TOTW: Leftism

  • Posted on: 23 September 2018
  • By: thecollective

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.[1][2][3][4] It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others (prioritarianism) as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished (by advocating for social justice).[1] The term left-wing can also refer to "the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system".[5]


The reason most anarchists accept the description of leftism is kind of obvious, history. If we draw a line from two points in the history of the left to today most anarchists would understand themselves as within a standard deviation of where that line passes. But why do we accept such gross generalizations? And more pointedly why would any self respecting anarchist associate themselves with a social order the size of thousands or even millions of people?

The topic of this week is the left. Is it a good enough descriptor to both describe a history of our project and an idealized form of our future? To what extent are we still interested in social equality and egalitarianism? If we were what would those fights look like today? How constrained are we by an imagination that simplifies political orientation into right or left? How should we break out of this into a different model?



The “left” originally referred to the seating arrangements in the French Assembly during the Revolution. Almost every modern leftist ideology, from liberalism to state communism, put in an appearance in Paris between 1789 and 1795. Only anarchism is absent. Might that be because anarchism is not a leftist ideology?

Notably, the French Revolution was where Nationalism made its world debut. In the same series of events, leftism arrives as well. Hmmmm

Also: the September Massacres of 1792 was self-identified Patriots doing what they thought was self-defense against an invading foreign force. All the shitty parts of the French Rev are tainted with nationalism. It's not 'the mob's fault, it's the patriotic, war-between-nations-mindset mob's fault!

I think burnt-out wine-guzzling nihilists have a lot to answer to regarding the rev. Nihilism isn't some modern recent philosophy but has been around since Neanderthal days. Call it craziness if you want, but slaughtering a family of mammoths by driving them off a cliff is no different to sticking a bunch of humans up against a wall, especially if one is a survivalist during hard times.
The French Revolution was a runaway riot which appealed to the numerous alcoholic starving serfs and nihilists concentrated in Paris during the drought which had emptied the countryside and brought on famine. It snowballed and gained momentum attracting the political left who used this mass convergence for their own opportunistic means. That is all, there was no real altruistic desire involved.

Same with the Russian, but vodka not wine!

Nihilism ultimately stands for the NEGATION of intellectuality and ideas, or atleast their humiliation. This has mostly become popular in anarchist circles recently because of the revolt against christianity, frustration with leftist poltics, and revolt against the humanist morality that leftist politics is dependent on. Hunting wooley mammoths and killing them for good is not really equivalent to the systematic oppression that anarchists are disgusted about. Maybe now that every single fucking person now adays is a "scientist", there can be a critique of mass extinction of species, but over my years being engulfed in anarchist thought there can't be much of a point in critiques, they seem to just feed into pre-existing delusions and judgements.

eco-extremism is the intersection between the anger and frustration with reality and the "snowflake". It's pretty shallow, especially since eco-extremists don't kill people, they just try to get people to kill themselves.

@ general topic: the left and anarchist thought have and always will have some basic main points in common. The left was originally invented as a way of peacefully confronting the brutality of nation states. The most interesting thing to me about the topic is the question " But why do we accept such gross generalizations? ". I struggle with this question every day, the best answer i can give is because we don't really know much else as a dystopian community of speakers and thinkers.

Did not know that until just now. Thanks for sharing. Seriously, write a zine or essay on an elaborated version of that.

Most turmoil is a result of addiction and mostly a libidinal affair in case you weren't aware!

Judging from my experience of what's called anarchism in the United States, it isn't really anything.

There's a sizeable representation from individualists though, its just that they are humble quiet folk who keep to themselves and aren't into SJW roles or activist venting, and harbour no higher-than-mighty or bitter ressentiment based pathologies;).,.

Gawd... This was thest best rollover pic in years.

We brave Stirnerian knights stand aloof and gleefully unequal in our potentialities, striding boldly forward into the new millenium with magnificent and majestic strength and confidence, brushing aside the puny whining leftist sheep from the glorious road to liberty, freedom and the empowerment of the indivual will!!.,.

* individual will!! *

There could be a type of alternative leftist position that while not anarchist is AT LEAST structurally anarchist in nature. The padded problem of leftism isn't just that it does not lend itself to anarchism and anarchy, it's that it's so structured by Marxism and Progressivism. Hell if you could at least have a leftism that was dedicated to a Proudhonian mutualist anarchist structured discourse that would go a long way in differentiating that particular discursive strand as a better one then all the rest.

