Are Anarchists Socialists?

via anarkismo

**Many people regard anarchism and socialism as contradictory programs. This is based on the conception of "socialism" as state ownership of the economy. Yet historically, anarchists have regarded this program as "state socialism" or "authoritarian socialism." They have rejected such views in favor of "anarchist-socialism" or "libertarian socialism." This concept of anarchism as a variety of socialism remains important today in opposition to pro-capitalist "libertarianism" and to "democratic socialism"--that is, reformist state socialism.**


Many U.S. anarchists, or radicals interested in anarchism, are surprised to hear of “anarchism” as being “socialist.” Like most U.S. people they have learned to think of “socialism” as meaning state-owned industry—which would be the opposite of anarchism. (Similarly “communism” is usually thought of as Stalinist totalitarianism.) Also “the Left” is often interpreted as support for such state-oriented economic programs. This was the view of socialism propagated by the U.S. ruling class as well as by its opponents in the Soviet Union and similar states.

And yet, what sort of economy have anarchists advocated? They are anti-capitalist and want to take away the wealth and power of the capitalist elite. They want to replace private ownership of the means of production with collectivized, social, ownership—to replace economic competition with cooperation—production for profit with production for use—division into classes with a classless society, with no rich or poor, no specialized order-givers ruling over specialized order-takers. A chaotic, competitive, system would be replaced with overall democratic coordination (planning) from below. All of which is entirely consistent with the rest of the anarchist program of abolishing the state and all other forms of oppression: racial, national, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. What is this proposed non-profit, cooperative, economy but socialism?

In fact, virtually all anarchists, from the beginning, have called themselves “socialists” (and some have also called themselves “communists”). At the same time, they have always regarded themselves as “libertarian socialists” or “anarchist-socialists,” to the left of—and in opposition to—the “authoritarian socialists” or “state socialists.” Well before the Russian Revolution, they argued that—whatever the subjective desires of the state socialists—in practice that program would only create a form of state capitalism (with the state bureaucracy acting as the new, exploitative, capitalist class).

The first person to identify himself as an “anarchist” was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon usually “described himself as a socialist….Although he criticized both centralized democracy and state socialism, he still considered himself a democrat and socialist….Like Bakunin and Kropotkin, he argued against state socialism and called for a decentralized, self-managed, federal, bottom-up, socialism: anarchism.” (McKay 2011; 23)

In his 1910 entry on “Anarchism,” written for the Encyclopedia Britannica,, Peter Kropotkin wrote, “As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing…consider the wage system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress….The anarchists combat with the same energy, the State, as the main support of that system….To hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life…would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism.” (Kropotkin 2014; 164-5; my emphasis)

The great Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was a younger comrade of Bakunin’s and Kropotkin’s. In 1897 he wrote, arguing against the “democratic socialists,” ”From 1871, when we began our propaganda in Italy, we have always been and have always called ourselves, socialist-anarchists….We have always been of the opinion that socialism and anarchy are two words which basically have the same meaning, since it is impossible to have economic emancipation (abolition of property) without political emancipation (abolition of government) and vice versa.” (in Richards 1984; 143; emphasis in original)

Malatesta had supported Kropotkin’s “anarchist-communist” version of anarchist-socialism, but he stopped using the “communist” label after the Russian Revolution. He still identified with that tradition and with the end-goal of a libertarian communist society. But he felt that the Leninists had given the term “communism” an authoritarian reputation. Instead, Malatesta referred to himself as a “revolutionary anarchist-socialist.”

Noam Chomsky cites the views of the anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker as indicating, “anarchism may be regarded as the libertarian wing of socialism.” (Chomsky 1970; xii) Chomsky further quotes one of the U.S. Haymarket Martyrs, Adolph Fischer: “Every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is necessarily an anarchist.” (xii)

So, by theory and by history, mainstream anarchism is a wing of the socialist tradition. Some of today’s anarchists attack “socialism” and “the Left” for things—statism, authoritarianism, reformism, misuse of technology, sexism—which the classical anarchists had long since denounced. Yet the earlier anarchists were clear that they were not condemning “socialism” but “state socialism.” They regarded themselves as being far to the left of the authoritarian Left. Therefore they had seen no need to reject “socialism” as such.

Right Wing “Libertarians” and “Democratic” State Socialists

This argument may seem abstract and archaic, but there are also current reasons for U.S. anarchists to keep the term “socialist.” One reason is the growth of a “libertarian” pro-capitalist movement. Anarchists need to distinguish themselves from this trend which is relatively influential. It draws on some of the same motives that attract people to anarchism—opposition to drug laws, to gun suppression, to sex laws, and to other forms of state oppression. When anarchists speak about their views, they are often accused by Leftists of sounding like these pseudo-libertarians. Unfortunately, these right-wingers use the same label of “libertarian” which anarchists have used since the 19th century.

These “libertarians” range in views from Trump-supporting Republicans to the Libertarian Party to some who regard themselves as anarchists. As free-market absolutists, they oppose laws which protect public health or worker safety. Some are for a “minimal state,” while others call themselves “anarcho-capitalists” (which is not a thing). These latter are against the bureaucratic-centralized state but do not object to bureaucratic-centralized corporate monopolies. They would replace the state with private armies of “rent-a-cops” hired by the wealthy—which would, in effect, become the new state.

These pseudo-libertarians claim to be in the tradition of “individualist anarchism.” This tradition is somewhat distinct from the mainstream of revolutionary anarchism from Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin onward. Many anarchists (such as Emma Goldman or Daniel Guerin) have sought to integrate the insights of individualist anarchism with socialist anarchism. In any case, the individualist anarchists were never supporters of capitalism and sometimes called themselves “socialists”. One of their founders, Benjamin Tucker, wrote in 1893 of “the two principles…Authority and Liberty” as the basis of “the two schools of Socialistic thought…respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism.” (Krimerman & Perry 1966; 62)

Iain McKay argues, “Anarchism has always been a socialist theory and the concept of an ‘anarchism’ which supported the economic system anarchism was born opposing is nonsense.” (McKay 2008; 7; emphasis in original) So it is important for anarchists to identify as ”libertarian socialists” and “anarchist-socialists” in order to distinguish themselves from these phony, “libertarian,” supporters of exploitation and oppression.

Another current trend to which anarchists must relate is the rise of “democratic socialism” (or “social democracy”). Due to various factors, including the obvious failures of capitalism, a large minority has become attracted to this sort of “socialism.” A review of political polling over the last decade reveals, pretty consistently, that a sizable number (between 30 to 40 percent) favors “socialism.” While this is only a minority, it is about the same proportion of the population as that which supports President Trump! Importantly, young adults are most likely to have a positive view of socialism and a negative view of capitalism—from 40 to 50 percent. (Polling is summarized in Price 2018.) This is reflected in the significant position in the Democratic presidential primaries held by Bernie Sanders, despite his self-identification as a “democratic socialist.” It is also reflected in the rapid growth of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to around 60,000.

What people mean by “socialism” or “democratic socialism” is very uncertain. (Sanders himself does not advocate expropriating the ruling rich, nor socializing major sectors of industry; his model, he says, is the Nordic countries, such as Denmark, which are capitalist countries with major welfare benefits—benefits which are now under attack.) The DSA itself is “multi-tendency.” It even has a Libertarian Socialist Caucus. But its predominant tendency involves using the electoral system of the capitalist state--by "democratic" they mean working within the electoral system of capitalist representative (limited) democracy. For most of them this means participating in the Democratic Party (right now supporting Sanders and some others, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). This is in order to propose reforms which supposedly may lead to a socialist society. That is, they are reformist state socialists. Some of them regard themselves as “revolutionaries,” but they do not openly advocate overthrowing the existing state.

Not that “democratic socialists” openly propose a completely centralized, state-managed, economy. This is no longer possible even on the Left. They are also for workers’ management, consumer cooperatives, and local, municipally-owned, industry. Anarchist-socialists also include such concepts within their overall program of a self-managed economy—a program which can only be achieved through the overturn of the state. But for these “democratic socialists,” such ideas go together with nationalized industry and reforms enforced by the existing (capitalist) state. (See their proposals for a “Green New Deal”; Price 2019.)

Revolutionary anarchist-socialists should have a two-sided approach to this growth of interest in socialism. On the one hand, they should welcome the new, popular, hostility to capitalism and openness to alternate systems, summarized as “socialism.” This is not the time for anarchists to be rejecting “socialism.” Anarchists, too, are part of the socialist movement and have always been.

On the other hand, they must oppose all varieties of state socialism, both reformist (working through the existing state) and “revolutionary” (seeking to overturn this state and to set up a new state—the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or whatever). Anarchists are the authentic socialists, they must say. Reformist state socialists will only maintain the existing capitalist system—a system in crisis which can no longer provide significant reforms. Alternately, revolutionary state socialists (Marxist-Leninists) would, if successful, only create a new system of state capitalism.

