ToTW: Left or Right or Other

  • Posted on: 8 August 2016
  • By: thecollective

Many anarchists come from the Left, and anarchy is popularly understood as a Left phenomenon. There are definitely anarchists who come from the Right also (maybe I only think there are fewer because of my own history). And then there are the anarchists who reject that anarchy/anarchism is a part of the model of Left/Right at all, who see it as a construction particular to a time and place that no longer exists.

What about you? What strengths and limitations do you see to identifying as either one side or the other?

What strengths and weaknesses are there to rejecting the model, or at least to taking anarchy out of it?



I identify with right wing anarchy because Sir Einzige is an excellent spooksperson for the anarch cause. No more fabricated grand narratives! Question everything! Argue for freedom!

I am my *own* Cause. All others are nothing to me. Just as The Stirner would want it.

Only Jesus Stirner (or Max Christ... AWESOME) exists as "others". Everyone else is a fabrication of my mind.

SE isn't right wing.

Fuck taking the bait on this framing.

"I think people are categories."

The model of reality isn't reality.

It's cop minds that need to break down everyone into seemingly easy to contain/define boundaries/categories/labels. Conceptual separations are what's needed for the dominant narrative.

I suppose I'd fall into the left/right are a false dichotomy camp. You have a lot of people who are pro-state and pro-economy, then you have a lot of people who are for democracy, freedom, individualism, independence and unions. We can't all be dreamers, but we can be anarchists and be practical. I'm in favor of anarchist independent spirits uniting with the left and their institutions, but I'm not a leftist. Vote union!

"I'm not a leftist. Vote union!"


I'm also not a leftist. I think Marx said a lot of good things and I think we should ally with Tiqqun anti-Marxist Marxists against the left. Communization not dumbocracy

Anarcho-primitivist all the way brother. I'm not a leftist, but rather, an anti-leftist. We should read Camatte and Zerzan and fall in line with radical feminism but not veganism because that is liberal leftist hogwash. I destroy a little bit of civilization every time I skip a shower or eat from the dumpster. When I weave a basket, that's like, the future becoming itself.

I don't see what the big deal is with identifying as a left anarchist. So far those against it have failed to offer a direction that will change things. Instead I see them paralyzing things until something from Europe comes over and they try to immediately co-opt it as their own, when really just about everything coming from Europe is leftist in some way. Perhaps the United States will come back with a stronger brand that is more its own rather than an individualist regurgitation of ultra Marxism.

"I don't see what the big deal is with identifying as a left anarchist. So far those against it have failed to offer a direction that will change things"

maybe realise that not everyone wants to "change things" (engineer society), and being against 'the left' does not make one 'of the right'.

And yeah, let's really hope and pray that the good ole US of A comes through with the goods and saves all you morons from having to think for yourselves

"change things" :D

are you fucking shitting me? 150+ years of leftist 'anarchism' with no success and you can still keep a straight face when you talk about "changing things" ???


Hums.. "Changing things" means a lot of different things, including "changing/creating a situation or social relation", which doesn't mean engineering at all. The Left wants to change society for the better. That's true and it's equally true that this intent has been dragging anarchists behind for a long time, where they should rather devote energies creating situations that are both destabilizing social order and liberating to the living.

You're getting confused in the rhetorical domain, and this may possibly turn you into a pro-status quo knee-jerk.

"So far those against it have failed to offer a direction that will change things"

depends on what "things" you are talking about changing, no? if, like most leftists, your goal is to change "society" into something fair and just and equal and all that good shit - ie, make everyone live the "correct" way - good fucking luck! if, on the other hand, your goal is to change your own life, and how you as an individual relate with other individuals, then many folks have changed things. for themselves. not for some abstraction called "society" (or the masses, or...), which supposedly does the right thing for everyone - when done "right".

fuck that stupid shit. fuck the left. fuck the right. fuck everyone that insists on placing themselves and others on some imaginary, one-dimensional spectrum.

This post reads "i don't understand concepts like 'change things' without the particular framing i'm used to."

Our linguistic orientation converts a continuum into nouns. Change, ongoing transformation is what we are and already are a part of. Ongoing, continually unfolding relations are all there are.

