OscailtThe Two Main Trends in AnarchismAlternate Tendencies of Anarchism2009-06-25T20:35:56+08:00Anarkismoanarkismoeditors@lists.riseup.nethttp://www.anarkismo.net/atomfullposts?story_id=13536http://www.anarkismo.net/graphics/feedlogo.gifDiscussing the articlehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536#comment113612009-06-25T20:35:56+08:00nestorThere is a discussion of this article on the Anarchist Black Cat forums at the f...There is a discussion of this article on the Anarchist Black Cat forums at the following link:My thoughts on Black Flamehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536#comment113622009-06-26T07:50:50+08:00AnarchoI blogged on this recently:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/black-flame
...I blogged on this recently:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/black-flame" title="http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/black-flame">http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/black-flame</a><br />
<br />
My major objection was the excluding of Proudhon from anarchism... <br />
<br />
after all, except for the federalism, the communes, the workers self-management,<br />
the decentralisation, the critique of property, the critique of the state, the analysis<br />
of exploitation as being rooted in production, what has Proudhon ever done for<br />
us?<br />
<br />
What about the name anarchist?<br />
<br />
Oh...<br />
<br />
(yes, watching too much Monty Python as can be seen from the blog post)<br />
<br />
Still, Black Flame is a very good book -- bar a couple of flaws. I would recommend<br />
it!Agrees with Black Flamehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536#comment113632009-06-26T08:15:10+08:00Wayne PriceI too think that Black Flame is a very good, even excellent, book, despite some ...I too think that Black Flame is a very good, even excellent, book, despite some minor disagreements. My essay was meant to agree with its authors in identifying with the "broad anarchist tradition" and opposing the reformist, non-working class, trend. Perhaps my agreement would be even clearer if, instead of referring to "the two trends in the anarchist movement," I had written of "the two trends among those who call themselves anarchists." But the idea is the same.anti-democratic?http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536#comment113642009-06-26T17:48:47+08:00Anarcho"This is consistent with the worst, most undemocratic aspects of Proudhons’s and..."This is consistent with the worst, most undemocratic aspects of Proudhons’s and Bakunin’s thought, which most of anarchism had long abandoned."<br />
<br />
As I've been reading A LOT of Proudhon recently, I have to say that the notion of "undemocratic aspects" of his thought is exaggerated. Which, of course, is unsurprising as this flows from Hal Draper and his diatribe against anarchism from the 1966s.<br />
<br />
What Draper fails to mention is that many of Proudhon's comments he quotes are from his private notebooks and unpublished in his lifetime. Equally, he fails to mention that the "undemocratic" comments against "The People" were the product of said people democratically confirming the coup of Napoleon III and failing to act to resist the coup in the first place...<br />
<br />
is it "undemocratic" to rant about the people being idiots when they democratically vote for dictatorship? Is the democratic thing to do accept the will of the people in this case? <br />
<br />
Oh, but when Proudhon did that, accepted (not supporting!) the fait accompli of the coup and lack of resistance, made the worse of a bad situation and urged Napoleon III to reform society, Draper denounced him as supporting dictatorship! Obviously, he could not win...<br />
<br />
As for Bakunin, most of his "undemocratic" aspects pre-date his anarchism, with his much misunderstood notion of "invisible dictatorship" being in his anarchist period. And talking of which, "natural influence" would be a much better term, and Bakunin used it as well to describe what he meant --see this review and follow the links:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/review-basic-bakunin" title="http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/review-basic-bakunin">http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/review-basic-bakunin</a><br />
<br />
I'm not suggesting that either Bakunin or Proudhon were perfect, far from it, but the notion that they were "undemocratic" is just not correct. -- it is selective in the extreme, as I'm sure Wayne would agree. <br />
<br />
I just wondered what he considered as being the worse "undemocratic" aspects of the two? Are they related to the issues of secret societies and rants in personal notebooks?Proudhonhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536#comment113732009-06-30T11:58:24+08:00WayneI agree with Anarcho that it seems rather peculiar to deny that Proudhon was an ...I agree with Anarcho that it seems rather peculiar to deny that Proudhon was an anarchist. But historically, Black Flame is right that the anarchist movement, as a movement, began with Bakunin. The followers of Proudhon had called themselves mutualists and mostly did not support the Bakunist anarchists. Bakunin may be said to have been influenced by Proudhon, to have learned from him, and then to have gone beyond him (the same might be said about Proudhon's influence on Marx, in different ways).<br />