The radical movement of the “sixties,” also began with a reformist program. The Students for a Democratic Society, the then-dominant organization, began as the youth group of the League for Industrial Democracy. This was a social democratic body which included Michael Harrington (who later started DSA). It was only over time that the youthful Left developed in a revolutionary direction—although one which was dominated by Leninist statism.

The pattern of movement from reformism to revolutionary socialism is likely to be repeated--this time hopefully toward libertarian socialism. The ongoing crises of U.S. and world capitalism will push the current radicalization further to the Left. The reformists will be unable to offer real solutions to the disasters which are looming over society. I am not proposing specific tactical directions (should anarchists join the DSA while opposing its electoralism and statism, or build independent organizations?). But revolutionary anarchist-socialists should be preparing for future developments by organizing themselves now.

References

Chomsky, Noam (1970). “Introduction.” In Daniel Guerin. Anarchism; From Theory to Practice. NY: Monthly Review Press. Pp. vii—xx.

Krimerman, Leonard, & Perry, Lewis (Eds.) (1966). Patterns of Anarchy; A Collection of Writings on the Anarchist Tradition. Garden City NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday.

Kropotkin, Peter (2014). Direct Struggle Against Capital; A Peter Kropotkin Anthology (Iain McKay ed.). Oakland CA: AK Press.

McKay, Iain (2008). An Anarchist FAQ; Volume one. Oakland CA: AK Press.

McKay, Iain (2011). “Introduction.” Property is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology. (I. McKay ed.) Oakland CA: AK Press. Pp. 1—52.

Price, Wayne (2018). “The Revival of U.S. Socialism—And an Anarchist Response.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30763?search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2019). “A Green New Deal vs. Revolutionary Ecosocialism.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31250?search_text=Wayne+Price

Richards, Vernon (Ed.) (1984). Errico Malatesta; His Life and Ideas. London UK: Freedom Press.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

There are 120 Comments

our historical contexts need not confine us to living anarchy now.

marx had nothing to say about the internet, and that now the market operates more along the lines of perceived value traded more than value produced. what of the datafication of life, and its concurrent weaponization and monetization? it’s getting closer and closer to the point where someone’s life can be hacked in such a way one could create a convincing artificial version? emoji are the first privatized language. people’s interiors are being mapped and privatized out from under them.

what of peak experience? it remains to be seen whether any human contrived managerial systems (theoretical or otherwise) can grapple with the scale of 7 billion humans. it’s a far too complex arrangement for any one group to control (and hence the need for conspiracy theories).

in europe at the time of marx there remained a belief in cities, and their fixed living arrangements. humans have spent the bulk of their existences living more dynamically to the fluxes of the common living space (which engenders all life forms, NOT human Thought), and once again their model of reality is butting up to the reality that the planet is a continuum their fixed beliefs are out of step with.

there was something about the beliefs of marx and engels that made it all too easy to turn into a state capitalist dictatorship over and over again.

I was watching something recently where an economics pundit talked about the old fashioned focus on production and how we clearly live in a time where the emphasis should be on circulation instead; as with data and all the elaborate attempts to predict the future with it.

But I don't think "the beliefs of marx and engels" are where this problem you mentioned comes from. I'm afraid it's far older and intrinsic to any attempt to wield power on scale. Marxism is just a systemic critique of capitalism, with flaws and a pretty obvious conclusion that most of us are still getting screwed. We traded overt monarchies for a patchwork quilt of micro monarchies that eventually always reverts back to something indistinguishable from the original problem.

Any other kind of attempt to seize state power seems to have the exact same problem. Most people are dumb as shit and secretly yearn to gargle the balls of a "strong leader", regardless of economic policy.

so a socialist writes an essay arguing that anarchism must be socialism too, articulating the most tired worn-out horse beaten long past death as somehow relevant to radicals in 2020. intentionally ignoring any other anarchist tendencies outside a narrow 19th century european anarcho-communist conception, and relying again on Chomsky (a democratic socialist at best who himself even claimed not to be anarchist) for their anarchist scripture.

what was that phrase I once heard: "your politics are boring as fuck?"

Are you actually denying the historical and theoretical lineage of anarchism? Socialism is the broader concept, and anarchy is a species of socialism. Always has been. It's analogous to saying there are varieties of democracy, with social democracy and capitalist democracy being variants.therein.

Of course now we just use the term anarchy by itself, forgetting the larger category of socialism it has always been embedded in. Moreover, political terms have become so twisted, that today we think socialism is "when the government does stuff". This is just capitalist propaganda, and not historically or even theoretically true. And as we know, capitalists don't mind it when "the government does stuff" for them.

Anarchism distinguished itself from state socialism in being against the state. Anarchists were never against socialism itself (i.e. the communal or public control over the means of production, something which can be accomplished with or without a state). Anarchists are obviously against the state, not only for production reasons, but a whole host of other reasons.

I thought all this was obvious to anyone who's done any reading at all of anarchist and socialist literature.

somehow people manage to be oblivious to what you just said, mostly in the US context, mostly cuz a big piece of history was deliberately amputated from their psyches. oh well

How much history do you want to restore? The claim that anarchism is necessarily socialist works if you add in particular bits of the relevant histories, but leave out others. Add back in a bit more and, if you're not pretty careful, you'll find yourself coming up with different conclusions entirely. The histories of these words are complex and the concepts we have inherited are unruly. You certainly can make your case for why certain conceptions of anarchism can be usefully considered as manifestations of certain kinds of socialism—but pushing things farther usually backfires one way or another.

"The histories of these words are complex and the concepts we have inherited are unruly."

That's fair. Great point even! But I'm only interested in this topic relative to the scorched-earth policy of mccarthyism and its legacy which obviously represents a pretty elaborate social engineering project on behalf of the worst sort of people.

Like, I'm not trying to polish my false idols here, only very suspicious and hostile to the rich bastards and their clueless muppets trying to ram big chunks of radical history down the memory hole for their own obvious reasons. I have a very different conversation with people who I know for sure aren't trying to do that. I also doubt most good faith people who frequent this site are trying to do that but the trolls, The TROLLS …

'I thought all this was obvious to anyone who's done any reading at all of anarchist and socialist literature.'

I've read all of your sacred texts. I've also read anarchist literature that isn't a hundred years old and fifty years old and guess what? Turns out anarchy isn't as boring as you keep making it out to be.

doubling down on the assertion "anarchy is a species of socialism" does not make it so, as many would like it to be. its also exemplifies the western scientific tendency toward classification, placing ideas in nice categories to be measured and placed on the linear timeline of His-story. which makes sense if one is itching to control the narrative, and has an understanding of anarchy limited to enlightenment europe. that limitation (as opposed to your claim of "denying the historical and theoretical lineage of anarchism") truly denies the multiple positions, strategies, and future possibilities of anarchy defined as without rule. this also denies the entirety of human life under rule prior to 200 yrs ago. now if you're distinguishing Socialism from social life, then that's another conversation, but it seems clear from the essay and subsequent responses, that this is just another push to claim anarchy as a branch on the great tree of big-S Socialism. to which anarchy, in its wonderfully anarchist fashion, evades this entrapment; mirroring the many anarchists and anarchist-friendlies throughout the globe and throughout time critiquing/resisting/evading the logic and terms of public, production, and commons/communal/community, which might be more obvious to someone reading a broader range of theory.

Oh God, what tripe 14:54. Look who's "trying to control the narrative" now, hypocrite. Anarchy has never been defined as "without rule". Not sure where you got that idea from. It is more precisely "without rulers" (by definition, from ancient Greek)...a critical distinction obviously lost on you. This is as true now as it was prior to 200 years ago. Do you seriously believe egalitarian anarchic hunter gatherers really had no rules? And do you honestly think they had no communal production? Because that would be news to them. Try actually reading some anthropology.

Modern classical anarchism (which is what we are talking about here, since hunter gatherers never called themselves 'anarchists') as conceptualized in the 19th century by the likes of Godwin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Reclus, and Bakunin, is definitely a species of socialism. These figures, along with many subsequent anarchists, all considered themselves to be part of a much broader socialist tradition. Numerous books have been written with titles along the lines of The Anarchist Way to Socialism, etc. What we call anarchism grew out of the late 17th and early 18th century socialist movements like the Levellers, the Ranters, and the Diggers, along with Georgism, and so on. By the 19th century, Marx, Bakunin, Proudhon, etc were all hanging out together under the tent of this same socialist tradition. Even after Bakunin split from Marx, he never stopped using the term socialism to refer to his general philosophical outlook.