Leftism is not going away anytime soon but it could at least develop a poly-econ variant that has a better relationship with continuing anarchism. What anarchists need to do is no longer work with leftists currents that, at the very least, lack an anarchist structural element to it. This is basically a sure way to avoid indirectly working with and for Marxist and other non anarchist variants of leftism(bye bye antifa).

"This is basically a sure way to avoid indirectly working with and for Marxist and other non anarchist variants of leftism(bye bye antifa)."

of course im not a fan of anti-fa either, their whole thing is fighting the boogieman called "the rascists", and i mostly find this just to be a leftist trend that has been repeating itself for too long, plus there's so many fucking racist people you would have to start herding them into the concentration camps if you really wanted to cleanse the human race of them.

but i think that the reason so many people sympathize with anti-fa is because projects like the black panther's "community self defense" are so inspiring, and takes the edge off the frustration of people who aren't really able to defend themselves against brutal people like neo-nazis. It would be interesting if you wrote an essay about the positions on violence (which i have to admit, making positions on violence is kind of tragi-comic and ultimately is something that seems more suiting to the realm of organizing and politics)

weren't the leftists originally people that were that confused that they thought to find a way for revolution in parlament - on the left side... at least the revolutionary leftists are.

Is what it could be called.

i think its pretty clear this is written by someone who isnt happy much with the left as a concept or a descriptor.

but am i the only one who struggles with the imagery of this? how does one draw a line in history? and how is anyone located within a 'standard deviation' of a line in history? im not located in history... ? standard deviation of what? oh, i should have paid better attention in maths class... to be honest a most of these sentences are quite hard to follow. i didnt realise that people used the word 'left' to give a history of 'our project' and to provide 'an idealised form of our future'.

To what extent are we still interested in social equality and egalitarianism?
to the extent that we are interested in society, which in my case means not interested.
how constrained are we by notions of the political left and right?
i dont really think in those terms consciously anymore, but its hard to say given i grew up with them, but hopefully not very much in my case.
how should we break out of this an into a different model?
should we? i already try to, and so do loads of people. instead of saying 'left wing' or 'right wing', or any of the derivations, try to elaborate on what you mean. is it much harder than that?

To me, there's a pretty obvious separation between the basic values I want to see functionally in my relationships (as an individual and an anarchist) versus the totally fucked up dumpster fire that is mass society. These are just two completely different conversations and terrains so … any time we're talking about "the left" or "leftists", I assume we're talking about the naive but mostly well-meaning folks who still believe they'll be able to mass organize their way to some major changes in the dumpster fire.
This dichotomy clears up a lot of the strawmanning and talking past each other that anarchists tend to do imo.

Once you skip over that old swamp, you'll find a lot of people who could be described as "leftists", but they're also very critical of most of "the left". It also helps you ignore the people who almost exclusively sit online calling everyone else an idiot because you realize they just like to beat up the strawman to pass the time and feel superior.

"but am i the only one who struggles with the imagery of this? how does one draw a line in history?"

no, you are not. This is why i'm pretty much skeptical of everything even to the point of anger and depression sometimes. I very much do not want to align myself with any ideological thinking, but since people seem to be ideological in nature (i.e., the contiued question on here and @101 is "what should anarchists do?) this is easier said than done, and then people are always using gross generalizations and flattening someone else's meaning.

Nihilist, that's a joke right, calling yourself "Nihilist" as an ironic parody, right? You couldn't possibly be a real nihilist because of your attachment to ethics? You don't even make it to iconoclast-troll level lol.

"You don't even make it to iconoclast-troll level lol."

so basically you are still trying to be king rebellion and laughing at your own jokes.

Nobody is a total nihilist retard, thats fucking impossible, people aren't robots.

EDIT: Plus, using "nihilist" on this forum as an insult has even more pitiful connotations that being a stereotypical internet troll, it also has a lot in common with the identity politics cults. The only way to intelligently insult somebody is to do it in a surprising way, saying "hahaha shut the fuck up nihilist" is just a parody of itself. This forum overall is crap anyway.

I'm 99% nihilist dude, at least I'm trying to improve myself. I'm lmost there, the complete critic of everything human.

Going back to the first Comment, which denies that there were anarchists in the French Revolution. On the contrary, there were individuals and groups among the Enrage's and Hebertistes, among the bras nus (bare arms), who were anarchists or close to anarchism, counterposing direct democracy and federalism to the state centralism of the Jacobins. This is covered in Daniel Guerin's book, "Class Struggle in the First French Republic; Bourgeois and Bras Nus; 1793--1995."

