30 replies »

  1. There are many contradictions in the hyphenated forms of anarchism. See my long but still incomplete survey of them and their very opposite kinds of anarchism at http://www.butterbach.net – Alas, most anarchists have so far failed to examined these contradictions and to try to solve them in voluntary and tolerant ways. They haven’t even tried to make this survey much more complete. Thus they demonstrated their mere sectarianism and lack of sufficient interest in all anarchist ideas and practices. As a result I havn’t even tried myself to complete this survey somewhat with further such entries that have accumulated in my files over the last few years. They have often been much more intolerant and prejudiced towards each other than religious sectarians are by now. Thus, as an individualist anarchist and panarchist, I have lost my respect and interest for most of them.

  2. Well, we’re working on that here. I actually think that many of the ideas that you promote, John, along with some other thinkers with similar views, will be the next stage in the evolution of anarchist thought.

    It began with classical anarchism, then became neo-anarchism (modern left anarchism). Now in North American anarcho-capitalism seems to have eclipsed left-anarchism. Panarchism and other similar concepts will likely be the next stage.

  3. Mate, you’re not an anarchist. Anarchism is and always was of the left. You can’t say you’tre against authority but for private ownership of the means of production, private security etc. anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

    BTW The meme at the top is not an anarchist position. The second image is from a T shirt that’s supposed to be a joke.

  4. It looks as if the left-wing anti-capitalist anarchist movement is subsiding, at least in North America, and that it is being eclipsed by anarcho-capitalism. Increasingly, when I come across a new anarchist website, social media outlet, youtube channel, or activist group more often than not it’s an an-cap group. I’ve discussed this with other knowledgeable and active anarchists and they tend to agree with me.

    The problem is that the left anti-capitalist anarchists have made themselves so repellent they’ve alienated anyone who is not a hysterical “social justice warrior” and the ones that are left spend all their time pointing the finger at each other over who is more racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, privileged, etc. I always thought that stuff would the death knell of “second wave anarchism” (the term I use for the neo-anarchism that emerged out of the New Left as opposed to classical anarchism). That’s why I called for a purge of SJW types some years ago,i.e. for the purpose of rescuing the good name of anarchism. But it looks like the SJWs are effectively purging themselves, which is a necessary occurrence and long overdue.

    Regrettably, however, the anarcho-capitalist insurgency is throwing the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting much that is valid in the left-anarchist critique of capitalism, and in other areas as well. They’re rejecting the message in large part, I think, because they don’t like the messenger. In fact, one of the unfortunate impacts that the SJWs have had is to push many people that were originally interested in anarchism (of some kind) towards the right, where they have embraced mere bourgeois conservative apologetics, social conservatism, neo-reaction, or even fascism in some instances. I think this is a regrettable overreaction to SJWism, just as SJWism may be a regrettable overreaction against the social conservatism of past times. Hopefully, all of this will subside over time.

    The main problem I see is that too many anarchists, quasi-anarchists, anarchist sympathizers and former anarchists are allowing themselves to be sucked into mainstream discourse, i.e. the whole “red/blue” divide that merely reflects competing wings of the ruling class that anarchist revolutionaries should want nothing to with.

    I am very pleased to see the work of folks like Joe Kopsick and Will Schnack who I believe represent the next stage in the evolution of anarchist thought.

    http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-road-to-panarchy.html

    It seemed like left-libertarianism was evolving in such a direction some years ago, which was the reason for my original interest in them, until they were essentially hijacked by proto-SJWs. Meanwhile, the Ron Paul thing came along, and had the effect of serving as a gateway drug that brought many new people through mainstream libertarianism towards anarchism, and then they started veering off into either SJWism on the Left or neo-reaction on the Right. On one hand the growth of anarchism into a much larger milieu has been great to watch, even if there have been plenty of potholes many people have fallen into along the way. On the other hand, there is still a lot of growth that needs to be done.

    • “In fact, one of the unfortunate impacts that the SJWs have had is to push many people that were originally interested in anarchism (of some kind) towards the right, where they have embraced mere bourgeois conservative apologetics, social conservatism, neo-reaction, or even fascism in some instances.”

      Didn’t you actually post an article where someone said SJWs are creating new fascists?

    • “Regrettably, however, the anarcho-capitalist insurgency is throwing the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting much that is valid in the left-anarchist critique of capitalism, and in other areas as well.”