What do you mean by 'change' and 'things'?

as nietzsche pointed out, our big sagacity "natural Self" understands the world per our experiences in the continuing now while our little sagacity "ego-self" understands the world in terms of countless numbers of independently existing material entities and 'what these things do'.

if we believe that we, personally, are independently-existing things-in-ourselves, then we have to go to work to organize ourselves so that we can, as individuals and as collectives, support 'common purpose' that will enable us to survive, endure and prosper.

on the other hand, if we stick with our big sagacity, we cultivate amor fati and accept that we are not in control of what is continually unfolding in the now, and we let the 'epigenetic field of influence' [the relational dynamics that we are situationally included in], actualize our creative potentials and orchestrate and shape 'genetic expression'. that is, we accept that our 'situationism' is in a natural precedence over our 'intentionism' [we are not the slaves of an abstract 'future' and associated fears of what might happen to us and aspirations of what we might achieve]. situationist cultivating and sustaining of balance and harmony in the continuing now is how pre-literate 'primitive' man lived and lives [indigenous aboriginal 'traditionalists' living today, encourage their grandchildren to keep their 'big sagacity natural Self' in its natural precedence over their little sagacity 'ego-self' and accept 'mitakuye oyasin' that we are all relational forms in one transforming relational continuum.

instead of an 'intentionist theory of organization' as in the politics of the left [common purpose of the collective is in precedence over the individual purpose of its members] and the politics of the right [individual purpose of the members is in precedence over the 'common purpose' of the collective], .., 'indigenous anarchists', whose languages are 'timeless' [no concept of past and future, only earlier and later in the continuing now] put their actual experience in the continually unfolding 'now' in precedence over their scientific/literate counterparts' 'fears of undesired nasty futures' and/or 'lust for desired lavish futures' along with 'remorse for mistakes of the past' and 'pride for great performances of the past'.

clearly, both politicians of the left and politicians of the right have been together on their anthropo-egotism, perhaps deriving from religious belief traditions; e.g;

"“God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” – Genesis 1:28

with respect to organizing paradigms, ask yourself whether Europeans coming to settle on Turtle Island put situationism in precedence over intentionism or intentionism in precedence over situationism.

In treating on these relatively inverted organizing paradigms in ‘Design for Evolution’, Austrian-American physicist, systems scientist and evolutionary theorist, Erich Jantsch, compares these different 'organizing values' as are implied in ‘Robinson Crusoe’ (Daniel Defoe) and ‘Suzanne et la Pacifique’ (Jean Giraudoux). Both find themselves for the first time in the South Pacific and while Robin Crusoe’s behaviour is directed by his European knowledge, belief traditions, and cultural purpose (control) which he imposes on his new habitat to the extent he can, Suzanne lets the dynamics of the new habitat shape her diet, dress, dwelling, demeanor and, … her identity.

the little sagacity ego-self is clearly in precedence in Robinson's approach [he occupies and becomes a parasite of the habitat] while the big sagacity natural Self is clearly in precedence in Suzanne's approach [she puts herself in harmony with the epigenetic influences she is situationally included in and lets these actual, orchestrate and shape her genetic expression].

Bottom line: if one wants to discuss organization in general terms and not constrain it to two popular control based variants, then the discussion can move on to observe that political organizing approaches of left and right, as they are popularly practiced, both embody robinson crusoe 'intentionist over situationist' values, while the organizing approach of pre-literate, "primitive" peoples [e.g.'indigenous anarchists'] embodies suzanne's 'situationism over intentionism' [nietzschean amor fati] values.

the nostalgia/desire for 'rewilding' may draw from a desire to return to pre-literate situationism-in-precedence-over-intentionism organizing values [amor fati is liberation from the increasing overheads of trying to control the inherently uncontrollable].

our little sagacity ego-self tries to persuade us that the 'invariable' in our 'identity' as we find ourselves in many different situations is our 'intention' or 'purpose in life',... however, as 'situationist psychology' contended and as established in Zimbardo’s ‘prisoners and guards’ and Milgram’s ‘obedience to authority’ experiments, situation is in precedence over intention in shaping identity; i.e. in the case of the child-soldier-mass-killer, it takes a whole community [in which the individual is uniquely, situationally included] to 'raise a child-soldier'.

in understanding 'social organizing', therefore, the issue of whether to put situation [epigenetic inductive influence] in precedence over intention [genetic expression] is an important variant that goes beyond the differences of the politics of right and left, both of which have been based on putting intention before situation as all theory-driven organizing approaches do.