Anarchism, from its beginnings to now, has always been regarded as on the Left, as the extreme Left of the Left, the movement most in opposition to the state, capitalism, and all oppressions, the most in favor of equality and opposed to social hierarchy (as the original quote says), the most in favor of popular movements to overthrow capitalism and its state, and the most critical of statist solutions to society. To define "the Left" as only the statist Left--liberals, social democrats, Marxist-Leninists--is to make the Left synonymous with state socialism. But the term has always been broader than that, as the quotation implies. (I leave out quotations from Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Makhno, etc., all saying the same thing.)

You can apply the term as broadly as you wish but historically speaking leftism is a political position vis a vis the state. Leftists wish to reform the state to promote greater egalitarianism through the state, whereas rightists wish to roll the state back to reinforce traditional hierarchies.

Now, aside from the obvious problems with approaching history as a linear process of growing or diminishing freedom, there were several decades of anarchist thinkers that preceded the rise of collectivist socialism who did not identify themselves as being in a leftist tradition as they wished to destroy or exit the sphere of state control altogether. These tendencies were then deliberately and maliciously erased from anarchist and socialist history, damnatio memoriae, by collectivists who in their eurocentric and Enlightenment born rationality viciously disparaged them as "petit bourgeois", "utopian", and "unscientific" (that is to say "not leftist enough), prefiguring the totalitarian attempts to rewrite history that would follow in their ideological tradition. The result of this operation was the obscuring of collectivist socialism with outright statist authoritarianism, enabling the creation of new totalitarian regimes that slaughtered millions and rationalized their actions with appropriated rhetoric of liberation.

So, by all means, define leftism however you wish to. But using tepid definitions such as "the most egalitarian" still positions your closer, in the historical context, to the statist liberals than it does to those who lived and died for anarchy.

Disruptive Elements: The Extremes of French Anarchism has some great examples of early anarchist thought. It's pretty fucking ruthless.

Herbertistes? Wayne, oh poor Wayne.. You're referring to the Cordeliers who were libertarians that gave themselves positions in one of the transitional governments during thr Terror. Danton made himself Minister of Justice, overseeing executions of political opponents. Hardly anarchists... More like fascistic constitutionalists... people Alex Jones would dig.

Of course the title of Guerin's book says: "1793--1795"

Why don't you just quit trying to convince folk that the leftists have altruistic goals and just admit its really the lust for social power which has them scrambling for control!

Proudhon's mutualist anarchism ( federationism, free-association, etc) 1840 - 1871 may be pressed into a binary opposition to what Bakunin called " Proudhonianism pushed in a certain direction, but only at such great expense to anarchism that I suspect no name anarchist would ever support such a ridiculous proposition.

What are the criterion for anarchist-subculture-dweeb censorship own

While your comment doesn't seem in good faith, here is the moderation guidelines as layed out in the about us of anews. For your reading pleasure:

For instance, I made some disparaging comments on Love And Rage that was basically my way of saying they were a bad anarchist group. I don't see how my anti-L&R post violated any of those guidelines.

They could just make it easy and go back to what made anews matter to begin with.

Sir e.
you literally post on almost every single article, sometimes more than once. You dominate the conversations and in turn become the face of everything. It's nice to have space for other ideas. IMHO, perhaps more quality and less quantity

How does higher proportion posting equate to 'dominating' the conversations. Essentially you will see this in ANY virtual space. There will always be that one person that has an extra intent to make a point. Domination in the sense of discourse and discussion would entail influencing which I have NO POWER to do at all here. Some of the articles I post on literally have no comment until I show up with what may or may not be a barbing comment. If anything I might actually start conversations on articles that might otherwise have remained commentless.

Anywhoo, whatever.

" moderated discussion..."

ROFL!!!! the moderation is NOT being done by "the community", it is being done by "the collective", "a bite-size group of people who agree on many things".

y'all need to change "community moderated discussion" to " moderated discussion", or "site operators moderated discussion". saying it is moderated by the "community" is misleading and dishonest.

Criterion is singular; criteria is plural. Is that too pedantic for you? I’m sorry for your ignorance, but it’s par for the course.

And for the record, I have no problem with my posts being censored as long as the one(s) I’m objecting to also get disappeared. Like earlier today. I also agree that Zig’s posts are unnecessary impositions. The chance of him saying something interesting and/or relevant is so abysmally low that I long ago gave up reading them.

This week in remarkably stupid questions!

