Are you out being a slave to the ‘capitalist pigs’?
Do anarcho-communists agree that participation in their experiments is optional? I.e. people can join or leave whenever they want? And if you enforce communism (or whatever) in particular territory, you’ll be exactly like government? Going back to the Spanish anarchists: how is using violence against people in a voluntary exchange of money is different from the state’s violence in case of enforcing fiat money?
Bakunin wasn’t an anarcho-communist, he was an anarcho-collectivist. There are differences (namely, anarcho-communists don’t recognize labor renumeration).
Stirner never identified as an anarchist - he more or less saw anarchists as socialists, and he rejected socialism, so he pretty much rejected early anarchism, despite being an influence on later anarchists (like Tucker, Bakunin and Goldman). Stirner is more in ambiguous territory, since he rejected both the state and morality, as well as “society”. His “union of egoists” concept is ambiguous enough to be interpreted either as an anarchist association or some sort of state.
Marx clashed with both Proudhon and Bakunin. Bakunin rejected Marx’s vangaurd-state and “dictatorship of the proletariet” notion, and Marx demonized Proudhon as a “petty burgeousie liberal”. Proudhon critisized many of his socialist contemporaries as proposing half-assed solutions, and came to more individualist conclusions later on (which rubbed off on Tucker, influencing the course of American individualist anarchism).
Tucker, while identifying as both an “individualist” and a “socialist”, harshly condemned Kropotkin and the anarcho-communists, viewing them as inherently statist and confused. He seemed to have more respect for Bakunin, however (who often stradled the line between communism and individualism, and is therefore in somewhat of an ambiguous category in my view).
I don’t know, but various factions of the communists actually turned on the Spanish anarchists and shot them. There is a long history of Marxist/Leninist betrayal of anarchists; they were naive to ever ally with them.
Interesting. This could sever as an illustration that you can’t ally with someone who justifies cohersion even if some of your goals as similar.
Is it even correct to call them anarchists, they seemed to be in favour of “committee-ism.”
Coercion is justifiable in many cases. There just has to be a recognition of the difference between authoritarian coercion, and libertary coercion. Every revolution that has ever happened, ever, has used coercion, any attempts to stop crimes of passion have used coercion. Algeria used coercion to throw off the French, that doesn’t mean we can criticize them for wanting independence, the same applied to the American Revolution.
The ancient city states were states (hence the name), that had their own militaries and elites the militaries protected.
Your other question pretty much got answered. Marx was fond of Proudhon for a while, then when he began to shape his own philosophy he abandoned what little influence Proudhon had on him, even writing The Poverty of Philosophy as a response to The Philosphy of Poverty.
You have no clue how much I hate Leninists, they’re going up against the wall :P.
Oh my fucking god…I typed a huge response and somehow the page went back, and it was all deleted. Well, anyways, here’s some good reading on anarchists in the Mexican Revolution: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/history/anarchism_1910.html
Sorry to just respond to that, but I really don’t want to type everything all over again.
Yeah. That happens sometimes. Anyway, thanks for the link.
If you use Firefox, there is an addon called Lazarus which takes care of that problem:
Replace coercion with the initiation of violence against a non aggressor. I fully support someone who attempts to free themselves from their involuntary ruler. Now, if the ‘ruling’ is consensual, then, you’ll need to break your contract and deal with the contractual consequences.
It’s not really a big deal to lump Bakunin as a Communist. To be honest, collectivists died out in most places by 1890, to be replaced by communism. The only modern countries with a collectivist prescence are in Mexico and Cuba. Mexico (and I don’t know about Cuba since the organizations operate underground) is the only country with explicitly Collectivist organizations.
you make a mockery of thought. It seems you are on the path to be the intellectual that you wish to be.
I would like to hear of this ‘libertary coercion.’
I only call myself an anarchist around people who know what I mean. I have taken to referring to myself as radical. To most people, that is all they can understand anyway. Same/Different/Really Different.
Algerian independence struggle, American revolution, Spanish Revolution, (February) Russian Revolution, plenty more.
You mean the American revolution where the Continental Congress told men to join the army, jailed them for not actually joining, and shot them for desserting?