Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

A_Lane OP wrote

I think that Proudhon was the first person to use the term. It doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch of the imagination to refer to Proudhon as a libertarian Socialist. Are you an Individualist Anarchist?

2

Pop wrote

It seems like you're saying that the first person who uses a word is the one who defines the word?

Are you an Individualist Anarchist?

No, I think the individualist/collectivist dichotomy is nonsense and that both strands are weak

4

A_Lane OP wrote

Kropotkin wrote the entry for Anarchism in the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica. I wouldn't say that a term is necessarily defined by its historical usage, but, I do think that Anarchism has one.

2

ziq wrote

Why should a dead white rich European man be granted authority over the definition of anarchy? Wouldn't it make more sense to untether anarchy from the grasp of Eurocentrism? To decolonize it and refute its forced attachment to industrial colonialist European civilization?

the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production.

Notice how centered he is on European civilization? Why should the rest of the world be expected to see anarchy through this dead prince's eyes?

2

A_Lane OP wrote

Peter Kropotkin was nearly the only aristocrat in all of history to properly employ his position. Why not a consummate end to the titled order?

1

ziq wrote

I don't know what you're asking.

1

A_Lane OP wrote

If you don't seek an eventual equitable redistribution of resources, given the chance to create a utopian society, how would you ensure that it is equitable?

1

ziq wrote

I feel like we're reading from different scripts or something because I have no idea what you're asking me.

1

A_Lane OP wrote

What social configuration do you think should be brought about? Ideally you would abolish social configurations altogether, but, how is that to happen?

1

ziq wrote

What social configuration do you think should be brought about?

I reject the notion of 'social configuration' and the idea that I have the power to bring it about.

Ideally you would abolish social configurations altogether, but, how is that to happen?

It's not.

2

ziq wrote

Proudhon is dead. Anarchy preceded his ideas and anarchy exceeded his ideas.

3

A_Lane OP wrote

Oh, I agree. I just meant to point out that the term does have a historical usage that is tied to the school of thought that is known as Socialism.

1

Pop wrote

depends what you mean by 'tied'

I said it doesn't have to have anything to do with socialism, not that there's no history of socialist anarchism

there is a lot of content to socialism, and we don't need to frame ourselves in its terms

3

A_Lane OP wrote

That's a fair point of contention. While I don't necessarily disagree, I do think that, in order for Anarchist ideals to be reified, that there will eventually need to be an equitable redistribution resources. You can summarize Socialism as an attempt to bring about the equitable redistribution of resources. In so far that that is the case, I do, more or less, define Anarchism as being libertarian Socialism.

2

ziq wrote

You're kind of making an appeal to authority argument though which makes little sense in an anarchist context. History be damned, anarchy isn't owned by the European left.

2

A_Lane OP wrote

I have done no such things. I don't even really like the European Left. Are you suggesting that an appeal to history is an appeal to an authority? I could agree. By no means am I trying to levy Anarchism with Marxist discourse. I do, however, think that the philosophy has some of its beginings in The International Workingmen's Association. I don't even really like Bakunin. I have inclinations towards Kropotkin, and, so I do tend to see Anarchism as being a somewhat exclusively left-wing school of thought, but, I have no intentions of making an appeal the lingering remnants of Soviet oligarchy. I just simply think that libertarian Socialism just simply is what Anarchism is.

1

ziq wrote

I do, however, think that the philosophy has some of its beginings in The International Workingmen's Association

Anarchy existed long before European scholars decided to yearn for it. All they did was advocate for a return to it.

Are you suggesting that an appeal to history is an appeal to an authority?

It is when you view history with such Eurocentricism. Anarchist cultures have been around for millennia. Anarchy wasn't invented by 19th and 20th century European men. European society doesn't have ownership over the struggle for anarchy. The International Workingmen's Association was far removed from anarchy's beginnings.

Anarchy isn't something that was invented with the advent of industrial civilization - it was something that industrial civilization stripped from us.

so I do tend to see Anarchism as being a somewhat exclusively left-wing school of thought

Well you don't even think anarchism should be called anarchism because you think 'libertarian socialism' is more descriptive, so it's not surprising that you'd reject anarchist currents that don't revolve around industrial workerism.

I just simply think that libertarian Socialism just simply is what Anarchism is.

Not to me or any anarchist I care about.

2

A_Lane OP wrote

I think that we're talking at cross paths. I do think that an Anarchist project will eventually necessarily involve the equitable redistribution of resources, but, I am not a hard-line Anarcho-Syndicalist, a Workerist, or, a devotee of the European Left.

While there is a democratic project that was partially lost to Colonialism, I don't necessarily think that Anarchism is something like the lost wisdom of the ancients. The philosophy is as old as it is new as it is an attempt to create a utopian society.

I kind of like your historical break, actually. What, other than some form of equitable redistribution of resources, do you suggest should happen in an ideal Anarchist society?

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I don't necessarily think that Anarchism is something like the lost wisdom of the ancients

There's nothing lost about it, it's just the default. We're all born into this world in anarchy. Then almost immediately; especially if we live in civilization, authority is stamped on us, shoved down our throat and into our ears, tied around our neck and then for the rest of our lives we're conditioned to obey that authority.

ideal Anarchist society

There is no ideal anarchist society. No end point where we all announce we've achieved utopia and retire. Anyone claiming anarchy can be achieved rather than it being a permanent struggle against authority either doesn't understand anarchy or is trying to manipulate you into being ruled.

The moment someone declares they've achieved "ideal anarchist society", you need to kill them.

Check my profile for a link to my anarchistlibrary stuff or look through w/anarchy101 if you want to understand my perspective better.

2

A_Lane OP wrote

I agree that the utopia that Anarchists seek to create can never be fully reified.

I'm not sure that I'm quite as critical of civilization as you are, but, I am critical of it. I guess I see human nature as being technically good, but, effectively neutral. I don't know that I would agree that people are natural born Anarchists.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

We're born in anarchy because we haven't been indoctrinated into authority yet. Authority constructs are placed on us all through our lives, both physically and mentally.

1