* * *

footnote: 'pre-literate' is not a pejorative adjective, but can mean 'acknowledging that the physical reality of our actual experience [of situational inclusion in a transforming-in-the-now relational continuum] is in a natural precedence over science/logic-based 'semantic realities' featuring notional 'independently-existing inhabitants' that reside, operate and interact in a habitat that is notionally independent of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it. i.e. when people adopt a political approach where one debates which past-present-future framed semantic reality [is Saddam a clear and present danger or is he not?] will be employed as the official [enforced] operative reality, the physical reality of our actual experience becomes the loose sheet flapping in the wind.

the physical reality is euphemistically labelled 'externalities' or 'side-effects' as if the semantic operative reality were 'more real' that the physical reality of our actual experience. the logical propositions "this pill will cure your headache" and "this military operation will remove Saddam" are inherently subjective and incomplete logical propositions which fail to capture the relational complexity of the physical reality of our actual experience [the manifestations of which we refer to as 'externalities' or 'side-effects'].

the organizing approach of the politics of left and right puts logic-based semantic reality into an unnatural precedence over the physical reality of our actual experience.

the organizing approach of anarchy as in 'indigenous anarchism' keeps the physical reality of our actual experience [per our intuition] in a natural precedence over semantic reality [per our logical proposition based reasoning].

Enough of the left-right spectrum. It's a completely nonsensical concept with no applicability in reality whatsoever.

Asking people how closely they associate their actual selves with a fucking line is just moronic, really. Especially when that line doesn't mean anything. Gawd.

It's moronic, though in a very ordinary way. Meaning that it is a common tendency in society. What anarchists should seek to do, besides attacking the system and developing vital infrastructure is to be departing themselves always further away from the mediocre behavioral routines inculcated by society.

But who am I to believe anyone's gonna take me seriously and consider those ideas at that point... Let's keep the bookfairs running and smart phones enclosing your brains, you're all on the right track comrades keep it up!

one doesn't have to be a member of the cult of belief in binary thinking [regarding binaries as 'real' rather than as 'pragmatic idealizations'] to acknowledge that binary thinking is currently the dominant shaper of the Euro-American colonized global relational social dynamic.

Western colonizing powers since Thatcher and Reagan have revived and amplified the promotion of a worldview cast in terms of a fundamental struggle between good and evil. this depicts rebels that are pushing back against colonialism [aka 'terrorists'] as 'evil, guilty, offenders' and citizen-backers of global colonizer control as 'good, innocent, victims' of terrorist violence. such binary thinking [the constructing of binary-based 'semantic reality'] is a dominant shaping influence on today's life experience.

of course the colonizers, who are increasingly on the receiving end of violence and destruction coming from pushback of the colonized, ... claim that the colonizing wars were 'in the past' [past and future is another 'binary'], these wars being decided in favour of the Euro-American colonizers ['win/lose decisions are another 'binary']. when wars are 'decided' and someone has 'surrendered' on behalf of the so-called 'losers', the terms of surrender prohibit further violence on the part of 'the losers' [prohibition comes from another binary; allowed, not allowed].

this whole moronic game play is captured in 'semantic realities' built from the subject-verb-predicate constructs of noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar based on the 'binary' of 'existence' or 'non-existence' of material entities [the birth/death binary]. noun-and-verb language is the means by which 'declarations of independence' are articulated/pronounced which testify to the persisting identity of the declared-to-exist thing-in-itself, granted by semantic rhetoric.

Thanks to the binary based tool of noun-and-verb language, it is possible to notionally [in 'semantic reality'] break up the inherently fluid world [the transforming relational continuum] into notional mutually exclusive stand-alone parts, using the binary dualism of 'space' and 'matter'. the ability to then semantically 'put things back together that language has, by its own defining powers, taken apart' and construct a new 'mechanical world', ... is called 'intelligence' and is regarded as a 'gift' or 'talent' of those things that use language to depict THEMSELVES as 'things-in-themselves' with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours.