Ziggy asks "yeah, I talk a lot more than anyone else and repeat myself a lot - HOW is that dominating the conversation?!?!,,,,"

I'm actually waiting for an answer 13:06. How is posting disproportion domination? Are we even defining domination in the same sense? Some people have more to say with an extra bit of intensity of intent behind it, I do not see how that leads to any kind of domination of discussion. I'm not the one who's going to make anews go back to what it was even though that's what I want. I'm clearly not dominating if I can't get get discourse to bend to my way which isn't really what I'm doing anyway.

What was anews before that it isn't now, that made it so great for you? Just curious

if you can "give up" reading ziggy's comments, how can they possibly be "dominating" in any way? jeez, sounds like the fucking victimization ideologues.

Bakunin is rolling in his grave reading these comments. Anarchism is and always has been a socialist movement. Read a fucking history book ever.

If by “socialism” you mean the most generic opposition to capitalism, then sure, almost all anarchists are socialists. But if you actually look at the real history of socialism — let’s say from 1864 (the founding of the International) to 1914 (the capitulation of almost every socialist formation to the call of nationalism and war), then you might notice splits, some schisms, and a few expulsions/exclusions. Many of those conflicts centered on the question of the state, as in could/should socialists use the state as a way to implement socialism? This
The question became especially important during and after the Paris Commune, and eventually led to the dissolution of the International. Then there was that little thing called the Russian Revolution (you may have heard of it), where, after a mere six months in state power, the Bolsheviks (who of course never refused the support of anarchists) decided they neither needed nor wanted anarchist support. There have been plenty of other conflicts between socialists (or leftists if you prefer) and anarchists since these two formative moments of philosophical and practical hostility. This anarchist, for one, is not interested in being part of any group, project, organization, coalition, or movement with anyone who considers the successors and supporters of Marx and Lenin to be on the same side. I oppose capitalism, but I’ll be damned if that puts me on the same team as socialists or leftists, because I also oppose the state and government. There’s a term used to describe someone who’s against the state and against capitalism: anarchist. Not “socialist” and not “leftist.” A few tings have changed since the time of Bakunin

The first half of your first sentence!

This is wholly inadequate. The first word of my first sentence is “if” ffs. And the actual lived history of interactions ffs. This is what is so infuriating about people like Price: I’ve enumerated historical, philosophical, and practical conflicts between Marxists/leftists and anarchists, yet he — according to the anti-anarchist ultra-left fantasist stalker, allegedly the most “adult” or non-dweebish anarchist commentator here — ignores my points by dismissing absurd outliers like Zig, Le Dope, and the revisiting Rat.

It is the responsibility of anarcho-leftists to provide the overwhelming justifications for continuing to force anarchists into leftist strategies and tactics and projects given the horrible history of conflict and murder of anarchists at the hands of Marxists, socialists, and leftists.

"Anarchism is and always has been a socialist movement."

i LOVE it when people declare unequivocally that their perspective is the objective truth. it really does inspire interesting and challenging discussion.

and history books... really?

We are post-left by design to the extent we never voted in nationalist elections and never will. That removes a large part of the left. So what remains before we get completely clear-air?
Well - Marxism, in a word. And not just the type everyone dislikes these days ( Leninism ) The Marxism of the Communist Manifesto and " Capital " and all that crap Wayne Price keeps trying to force down our throats.
So - one more effort if you want to ' full spectrum' post-left-anarchists - ditch left-communism - ditch Marx.

He's back, the man the Marxists couldn't root, shoot or electrocute!

It's actually not Wayne OR Marx trying to ram anything. They're just running a commentary on the same bastards that have been throat ramming you for centuries, along with the other 95% of people on the planet, to varying degrees.

Professor Rat denounces "The Marxism of the Communist Manifesto and " Capital " and all that crap Wayne Price keeps trying to force down our throats." I am sorry for trying to force Marx's Capital down your ratty throat. Heaven forbid I should be seen as an empty and frequent commentator, such as Sir Einzige, Rat. It does bother me that other anarchists are so ignorant of anarchism, leftism, and socialism as to not know that anarchists have mostly seen themselves as leftists and socialists, advocates of freedom and equality....and as enemies of state socialism and statist leftism. To point this out is not to be part of some anti-individualist, collectivist, anarchist conspiracy, as one poster seems to think.

Do you honestly think there are any anarchists alive today "ignorant of" the red-washed history so popular among American and British bread-book thumpers? That claim seems more than a little disingenuous. Of course we're familiar with it. There has very clearly been an effort to paint anarchist history as a specific political program rather than a constellation of tendencies motivated by our beautiful idea. This isn't "bad"–people translate and publish texts they agree with–but it is incomplete.