      ” I think this is a regrettable overreaction to SJWism, just as SJWism may be a regrettable overreaction against the social conservatism of past times. ”

      I think a lot of people would be more willing to accept elements of the anti-capitalist argument and make compromises if the left abandoned its radical social values. For example of a compromise I would be willing to compromise on economic positions if they left would do so on social issues. A classic example of this would be William Jennings Bryan who was socially conservative and economically leftist. While I don’t agree with all of Bryan’s economic positions I don’t value economics as much as other things.

      Thought I think your and I both agree on economics with Chesterton and Belloc.

        • In the states it is a short hand for all the left wing social values, feminism, homosexuality, abortion, contraception, white hating, pro-immigration etc. Admittadly most of these values are quite new to anarchism. Essentially a short hand the new cultural paradigm after the 1960s. Proudhon could be considered a misogynist by the left and Bakunin was an anti-Semite.

          • Don’t forget that fact that Emma Goldman was anti-abortion and pro-birth control. In fact, she was an early example of those who support birth control and oppose abortion. Emma Goldman said that abortion brings misery. I prefer Bakunin over Hitler and Stalin anyday. I really like Proudhon as well as Benjamin Tucker and Josiah Warren.

          • Did you know that there’s a growing number of Left-wing nonreligious Pro-lifers, I’m of those folks, and there’s also a rise of pro-life feminism, which I view as a wonderful precious thing that’s actually been around for centuries.

    • “It looks as if the left-wing anti-capitalist anarchist movement is subsiding, at least in North America, and that it is being eclipsed by anarcho-capitalism.”

      That certainly isn’t the case in Europe where ‘anarcho’ capitalism doesn’t exist, at least outside of cyberspace. Pretty much every anarchist organisation or group in Europe falls into the Anarcho Communist or Anarcho Syndicalist categories.

      • “That certainly isn’t the case in Europe where ‘anarcho’ capitalism doesn’t exist, at least outside of cyberspace. Pretty much every anarchist organisation or group in Europe falls into the Anarcho Communist or Anarcho Syndicalist categories.”

        Keith is talking about the US context. The problem here is that since Godwin there have been two strains of anarchism Anglo-American anarchism and continental anarchism. Tucker, Spooner, Warren and Thoreau were all for private property and OK with free markets. In Europe people like Bakunin and Kropotkin and others were more anti-market. The american context is as old as the European one it is just different. Also Europe does have an individualist strand of anarchism know as Illegalism or Egoism founded by Max Stirner.

        • Oh I know the history of anarchism, I am a 39 year old anarchist after all, I’m just saying anarcho-capitalism isn’t a thing over here. One guy who I think obviously read a few ancap websites turned up to a meeting once but obviously it wasn’t what he was he was looking for. I also met an individualist once, he came to a conference I attended in Vienna. He was okay I guess. But yeah, the overwhelming majority of active anarchists in Europe are Libertarian Communists.

          On the other thing, yeah, that’s kind of what I thought you meant by SJW but had to ask. Hmmm… You know, anarchism is a philosophy of human liberation, of opposition to hierarchy in all it’s forms so fighting for LGBT rights, for women’s equality, against racism go hand in hand with the fight against capitalism and the state. They’re all hierarchies that have to be broken. You can’t pick and chose which hierarchies you want to break and call yourself an anarchist in my book, that’s liberalism.

          • ” You can’t pick and chose which hierarchies you want to break and call yourself an anarchist in my book, that’s liberalism.”

            Well I cannot speak for Keith, but I am neither a liberal nor an anarchist, so its neither here nor there for me. That’s just the problem ‘in your book’. No one has magisterial authority to define what anarchism is, so why should I take your definition? Someone else’s might be just as good or better.