thus the amazing 'cooperative organizing' of the things that language has broken down into a diverse multiplicity of independently existing things-in-themselves; i.e. species of plants and insects and animals, is explained away with this proud word 'intelligence'; i.e. the intelligence of plants explains THEIR construction of an ecosystem, ... an intelligence which scientists have not yet located the whereabouts of, within the plant, but know for sure 'is in there' since the plant is an 'independently existing material system'. given the binary logical truth of that proposition, the intelligence responsible for the amazing ecosystemic 'cooperative organizing', by definition, has to be operating from out of somewhere within the interior of the independent entities.

if the intelligence of the participants is not responsible for the amazing 'cooperative organiztion', then what the hell is? the only other option would seem to be to accept the modern physics view in which 'relations' are the basis of 'things' rather than vice versa which then sees 'things', as Mach, Bohm and Schroedinger saw them; i.e. as 'relational forms in a transforming relational continuum'. the 'amazing relational organizing' is in this case the source of the participants; i.e. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes 'genetic expression' (the emergence of relational forms) as in Lamarck's view of biotic organization.

meanwhile, the currently popular default of 'binary thinking based rhetoric' supplies Western believers with guidance for building their own 'independently-existing entities' called 'sovereign states' by way of a magic chant called a 'declaration of independence', after which the baptismal name of the newly created material entity can be used as a subject within subject-verb-predicate cause-effect constructs, and the actions and interactions of the newly created subjects, captured in a 'semantic reality' that becomes a de facto 'operative reality', take over from the physical reality of our actual experience of inclusion within a transforming relational continuum. instead of acknowledging the physical reality of our actual experience of living in a fluid universe, we substitute our semantic reality construction which has us [believing we are] living in a mechanical universe of interacting independent parts [one of which is 'us'], ... and behaving accordingly.

"every definition implies an axiom; that in which we affirm the existence of the object defined". -- John Stuart Mill

this is why it is so important to get losers in colonial wars to accept the 'declaration of surrender and loser status' signed by "their leader". that is, this is why the sovereign state concept was created, for its efficiency in seizing and maintaining 'control' of large areas of land populated by diverse varieties of peoples.

"The emergence of the sovereign state was … the necessary instrument of Europe’s colonial expansion.” -- Joseph Camilleri
"The notion of “absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original” is a definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. This “God died around the time of Machiavelli…. Sovereignty was … His earthly replacement.” -- Walker and Mendlovitz
"All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts, not only because of their historical development … but also because of their systematic structure". -- Jens Bartelson

imagine the boost in colonizing efficiency when the fighting power of a diverse multiplicity of tribes is consolidated in one big army with one commander-in-chief where everyone is bound by the 'binary' concept of 'win/lose', no more 'lone wolfs' and 'sleeper cells' and spontaneously self-incubating rebel bands, and the 'anarchy' that that would involve; ... instead, only whopping great slabs of terroritory to be 'won or lost' in a binary conflict called 'war' with a binary 'beginning' and 'ending'.

bottom line: -- the 'binary' of the politics of 'left' and 'right' is merely the tip of the moronic iceberg.

emile, your long-winded reply doesn't get at the heart of it

although not preferable, I can begin to udnerstand binary thinking when there is actually some difference between them. But the left-right political spectrum measures precisely nothing. There is nothing at either extreme that isn't found at the other. Both the 'far left' and the 'far right' are racist, both trade freedom for abstracts, both are collectivistic.

It is, therefore, a senseless division principally not because it is binary, but because it is completely wrong.

Other binaries are simplistic, this one is just plain wrong.

"It is, therefore, a senseless division principally not because it is binary, but because it is completely wrong."

in other words, it's useless because it poses as a binary, while not actually being binary.

so: Racism is associated with the far-right, yet it would be hard to find a more racist individual than Marx!

you are using binary logic to make your point;

"it is completely wrong"

you imply that your interpretation of left-right politics as "a senseless division" is 'right/true' while others' interpretations of left-right politics as 'binary' are 'wrong/false'.

you are employing 'binary thinking', ... and, no, i am not saying that 'i am right and you are wrong', i am saying that binary logic is inherently subjective and incomplete. you have something to say and i have something to say and the person who initially described left/right politics as binary and moronic has something to say. within any matrix of observations there are relations and from the matrix of relations arises 'coherencies' extractable by the viewer/listener. 'understanding' the observations or 'making sense of the observations' derives from the relational associations we use in bringing them into connective confluence.