These are just a basic facts of history. Speaking of history, I suggest you get better acquainted with it.

nowhere do I read 14:54 claiming:
- anarchy/anarchism/anarchist tendencies and ideas never have cross pollinated with socialist or communist ideas
- that rule and/or rulers have never existed (or even mentioning egalitarian hunter gatherers)
- that communal production never existed among hunter gatherers (again, coming from you)

the "without rule" or "without rulers" distinction is, for one, a ridiculous game of semantics, but if Im going to play along (why not!) Ill take it to mean that you find the locus of authority inherent in some people and not inherent in others, as if there is an definitive essence that exists in those who are determined rulers. therefore, under this assumption, there are people who are rulers, and those who are not. therefore, if we could just get rid of (how might you? perhaps revolution, say) rulers and live in a world of non-rulers, then, socialism? or, socialism!
whereas, "without rule" assumes that the locus of authority exists not just in rulers, but perhaps in everyone or anyone, perhaps even outside human beings (ideology) to be actualized through humans.
being that the function and essence of rule is still being debated, then what does it mean to be without it? that is the interesting, if not impossible, task for anarchists/ism that allows for further debate, criticism, and possibility.

lastly, I see a great distinction between authoritatively asserting anarchism came from socialism, and on the other hand questioning the validity of that claim. the first claim limits, the second liberates. the first closes doors, the second opens them. the first is invested in a linear truth, the second denies this hegemony. not sure where the hypocrisy lies, they seem to be functioning quite differently. if you find hypocrisy in defining the term as authoritative, use whichever definition you like, create new ones: bring a little anarchy into your life.

I suggest you read 14:54's comment again. Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

His claims:
1). "doubling down on the assertion "anarchy is a species of socialism" does not make it so,"

He is denying that anarchism is a species of socialism. I never said he was denying any "cross pollination between anarchism and socialism". That's your own interpretation of what was being said.

2). "that limitation (as opposed to your claim of "denying the historical and theoretical lineage of anarchism") truly denies the multiple positions, strategies, and future possibilities of anarchy defined as without rule."

He is claiming that anarchy can be defined as "without rule". I responded by saying it can't really be defined this way, given everything we know about human cultures past and present...since they all had/have rules i.e. norms, and thus we would have to posit that there has never been an anarchist society. It would be a mirage. He never claimed that "rules or rulers never existed" as you assert. I don't know where you are getting that from.

3). "but it seems clear from the essay and subsequent responses, that this is just another push to claim anarchy as a branch on the great tree of big-S Socialism. to which anarchy, in its wonderfully anarchist fashion, evades this entrapment; mirroring the many anarchists and anarchist-friendlies throughout the globe and throughout time critiquing/resisting/evading the logic and terms of public, production, and commons/communal/community, which might be more obvious to someone reading a broader range of theory."

He mentions public production and commons/communal/community in a skeptical way, implying that these are questionable concepts. Although I admit what he means by this rambling sentence is actually not very clear.

As for the distinction between rules and rulers, I see that has been lost on you too. Read my explanation again. There can be rules without rulers. Anarchy literally means without rulers, and in ancient Greece this meant specifically without military rulers. But we don't have to be that specific and anarchists of the last 150 years have not been. Over time, the meaning has been widened and construed to mean without political rulers, and also expanded to mean without rulers of any kind (e.g. economic). My point about hunter gatherers (again, apparently lost on you) served as an example of rules without rulers. If we assume and agree that small scale stateless hunter gatherers are known examples of actual anarchist societies, since they meet the basic criteria of societies without military, political, or economic rulers, or headmen, etc. And if we assume and agree (through all known ethnographic accounts) that these societies still follow and live by some sort of rules i.e. norms, customs, taboos, etc. then we can conclude that it's possible for a society to have rules without rulers. That is, such societies are not bifurcated into rulers and those who are ruled. In other words, there is no separate sub group officially in charge of doing the ruling and enforcing. If there was, they would be the 'authority'. Authority is something given and designated to particular individuals or groups by other people. It is never self designated. Anarchist societies are ones without a ruling authority which, in modern times usually comes in the form of an administrative government. But this doesn't mean anarchist societies have no rules. It makes no sense to define anarchism this way.

So, no, the distinction between rules and rulers is NOT "a ridiculous game of semantics", it is an analysis of how anarchist societies function. A society without any rules per se, norms, customs, taboos, etc. has never existed.

since when is anon a "he"?

"Anarchist societies are ones without a ruling authority"
what happens when the ruling authority is the cop in your head? what happens when you no longer have ideas, but ideas have you?

"what happens when you no longer have ideas, but ideas have you?"

Then I thought that's a neat rhetorical twist! Duly noted.

and not all anarchists (dead or still living) spoke, read, or wrote greek and/or english, nor cared for the story you tell, but interestingly enough, using a similar analysis and drawing a similar conclustion, came up with diverse ways of evading rule, or their rulers, if you prefer.

r/lostredditor

hellllp i'm trapped in a tired nineteenth-century-way-of-thinking-time-loop and it's turned my brain into irrelevant dogshit that somehow got accidentally put on the beloved anarchist news dot org, my favorite non-sectarian anarchist website!
well actually, well actually, well actually....
if only u think like ____ we will ____ because history!
what did bakunin think?
did you know socialism means happiness?
well actually anarchism _____.
let's all go to a meeting and then ____ the world
comrades!

sry, mods.
long week.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
xo

gets the thumbs up from me.

the only reason to insist on acknowledging some historical connection is to strengthen that connection, which is to deny the other directions that anarchy (and socialism) have taken in the intervening years.

what you're calling historical accuracy is actually disregarding more recent history. but maybe it doesn't count for you if it's less than 150 years old? i know some people like that...

"the only reason" <---- not only does that have to be untrue but your narrative is far more suspicious imo. you want us to forget where ideas came from huh? why's that sweetheart?

a point.
no need to call out the big guns of the nasty "sweetheart" variety.
yeesh.

"yeesh"?! now who's waving big guns around?! alright alright, maybe I'll simmer down

Nobody is denying anything, except the ahistorical anti-intellectual shitlords who insist there is no such connection. Socialism was originally a reaction against capitalism and the burgeoning nation states of the late 17th century. Anarchism grew out of this widespread socialist resistance and evolved along its own ideological trajectory.

And no one is disregarding more recent history. No one is disputing that 21st century anarchy is continuing to evolve and looks rather different from 19th century anarchism. But no matter how much further modern western anarchy evolves away from classical anarchism, and how different it looks and sounds, it still has, and will always have, its roots in the socialist tradition, even after capitalists have twisted and perverted the word 'socialism' into "when the government does stuff". Just like they are currently trying to do with 'fascism' (by equating it with socialism and the left). Socialism comes in many forms, and state socialism has always been one. But now it seems it's the only form most people can think of.

you. I like you. I know my post lacks much content but I really want to fan the flames of the fire here. someone bothering to "get it."

Anarchism is socialism in as much as it is the compromise of some anarchists meeting a world of shit. Socialism is stagnant and is now celebrated as such. I don't give a fuck what it was historically; what is it now? Academic wank out of Loughborough University and MIT? The endgame for frustrated, cynical and kinky bastard class warriors? Or perhaps it's still the revolutionary prerequisite to communism. Whatever! It's boring as fuck and stuck.

Socialism is half-arsed progressive/recursive bollocks that stinks of Enlightenment humanism and Christian religiosity. Many anarchists are socialists whether or not they desire it merely because socialism has a narrative closer to the capitalist shitshow we all know. It is crap to conflate anarchy with any of that bullshit. So anarchist, if you want to water down your dreams, remember your adjectives, and remember that is not anarchy; it's a shitty compromise.

It is nice to see a couple of readers agreeing with me. For the others, there is no attempt to deal with my topics (for example, how to relate to the "libertarian" or the "democratic socialist" movements). iwillbiteandclaw even illustrates my point by writing, "there was something about the beliefs of marx and engels that made it all too easy to turn into a state capitalist dictatorship over and over again." But I had already pointed out that the anarchist-socialists had made such arguments against the state socialists (such as M&E) in their time--well before Marxism produced state capitalism in real life! Which is precisely why it is worthwhile looking at their criticisms of state socialism.

My opponents' main point is that I cited "old", historical, evidence that anarchists have always seen themselves as some sort of socialist. These critics see no reason to learn from past anarchists, to "stand on the shoulders of giants," but prefer to reinvent the wheel in our timel. Despite the failure of anarchism (and socialism in general) to prevent capitalism from bringing humanity to its present dangerous situation, these critics do not wish to learn from past successes and failures. Of course this lack of interest in theory or history is typical of "American" culture ("History is bunk," said Henry Ford).