Semi-relatedly, I'd argue that this phenomenon, along with the recent grafting of intersectionality to anarchism, is why anti-social types are being driven directly into the arms of fascists. It's something antifascists would do well to grapple with.

"anti-social types are being driven directly into the arms of fascists"

i agree with most of your post, but that sentence seems to just toe the line of the reactionary collectivists. most of my @friends are individualists, and every one of them would (and has!) laugh derisively at that sentence. no, any anarchist "individualist" that could in any way sympathize with the bigotry and authoritarianism of fascists and other hard-right wingers is no anarchist, let alone an individualist.

The bold Stirnerian knights shall lay siege to the fortress of leftist Wayne rhetoric and starve it of its serf support, and slowly they shall re-educate and enlighten Wayne to the glorious gleeful autonomy of individualist creative expression, heed my words well!

Anyone who thinks my contributions are empty please feel free to ignore them.
As for " leftists and socialists, advocates of freedom and equality....and as enemies of state socialism and statist leftism "
well I suggest that excludes all Marxists operating today, including all Councilists, Situationists, Autonomen, Communizers, etc. This should not be controversial for any anarchist interested in reviving and extending a rigorous ' post-left-anarchy'.
Post-left-anarchy is post-left-communism or not at all, imho.

Btw I am not attracted to Ziggys ' anarchy-ism" at all and wish he'd get a Blog. there's also my twitter

Believe it or not Rat I actually agree with you to a large degree on Marxists though for me it's a matter of getting the STRUCTURE of Marxist thought out of anarchism and anarchy. The odd marginal element of those that you mentioned is fine with me because I actually think there is some decent analysis here and there even if I reject communism as an end goal. Individualism trumps communism.

My conception of anarchy is simply anarchy without the mediated elective weight of anarchism. It's basically the ontological actualized practice of anarchy that stems from an anti-elective actualized Stirnerian drive. Anarch-egoist-anarchy is what I call it.

and it amounts to?!/??!?! (wait for it)

and going to work like a good little peasant. Hooray ...

"the ontological actualized practice of anarchy that stems from an anti-elective actualized Stirnerian drive"

(i tend to agree with you by and large, ziggy, but...) is that really how you talk? do you use the word "actualized" multiple times per sentence on many occasions?

was bad phrasing on my part but actualization is important as far as self theory and practice goes.

I can relate to rat's position but I'm afraid there's very little left beyond publishing and land projects when you're done throwing all those babies out with the bath water.

I disagree. One has to put a lot of effort into ignoring the entire humanist tradition within Marxism that has always critiqued state power. This includes Lukacks, Ernst Bloch, Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, Lefebvre, E.P. Thompson, Marshall Berman, etc.

Marx himself saw the state as being nothing more than the organized power of the ruling class. And Engels declared, "The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away". -- Anti-Duhring

So it's not like Marx and Marxists wholeheartedly embraced the idea of the state. It's always been a source of ambivalence. They just considered the state a temporary strategic device for creating socialism which, once implemented, would eventually lead to the state being superfluous when workers were capable of doing everything for themselves, including those things the state did. Of course, this is completely nuts, even as a temporary strategy. But in the 19th century, this seemed like an actual long-term potential outcome to many revolutionary thinkers (except for most anarchists).

Today, most on the left do tend to embrace the state. This is also true, although to a lesser extent, for Marxists.The more humanistic Marxists are not state socialists.

Is precisely how the state got started, shows what he knows. The government of persons is a CONSEQUENCE of the administration of things particularly as it applies to big O organization. One of the things that inevitably comes out of accumulated administration is monopoly power which is the essence of what a state is. Ultimately thought the state is neither abolished nor withered away by a supposed stateless administrative governance but starved by disassociation.

As for the humanist marxist tradition, as the late Paul Z Simons said, humanist marxism is basically an intellectual cult that plays a non true scottsman fallacy with Marx. The orthodox authoritarian crap within marxism does follow from the structure of his writing and approach whether he would have done it or not. Marx never critiqued state power as the existential dominating threat that it is. A singular system of administration and production basically entails a state.