in a relational world, it is important to include the tools of inquiry in the inquiry. that means including the different observational tools such as you, myself and the others. if you omit the tools of inquiry in the inquiry, then you are left debating about 'the notional true objective reality out there', as if there were no need to include the tools of inquiry (our individual interpretive techniques and situational perspectives) in the 'out there' so as to included the 'in here'. however, if you want to better understand the physical reality of our actual experience [in which there are plenty of unresolved differences in our respective understandings] then you would do better to not dismiss the views of others since such views orchestrate and shape their behaviours which are conditioning the dynamics of our common habitat which are at the same time conditioning the dynamics of we-the-inhabitants.

in which case, it could matter less whether 'you are right or wrong' since it is the variety of views that people hold as to what is right or wrong, that shape their behaviours and relational interactions with one another and with the dynamics of the common habitat in which we share inclusion.

'politics' is the art of convincing others of the correctness of a particular view, and this is done by rallying people around the views (revising them and compromising them as needed since the size and strength and power of a view-following collective is more exciting to the politician than the particulars of the rallying views ['let's make america great again' or 'let's gather together an elephant sized following that i can ride on') until one has rallied the largest or strongest group of political followers. the method of politics-based organizing is thus appropriately described by Lafontaine as follows;

"La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure"

what i was trying to share in my comment was a perspective on how binary thinking permeates our global social dynamic and generates incoherence. it was not my focus to debate an isolated issue in terms of its objective truth or falsehood; in fact, that is i what i see as the problem; i.e. Western civilization raises us as people who live and die by the two-edged sword of binary logic applied to single issues [Nietzsche's 'problem with Socrates]. discord over whether it is proper to open our boiled eggs on the roundy or pointy ends can topside intuitive desire to live together in harmony.

My type, i.e. Existentialist Nihilists, have it over all left-right binary tainted zietgeists. There is only really the Now!


to elaborate, conceiving of anarchy/anarchism as a concept that has no place in the left/right spectrum actively helped me understand it as a teenager, in addition to hyping the concepts as new and exciting. i think it's accurate to reject left and right and also strategic.

I think there is a left/right spectrum on the libertarian side of the field, as with the authoritarian side. The libertarian side either wants to limit or remove authoritarian expressions of power. The left/right field has more to do with which social castes are being empowered, rather than how. The left wants to empower the poor and middle class as employee, while the right wants to empower the rich and the middle class as employer. The right can be just as libertarian as the left, but they express it differently, with the left favoring federations and voluntary groups while the right favors family and traditional groups.

Only authoritarians most closely allied with the center seek the empowerment of corporations. This is carried through on the authoritarian right and authoritarian left. The libertarian aspects, on almost all fronts, sees corporations as they exist as an authoritarian institution.

Notions of the Left and Right change periodically, but it doesn't really matter ...they're just terms for people to use instead of discussing the details of history. The 13 colonies turned into a rebellion against the British Monarchy and the first party was the Federalist Party... then there were Whigs, Democrats, Republicans there's all sorts of shit: Green, Libertarian, Communist, etc. So who was on the Left or the Right in those times? Were the Federalists on the Right or the Left ...and what about those anti-Federalists? What about the Best Party? And those who have never had parties... just non-parliamentary associations?

I'd rather phrase questions in terms of: How do you want to interact with the Progressive Democrat NGOs or this or that Marxist organization or Black Lives Matter. It won't kill anyone to partake of some specificity.

That said, the Left as it is understood doesn't include many sorts I appreciate ...never has. They're all cop lovers. Fuck them.

The founding fathers were capitalists.

tell me more.

Over the next decade, anarchism will popularly be known as a right-wing movement. The right dominates all aspects of contemporary society. It's concerns now are tying up the loose ends. Domination will be complete.

Surely not if Drumpf gets elected.

There is nothing certain, ever, with the future, Dr. Nostradamus, ok?

Donald Trump is an anarchist.

As Mussolini's character says in 'Salo': "we fascists are the only true anarchists"

Trump is more anarchic than 95% of jokers on this forum

*cue defensive knee-jerk responses*

American christian fundamentalists = Daesh.

Anarchism stands for nothing. It is a concept with no substance. Anyone can use it for any purpose. There are no restrictions or boundaries. Anarchism is everything and nothing.