Why do they bother to call themselves "anarchists" anyway? Maybe they think it sounds romantic? Yet they do not care to find out what the anarchist tradition is. Of course, it is a semi-free country and they can define "anarchism" anyway they want to, just as reactionaries can describe "libertarian" as meaning pro-capitalism. But it doesn't lead to any understanding of what you are or what you are doing.

The other main argument is that this historical and theoretical stuff is so "boring." But I am not interested in entertaining anyone. I am interested in working out a program of action to fight capitalism, the state, patriarchy, racism, and ecological disaster. If you want the honor of calling yourself an anarchist, but otherwise find this stuff all too boring....tough.

To honor your anarchism Wayne, it was a very well written piece. I'm sure Iain McKay will love it. Damn, even I appreciate it, preferring its existence rather than its non-existence, and I do reluctantly enjoy the nostalgia... I even envy you still having enthusiasm for this particular endeavour. So, you needn't worry about little ol' me derailing your efforts. Yours is a far more popular material than mine.

Just for you, and to be clear, I understand I'm not your target audience, as I am not a socialist. I don't want you to feel you've entered the Twilight Zone or anything, but I am anarchist (though perhaps with little honor in the hierarchy).

My response is purely my assertion that socialism is boring, easy to manipulate, easy to write about, highly legible, and very predictable. I don't care to cite sources anymore, I'll just uncompromisingly push the note into your hand and let you decide whether to use it for kindling or bog roll.

"... easy to manipulate, easy to write about, highly legible, and very predictable." All very boring. Just need write that out another 98 times.

But I'm a nihilist, its my prerogative to be boring, however, a libertarian syndicalist whatchamacallit anarchist has to make big exciting passionate speeches and bold actions to be legitimate, or its all hollow.

Reclaiming the word 'socialism' from the authoritarian Marxist 'state-socialist' (aka progressives) is an important step which needs to be taken. It would be a shame for anarchists to cede the lexicon to those who appropriate in order to gain power over others. Many 'progressives' have no awareness of the distinction within 'socialism' so conscious-raising as Mr Price has done above is a vital step in dividing the 'democratic socialists' who have monopolised the natural inclinations/aspirations of humankind for their authoritarian agenda. Benjamin Tucker's quotation of Ernest Lesigne's series of crisp antithesis in 'state socialism and anarchism' was a really positive example of the distinctions that some anonymous anarchist followers within these comments are struggling with and would benefit from modernisation and weaponisation against the tired modern 'state-socialism' regime.

Almost all current anarchists would agree that they are for ending capitalism (as well as the state and all other forms of oppression). They are for replacing it with a cooperative, self-managed,and egalitarian system which produces goods and services for the use of the whole population. (I leave out the anti-civilizationist, post-left, technophobic, and nihilistic "anarchists". I have nothing to say to them because they have no interest in developing a strategy for overturning capitalism and the state.) As all anarchists have, from the founding of the concept, they reject "state socialism" (or "authoritarian socialism"). They see that as either reinforcing the current capitalist system or as resulting in some other form of capitalism: state capitalism.

What is our dispute, then? It is whether to call the collectivist, cooperative, self-managed, and non-profit system we propose "socialism" ("libertarian socialism"). As I have demonstrated, historically anarchists have considered anarchism a form of socialism--indeed the only real socialism because it fully opposes capitalism and all class systems. And in fact, the revolutionary anarchist movement of Bakunin and Kropotkin did develop out of the 19th century movements for democracy, working class emancipation, and "utopian" socialism, just as did its opponent, Marxism.

What are some against calling ourselves "anarcho-socialists"? (Aside from the nihilists and super-individualists, that is, who find all this "boring" and "old.") It is mainly a desire to distinguish themselves from the state socialists (from both the "democratic socialists" and the Marxist-Leninists). These anti-socialists apparently do not worry about the need to distinguish themselves from the right-wing "libertarians" although there are a lot more of them than there are anarchists of any stripe. They do not care that "anarchist" is a lot less popular than is "socialist." They are not concerned with how to reach the growing anti-capitalist sentiment of the large number of young "socialists." (To be sure, a revolutionary movement may develop out of some other section of the population than the current "democratic. socialists." Who knows? But this is irrelevant. Right now the new socialist consciousness is what has to be reached.)

"What is our dispute, then?"

"I leave out the anti-civilizationist, post-left, technophobic, and nihilistic "anarchists". I have nothing to say to them because they have no interest in developing a strategy for overturning capitalism and the state."

I think you answered your own question.

"[Almost all current anarchists] are for replacing it with a cooperative, self-managed,and egalitarian system which produces goods and services for the use of the whole population."

the whole population of your neighborhood? your town? your nation state? the globe? how do you plan on implementing this system when the vast majority are either not interested in your plan, or outright hostile to it? what do you do with these people?

how do you plan on producing the goods and services of billions of people without the massive ecological degradation through resource extraction and forced labor we have currently?

"I leave out the anti-civilizationist, post-left, technophobic, and nihilistic "anarchists". I have nothing to say to them because they have no interest in developing a strategy for overturning capitalism and the state."

Then you should leave out all the other anarchists too then, since they don't have a strategy for overturning capitalism and the state either.

I believe the strategy is: organize everyone into federations, once everyone is federalized, then everyone will jump at their shift in the factories and mines joyously to feed the people, because you know, cooperation. just imagine..

Just like during the heydays of NEFAC when we all got sooo close to this point where tech workers at Google in unison with Starbucks employees were about to overthrow the bosses. But then something went wrong!

"I leave out the anti-civilizationist, post-left, technophobic, and nihilistic "anarchists". I have nothing to say to them ..."

welp, thank you for visiting anarchist news dot org. goodbye forever!

Wayne and the rest of that anarchismo.org bread book crowd are the very reason anarchy went so bland, predictable, innocuous and uninspiring all these years, as it was not even "anarchy" but a more liberal, slightly edgier and less electoral type of social democracy. But excessively bureaucratic, dogmatic and overly boring nonetheless.

Wayne, feel free to gtfo of here once and for all, and you and your recuperative authoritarian political garbage will not be missed.

Fuck those square heads, like forever.

You have nothing to say to ME !? HOW DARE YOU !!! My little finger is ten times more anarchistic,,,,,,.....

OooOo nooOoo, not until all socialist and communist scum are dead, when all copies of the communizt manifesco are thrown on the bonfire for ideologies and religìons, only then, in the clearing smoke and washing rains, can we glimpse freedom to think of nothing in particular, only then

Several readers reacted strongly to my side comment, ""I leave out the anti-civilizationist, post-left, technophobic, and nihilistic 'anarchists.' I have nothing to say to them because they have no interest in developing a strategy for overturning capitalism and the state."

But NOT ONE responded by writing, "We do too have an interest in developing a strategy to overturn capitalism and the state! Just not your no-good strategy!" Instead they wrote, Damn right we have no strategy; that would be "so bland, predictable, innocuous and uninspiring." But, as I wrote, I am not interested in being entertaining for this bored bunch, but in working to overthrow capitalism and the state.

As one "anonymous" states, " all the other anarchists... don't have a strategy for overturning capitalism and the state either." Right. That is why some of us are interested in developing such a strategy. You see, we care whether capitalist industrialism continues (destroying the planet) or is overthrown, and we think about how to do that.

One anonymous wants to know "how do you plan on implementing this system when the vast majority are either not interested in your plan, or outright hostile to it?" Yes, that's the question. How can we win over the big majority of the country and the world? Should we regard this as impossible, as the writer seems to? Or do we remember that there have been revolutions before and that history is not over? And think about how to end capitalism and the state?

The same anonymous writer denies that it might be possible to produce "the goods and services of billions of people without the massive ecological degradation through resource extraction." Meaning that it isn't possible so why bother? The vast ecosocialist literature on alternate technology (from Kropotkin to E.F. Schmacher) does not exist for these people.

lmfao "Damn right we have no strategy!"

ya'll just got dunked on by Wayne

"as I wrote, I am not interested in being entertaining for this bored bunch, but in working to overthrow capitalism and the state."

You're doing a great job, Wayne. I can feel the overthrow of capitalism and the state, largely due to your excellent efforts and WRITING, just around the corner. Even senilelumpentroll acknowledges your efforts and this is a very significant achievement.

Pay no attention to those who have not responded in writing but only by writing responses for they are no true Anarchists. They will be forgotten in their nothingness while history will remember you as the savior of The Anarchism! "Wayne: the Savior of Anarchism" shall be how you are remembered!

Thank you.

This is an argument? Do you expect to persuade someone? Or are you uninterested in such mundane and "boring" goals?

screw you too mu ;)

how is a strategy that includes constant recruitment and retention, winning (i.e. domination), and managing the lives of millions of people, anything other than state logic? once you have not only opted to play, but playing to win: you have already lost.