Marx wrote:

"The ‘police’, the ‘judiciary’, and the ‘administration’ are not the representatives of a civil society which administers its own universal interests in them and through them; they are the representatives of the state and their task is to administer the state against civil society." “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of State,” in Karl Marx: Early Writings,

Also: "Where the political state has attained its full degree of development man leads a double life, a life in heaven and a life on earth, not only in his mind, in his consciousness, but in reality. He lives in the political community, where he regards himself as a communal being, and in civil society, where he is active as a private individual, regards other men as means, debases himself to a means and becomes a plaything of alien powers. The relationship of the political state to civil society is just as spiritual as the relationship of heaven to earth. The state stands in the same opposition to civil society and overcomes it in the same way as religion overcomes the restrictions of the profane world, i.e. it has to acknowledge it again, reinstate it and allow itself to be dominated by it. Man in his immediate reality, in civil society, is a profane being. Here, where he regards himself and is regarded by others as a real individual, he is an illusory phenomenon. In the state, on the other hand, where he is considered to be a species-being, he is the imaginary member of a fictitious sovereignty, he is divested of his real individual life and filled with an unreal universality. On the Jewish Question,” in Karl Marx: Early Writings, 220.

But then later Marx starts talking about the revolutionary transition period, where there is no choice but dictatorship of the proletariat (dick pro). Bakunin rightly laughed at this: "If there is a state, then there is domination and consequent slavery. A state without slavery, open or camouflaged, is inconceivable-that is why we are enemies of the state. What does it mean, ‘the proletariat raised to a governing class?’ --Michael Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy

Scholars still argue over whether Marx truly meant a state dictatorship (since in fact the word 'dictatorship' in the 19th century did not mean the kind of brutal repressive state regime as it does now. It meant simply an insurrectionary period wherein the capitalist foundations are uprooted). Bakunin still thought this emergency revolutionary period of dick pro would lead to a state, not that the dick pro was itself a state. Remember, Bakunin himself had the idea of an 'invisible dictatorship'. Marx characterized the Paris Commune as a "Revolution Against the State itself" and "the reabsorption of the State power by society as its own living forces instead of as forces controlling and subduing it." --The First Draft, in Marx and Engels, Writings on the Paris Commune.

Again, Marx is concerned about people leading a double life, i.e. both living under the thumb of a separate adminstrative parasitic bourgeois state machinery, and also serving within that state machinery called 'civil society'. What he wanted was the dissolution of the division between people and the government, to be replaced by self governing people, or the abolition of separate powers.

The whole problem boils down to what precisely this means. Because we are so used to conceiving of the state as being one and the same as government. This was even somewhat true in the 19th century. Thus the fault is as much with our reading of Marx as it is with Marx himself and all subsequent interpreters. Marx was never clear about the question of what an insurrectionary dictatorship would look like, though he hinted that it would be like the Paris Commune. Marx seems to be advocating for a kind of direct participatory democracy where there is no bureaucracy. Yet he muddied the waters all the time by throwing around the word 'class' everywhere. The revolutionary 'class' was supposed to create the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx was hung up on 'classes' of people rather than people as a whole or individually.

So I disagree with Paul Z Simons that humanist Marxists are playing the No True Scotsman Fallacy game, since most humanist Marxists are not claiming there is actually any 'true Marxism', they are merely emphasizing those aspects of Marx's somewhat ambivalent writing which advocate the abolition or 'withering away' of the state.

Lenin thought you first had to seize the state in order to make it go away. To some extent Marx did too, but he would have hated what Lenin (and Stalin) turned the Soviet Union into. There was no direct democracy, no dissolution of state bureaucracy, and no social control by workers.. In fact, just the opposite of all this happened, as we now know.

The question is one of strategy, not philosophical theory. How do we get rid of the state? That's what Marx (ultimately) wanted, that's what Bakunin wanted, that's what anarchists want and what most humanist Marxists want. Yet the Marxist strategies have not worked, just as Bakunin predicted. It's not about organization per se, as some anarchists believe, since even the most simplest anarchists (hunter gatherers) are 'organized', the problem is one of what kind of organization?

So how do we undermine the state, or create a force to overthrow the state without becoming another state. That's the perennial question.

Is secondary treatment of the state as something to be dealt with consequently. I know that he wanted the state gone but his failing was to not treat it as a bigger existential threat then class. His view was that class power had to be dealt with and the state would fade away through class suppressing processes. If anything the opposite is true. It is class that withers away after the power lines of the state have been knocked out. Class after all is an epiphenomenon of status and deeper reified beliefs. It is the state however which needs to be treated as the immediate threat to anarchy on a general level.

The issue with organization is MATERIAL force multiplication. The problem of organization depends on whether it is corporeally or psychologically based or whether it is based on around material rationalization. When you think of a psychologically organized mind for instance you might be dealing with someone who is compulsive and calculative. Material organization is about the subsuming the individual to a singular rational process. That to me is one of the founding ingredients of the state. As Bob Black says, the critique of the state is just one part of the critique of organization.