"Embrace nothingness." - Lisa Simpson

Why do so few people on this site seem to be aware of the Political Compass model of politics?

Obviously left and right are useless if you see them as opposite poles on a straight line. But if seen as the X-axis on a grid, signifying "pro-egalitarian vs anti-egalitarian", then they become useful when considered in relation to the Y-axis of authoritarian and libertarian (or centralist and decentralist if you prefer).

And anarchism most comfortably fits in the libertarian/left camp, being both pro-freedom and pro-equality.

Not "post-left" anarchy though. That might actually belong in the libertarian/right quadrant, owing to its fanatical hyper-individualism leading to deeply anti-egalitarian conclusions.

Personally, I always describe anarchism to newcomers as "decentralist left" and never "left" without qualification. I loathe any attempts by Marxists or social democrats to get anarchists to identify as some kind of "wider left". It's clear that anarchists have nothing in common with authoritarians on the left, and little in common with statist paternalists.

Because it's not that simple. The political compass, no matter where the points lie on it, is a series of reified abstracts that cannot get at the nuance of individual humans. It is no less useless than right and left on a straight line.

Oh I'm sure we're all aware of these, but some like me aren't stupid enough to believe it actually genuinely orients people in the real world (not Reddit or Tumblr political discussions).

Only "grid" I know to be for real is the one of Robert K. Merton's Deviance Typology, that is independent from any political orientation, yet can include the orientation towards Power, its hierarchies and related drive for power-accumulation.

Ideologies are just spooks.

"Not "post-left" anarchy though. That might actually belong in the libertarian/right quadrant, owing to its fanatical hyper-individualism leading to deeply anti-egalitarian conclusions"

yet another pathetic leftist mis-interpretation of "post-left anarchy". go back to your political compass, where you can cavort with with others who choose to remain within a political grid. i'll avoid such limiting and prescriptive categorizations, thank you very much.

The political grid is the best way to measure the 4 directions of politics. Also they are right wing anarchists. The post-leftists are very similar to the Libertarian Party wack-os, both in appearance and in what they want to emphasize in life. They have no practical direction, just maximalist dreamers. I support practical individualism that favors independence and choosing to work with the institutions that move our lives forward. Vote union!

Politics only has four directions? What is this, Flatland we're living in? It must be nice to have your entire worldview served up to you on a silver platter. Really saves on unnecessary thinking.

I'm glad my way of thinking isn't as simple as yours. Two directions or rejecting two directions is far more simplistic and is like McDonalds served in a bag. The levels of complexity you embrace has as broad a range as binary.

Calm down and have yourself a juicebox, son. Trust me, you'll feel better.

It's obvious that for a platformist...

"The post-leftists are very similar to the Libertarian Party wack-os, both in appearance and in what they want to emphasize in life."

Show me how.

...You can't, because conflating the two shows little grasp of either.

"The political grid is the best way to measure the 4 directions of politics."

perhaps so. you seem intent on constraining politics to 4 directions, and you completely erroneously try to place anarchy on that political scale. stop already. you are a politician. this anarchist is not.

Bullshit. Running around naked with balls showing. Stupid hats and shirts with dumb sayings on them. Dorky glasses and dumb bow ties. LPs and PLs are two sides the same coin.

Yeah like identity politicians and identitarian fascists.

It all boils down to class. Those focused on identity are fighting on right wing turf, which is why everything is so fucked about it. Why the left is even involved with social categories is perhaps one of the reasons it is difficult to find ground. Those that want reason and rationality shouldn't be arguing in defense of non-existent things like race and gender. To overcome identity is to de-emphasize its impact in your life and find common union with like minded or not so like minded individuals as you desire. Ally with those with an independent spirit and in favor of the types of institutions you find common purpose with. Vote union!

Class is essentially an identity structure as well. Class ONLY exists because of status. Simply look at the adoring masses who come out to a royalty rally. Stirner certainly suggested union of sorts but not that kind of union(even though there were some Scottish syndicalists who had the wrong idea of what he meant by union).

Dunbar and affinity is what anarchic relations are.

"Class is essentially an identity structure as well."

yep. it's interesting how many "class struggle" anarchists are incapable of seeing that.

I'll 2nd that.