I think Bellamy Fitzpatrick (who has written their fair share of strategies for living within but against state and capital) articulates the problem well of this popular tendency of what they are calling world domination anarchism, which seems to be on full display here.

I really do not see how Caspar gets from what I wrote to what he charges against me. Sure I want to "win" which is to say, I would like the people to get rid of capitalism and the state (apparently not Caspar's interest). But that is "domination" only from the point of view of the capitalist class and its agents; they will object to having their wealth and power being taken away from them. But to the oppressed and exploited it would be liberation if they (not us radicals but the oppressed) free themselves. Of course this would require recruiting others to agree with us about the need to get rid of the state (again: not Caspar's interest). But where does old Caspar (the friendly ghost?) get the idea that I want to "manage the lives of millions of people"? This is simply slander.

However, I thank C. for letting me know about the work of Bellamy Fitzpatrick. Like BF I am for a decentralist anarchism. As I have written before, I agree with the ideas of Errico Malatesta that the revolution will be made as a united front of a wide variety of organizations and points of view. I expect, and want, different locals and regions to experiment with differing ways of organizing and producing. That's the idea of decentralized federalism and radical pluralism.

You're an idiot when you still fail to admit that what your hole "proles" are after is power. Just like you are, coming here preaching your socialism. As far as people don't seek to get over their chase for more power, the thought of abolishing capitalism (when they get to understand what that means, if you are even able to explain it yourself) would be laughable to them.

Of course they despise filthy rich and their quest for more billions. But then I look at them.. and you... and see the same tendency at always seeking to accumulate power 'til they die. And then I ask myself... what for? All of it will be lost, and consumed in time. Washed away by the waves of history.

Because you're a socialist, you cannot properly be able to overthrow capitalism. Not only because socialism consists in the building of social capital for certain crowds, but also because "capitalism" is not something you overthrow... You either practice it, or not. You either support it, or not. But if you don't... what life-supporting systems or modes have you got in its place?

As a socialist, nothing. Just bureaucracy, party-building, organize, organize, organize, i.e. MORE management.

The virtue signalling is strong with you. If you don't want power, then you will be powerless. Fine, stay that way. The state and capital will continue to roll over you. Good luck changing anything in this society with your learned helplessness. Maybe you actually don't want to change anything, you just want to bitch and moan on the internet. Changing anything requires power. For anarchists, it means a diffusion of power so that more people have control over their own lives and there is less inequality.

I don't agree with Wayne's position around the dismissal of anti-civilization views, but he is correct about most other points. To hand wave everything away as the boogeyman of 'socialism' is ridiculous, and shows you've been brainwashed by mainstream media.

because one does not abide by your program of socialist overthrow, does not make them resigned to the state and capital as you say it does. a time-tested approach (see James C Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed) I see as being both more immediate for individuals, and having longerlasting effectiveness among groups, is withdrawal: withdrawing from the logics of state and capital, not replicating them forward. of course a complete withdrawal is nearly impossible in 2020, depending on what part of the globe you live, but not as impossible as your goal of socialist revolution eliminating the state and capital once and for all.

how is your mass scale strategy going to be successful without this level of management? regarding slander, Im not referring to you, Wayne, as one individual leading the way, Im referring to a continuation of the type of management that already exists in our world at that scale. I resist speaking to and thinking on those terms, as an actor on the grand stage of history in some kind of spectacular geopolitical sandbox: speaking as, for, and of millions of nameless bodies. the worst ideas that have been implemented have come through this way of thinking.

James Scott was talking about nomadic societies living in regions near a state where they come into conflict. In those situations, withdrawal is possible. The situation is not possible today, not even partial withdrawal.

Look at the Wetʼsuwetʼen territory in northwestern British Columbia. It is unceded land. It's not just a relatively remote low population density area, it's not simply a part of a state where there is less surveillance, or an area where people could buy land and set up communal living -- it's actually technically not even part of Canada. If ever there was a place where people could withdraw to, this would be it. Yet the state encroaches and rams pipelines through anyway. The Wetʼsuwetʼen have already withdrawn....and the state followed them.

Withdrawal is not the answer. There is no place left on earth to withdraw to...except maybe Antarctica.

We have to stand our ground and start fighting back.

Anon-You're An Idiot is a fine example of the arrogance and elitism of an aspect of individualist anarchism. Such contempt for the lousy "proles" who are supposedly full of envy for the rich and want nothing but to have the power and wealth of the rich. Pah! To hell with them! says Anon-Idiot. A-I is a superior being and does not have to deal with issues of power, organization, and revolution.

Whereas I want the workers and all the oppressed to get off their knees, to stop submitting to the ruling elite, and to overthrow them and their state. That is, I urge them to empower themselves, but not to "take state power"--not to set up a new bureaucratic-miitary socially alienated machine over the rest of society. Under anarchist-socialism, once everyone rules, no-one rules. When all are empowered then no one will have power--in a classless, stateless, society.

But Caspar's fantasy of not confronting and overpowering the state, instead to somehow "withdraw" from capitalist-oppressive society--is a lulu. This centralized society is thoroughly interconnected. For large numbers of people to "withdraw" is absurd. And if this began to happen, enough to threaten the survival of the system, do you think that the ruling class would sit passively and let it continue? Wouldn't it organize fascist gangs and overturn even the limited democracy of our "representative" system? Then it would become necessary to confront and overtake the ruling class, its hangers-on and its state--which is to say, to deal with popular power.

Caspar, too, is full of contempt for the working class and all the poor, the oppressed, exploited, and discriminated against. C. cannot imagine that millions of "nameless" ordinary people might self-organize and self-manage themselves to create a free and equal society, without some bureaucratic managers really running things. C. knows little of the history of revolutions and how people have done just that, until betrayed by authoritarian misleaders (just what anarchists organize to prevent). "The emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself." Both Marxists and anarchists have cited this slogan, and some of us have believed in it.

"Whereas I want the workers and all the oppressed to get off their knees, to stop submitting to the ruling elite, and to overthrow them and their state. "

Okay commander Wayne, tell us how to make the workers do what you say! If you disapprove of them then say it to their face, stop ranting to anarchists about your megalomaniac desires! A lot of the people on here don't really work, the question for me was never to abandon capital because i knew i would fail but how to change my relationship to it.

You can't change your relationship to capital. You either submit to it, or you will be arrested, or will die in the street. What other relationship is there?

This is the kind of individualist, narcissist, New Age change-your-mind bullshit that has infected anarchism since the 1990s.

i have to become a stock broker and live on wall street, where i only think about money and i only want to rise to the top. Truthfully i could do this if i want, not everybody could do this.

Or could i just back away from the ideological essentialism for a second and maybe see that there other options than the absolute worst one? I mean, the options available to everyone are going to be different.

Referring to my subjectivity as new agey doesn't change the situation, it only sounds like some jerk on the internet telling me i'm not a true anarchist, and sure i'm not, but wtf is your point? That I must fight or die/go to prison? What is your argument again?

Oh, there was that other "point" that i'm a narcissist, maybe it's you who's the narcissist who thinks they hold the one correct view of reality.

Telling people they can change their relationship to capital is a fucking joke and you know it. You're the one saying doing useless passive resistance is somehow changing your relationship to capital and implying this is somehow anarchistic. I don't want to change my relationship to capital (i.e. adapt to it in a slightly different way), I want to destroy capital so that I don't have to have any relationship to it.

"...useless passive resistance is somehow changing your relationship to capital and implying this is somehow anarchistic."

i don't relish the fact that i depend on money either, but life isn't in the end about the binary between "destroying capital" and "being a slave to it", that's fiction. Money itself and every relation stemming from it could theoretically be destroyed but a single human is never going to put that in motion.

Oh and this is also funny, it's kinda like you're Dr. Phil or something:

"Telling people they can change their relationship to capital is a fucking joke and you know it."

I never told anyone they could do anything, I'm simply saying how i reacted to a dislike of capital and a desire to destroy it. You're line of reasoning is just the same as every other far-left activist dousche, "my way or the highway", "you can't change your relation to capital", well no sense in arguing with someone who has their head deeply implanted in their ass. Reading into a change of relation with money as being new agey and victim blamey is just as silly as thinking that accumulation of possessions and capital is a marker of self-worth. If you think you are a position in a hierarchy well...good luck! Nothing will ever be enough! They're all trying to ruin you and your reputation!

"i don't relish the fact that i depend on money either, but life isn't in the end about the binary between "destroying capital" and "being a slave to it", that's fiction. Money itself and every relation stemming from it could theoretically be destroyed but a single human is never going to put that in motion."

