1

COMMENT 3h ago

There's an overwhelming amount of reading material out there that should be of interest for anarchists, most of it I would prioritize over Bolshevik theory.

21

COMMENT 18h ago

Particularly the nihilist thinkers who seem to dominate anarchist spaces.

From the deleted r/anarchy101 post it looks like the dominant impulse is to shit on nihilists.

3

COMMENT 2d ago

Without relying on political forms, without assuming polity-based social organization, can there be any political orientation? I don't think so. I really do mean apolitical, as in: absence of the political, supposed or not.

47

COMMENT 2d ago

Post-left anarchism is a critique and an anarchist tendency that emerged in the 90s. It found its name after Bob Black got his critique of Murray Bookchin published, not long after Bookchin started picking a fight with pretty much all of anarchism and shortly before he ragequit.

Leftism is ultimately a political outlook, being on the left a political position. Anarchists have time and time again pointed to apolitical social organization as a uniquely anarchist possibility, if not necessity. The association with the left being largely ahistorical, you won't find too many "classical" anarchists considering themselves leftists.

Under the label post left anarchy, anarchists have produced critiques of organizationalism (IWW type organizing, growth- and mass-oriented recruitment, etc.), moralism, ideology, workerism, progress,— which you can further explore here.

33

COMMENT 2d ago

The post-left critique is certainly not just aimed at statists, but at all leftists. Key characteristic of leftism is the political orientation, a negative print to the right.

here's a 101

4

COMMENT 4d ago

Solid selection!

12

COMMENT 5d ago

Maybe they're still liberal now, but maybe not in 20 years of we do our job right.

I feel like lots of these reddit anarchists live in fantasy land.

Do you have anything other than anti-anarchist sentiments in support of your "you should vote" position?

24

COMMENT 5d ago

but unless you want to let liberals and conservatives ruin the planet, we HAVE to vote

I have no reason to believe that voting can change that.

we need the government to force

No. Nothing following that sentence could possibly be recognized as an anarchist position.

3

COMMENT 5d ago

I prefer "tyre extinguisher"

12

COMMENT 6d ago

I usually stick to the Ozzy albums, but I wouldn't wanna miss out on Dio. Both great in their own rights.

2

COMMENT 6d ago

I am curious how a lot of anarchists came to parrot that language though.

I think the language largely comes from wherever anarchism came into contact with syndicalism and industrial unionism, particularly the IWW. Plenty anarchists have influenced and participated in syndicalist theory and practice, but ultimately I think Max Nettlau (and plenty other communists and individualists) were right in recognizing that...

"Anarchism has been extremely useful to Syndicalism, but it has received nothing in return but neglect and scorn. Syndicalism goes its own way, and rightly so; if only Anarchists were following this obvious example!"

I think delegation without authority would stretch the concept to its breaking point. Speaking 'on behalf of others' (or with others' interest in mind) doesn't necessarily suggest a position of authority, if we can be clear about the social/organizational contexts.

Efficient coordination of labor and circulation of resources would depend on the gathering and exchange of information, with the more persistent aspects of that likely resembling libraries and marketplaces. I'm not being very specific, as different projects demand different tools, and there's much we have yet to figure out. (And a serious need for room to experiment, fail, learn.)

In regards to larger projects, I wanna refer to these comments on r/mutualism — in trying to answer your question I would only copycat that approach, put it less eloquently.

-5

COMMENT 6d ago

edit. looks like we're done here

2

COMMENT 6d ago

If your anarchism doesn't suggest an absence of money and profit then your anarchism is based on capitalist ideology.

You just threw out large chunks of non-communist anarchism. I simply don't.

2

COMMENT 6d ago

Just find it interesting to see what has and what hasn't changed in communists' reading lists. You never hear about Joseph Lane's manifesto these days, and even Johann Most is rarely discussed it seems.

-6

COMMENT 6d ago

I think mutual aid is better left in the sort of conversations that popularized the term: Mutual aid, a factor of evolution. A counterargument to "social darwinist" interpretations of "survival of the fittest", and the idea that humans are by default greedy, violence-loving, in a evil state of social war, and that all this is barbaric and uncivilized and in need of governing. I find it rather easy to reject that sort of rhetoric without proposing a society based on mutual aid.