    • Great overview, I agree. It’s a matter of over reaction, and overreaction is one of the main weaknesses of men, the nodal point on which the humanity have to work to evolve. I noted the use of the label Sjv, to make some cynical mockery of the concept of social justice, which is evidently needed and should be a consequence of the liberation. Some people, though, seriously make a good work on making it appear a caricature, posing incredibly histerical, sometimes formally fixated on language subtlety. To the point I almost suspect a conspiracy ;).
      In the typical argument, the other side is often a caricature as well, appearing cynical, callous and anempathic, almost taking pleasure on demolishing the whole tematic :D.
      The idea of social justice is an echoe of the illumisitic slogan libertè egalitè and fraternitè, but ok, we know the counterargument, the contraddiction of French revolution, they were masons, it’s part of the conspiracy etc, so it must be wrong :).
      I’d see the compromise between anti and pro capitalism, in voluntary mutualism. Both capitalism and communism have some values (self improvement and cooperation – equality) and some excesses inside them, but I can only see a path toward anarcho-libertarianism through some form of organized cooperation and mutualism. Voluntary, of course.
      Looks like someone sort of want to exchange capitalism criticism if they are going to drop, dial down or downright make without personal emancipation, personal freedom and civil conquers and submit to traditional values. I wonder how this would be with anti statism. I mean tradiyional values can be practiced personally, promoted, I have nothing against it, but not imposed.
      Yeah I guess the only way they can be imposed in a non statist contest is peer pressure, ostracism, boycotting or voluntary police, which arguably would be a treatment reserved to crimes or really aggravating behaviours, like cars left in the way of traffic, which would arguably break non aggressive principle needing intervention. Of course if you consider something a crime, like pedophilia, that applies too, but i’m afraid, if for your mileage a given thing against a moral code is a crime as well, would be no different in your eyes.
      Though that I know, only very few people consider lgbt orientations a crime, luckily, at most a sin, depending on your belief :). It’s one of the main reasons people fear the Shariah, conservatives included.
      The main accuse of “non conformistic” behaviours is that of atomizing the society, so I guess if the society is solid you have no excuse to attack lgbt, but it’s still stupid, imho, the idea of them as cause or concause, symptom of decline, just because it’s now more mainstream and associated with corporative power agenda, for example the European Community, which mainly promote an ultracapitalist debt based economy (yeah it would need a separate tractation, sorry for the sweeping label and simplification here ^_^) but you know a broken clock shows the right time twice a day or even Mussolini or Stalin did something good.
      Predation and hypercompetition, absence of community, or, if you value competition and economic liberty more than personal and/or sexual freedom (I read that’s a thing), corruption state oppression existed and exist in states with very normative traditional structures as well.
      About Bakunin view, dunno, maybe a bit biased but http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-anarchism-a-history-of-fighting-for-women-s-freedom .
      But how many people at that time still believed women were mainly emotional and intellectually impaired? Voltaire did, to some extent, alternated to some more emancipating visions.
      Depending on the time, great scientists and philosophers were geocentrist, some that the Earth was flat, Galileo in his tractations about inertia and gravity didn’t know abut universal gravitation. But that would not make them right in their beliefs of then.
      If one’s views are really conditioned this way and is strongly determinted against such personal non traditional behaviours and can’t reconcile with their existence and don’t accept trying to change them through ideas, preaching, persuasion, but without forcing them, that’s where the idea of separate communities for irreconciliable values arises, I’d still wonder about th borders then and if authoritarian valued non state community would resist the urge to invade more libertarian ones in an access of sudden moral zealousness :).
      Jk, i think not.

    • As a Left-libertarian, a Mutualist, and an Individualist Anarchist who despises both the SJW Illiberal Fake-Left alongside the rightwing neo-reactionary scumbags, we badly need Mutualism back more than ever. I’m glad that Kevin Carson tried the best he can to bring back mutualism, but he’s not enough. He’s still awesome, but just not perfect, since he’s been misguided on the sociocultural stuff.

      • Carson’s work in economics is fantastic. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Interestingly, ATS was the first site to host Carson’s work years ago. Eventually, we parted company when he started moving over to the SJW scene while I became involved with the early alt-right (before it degenerated to its present level). Although my approach to the alt-right was always more collaborative than ideological, while he seemed to buy into the actual SJW ideology.

        • It’s such a bummer that most of our Libertarian Left C4SS allies and comrades have been misguided on the sociocultural issues. Have you Jason Lee Byas’ C4SS articles calling Antifa’s POS tactics. I also heard that Antifa is not even anarchist. It has nothing to do with anarchism. It was originally created by the late Weimar-era German Communist Party. Here’s some evidence: https://www.bitchute.com/video/IoymEzYTxAJo/

        • Just so you know that my sociocultural views are pretty diverse and beyond the traditional binary politics junk. I always hate traditional binary politics. That’s I’m happy for the political compass.

        • I have also talked to Kevin Carson on Twitter last year, he told me in an email that he finds me very overwhelming to talk with, and he didn’t mean to block me. I won’t ever accuse him of censorship, cause I think that’s being dishonest.
          It’s great to talk to you.