To deal with your last point it really is about powering out the state through dynamic disassociation and refusal at the end of the day. I don't much like the term overthrow as that term has usually been associated with authoritarian instrumentality. It really just comes down to federated disassociated activity against the state. Easier said then done but it's what has to be done.

Even hunter gatherers are organized around material production. That is not the problem. You need organization to do anything more than what an individual can do. The problem comes when material organization is divided into tasks specialized to the point where hierarchy is needed to create a permanent and continuous workflow, and where material survival is no longer dependent on direct procurement from nature, but from being part of a productive system under someone else's command where the basic necessities of life are traded for.

Well by that definition of organization you could say that ants and beavers also do organization. For the record I like to distinguish between mere body mind organization and organization. The former can at least be tied to self-driven preparations and practices. The acute definition of organization that I am talking about however tends to be the problems that you describe later in your post. That is what most people who highlight the importance of organization tend to mean. That's what all the organization driven anarchists tend to make excuses for.

When things are simply kept to immediate individual interests then you really don't have the ideology and practice of organization which ends up being the building block for work and state.

No idea what "body mind organization" vs "organization" is supposed to mean.

The problems of organization that I'm talking about are merely an extension of simpler forms of organization. It's not a separate category called 'organization' vs non-organization.

Anarchists who are against 'organization' per se are just nuts.

Is the baseline that is usually not pronounced. When people like me talk about being against organization we are talking about the extra outer-human community kind that is based on reification and mediation of different desires and preferences. Within human communities these things do not have to be mediated as there is already a union of co-existence.

Again, more abstractions. What does "extra outer-human community kind that is based on reification and mediation of different desires and preference" mean?

11:20. The distinction between instinctual genetic programming and cognitive manipulation are not abstractions. The former you describe erroneously as organization when you compare the invertebrate insect class of species as mediating conference attending bugs from a Disney cartoon, discussing blueprints for production outputs per year and designing worker quarters for immigrant ants making the perilous journey from the other side of the pond. Grow up and extend your knowledge beyond animated narratives written for 8 yr old bourgeois Western capitalists!

Who's talking about "instinctual genetic programming" ?? WTF does this have to do with anything? When did I compare or say anything about ants?

Your premise inferred loudly and clearly that because organization occured in the natural world that it therefore followed that cultural or human organization was a natural condition, meaning a non political or ideological phenomenon. For 'natural' insert instinctual genetic, and any variants to unconditioned behavioral tendencies. For 'culture' insert organized cognitive procedures.

Nice straw man. I never said or implied any such thing. I said even hunter gatherers have organization around material production. This does not imply any kind of naturalistic fallacy or appeal to nature. Hunter gatherers' organization is just as 'cultural' as any industrial society's organization. My point was that organization in and of itself is not the problem. So when some anarchists rail against 'organization' it's just silly. It's like being against trade.

I'd also point out here that genetic instinct (whatever that is) vs cultural 'conditioned' behavior (whatever that is) is a false dichotomy.

I see a true dichotomy between the natural common sense action of placing eggs on top of the coconuts in a basket and on the other hand being culturally conditioned to organize an unnatural ritual of placing eggs underneath the coconuts. This essentially is my argument about "organization" and "natural non-organization".
Calm down I don't want to see anarchists organized by masters into obeying rules is all.

From this angle I am approaching the conditioning of the will as the first instance of organization.

Sorry, you are not making any sense. Your analogies are incomprehensible.

Nihilism takes its toll I suppose ¿

What anti-organization anarchists and anarchs are going after is non-willed representational organization. Self-organization is fine, outer human scale reified recursive language heavy organization is one of the founding ingredients for the state. When organization is not dissolveable and easy to disassociate from is when you have a problem.

Jordan Peterson's illegitimate transgender gay son here, umm, contrary to what my hoooooorrible father says, my lesbian feminist parents maintained an environment riiiiich in family values and leftist ideeeeeals in which I grew up. Fed on a Marxist veeegan diet and listening to Elton John's emo drenched lyrics my whoooole childhood could not heeelp but produce the perrrfect specimen of humanity with wellllllllrounded attributes and skills. Oooh dear, as a botox consultant in the cosmetics industry, I pull in a gooooood wage and attend antifa socialist BBQs weeeeeekly, as well as free advice and diiiiiscounts for celebrity activists requiring faaaaacelifts. Leffffftists are my uuuuuuniverse darlings!

Hey dude'tte, Elton John isn't a leftist, he's a gay monarchist, and they administer the State with the help of the police and the courts. Your beauty parlour politics have no place on this site, mkay?