<br />
As to politics: when I was a Marxist, my friends and I would read Marx (and Lenin and Trotsky) and always give them "the benefit of the doubt." If they said or did something which could be interpreted in an authoritarian way, but which might also be interpreted in a more-or-less libertarian-democratic way, we would chose the libertarian-democratic interpretation. Part of becoming an anarchist, for me anyway, was no longer giving Marx et al. "the benefit of the doubt." But I have rejected that method altogether, not just for Marxists. I also do not give Proudhon or Bakunin or the FAI the "benefit of the doubt," which seems to be the method being used for Proudhon by Anarcho.<br />
<br />
For example, is it somehow okay for Proudhon to have anti-Semitic ideas or to want to be the dictator of his proposed mutualist bank...if he only said so in his private notebooks? Because he said good things, should we ignore his extreme mysogyny, his support for the South in the US Civil War, or his opposition to unions and strikes? Was it okay for him to denounce democracy if the people voted for Napoleon III and did the Bonapartist coup somehow justify his "urg[ing] Napoleon III to reform society,"in Anarcho's words??? <br />
<br />
No. While anarchism is predominantly libertarian-democratic, there is also an authoritarian, elitist, and undemocratic trend within anarchism, going way back, and we will not be able to root it out if we do not confront it fully.Not okay, but not key...http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536#comment113772009-07-01T01:01:26+08:00Anarcho"For example, is it somehow okay for Proudhon to have anti-Semitic ideas or to w..."For example, is it somehow okay for Proudhon to have anti-Semitic ideas or to want to be the dictator of his proposed mutualist bank...if he only said so in his private notebooks?"<br />
<br />
Given that his anti-Semitic rants played no part in his political ideas and political programme, they are as important as Marx's various bigotries. It does not make them right, but to base a critique of a thinker on them (whether Proudhon or Marx) would be silly. <br />
<br />
As for the "dictator" charge, have you read the rules for the mutual bank? It is very clearly democratic, with general assemblies, elections and so forth. Are Proudhon's comments in his notebooks more important? i doubt it....<br />
<br />
"Because he said good things, should we ignore his extreme mysogyny, his support for the South in the US Civil War, or his opposition to unions and strikes?"<br />
<br />
Er, no. But it is a far cry from disagreeing with him, pointing out his contradictions and when he was wrong, with dismissing his whole body of work (as, say, Draper did)...<br />
<br />
"Was it okay for him to denounce democracy if the people voted for Napoleon III and did the Bonapartist coup somehow justify his "urg[ing] Napoleon III to reform society,"in Anarcho's words???"<br />
<br />
So what should Proudhon have done? Support democracy and consider Napoleon III as the legitimate ruler of France? After all, the People did democratically vote for him. And because the People did support and vote for a dictator, Proudhon became disillusioned and penned some words which, if taken out of context, makes him sound un-libertarian.<br />
<br />
As for Bonapartist coup, that was ratified by two elections (in 1851 and 1852). Now, should Proudhon have written wonderful words praising the masses and praising democracy in such circumstances? Given that you do not wish to "justify" Proudhon's attempt to make the best of a bad situation and appeal to Napolean to use his popular mandate for reform, I can only assume that you do not think he should have...<br />
<br />
Seems that Proudhon is in a no win situation. Express disgust at the stupidity of those who democratically voted for a despot, and he is anti-democratic; accept (but do not support) the situation that the dictator has a democratic mandate and urge him to pursue reform, and he is also anti-democratic!<br />
<br />
So, what is it to be? We have a situation where the vast majority voted for a despot. Apparently to oppose that vote and have a rant against those who voted makes you undemocratic. Does that mean the "democratic" thing would be to accept the majority decision and so the Bonapartist regime? <br />
<br />
"No. While anarchism is predominantly libertarian-democratic, there is also an authoritarian, elitist, and undemocratic trend within anarchism, going way back, and we will not be able to root it out if we do not confront it fully."<br />
<br />
And, as I've said, I've read A LOT of Proudhon recently and his arguments are for a decentralised, self-managed society. Apparently, a few comments, re-printed without any context, from his private notebooks outweight hundreds of pages of pubished material...<br />
<br />
