Submitted by asterism in AskRaddle

The way I understood it Kropotkin wasn't terribly fond of Marxism or even Syndicalism and like one of Kropotkins books is about how social Darwinism ain't a thing. So the leftist critiques are present at the very beginning of anarcho-communism and so I ain't sure what the "post-left" bit actually changes maybe it just adds a critique for industry?

Anyway I would appreciate some insight.



You must log in or register to comment.

subrosa wrote (edited )

They'll stick communism to anything really.

First it was Proudhon's OG anarchism seeking to balance the tension in property, between sharing and dividing. Turn property into an instance of federation. Communism was like, fuck that, we'll short-circuit the whole thing and do property held in common. Anarchist communism.

Then they transformed syndicalism into a methodology that really should be ending in communism.

And don't get me started on ego-communism.

Anyway, if communism can be recovered from leftism, it is in writings of Luigi Galleani, the anti-organizationalists of those days, maybe Max Nettlau, and the modern day communists we know better as insurrectionalists. It would require communism to be subordinate to anarchy — not as an end goal or a specific economic vision to be implemented. Communism as a possibility that is usually not all that desirable, but useful in times that are equally not all that desirable. And it would do well to stay in conversation with anti-civ anarchists, similar to how insurrectionalists have managed.

(Also, recover possible meanings of communism before the 1870s, before Marx. Charge the term communism with lessons from the commune experiments and the utopians, and consciously reject Marxist language or association.)

That's a rough outline for a possible post-left communism, I could expand on some of this. But it's not my project, and I'm not all that invested in furthering or preserving communism.


ziq wrote (edited )

I think that was me. I meant they'd understand that anarchists aren't leftists, because the left is part and parcel of the state.


They also wouldn't wrap every position they take up in identity.

As to whether you can actually create and maintain a massive economic and social system without a state, that's another story. Certainly not without government.


Fool wrote (edited )

Post-left anarchy is not something new and different. It’s neither a political program nor an ideology. It’s not meant in any way to constitute some sort of faction or sect within the more general anarchist milieu. It’s in no way an opening to the political right; the right and left have always had much more in common with each other than either has in common with anarchism. And it’s certainly not intended as a new commodity in the already crowded marketplace of pseudo-radical ideas. It is simply intended as a restatement of the most fundamental and important anarchist positions within the context of a disintegrating international political left.

As such, since Anarcho-Communism has historically just been Anarchism, the ideas are perfectly compatible... In saying that, if they're identifying that way, they've probably holding up at least one of the terms on a pedestal.

It's like Ego-Coms, there's nothing inherently incompatible in essence. It's just that it's holding Communism up as something sacred.


fingerkuppe wrote

I was thinking for a long time to hold post-left anarcho-communist beliefs, so AMA, but I'm not so sure anymore. I hate property, the state; don't want to be associated with leftists; think industry, infrastructure is fundamentally flawed... I don't care about the com flag, so... Maybe I just hold anarchists beliefs?


d4rk wrote (edited )

What would make a post-left ancom different from an ancom?

you assume you're already in a left-wing society to begin with but it's a clearly defined state that you want to get rid of however you don't want where the degeneration of the state is going to lead to change.