Its precisely why I didn't want the anarchist narrative baby thrown out with the " Leftist" bathwater that I first commented on post-left-anarchism back in 2003 at Infoshop. I support the idea of going post-left ( and post politics ) I don't support it in the way its presented with a poorly defined ' Left'.
Now if its too hard too remove all the alleged ' good bits of Marx ' and all that left-communist crap thats always years late and dollars short, then maybe the anarchist baby is dead already. I don't think it is, personally, cos we can muddle through without post-leftism. I just want to maximize our degrees of freedom while preserving a unique continuous narrative basically.
Its telling we have such a desirable intellectual 'property' for want of a better term - that so many others - left and right - try and colonize it - yes?
We can take pride in that then - we must be alive for them to try their parasitic entrism on us!

" I just want to maximize our degrees of freedom while preserving a unique continuous narrative basically..." This is the consumer society U.S.A./trite personal rebellion ethos of contemporary U.S. anarchism in a nutshell.

is precisely what we can do.
I look to Proudhon for the social activity
As regards “ business”, i.e. the productive
Activity of us as producers and consumers.
I look to Stirner for his view of our social nature
as unique “singularities “ who can gather
With others as the gathering of rhode to create those important activities.
Most importantly,
“ autonomous zones” that tap our social
creativity. As to more contemporary figures
Who speak to our more pressing needs,
Bob Black, Ziggy, Michael Albert come to mind.
And on the social organizational form, Rojava.
All of these inspire , focus on methods, style;
The how, where when of our happenings!
Leave the authoritarians out there to prattle
On the What . And What do you Call it.

"Bob Black, Ziggy, Michael Albert come to mind."

wow, you align albert with zig and black? how the fuck does that work? albert is a total and complete leftist, the other two are not at all. huh?

For the record I think Michael Albert should be avoided like the plague for their bottom up organization fetish. That's a Stalinist like state waiting to happen. Proudhon and Mutualism could be seen as a legitimate baseline strategy in the context of capitalism for some at least. There is NOTHING good about Michael Albert.

"Herbertistes? Wayne, oh poor Wayne.. You're referring to the Cordeliers..."

The Herbertisites were not the Cordeliers. Go crack open a history book. Or two. Or three. Or...

The world is full of recuperation addicts! All known revolutions are a binary warfare social reflex better described as reformations. Revolutions have never really produced major paradigm shifts, even Hitler, Lenin and Pol Pot still maintained the standard State structure, hierarchical power systems and institutions, strict moral guidelines and fear. ALL THE SAME!

Lay off the ketamine, bro...

Personal rebellion might be the best course in such a heavily-armed and violent society you have over there in the USA. But maximizing anarchist freedom from a well-grounded stance rooted in our unique story is much bigger than either personal-rebellion or the shithole USA.
And as for consumers - I respect the Naders Raiders tradition of consumer activism. And Anarchism even started with the idea of free-association of producer and consumer cooperatives. And you can't spell ' cooperative' without a 'rat' in it. get my drift.

Predictable rationalization of the Century of the Self! (Check out that Adam Curtis doc if you haven't already)

"Personal rebellion" is just code for the introverted cowardice and fart sniffing of the hopelessly enslaved. Not to mention consumerism's greatest ruse!

Rebellion is obsolete ol' dude, now its intelligent adaption and the end of collective tantrums.

The nuclear winter of "collective tantrums" is always just around the corner. Good luck "adapting" to it! ;)

Rebellion isn't even a solution, just the only place to find any dignity. Everything else is bending the knee.

Dignity is cultural baggage, the knees are insignificant, we bold Stirnerians bend our egos and our minds!!

Water to fish, no doubt!

...a polite, self-interested way of rebranding conformity, or at least subvervience.

Your failings at finding ways out or around the dominant order is only yours, not that of rebellion, which can take so many forms you don't know shit about, because first and foremost, you were always a weak conformist faggot, you normie. haw haw

13:53 here, Wow, that's a first for me, being trolled by a fascist radical

The nihilist ( and Left-Commie Marxist ) dogs bark - the revolutionary anarchist caravan moves on.

No TRUE anarchist Scotsman, amirite?!

a "caravan"

and sliced the state down to bare bones:
hospitals, schools and sustainable energy
(maybe transportation) would it still be the state?

some of these post-left professors say you need
a state to make sure everyone has access to healthcare,
education and electricity (possibly travel), but I contend
that if you extract the military and police-juridical system,
its no longer a state.

so that's one aspect of post-leftism.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.