Some things in life ARE black and white. As long as we are forced to use money, we are slaves to those who force us. There is no in-between. It's like being "sort of" pregnant. Now THAT'S fiction. I never said anything about a single human destroying the system. Not sure where you got that from.

"I never told anyone they could do anything,"

Not "anything", but you said you (and by implication, perhaps other people) could change their relationship to capital."the question for me was never to abandon capital because i knew i would fail but how to change my relationship to it."

How do you change your relationship to something you are forced to do? i.e. work, pay for food, rent, taxes, etc. Do you have some secret for living without money that doesn't involve risking getting arrested or killed by police? If so, please do share.

" I'm simply saying how i reacted to a dislike of capital and a desire to destroy it. You're line of reasoning is just the same as every other far-left activist dousche, "my way or the highway", "you can't change your relation to capital", well no sense in arguing with someone who has their head deeply implanted in their ass. Reading into a change of relation with money as being new agey and victim blamey is just as silly as thinking that accumulation of possessions and capital is a marker of self-worth. If you think you are a position in a hierarchy well...good luck! Nothing will ever be enough! They're all trying to ruin you and your reputation!"

I'm not saying "my way or the highway", not sure how you got that. I'm explaining the facts of life to you. Your claim is that one can change their relationship to capital. I disagree, and explained why that's a non-starter. You obviously couldn't handle it, so you accused me of meaning "my way or the highway" simply because I don't buy your New Age bullshit. And yes, it's New Age bullshit, because that's how New Agers talk..."my relationship" to food, to sex, to sleep, to money, to yoga, etc Besides, we don't even "have a relationship to capital", we are literally engulfed by it. Then you accused me of being a narcissist just because I said you were....like a 5 year old.

Someday when you get angry enough, maybe you'll actually pick up a gun and actually start fighting back against the system. Until then, have a nice life.

"How do you change your relationship to something you are forced to do? i.e. work, pay for food, rent, taxes, etc. Do you have some secret for living without money that doesn't involve risking getting arrested or killed by police? If so, please do share."

I'm pretty sure that there are a couple of options for how you work, what food you buy, what apartment/house you live in, what taxes you pay. For example, if you don't own real estate or a car, your taxes just come out of your income, and there are vague possibilities for what kind of taxes you pay on your income. And like i said before, the options depend on your situation, when people talk about "privilege" they're normally just talking about how limited your options are.

Yes, some things are black and white, but "submit to capital or die" is only true in a poetic sense. As you said before, you can also end up in jail. In the end the question of what you submit to and don't is somewhat voluntary, and that is the little wiggle room you have to choose your bosses. In the end, you're right, "cash is king", and you can make your whole life about money if you want to.

The most important black and white in life is to do something or not do it, everything else is this massive grey area that can't stand be split by political abstractions. You don't even have to eat or survive. You theoretically don't even need a car, phone, or computer, but the more those technologies are utilized the harder it becomes to make money and be a member of "society" if you don't have them.

I live by --" submit to capitalism or yoga " it works pretty well

it's "submit to capitalism and then yoga"

"Under anarchist-socialism, once everyone rules, no-one rules. When all are empowered then no one will have power--in a classless, stateless, society. "

a classless, stateless society - which, since you apparently only see one society - is clearly MASSive society. if you seriously think it is feasible to have a single society of many billions, that is classless and stateless, and without some form of overarching control and coercion, you are far more delusional than any individualist i have ever conversed with.

if your goal is to bring everyone - or even many/most - under a single way of living and relating, then you are not only authoritarian, but less "realistic" than even the ideological primitivists that would also be ok with dictating how EVERYONE lives. (at least they acknowledge the inherent hierarchy and authoritarian relations of mass society.) any "solution" (as if there is one) that presumes mass society, is imo already doomed to "failure". and fyi, i am not a primitivist, or a nihilist, or an indivualist, or anything-ist. i am me, and my worldview might include aspects of any and all ideologies that make sense to me. there are even aspects of social anarchy that are appealing.

progress is subjective.

What do you mean by a single way of living? If we got rid of the state and capital, would we be left with a single way of living?

If so, then prior to about 8,000 years ago most people in the world lived under a single way of living. Are you calling that a dictatorship?

By all means, let a thousand different anarchies bloom. They would all be similar only in the sense that there would be no state or capitalism.

all i want to know is, how do you on one hand replace "division into classes with a classless society, with no rich or poor, no specialized order-givers ruling over specialized order-takers.", and on the other have "democratic coordination (planning) from below" ? you want to eliminate hierarchy, and plan your economy from a hierarchical structure. makes sense.

"How can we win over the big majority of the country and the world? "

i have no desire to do that. it goes against the grain of any sort of anarchy i can imagine. it demonstrates the inability of some folks to think outside the box of mass society, mass ideology and mass agreement.

only those that desire perpetuation of the technological destruction of this planet (and the hierarchical relations that both enable and depend on it) would propose the continuation of mass society - and at that, a mass society of individuals that have been "won over" to a singular way of living and thinking.

there can be social relations without mass society.

"How can we win over the big majority of the country and the world? "
i have no desire to do that. it goes against the grain of any sort of anarchy i can imagine.

Then what kind of anarchy are you imagining? An anarchy between you and your two Facebook friends? You think anarchy is something you can do in your mom's basement? An anarchist society (like any other society we categorize as some kind of society) is one in which the majority of people are living in anarchy. Otherwise, how do you know it's an anarchist society? Or are you one of these idiots who thinks anarchists, authoritarians, religious nuts, capitalists, fascists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Nazis, etc can all live together in the same society in peace and harmony?

clearly you don't know who you are responding to. but that comes with the anon territory i guess.

"are you one of these idiots who thinks anarchists, authoritarians, religious nuts, capitalists, fascists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Nazis, etc can all live together in the same society in peace and harmony?"

no, precisely not that, nice long jump to that conclusion. unlike many, i have no desire to force others to think and live as i do. that is why mass society is undeniably authoritarian and unsustainable. think bolo'bolo if you must think of anything. no mass society, many MUCH smaller, voluntary and dynamic social groupings, based on whatever affinities they choose, and interacting with other groups only and exactly as they all desire. it is called "free association/disassociation". something socialists could never possibly grok.

"capitalism isn't something you overthrow" <---- without jumping in to Wayne's admittedly misguided theory of what-to-do, I still think it's worth pointing out that if you honestly believe this quote, you've failed miserably to understand power and should start over.

What is power? How is it wielded? How do I recognize it and understand its influence on my life, regardless of my desire to build much or any of my own? And no … this isn't about mindsets at all. How you think is an entirely separate issue.

So if I try to persuade people to get rid of capitalism and its state--then I am advocating authoritarian rule by a minority. If I advocate decentralized federations of self-managed locals and regions--then I am for a centralized society. If I call on people to act for themselves and liberate themselves--I am being authoritarian. If I want a world without borders or states--then I am for "masses" being ruled from above. If I express my opinions and try to be in a dialogue with others--I am dominating their minds. If I look beyond my personal life--then I am creating totalitarianism. Black is white--and up is down; freedom is slavery and war is peace.

it's not that Wayne … in my opinion.

It's more about the so-called historic defeat of the working class? The amount of work you'd have to do to reawaken class consciousness on the kind of scale required, all the while guarding against a repeat of The Terror in some form, you just don't have that kind of time before the climate apocalypse really starts to pin civilization to the ground and smash in its skull for good.

Perhaps some terrible dystopian cybernetic megacity hellscape will emerge and your bones will be dust by then but maybe some kind of brutally antiauthoritarian federations will form inside the megablocks and create no-go zones for the state's stormtroopers. That'll be sort of cool in a everyone-suffers-anyway kind of deal. We shall see?

I'm more focused on much smaller scale, local stuff for example. Human scale stuff. I hate most people far too much to bother trying to herd them around. But I appreciate your historical analysis tho!

"The amount of work you'd have to do to reawaken class consciousness on the kind of scale required, all the while guarding against a repeat of The Terror in some form, you just don't have that kind of time before the climate apocalypse really starts to pin civilization to the ground and smash in its skull for good."

Also let's look into the fact that no one, apparently, can do such militant engagement for more than like 100 years?

I got a few decades left -at most, and me being quite "sporty" and not eating too much crap may help giving me a somewhat healthier longer life- but I totally faced the fact that I won't be living long enough to see any major change with society, other than maybe some sudden collapse or unresolvable crisis At best. But I doubt a mass society can collapse that fast, and a long deterioration is more foreseeable. Well no, wait... that's what's happening already.

Tho YOU can change your perspective towards the world, too. You can open and maintain a squat with accomplices, partake in commodity expropriations, other forms or piracy, etc.