  5. “You know, anarchism is a philosophy of human liberation”

    Was that before or after it under Mahkno it raped and murdered Mennonite settlers and Jews or before or after the CNT murdered monks and nuns and looted and desecrated monasteries? That is what anarchists say but they are just fine with oppressing people who disagree with them as seen in Russia and Spain. A harrowing account of anarchist tyranny can be found in Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” Where the petite bourgeois and alleged ‘collaborators’ are driven of a cliff to their death. Given that Hemmingway was sympathetic to the CNT I think it was very honest of him to give an account of that in his novel.

    “of opposition to hierarchy in all it’s forms so fighting for LGBT rights”

    That’s like saying murders, thieves, pedophiles and rapists are oppressed. An LGBTQ is no more oppressed than a thief is oppressed.

    “of opposition to hierarchy in all it’s forms so fighting for LGBT rights, for women’s equality, against racism go hand in hand with the fight against capitalism and the state.”

    Again that is not true. Prouhdon and Bakunin would be called fascists today by antifa if they discussed their views about women and Jews. Including queers and social misfits is not what original anarchism was about. Prouhdon and Bakunin did not fight for LGBTQ rights or campaign for vegan-ism. I agree that anti-capitalism and feminism were parts of original anarchism, but not this post 1960s stuff.

  6. “Are you really comparing lbgt with thieves?”

    Yes they are in the same category as thieves. They certainly commit a crime against nature if nothing else.

    Besides without a moral foundation for judgment why should they not?

    In any society where homosexuality is accepted so is pedophilia. See ancient Athens, Sparta and Rome. Unless a society wants molestation of minors, those people should stay in the closet.

    • Pedophilia was not all that accepted in Rome and other societies like this current one are similar in that regard. When you look at the entire human record anthropologically, you will see things all over the map including accepted pedophilia but non accepted homosexuality.

      Most of history starts sex at pubescence which would be my marker. Also what ere these ‘crimes against nature’ that you speak of? What crime what nature? We’re monkeys who occasionally that have hallucinated morality into existence. The simple fact is that as Nietzsche says, an action in and of itself has no value. It all comes down to preferences. I happen to prefer a sexual bohemian binormative reality.

  7. “They are consenting adult people, I don’t see the consequenciality, sorry.”

    And my what magical alchemy does consent render all such acts legal? There is no logical reason why consent in the abstract should render anything legal, and I doubt you could prove other wise. Consent is an act of faith and secular mantra, like the vedic mantras it has no power accept in the mind of the believer.

    Its not between consenting adults here: http://www.tradyouth.org/2015/09/the-majority-of-homosexuals-are-spreading-hiv-on-purpose-and-its-being-covered-up/

    “Pedophilia was not all that accepted in Rome and other societies like this current one are similar in that regard. When you look at the entire human record anthropologically, you will see things all over the map including accepted pedophilia but non accepted homosexuality.”

    Lets look at what I am not saying. If we have two variables homosexuality and pedophilia we have four possible combinations (1) a society that endorses homosexuality and pedophilia, (2) a society that endorses homosexuality, but not pedophilia, (3) a society that dose not endorse homosexuality but does endorse pedophilia and (4) a society that does not endorse homosexuality and does not endorse pedophilia.

    I am saying when when homosexuality is tolerated pederasty is normalized (1), (2) is logically possible but not evidenced sufficiently in history. I agree with you that there is non-homosexual pederasty (3), I never doubted that. I don’t deny (1), (2) or (4), but what I am saying is that pederasty is far more likely ceteris paribus if homosexuality is normalized and Ancient Greece and Rome bear that out.

    “Also what ere these ‘crimes against nature’ that you speak of?”

    Read up on Natural Law. Aquinas is a good start. Or here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#NatLaw here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/ and here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/

    “We’re monkeys who occasionally that have hallucinated morality into existence.”

    First prove it.

    Second, if you don’t believe in a higher moral law (by admission you don’t) then there is no reason why you should care if homosexuals are oppressed. If your right there is no possible reason to argue against discrimination of homosexual behavior and if I am right there is no reason they should protected.

    The funny thing is I’ve really never met a real Nietzschian for no matter how they argue morality does not exist they argue for the moral legitimacy of sodomy and other socially destructive societies.

Leave a Reply