academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressAn anarcho-syndicalist critique of “left-wing market anarchism.” It’s hilarious to see the uber-SJWs at C4SS being accused of being running dogs of capitalism and fascism. As a caveat, I used to belong to the WSA decades and was the local distributor for Ideas and Action.
By Greg R & Bryer Sousa
Ideas and Action
As of late, those of us based in the US, who attend to internet-based discussion threads as well as chat forums concerning ‘radical’ social, political, and economic philosophies may be taken aback by the relatively recent degree of attention that “Free Market Anti-Capitalism” is being afforded. These ideas are generally concentrated in two US based organizations: The Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) and The Alliance of the Libertarian Left (ALL). Upon surveying the range of intellectual influence that seems to be underpinning the river of thought engulfing ALL and C4SS, it becomes readily apparent that their ideological malfeasance stems from US-centric forces.
Attack the System
Categories: Anarchism/Anti-State, Economics/Class Relations
I still don’t understand how those at C4SS are “uber-sjws”? They still do have some great ideas, Keith, besides, some of the articles I plan on writing for ATS will be about Individualist Anarchist solutions to world problems. Also, what’re your thoughts on the Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade (now BAD Press)
Are you familiar with Joe Peacott?I’m just curious that’s all, heres the BAD Press link: bad-press.net
http://www.bad-press.net
C4SS epitomizes the types of anarchists who regard anarchism not so much as a struggle against the state or the ruling class as much as a means of facilitating cosmopolitanism, and whose worst fear is that someone might do something “un-progressive.” Case in point: https://attackthesystem.com/2020/05/20/autonomy-versus-secession-an-example-of-how-anarcho-progressives-fail/ They’re basically Blue Tribe loyalists first and anarchists second, just like a lot of right-libertarians are Red Tribe loyalists first and anarchists second (I mean, Walter Block, who really should know better, even endorsed Trump, for crying out loud). Many of these people are obviously sincere in their anarchism or libertarianism, but fighting the “culture war” always comes first.
There are three basic criteria by which I evaluate any political individual, organization, ideology, or institution. The first is where do they stand on US imperialism? My favorite presidential candidates since 2008 have been Ron Paul, Jill Stein, and Tulsi Gabbard for that reason. And I have worked with people from all over the political spectrum on that question, including some with profoundly un-libertarian views, e.g. Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Alt-Right, Khomeinists, etc. The second is where do they stand on overcriminalization? People from the far-left or libertarians are often good on prisoner rights, sex worker rights, and drug legalization, and those on the far right are pretty good on the 1st and 2nd amendment (at least for now, while totalitarian humanism is in power). The third issue is where do they stand on decentralization? Even if they are authoritarian conservatives or authoritarian progressives, decentralization provides a means of working around these differences.
Decentralization is clearly one of the most important things to me, Keith, & I sure bet that the Far-right will eventually become anti-free speech again, since they’ve always been historically associated with censorship & totalitarianism. I already know you’re an actual Left-Libettarian anarchist who’s very consistent, & that’s what make you brilliant, & Thank you for the email. Cheers & PEACEFUL ANARCHY FTW!
The “far-right” position on “free speech” has always been the same as that of the Communists: support for free speech only when out of power. They just (sometimes) disagree on what kind of speech they want to suppress. But it amounts to the same thing in practice. They both want to suppress “sedition” against whatever states they control, “blasphemy” and “heresy” against whatever ideological superstructure they maintain, and whatever they think constitutes an appropriate “moral order.”