'll be accused of marxism by the anarchists with gibberish theories because you base your shit in reality because ... reality is important, material analysis is a thing.

disavowed by the marxists is too easy but also a good sign!

are you sincerely self-deluded or is it merely convenient for you to portray yourself as such?

sure, because marxism is just synonym with the starkest of realisms. ah, Karl Marx, inventor of reality. before marxism, people were blind to reality, in all of its splendor. there was not ever nor will there ever be a realist without the trademark stamp of marxism into their thoughts.

not what i said at all

i'm not a marxist, i only occasionally reference it but it's just what people accuse you of, as soon as you talk about economics or being a worker or unemployed or generally critical of capitalism in any way. thx for helping me make my point tho!

Sufficient for what, a feeling of inner peace? What about the "non-anarchic conformists in their self-centred smugness, of the managerial elites in their walled citadels destroying and impoverishing the masses? Nothing in the nihilo-anarch condition can ever be sufficient whilst just one child is starving and being murdered in this civilization.

True, because alot of folk lack self-awareness, they can't even recognise that even fashion is an ideology, albeit a shallow one for petty minds.

Has the author never heard of post-left anarchy? Did they not have any post-left anarchist writings at the Nude House? WTF?!?

"is anarchism sufficient on its own?"

Sufficient for what or whom?

"Does the inclusion of "non-anarchist" (whatever that means) ideas mean anarchy is not sufficient unto its own end?"

Sufficient in what regard and for whom?

"is that bad?"

What does that mean?

"Can liberation come only from anarchy?"

Define liberation in context to your questioning.

"What about cultural and spiritual regeneration?"

What about it? Lizards can regenerate their tails sometimes. Other lizards find it more attractive. Define spiritual in context to your questioning.

god damn it. ArtxmisGrahamThoreau was not the name of Lloyd's catfish and pen name...you're off by quite a few vowels and consonants

shhhh stop this is my favorite running bit lol

"Regeneration", what does that mean? Recuperation? Reform? Reproduction? I like your comment, but regeneration is a double edged sword, sheesh, sexists regenerate their penises when they get erections.

and i say this as a "beta cuck" who has spent a lot of time wallowing in "outdated" feminist thoughts. One thing I keep getting pissed about (not necessary you) is the fact that so many anarchists want to keep claiming some sort of enlightenment or new-age self assurance. I blame everyone, j/k no i just blame people who haven't tortured enough to know that enlightenment isn't real except in terms of what you can and can't see. Seeking the guru is dangerous business, and even if you find one that's male and keeps reaffirming your style of stuggle, you can be sure not everyone they know is male.

I only like this website to say the things I can't say on some other website. 'nuff said. I can't really trust myself or any of the rest of you to understand everything or point me on the clear path. Find me in the bourgie self-effacing art gallery, and don't try to change me.

ANARCHISM, FOR US, IS NOT A STATE OF AFFAIRS TO ARRIVE TO.
RATHER, IT IS THE REAL MOVEMENT WHICH ABOLISHES THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS.

Add new comment