But Wayne's Way has to be in spending your life as well as your next reincarnated lives into Building the Movement for getting more or less what we can afford in the moment, with proper negation and/or conflictuality. What an excruciating borefest... I'd rather un-atheist and inject myself with Xianity in a dark alley over this! Anyway this whole socialism thing is pretty much like Xianity minus the Trinity.

Who the fuck wants to live in a squat and get raided by police all the time? Who wants to risk going to prison over some trivial commodities you expropriated? This is just low level passive resistance survival adaptationist bullshit.

I'd rather just go with the flow within capitalism, as most people do. Who are you to tell me I should "change my perspective towards the world"? That's exactly what capitalist propagandists are already telling me. They say, "If you're poor, it's because of your attitude (in the New Age, they call it 'poverty consciousness'), and so you just need to adjust your attitude"! You are simply playing the same evangelical game as the mass mainstream, you are just unaware of it.

"Who the fuck wants to live in a squat and get raided by police all the time?"

A-HA! Chickeeeen!

"You are simply playing the same evangelical game as the mass mainstream, you are just unaware of it."

No u.

And....right on cue mods keep censoring my uncontroversial reply, yet let this childish one stand.

Fascinating.

as you are a despicable person who also isn't clever enough to figure the irony of your own accusations.

Wayne's Way! Wayne's Way! Party Time! Excellent!!!

Party on, comrades!

(1) I think this discussion ise winding down. I have learned that some readers of this site (not clear if they regard themselves as "anarchists" but they do not call themselves "socialists") are happy with having no idea about a strategy for getting rid of the state and capital. Not that they are FOR capital and the state, but they denounce anyone who tries to think out ways to overthrow them--as authoritarian! Of course capitalist supporters agree that it would be terribly wrong to advocate popular revolution against this system--the freeist and most democratic in the world, they say!

(2) It has been repeatedly asserted that to advocate a classless, stateless, borderless world is pretty much the same as calling for world totalitarianism. This is even though I say I am for a federated, networked, set of radically democratic associations, workplaces, communities, and regions, which will be experimental and pluralistic. I cite the approach of Errico Malatesta, who called for just such a decentralized, experimental, and flexible post-revolutionary approach. See:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-malatesta-s-anarchis...

(3) Senilelumpentroll leaps past my essay on anarchism and socialism to what concerns them about my views, "the so-called historic defeat of the working class." This would take another major discussion. I can only respond briefly, that the working class is pushed by capitalist development in a revolutionary direction (by oppression, poverty, exploitation, collective cooperation, etc.), but that capitalism also creates counter tendencies (better-off workers being "bought-off", poorer workers being overwhelmed and demoralized, racism, sexism, etc., etc.) It is not inevitable which trend will win out (that is, not inevitable either way). But for over a century the modern working class has struggled and rebelled more than any other exploited class in thousands of years. And the workers have a central position and potential power in capitalism. And there is no OTHER section of the population which is more (potentially) revolutionary. The working class is a necessary but not sufficient part of the a social agent which can chose to liberate themselves from authoritarian/capitalist/statist society. This should be clear. This is why those who reject the working class, on this list and elsewhere, end up rejecting revolution and advocating personal withdrawal into self-stultification

The working class, as the revolutionary body, do not require consciousness but a peculiar alignment of events, and a series of causes and effects which produces a specific economic crisis that ends up with workers holding the levers of production.

The revolution is in two stages. The first is this naked, non-conscious holding of productive power by the working class (that is to say, of course, it is conscious and some consequences are foreseen, there is a clearness of perception and a definite awareness of relative forces but there is no alignment with the archetypal codes of political consciousness: liberty, equality, fraternity”). We see that the working class arrive at this first level of revolution by force of circumstance. In defending their own interest in an increasingly unpredictable world, and with capitalists bailing out, they end up, almost by chance, in charge of the productive economy. We say that their brief period of ownership will occur by chance because it will not have been actively, or consciously pursued — the proletariat will have consistently asserted its own interest and this steady course, when taken with general economic breakdown, will be enough to cause a proletarian dictatorship.

A new material base will begin to come into existence at this point, and all human activity will be determined by, and be reflective of these different conditions. The second stage of revolution is made by the vast mass of humanity realising what the essential proletariat have achieved and then escaping through the hole created by events. The second phase is about becoming human and throwing off the economic model entirely, during this period the working class will cease to exist, as will all social categorisations, and humanity will organise both itself and its relationship to the material base by itself and for itself.

On the role of consciousness, of course, there is reflection and understanding of what is happening but it is not consciousness in the Marxist/Hegelian sense, which we characterize as the coordination of pre-set values among a great many people as a preliminary stage for engaging with the world. Therefore it is possible that a world-wide consciousness could come into existence because of revolution because consciousness is not a precondition of revolutionary action but a consequence of revolution accomplished.

You are trying to recruit an unknown "mass" of people you know nothing about, on the sole basis of them being workers, and you seek to organize them towards some future revolution. That is, here, the exact same view of the oppressed that Lenin or Mao had. Just like with them, the proles are tools to use for the pursuing of your own (outdated) ideal. People are instruments for your own goals, that are supposedly revolutionary.

Then you are accusing anarchists (who aren't socialists) of lacking a plan, or a grand solution to overthrow the State and capitalism. And what have you got, on your part? More bile at those not willing to associated with that same old socialist ideal?

I got a strategy for getting rid of capitalism and the State. Tho you won't like it. You'll very likely find it "reactionary", anti-popular, and harmful for the proles. It's called "de-growth", and it can be realized assuming that some actors use their wits and study how capitalism actually functions in their area. This means clamping down on society's progress, so that to initiate a dynamic of enthropy within its bowels. This strategy has been put to action for a while and it slowly keeps getting bigger. If it ends up being successful, it will be the only revolution you'll see in your lifetime.

Speaking of which... shall I remind you that you aren't immortal? Neither Malatesta was, afaik. Show humility as a human being; and quit thinking of yourself as the world savior, plz.

"I got a strategy for getting rid of capitalism and the State. Tho you won't like it. You'll very likely find it "reactionary", anti-popular, and harmful for the proles. It's called "de-growth", and it can be realized assuming that some actors use their wits and study how capitalism actually functions in their area. This means clamping down on society's progress, so that to initiate a dynamic of enthropy within its bowels. This strategy has been put to action for a while and it slowly keeps getting bigger. If it ends up being successful, it will be the only revolution you'll see in your lifetime."

You are trying to recruit an unknown mass of people you know nothing about, on the sole basis of them being anti-progress, and you seek to organize them towards some future 'de-growth' revolution. That is, here, the exact same view of the oppressed that Lenin or Mao had. Just like with them, the anti-progress proles are tools to use for the pursuing of your own (outdated) ideal. People are instruments for your own goals, that are supposedly revolutionary.

"This strategy has been put to action for a while and it slowly keeps getting bigger. If it ends up being successful, it will be the only revolution you'll see in your lifetime."

LMAO! I don't see 'de-growth' anywhere except maybe in places like Detroit, Flint, or Mississippi where the 'de-growth' has been at the hands of the politicians who screwed their districts with tax cuts for the rich and cuts to services. Same for places like the Midlands in the UK, or southern Alberta Canada, where world oil prices created the de-growth.

What an assclown.

Wayne, you're probably right that this discussion is pretty much played out but no, I'm not the one "leaping past" … that's why I put that phrase in the scare quotes it deserves. It's contentious but I'm definitely not alone in that assessment and what's more, I say it as an extremely bitter and militant working class person.

I have zero confidence in the vast majority of my "fellow workers" … they're utterly mindfucked in to a black pit of false consciousness from which they'll never climb out. Only way that might change is when all the baby boomers and half the gen Xers are dead and gone … and that's only a MAYBE.

The defeat of the working class isn't just my opinion dude! Wake up and smell the corpse of labour politics.

"I have zero confidence in the vast majority of my "fellow workers" … they're utterly mindfucked in to a black pit of false consciousness from which they'll never climb out."

U lack faith comrade! Get sum Bread Book and organize organize organize.

I use hatred as my motivator. no need for faith. you understand that well, yes?

I really do not care who among anarchists choose to identify as socialists and who don't (though I will expect the latter to be less interesting). However, in the English language the words anarchism and anarchist existed as terms referring to ideas (-ism) and individuals (-ist) that favored relations among individuals in which no permanent leaders nor governments existed as far back as the 1600s, whereas the words socialist and socialism did not exist until the 1800s, so to claim an origin of anarchism in socialism simply does not hold up on the simple linguistic level. Anarchists are anarchists. Some anarchists are socialists. I would argue that because of what is required by both a capitalist and a communist economic system, it would never be possible for there to be an anarcho-capitalist or an anarcho-communist society, in that both of these forms of economy require administration and enforcement ... i.e., government.

