25

The best part about anarchism is we don't glorify dead anarchists or try to deny their shitty actions / beliefs

Submitted by Stolenfromreddit in Anarchism

Everyone is imperfect and unfit to rule. Place one person or another above everyone else and their prejudices define the movement. Put a hundred anarchists together and the personal failings matter little. When Proudhon started writing, women couldn't vote or own land. This is no-longer the case thanks in a very literal sense to the efforts of anarchists like Goldman and de Cleyre. It doesn't matter if Proudhon was a misogynist. I'm not Proudhon. You're not Proudhon. We're not Proudhonists, we're anarchists.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

13

chaos wrote (edited )

While this is true for a lot of anarchists, others fall into the hero worship trap as much as liberals. See people fawning over Chomsky or Bookchin on reddit and immediately attacking anyone that disagrees with their hero in the slightest.

7

LucyParsonsRocks wrote (edited )

If we're being honest, Bookchin vocally despised anarchists and Chomsky is more of a libertarian socialist than an anarchist ("vote for Hillary, antifa is bad, some hierarchy is good").

I wouldn't describe their followers as anarchists, and in Bookchin's case they don't even claim to be anarchists since Bookchin started his Communalism™️ thing. He also made a living charging people to certify them as social ecologists... It was always about turning the anarchist movement into something he could own and monetize for him.

Another fun fact about Bookchin: He was close friends with Ayn Rand.

2

thyme wrote

I've always wondered, what's the major difference between libertarian socialism and social anarchism?

3

ziq wrote (edited )

When you call yourself an anarchist, you're taking a specific stance against hierarchy and authority. Libertarian socialists are more concerned with propagating their socialist ideology and specifically the optics of their ideology; they want to appeal to a wide audience by distancing themselves from the more radical aspects of anarchy. They also tend to discount the innate individualism of anarchy entirely.

3

Free_Bread wrote (edited )

I call myself a libertarian socialist and it has nothing to do with "distancing myself" from radical aspects of anarchy. I've just realized over time that while the vast majority of my viewpoints are inline with anarchism I'm not as dogmatic about opposing hierarchies / institutions. I reject sexism, racism, ableism, capitalism, and the bourgeois state, but I sometimes I think governing ourselves through directly democratic councils or having an institution to prevent groups from burning hydrocarbons wouldn't be such a bad thing. Then there's other times when the label of anarchism just seems to be limiting and I'd rather not confine myself to an ideology and would rather concern myself with the practical issues of how do we move beyond capitalism and towards a more free world

1

ziq wrote

But isn't libsoc a more restrictive label than anarchy since the only stipulation of anarchy is 'oppose authority', while libsoc is a specific economic model, social planning system, etc?

2

thyme wrote

Would that mean things like the IWW and CNT and such would be more libertarian socialist than anarchist, or do I misunderstand? Only asking because I've been curious about anarchist organization.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

The IWW is just a way to organize workers in a capitalist society. It's not specifically anarchist, but it's popular with anarchists, as well as other socialists.

CNT is specifically a collection of anarcho-syndicalist labor unions and it actively works to promote social anarchism.

2

arduinna wrote

It's not specifically anarchist, but it's popular with anarchists, as well as other socialists.

I wonder, is there an FAI to the IWW, to make sure it remains aligned with anarchist ideals?

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

Georgism is a libertarian socialist ideology that is not anarchist.

the green party is probably libertarian socialist too, thought I dont know much about their ideology.

3

AgitatedStatesOfAmazement wrote (edited )

The green party as in the one to which Jill Stein belongs? I thought they were more liberal than even Bernie Sanders.

2

arduinna wrote

Some of their branches self-describe as 'communalist', others are super liberal. They're a federation of parties from the bottom-up rather than a national party with regional organizations.

2

ziq wrote

I dont even kno how u can b a follower and an anarchist. Kind of defeats the purpose.

9

ziq wrote (edited )

deny their shitty actions

Or in tankies case; try to justify their shitty actions as 'necessary to safeguard the revolution' aka the counter-revolution.

7

GrnBlck wrote

It's like that phrase "Don't meet your heroes"

Anarchists met their heroes, they were arseholes

6

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I think it's sad and interesting how humans seem inclined to look for heroes to put on pedestals. I know logically that we're all human and nobody is a flawless moral paragon, but I still find myself looking for people to admire and treat as moral superhumans.

8

Freux wrote

Maybe we do that to better ourself? We see a trait we admire and emulate it, then we reach a point we are what we wanted to be and that person isn't so special anymore.