Which Way for Anarchists? Revolutionary Struggle or Moral Crusading?

His Goofiness William Gillis, Chairman of the Central Committee of the People’s Revolutionary Antifascist Transhumanist Party (Market-Anarchist), says building self-determination movements that people all over the world can actually relate to is the wrong way to go. No, what we need is a “Moral Majority of the Left” or a SJW version of the “Legion of Decency” conducting bluenose campaigns to sniff out moral deviance wherever it might arise. Apparently, His Goofiness is paralyzed by fear of the thought that many anarchists and libertarians actually agree with tendencies like ATS and N-AM, but just don’t realize it, or just can’t get past the “liberal” programming they’ve gotten from the “ideas and technology” industries.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, anarchists were the world’s largest revolutionary movement, both in the industrialized (or industrializing) West, in much of the East, and in the colonies, until the rise of Bolshevism, the emergence of the Soviet Union, the achievement of hegemony by Communism, and the rise of fascism as a counterpart to Communism by the revolutionary right.

The question is how can anarchists reclaim their legacy from a century ago. A global revolutionary movement against the global capitalist empire that regards capitalism, communism, and fascism as different points on the same triangle, that embraces the full range of anti-authoritarian philosophies and an infinite variety of “identities,” and that favors decentralized societies based on the principles of voluntary associations, voluntary communities, localism, federalism, and mutual aid would be the way to go.

10 replies »

  1. If you are serious about anarchism, you should be aware that prior to 1995, a stable anarchy was impossible. See David Friedman’s “Hard Problem”. I fixed that problem with my “Assassination Politics” essay.

    Also, “anarchy” isn’t “left”. “Anarchy” means lack of government. “Left” generally means a big, controlling government.

  2. Hey Keith, I need to point out that Jason Lee Byas called out William Gillis on C4SS, which is great, and I honestly think that William Gillis needs to step down from C4SS leadership. Jason Lee Byas should have been the C4SS leader and not William Gillis. Just my humble opinion.

  3. How is it that all of you who support anarchy always lean left? The left is all about statist goals and bigger government. Bernie Sanders is a Marxist that wants TOTAL STATE CONTROL. Hillary and the Obamas are real chummy with every billionaire except Trump.
    I’m not fond of the GOP either, but they don’t usually support TOTAL STATE CONTROL except for the Rockefeller globalists called RINOs.

    • That’s a very valid point. I made much the same objection to my very recent comment, above. I have pointed this out for many years. I believe that ‘the left’ has been pushing the ‘anarchist’ label because Communism and Socialism have been thoroughly discredited,. It’s so easy to add the “anarcho-” prefix to nonsense, in hope of giving it some sort of currency.
      In 1995-96, my breakthough made anarchism stable.
      It solved David Friedman’s “Hard Problem”.

  4. As someone who just recently adopted the philosophy, I think it’s simple. Anarchy is not a lack of government. It’s just the people taking place in a direct democracy where their voice is heard and not drowned out by corporate influence. Where the government is truly for the people because it is of the people. No hierarchy and no ruling class. Where everyone who works something gets an equal share of the benefits and one lone party doesn’t own the means of production so they do not have the ability to screw over everyone else needing a job. At least that’s how I see it.

Leave a Reply