The conclusion of this comment is one of the best arguments against Wayne's World, yea. If you want your grand society of federated worker's unions (NEEEEFFFAAAAAAAC!!!), then you'll need a management at mass social level, something that only a government with a hierarchy can provide, through division and leveling of decision-making process. Even your communautarian orgs can't escape that gimmick.

But feel free to keep fixing potholes.

You seem to lack the very logic you accuse others of. The word and idea of anarchy goes back to ancient Greece. This was already pointed out in this thread. What we are talking about is the modern concept of anarchy (classical 19th century anarchism), which very much is an outgrowth of modern socialism, whether you like it or not. It's just a fact. Sorry if that offends you.

Socialism as a self-consciously named political movement goes back to the mid-to-late 18th century during the period right after the French Revolution. Socialist ideas spread to England during the enclosure of the commons (one of the main causes in early socialism was land reform and the return to common land ownership). Socialism spread to Russia in the 19th Century. It spread in different forms. One of the forms it grew into was what we now know as modern anarchism, even though anarchy itself is an old idea.

Try do some reading.

It began when the infant first left the nipple?

... in his famous book "God and the State", how he always avoided dealing with socialists as they aren't people that are talkable. Apparently this trend hasn't changed, as of course SOCIALISTS NEVER FUCKING CHANGE!

"What we are talking about is the modern concept of anarchy (classical 19th century anarchism), which very much is an outgrowth of modern socialism, whether you like it or not. It's just a fact. Sorry if that offends you."

The modern concept of "anarchist" is very blurry in its origins. It is assumed to be related to the Luddites and the early labor strikes of the 19th century, but also as an insult to people depicted as flaming individualists who can't follow the herd. Stirner, Armand, Libertad and Parsons were all late 19t century thinkers and fighters of anarchism who rejected socialism, and they cannot be ignored for how central they are to later anarchist theory.

Then you got turncoat anarcho-librarians like Kropotkin who form the start have been collaborating with liberal socialists even if at some point they asserted their ideological "edge" as a band apart, the anarcho-socialist. That is the rotten root from where this whole crowd of socialists dressed in black is from.

Now mark my words as I won't repeat that...

As anarchist I negate the importance of social change to my well-being, as society is my enemy, and the enemy of all life. It is the Leviathan that oppresses me, and oppresses the millions that do not fit with its normalized models and schemes. As anarchist I always was anti-conformist, beyond just "antifascist", as conformity is the tool of subjugation of the individual to the masses.

Only a conspiracy of individualists (or union or egoists?) can be my true collective, and my base.

Yes, Bakunin was talking about Marxist socialists, whom he used to hang out with and identify with until his break with Marx.

You keep ignoring the fact socialism comes in different forms. Anarchists tended to distance themselves from the authoritarian strands of socialism, but even that wasn't always the case. Emma Goldman was very excited by the Russian revolution right up until she met Lenin. The Spanish anarchists fought along side the Stalin's communists against Franco's regime.

The origin of modern anarchy isn't blurry at all. Political philosopher and journalist William Godwin was the first of the late 18th century writers to self identify as an anarchist and use that term. The Luddites never used the term anarchy, although the English government may have called them that. They weren't really interested in grand political theories, they were too busy trying to defend their own livelihoods.

"As anarchist I negate the importance of social change to my well-being, as society is my enemy, and the enemy of all life."

Fascinating. You don't want to change anything. Then why are you even on here discussing anything? Okay then, have fun living by yourself like an Orangutan.

" You don't want to change anything."

you either have poor reading comprehension, or you are just another annoying ideologue spouting your prefab "critique". they said they don't want to change SOCIETY, as it is their enemy. as it is mine. changing their words to fit your agenda is typical.

or perhaps the inherent theoretical problem here is confusing? "I don't fuck with society because it's my enemy" gets misinterpreted as "I don't want to change anything" because the implication leans toward taking a pretty passive stance regarding one's enemies?

Strange to have enemies that you won't consider "changing", isn't it?

Yes, it is confusing. What exactly does "I don't fuck with society because it's my enemy" even supposed to mean? Is this some kind of nihilist credo gibberish?

"Strange to have enemies that you won't consider "changing", isn't it?"

only for an authoritarian who chooses to change others rather than accept what they are and either live with or live without.

but your confusing of "society" with some entity that could possibly be changed the way some individual enemy could, is typical.

there you have it! fighting one's enemies is "authoritarian" according to this particularly sad take. thanks for taking the bait!

" You don't want to change anything."

A typically dishonest reply by a wannabe politician, using every trick in the book to try and win power over others. And on an anonymous internet forum, of all places. I hate to think of the terror you'd unleash were you ever able to take any real power in the world. What do you have in mind for us non-believers, Wayne? Re-education camps?

Anyone who disagrees with you must be "dishonest" and a "wannabe politician" seeking "power" and "terror". Talk about using every childish dishonest lame smear tactic and fear tactic in the book.

I guess according to your logic: all those stateless egalitarian hunter gatherer bands who drove out or killed "wannabe politicians" seeking "power" and "terror" and domination over others within their ranks, were not true anarchists either, right? They must have been Stalinists!!

True anarchs are very very rare, they must almost, yes almost always have a Stirnerian awareness of self-being and social power.

"True anarchs" LMAO!

Classic No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

"Fascinating. You don't want to change anything. Then why are you even on here discussing anything? "

No, I just think that changing society is super reformist and also highly problematic from an anarchist pov. We bring the change we want to see happening, or we bully others around for being what we expect them to be. I favor the first approach, and crypto autoritarian bullies like you and Wayne obviously favor the latter.

I haven't seen Wayne bringing concrete solutions to overthrowing capitalism that the masses should rally to... and haven't you?

"We bring the change we want to see happening, or we bully others around for being what we expect them to be."

More New Age nostrums. What the fuck does this even mean? When a cop is tasering you, do you tell him "I am bringing change!"

God you people are fucking nuts.

"how he always avoided dealing with socialists as they aren't people that are talkable"
I met a sociable socialist once who wouldn't stop talking :)

One day, the mighty army of nihilists will sweep over the states, cleansing us of all right and left wing ideologies, so that all working for wages ends, and nakedness is once more permitted for the roaming hordes of iconoclasts.

'Cos nihilists aren't sheep flocking to go to wage slavery work, they work out of home online.

It's funny that the federation ia the model always promoted by them libcoms as the alternative to a government, yet many big governments worldwide are federations already. Russia is a federation of autonomous "oblast" managed, more by negotiation than top-down decree, by a presidential regime. A federation governed by a more horizontal management system would be more like socialist Yugoslavia or Vietnam. In both cases, these federations were subverted by power-hungry bureaucracies. Which is in itself revealing.

Another thing... The closest historical instance of a successful anarchistic federation of sorts was the Phoenicians. Unlike the CNT they never had to collaborate with States but rather profit from these, while gaining also the respect from authoritarian regimes.

To Senilelumpentroll: Especially in the U.S., most people are not revolutionary, and certainly not revolutionary anarchist-socialists. (Since most people are in the working class that means that most workers are not revolutionary.) Therefore there won't be a revolution (or any kind of fundamental change, however we conceptualize it) until and unless this changes. Obviously. If I expected this society to be mostly stable for the foreseeable future, I would not expect any change in popular consciousness. But I expect there to be vast shake-ups coming, economically, politically, and ecologically. This opens the possibility for drastic changes in consciousness. Already there are growing fascists on the right and, conversely, a large increase in people who think of themselves as "socialists," whatever that means to them. These shake-ups provide the POSSIBILITY for changes in consciousness and activity on the part of many people. Will they be enough? Will the anarchists rise to the occasion and do their best to increase rebelliousness and a desire for freedom? I don't know but it is a possibility.

BTW, I am all for a "de-growth" economy, but I don't see it happening under capitalism--a system which requires growth and accumulation to survive. Only the people of an anarchist-socialist society could decide on de-growth and implement it.

consciousness is counterrevolutionary
only when no thoughts are had will capitalism end

fair enough sir! I see similar "shake ups" coming. If we're only bickering about your choice to indulge in a tiny bit of optimism about that, then I suppose I'm just being a grumpy bastard as usual.

BORING

the 19th century is over. staying within the ideological confines of 19th century anarchism is lame af and boring.

Would not be a bad thing at all. The Sits saw themselves as radical retakes on the 19th century and a reaction to the 20th. I think there is more to go with this approach.

Yes there is alot to admire about the 19th C, the iconoclastic era of myth-busting and the mass printing of empirical revelations, all at a time before liberalism tainted everything. Pre -internal combustion engine also.

Add new comment