I'll scoff and snidely point out that people who've experienced real poverty would never suggest it's an "identity structure".
It's about your ability to meet your basic needs of daily life first, only becomes about status once you've managed to climb halfway up the pyramid (you fucking yuppies)

When one identifies with a group based on some criteria - be it gender, skin color, income level, etc - that becomes an identity structure of sorts. Poverty sucks, that's where I live, but I do not identify with some group called "poor people" or the proletariat or whatever the fuck. That's the difference.

It doesn't matter whether you "identify" because it's an objective fact that you're poor (Me too). Gender and race tend to fall apart under real scrutiny because they're abstract concepts but poverty is a reality of scarcity of resources. Although some resource scarcity is artificial in the modern world, the people with guns who enforce it are certainly real and for much of humanity, there's literally not enough food, drinking water or housing. Full stop.

What's more, I feel like a lot of this "spook" rhetoric can only be generated by people who are well insulated from this reality. They have the luxury of a padded bubble where they can philosophize themselves in circles. Not saying that's you but I've had way too many of these conversations online.

" it's an objective fact that you're poor"

not at all. that is only the case when viewed through the economic lens that claims to define such terms for all. i live in what most folks would call abject poverty. yet i do not feel "poor" at all; on the contrary, my intentional and somewhat successful efforts to distance myself from the mass society that can only see economics, and create my own life on my own terms as much as possible, makes me far "richer" and - most importantly - FREEer than most anyone i know.

your perspective is trapped, let it free.

to add to the above ^^^:

being "poor" is just as much an abstraction as being "black" or being "male". tell michael brown that his black skin is just an abstraction. some people choose to turn (some) abstractions into concrete reality. cops and blm do it for skin color; feminists do it for gender; capitalists, communists, and all who - consciously or not - fall into line behind that economic way of thinking, do it for economic class (rich and poor). i try not to do it at all. it's all a matter of context. but calling one type of externally driven (group) identity abstract and another not is just rationalizing one's own choices in that realm.

No it doesn't. Class exists because of exploited labor. Status is rooted in material power.

The only "material power" is something that flows through overhead powerlines and electric wires. Or flows of energy and matter in the universe in general. Power, beyond that, is always a reified social construct. There is power only because there is dependency and there are followers.

There is no right-wing anarchism. Anarchism has always and will always be a left-wing movement. Even the American strand of individualist-anarchism which was popularized in the 19th century and still exists as a minority position in anarchism today was socialist, in that the means of production, especially land, was to be held in common by society, and therefore was itself left-wing in nature. The essential aspects that define anarchism are anti-capitalism and anti-statism, and these have long been identified with the political left. Of course not all left-wingers are anarchists but all anarchist are left-wingers. On the other hand, the political right is defined by conservative and reactionary social and political potions, such as adherence to traditional gender binaries, racism, and militaristic jingoism that are hostile to and irreconcilable with the anti-sexist, anti-racist, and working-class internationalism of anarchism.

While anarchist activists and organizers might have to contend; and in a tactful way at that, with right-wing beliefs and attitudes among the less politicized working-classes in the mass organizations there is no reason that we need to put up with right-wing beliefs and attitudes in our smaller affinity groups and political organizations. No sexist, racist, or nationalist should be a member of an anarchist political organization.

Its funny how you excluded femwhinists out of your analysis of post 60s anarchist tendencies, in other words your avoidance of the sublime recuperation which femwhinism has brought to the table, sorta like keeping (anal)ysis realism out of the gay conversation, heavy denial complexes relating to the leftist liberal narrative, very disappointing. Pure anarchism may allow for the physiological realities of biological facst to be part of their agenda.

*facts* not facst nor fascist.

The radical feminists I've known would physically attack stab you, possibly on-the-spot, just for saying "femwhinist", so it's funny you're putting your macho superstrength behind the safety of a keyboard and basement to do just that.

Anarchy is something that takes off without ideological wings of any kind.

The left in it's original forms stood against royalty, slavery and regimentation.
Generations of corrupted and degenerated thinking lead us to the state we are now.
There are important strains within leftist thought and the desire to rectify past wrongs is still there in some places. All leftish parties suffer from delusions of course and Marxism is highly suspect. Bakunin has to be considered as leftist and Kropotkin, in his "Appeal to the Young" talked about socialists , saying, in effect "join us", although not socialist parties.
So I stand as one of the Left while rejecting the organized "left" parties.

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.