Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind

Discussion in 'Anarchy' started by Shane99X, May 28, 2006.

  1. Shane99X

    Shane99X Senior Member

    http://www.anarchist-studies.org/article/articleview/43/1/1

    Well?
    Thoughts?
     
  2. Dr Phibes

    Dr Phibes Banned

    oh very elitist I'm sure but what has that to do with anticapitalism
    other than it says a lot about the authors desire to be a book seller
    trading on other peoples spilt guts
    looks like a lot of pseudo marxist crap
     
  3. Shane99X

    Shane99X Senior Member

    Are you fucking serious?

    What are you 12?

    The whole article is about seperating ourselves off from the dying left to keep diseases like elitism and marxism out of the anarchist movement.

    Try reading the whole article...
     
  4. Dr Phibes

    Dr Phibes Banned

    The whole article is about seperating ourselves off from the dying left to keep diseases like elitism and marxism out of the anarchist movement.

    then why use the same dogmatic language to say it. If they dont like them - why use the same pompous overblown language
     
  5. Shane99X

    Shane99X Senior Member

    what, you mean english?
     
  6. Dr Phibes

    Dr Phibes Banned

    Have you read this? or did you write it?
    Its saying basically that the anti-intellectualism within anarchy comes from people who treat the anarchist literature as though inspirational - as though nothing had changed since 1919
    I leave it to your imagination where I would take that line
    but just to say - he rather agrees with me - You should find offence with that as much as you find it with me

    I mean do you understand or are you really THAT much of an intelect and I
    do mean lightweight
     
  7. Shane99X

    Shane99X Senior Member

    I find offense with you because you're arrogant and assume you're the only "real anarchist".

    And no that's not what he says.

    He gives a couple main reasons why anarchism hasnt adjusted or adapted to changed world.

    1.Partly this is a function of the long-prevalent anti-intellectualism amongst many anarchists. ie you

    2.Partly it's a result of the historical eclipse of the anarchist movement following the victory of Bolshevik state communism and the (self- ) defeat of the Spanish Revolution. ie short term success of communism in russia and failure of anarchism in spain put the spotlight on communism as the de facto anticapitalism movement.

    3.And partly it is because the vast majority of the most important anarchist theorists—like Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatesta—come from the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. ie as great as those thinkers are, there has been a vacuum in the last century when it comes to anarchist theorists.

    now did you get all that?
     
  8. Dr Phibes

    Dr Phibes Banned

    I would like to see the moron that wrote that prove any of it - and I can tell you he cant since what he is talking about is something he calls "the anarchist milieu" A somewhat bourgeois concept of anarchists - dont you think? What Milieu - who is he talking about - or is this some abstract notion that as anarchists we suck up to the intellects that tell us anarchists what to think. Rather defeats what anarchism is about eh? Almost like he thinks we are the socialist party eh?

    So which of the planets in the star sytem "Bourgeois" is he from to opine on what modern anarchists are thinking if there is (BY HIS OWN FUCKIN ADMISSION) no prevalent consensus - almost like he made that up do you think?
    If there is an impasse it implies contention does it not? since it takes two to tango
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice