Add new comment

Didn't you agree to being blocked, provided the collective really didn't want your trolling comments on the site?

Anyway, it's pretty clearly not "elitist" to suggest that every anarchist can come to their own terms anarchist ideas or to suggest that all of us probably have something to learn from at least some other anarchists. It's not elitist to suggest that we have missed a lot of interesting and potentially useful stuff in the anarchist past—or to archive, translated or share those elements with others. You can disagree about the uses of the anarchist past—and that doesn't bother me in the slightest—but you probably need something more than your personal preferences to make this sort of aggressive, public disagreement seem something other than inane and vacuous. It's also not elitist to write in a style you don't approve of—a style which, trust me, actual academics don't seem to approve of all that often either. And writing for friends and those with common interests—and both categories exist, believe it or not—is, as social sins go, probably a pretty minor one.

The thought that I have complete avoided "the real world of past or present anarchist theory and practice" — while, of course, playing out that "fascination with obscure or marginal [anarchist] authors from the distant past" — well, the charge doesn't even make any damn sense. This is presumably not what you ordered—and now you would like to speak to the manager. (But you keep coming back for another helping...)

As for the utility of Proudhon's work, the "real world" application of anarchist ideas arguably calls for some specifically anarchistic tools for the analysis of social and material relations. We can make do with marxism and various bodies of social science better adapted to authoritarian, governmentalist systems, I suppose, but why do so when we can pretty easily recover a genuinely anarchistic alternative. YMMV.

And—once more for the people in the back—I'm a proponent of anarchist synthesis, specifically of the ongoing development of an anarchy-centered anarchism. FWIW, the question of "markets" is so badly framed by pretty much everyone focused on it that anyone really interested in "real world" applications should almost certainly be talking about much more specific norms and practices. Anyway, once we have a clear grasp on the question of exploitation—both in the economic and in the political realm—there just isn't that much more to say in general about these questions until we actually have a specific real-world problem to solve.

I'm sorry that you're not enjoying the material from "Constructing Anarchisms." But it is all very clearly marked, so you shouldn't have any trouble avoiding it in the future.