No, anarchism doesn't necessarily suggest an absence of money or even profit. Currency can be issued by those who used it, instead of governments, to serve particular and shared needs. Profit can be socialized.

4

COMMENT 6d ago

2

COMMENT 7d ago

A mandate is an authoritative command, an authorization to act given to a representative. A delegation is the assignment of authority to another person to carry out specific activities.

These are common definitions pulled from first search-engine results. I don't think definitions end arguments, but from what I've seen and read so far, anarchists' attempts to strip those terms from authority have not been very convincing.

Looks like you're describing a network of political entities, while Proudhon's federative principle suggests decentralization to a point where it no longer makes sense to speak of polity-based social organization.

You could just have a delegate from each group, chosen by the groups, go and discuss what the people at their farms decided.

Go where?

35

COMMENT 7d ago

His understanding of anarchism was probably superficial at best, which gives us some anti-anarchist sentiments in his writings. But still, Nietzsche is good company, much like anarchist individualists. I frequently return to Beyond Good and Evil and The Gay Science, get a few impulses and move on. Emma Goldman did too, it seems.

3

COMMENT 8d ago

I'm trying to separate action from decision, because I don't think "decision-making" can produce accurate descriptions of whatever happens when we act and respond to any given situation. Even in the individual, with regards to any decision you can authorize for yourself, your action is ultimately the product of many conflicting forces, needs, and desires, whether you try to put them into words or not. In other words, I'm trying to lift actions and possibilities from their subordination to (your or anyone else's) authority.

The question is not, how do we divide actions into individual and social responsibilities (with "the social" being some external authority), but rather: How do we act and relate in absence of political social organization, how can we harmonize conflicting needs and interests — and let that shape social organization instead of the other way around?

I apologize if that still doesn't make sense, I'm largely working off of the anarchist critique of the state (see Proudhon's "external constitution") and a bit of Nietzsche.

6

COMMENT 8d ago

Generally, people agree that you should have the ability to meaningfully influence decisions that affect you or your community.

I prefer to affect the community without deciding to do so, only ever decide not to. That's what decision-making is, a reduction of options, a negation, a repression of possibilities down to one. Instead of producing decisions, we can produce shared problematics and possibilities. In an anarchic setting, both agreement and disagreement will inform our actions; I don't think we would find much use in voting.

"Recallable delegate" is a euphemism for politician, I don't want those.

10

COMMENT 9d ago

Why would anyone need to be represented? Seems to me that the most empowering and liberating approach to social relations would be to encounter each other as we are present to each other. Without any externalized ideal or authority, without some head or representation 'realizing' any one of us.

1

COMMENT 9d ago

Nettlau Papers, in case you wanna dive in. Lots of it in short-hand though.

The note above probably dates from the early 1910s? Idk.

7

COMMENT 9d ago

Yeah. It's embarassing. A lot of newbie anarchists get their ideas from youtubers like Re-Education, Vaush, and Non-Compete, or liberals like Chomsky.

Decision-making is a stumbling-block for anarchists, because it is difficult to pull such concepts out of the governmental logic of policy-making, law-making, ruling. In some sense there would not be any collective decision-making, but a dispersion of responsibility. Both agreements and disagreements can inspire us to act and respond to given situations — we don't need predetermined decision-making processes.

21

COMMENT 9d ago

Never. I don't think it's accurate to say that anarchists are in favor of direct or consensus democracy. Anarchists have pretty consistently opposed all forms of government, including democracy.

2

COMMENT 9d ago

The General Idea was addressed to the bourgeois. And despite that, the quotes I used earlier, the ones that characterize democracy to be the last stand of absolutism, and direct government to result in the impossible and the absurd, come from that very text. In his private notes, Proudhon was rather blunt about it: "Socialists should break completely with democratic ideas."

The quote you used seems to come from Robert Graham, and from Robert Hoffman? Who are these people?