And I'm all for confronting the non-libertarian aspects of libertarian thinkers (such as Proudhon's sexism). Just as I'm all for confronting fetishing democracy -- so, just to check, if the majority vote for a despot (as in 1851 and 1852) does that mean that the democratic thing to do is to accept the will of the people? <br />
<br />
Or can the majority be wrong? Spectularly wrong? And if so, can we suggest that the People were fools for voting as they did? Or would that be elitist? And what would the anti-elitist thing to do be?Comments from Anarchist Newshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536#comment114552009-07-07T06:32:40+08:00Wayne PriceThis essay was copied onto Anarchist News, which appears to attract primitivists...This essay was copied onto Anarchist News, which appears to attract primitivists and anti-civilizationists and "post-leftists/insurrectionists," as one poster writes. Comments may be read at: <br />
<a href="http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/8087" title="http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/8087">http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/8087</a><br />
<br />
Here are my responses to their comments (I am not a member of their list):<br />
<br />
An anonymous poster writes, "The two main trends are anarcho-primitivists and pseudo-anarchists, whom I've dubbed "anarcho-domesticates." The latter is a form of minarchism.... these pseudo-anarchists are hypocrites..... As soon as you force your children to stop defecating on the floor, the domestication process has begun and you've become an authoritarian ruler." <br />
<br />
It is nice that this anonymous poster agrees with me that those who regard themselves as anarchists can be roughly divided into two broad trends (with conflicts within each trend and overlapping between them). It is not so nice that he or she insists not only on his or her correct view, but that other anarchists are not really anarchists at all. Apparently, Bakunin and Kropotkin, the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarcho-communists, were all pseudo-anarchists, really minimalists, domesticates, and hypocrites, and so are those of us who continue their trend today. Since primitivism (and anti-civilizationism) is historically recent, there really was not any anarchism until about a generation ago (when some Marxists like Zerzan invented primitivism). As for the concept which equates shitting on the floor with true anarchism, I will let that one go.<br />
<br />
But I love it when someone writes, "i dont even understand why people still pay attention to wayne price. he seldom says anything worth hearing." And someone else writes that it was "a boring article." Yet these two obviously have just read my essay and comments and are making their own comments! They are entitled to their opinions, but this is a strange thing to do with a boring essay by an irrelevant writer.Turkish translationhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536#comment117542009-09-16T20:00:45+08:00nestorA Turkish translation of this article has now been published:A Turkish translation of this article has now been published:stirnerhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536#comment117552009-09-17T04:09:06+08:00Dave B‘As for the concept which equates shitting on the floor with true anarchism, I w...‘As for the concept which equates shitting on the floor with true anarchism, I will let that one go.’<br />
<br />
Well it was in fact Stirner who throw that gauntlet down against Marx on that, with his more sensational, at the time, copulating with your sister kind of thing. <br />
Proudhon and Class Strugglehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536#comment120532009-12-25T20:42:41+08:00Ben Moseleymoseley.ben at gmail dot comI have also been reading a lot of Proudhon lately (although not as much Anarcho ...I have also been reading a lot of Proudhon lately (although not as much Anarcho undoubtably has) and was going to make much of the same argument that he has (although not as eloquently). <br />
<br />
While I find truth in this: "few of the New School’s ideas are all that new", I can't seem to find the truth in the following: "Since Proudhon was neither for class struggle, nor revolution, nor communism,..." Maybe we're reading different works by Proudhon, but his "Peoples' Election Manifesto" published in excerpt form in "No Gods, No Masters", illustrates quite the opposite, wherein he lays out not only the problem with current capitalist economics, that being the separation of labor and capital, but also the solution, which unless I'm misunderstanding, describes the basic tenets of democratic socialism with class struggle held at the crux of his argument.<br />
<br />
With that said, I do completely agree with this: "...but is it useful to argue about whether or not they are really “anarchists?” That does make us look like sectarians and dogmatists. We should argue about the content of their beliefs (that they are mistaken in their politics) rather than their label."<br />
<br />
Besides that minor quibble, I think this was a great article and that the premise is very true. In my limited experience, it seems that a lot of the young anarchists are more of the "reformist" type than the "revolutionary" and I find this to be quite unfortunate.