Is Anarchy ‘post-leftist

This is a couple of posts originally posted by Shane99

**

I don't think the Left and Right have the same arguements.

But i don't really agree with either.

I do not subscribe to the collectivist ideologies of the political left. *
I do not subscribe to the twisted capitalist version of individualism of the right.

I believe in the idea that the exploitation or oppression of any individual diminishes the freedom and integrity of all.

The Ends do NOT justify the Means.
And the sacrifice of a few are NEVER for the good of all.

Unwavering belief in the freedom of the individual is what keeps anarchists from going down the authoritarian path of the left, right and center.

*sidenote for those who would accuse me of leftism: universal solidarity does not automatically= collectivist ideology.

**

Historically, the vast majority of leftist theory and practice has functioned as a loyal opposition to capitalism. Leftists have been (often vociferously) critical of particular aspects of capitalism, but always ready to reconcile themselves with the broader international capitalist system whenever they've been able to extract a bit of power, partial reforms—or sometimes, just the vague promise of partial reforms. For this reason leftists have often been quite justifiably criticized (by both ultra-leftists and by anarchists) as the left wing of capital.
It's not just a problem that those leftists who claim to be anti-capitalist don't really mean it, although some have consciously used such lies to gain positions of power for themselves in opposition movements. The major problem is that leftists have incomplete, self-contradictory theories about capitalism and social change. As a result their practice always tends towards the recuperation (or co-optation and reintegration) of social rebellion. Always with a focus on organization, leftists use a variety of tactics in their attempts to reify and mediate social struggles—representation and substitution, imposition of collectivist ideologies, collectivist moralism, and ultimately repressive violence in one form or another. Typically, leftists have employed all of these tactics in the most unrepentently heavy-handed and explicitly authoritarian of ways. But these tactics (except for the last) can also be—and have often been—employed in more subtle, less-overtly authoritarian ways as well, the most important examples for our purposes being the historical and present practices of many (but not all) left anarchists.

Reification is often most generally described as "thingification." It's the reduction of a complex, living process to a frozen, dead or mechanical collection of objects or actions. Political mediation (a form of practical reification) is the attempt to intervene in conflicts as a third-party arbiter or representative. Ultimately these are the definitive characteristics of all leftist theory and practice. Leftism always involves the reification and mediation of social revolt, while consistent anarchists reject this reification of revolt. The formulation of post-left anarchy is an attempt to help make this rejection of the reification of revolt more consistent, widespread and self-aware than it already is."

In other words, the left is always telling us that by working with the state or through the state that they are working on behalf of the people, for the the better ment of mankind, when the truth is that ultimately they only pacify us while the state expands like a cancer.

The left would have us believe that the state can "work for us", the realization of this goal is that we all end up working for the State.

 

I should first say that I’m not an Anarchist, I describe myself rather loosely as a pragmatic socialist with a heavy green influence. I admire much about Anarchist philosophy and think it’s goals worth working for but I don’t believe that the human race has reached the level of emotional and intellectual maturity for it to work in any practical way for quite some time.

**

“I do not subscribe to the collectivist ideologies of the political left”

The thing is that of all political philosophies Anarchy is the one that is the most collective. Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the idea of Anarchy was the abandonment of all private possessions, everything was jointly owned by the community. Nothing need be bought and nothing needed to be sold (not even labour) hence no money would be needed.

**

“Unwavering belief in the freedom of the individual is what keeps anarchists from going down the authoritarian path of the left, right and center.”

The main argument that you level at the left (and others) is its supposed authoritarian nature, but what do you mean by this?

I mean the piece you quote says that Anarchy (or some types) are just using “less-overtly authoritarian” ways of bringing about their goals.

This doesn’t seem to be a repudiation of the use of authority but only that its use should be less open, in other words more secretly applied.

I don’t think that is very much of an improvement.

**

“Unwavering belief in the freedom of the individual is what keeps anarchists from going down the authoritarian path of the left, right and center.”

The question is what within an Anarchist society is meant by ‘freedom’ and ‘individuality’?

In my understanding within an Anarchist society people choose to help and care for others, they choose to own nothing as an individual because they own everything as a member of the community. They choose to live that way because anarchy is the best form of life. To think differently would be an anathema to them because it would hurt others and themselves.

In much the same way as I would not wish to rape someone because it would hurt someone else and myself (the guilt of knowing I’d done it).

I could choose to rape someone but I don’t because the idea is abhorrent to me, and it would be the same in an Anarchist society people could choose to be selfish, greedy and hurtful but they wouldn’t because the idea of being so would be repulsive to them.

Basically by some means yet to be fully explained people are meant to change the values of freedom to mean self restraint from actions that might hurt others, and individuality to mean doing as a single person what is best for the wider community.

**

 

I dont think anarchists are within a simple structure like - right or left.
Those are outdated concepts to instantly alienate people - I think the object for an anarchist is to merely get one thing - a revolution - it seems to me that anarchists are the front line in the propoganda of the left and are also on the frontline at the barricades rioting in Europe. Anarchy in the USA seems to be where European anarchy was back in the 1980's. Its not a knock - I think thats good because back in the 80's the idea that any anarchists existed in the USA - beyond a few fringe nutters - was laughable. It seems to me the USA has come a long way in its left field politics and is catching up. I think its a historical thing - you had the Mcarthy witch hunts in the 50's or 60's
and it was so much more radical later to declare yourselves communists and use the rhetoric of socialism - Russian socialism.
In Europe we have become more cunning in our inseminating the culture with anarchist propoganda - In Britain the sex pistols revolutionised - and that is not a word I bandy about lightly - they revolutionised the entire culture with their wit sarcasm venom - but above all LOGIC. John Lydon is a premier league thinker of propoganda and rhetoric. anarchists in Europe use all that is the truth to their advantage - and even use right wing ideology in an ironic and devastating attack on the right wing -

what I am saying is that the time for socialist logic is over - this is the moment of opportunity for anyone with an ounce of knowledge to put away dead rhetoric and inspire with live conversation and wit - art - subversion - detournament
You cant say "I support the left" as an anarchist - left wing - right wing - theyve all got a plan that isnt mine, and a philosophy I can only half agree with. In Europe we are of the opinion that anarchy is a nihilist proposition - we become nihilists first and pull the state down - then we philosophise and theorise and build what can be built afterwards. Lock the books in a safe place - we will need them later - but for now you are needed at the barricades on the street and at the frontline of the propoganda war in forums and on the street and wherever there is a knowitall rightist with the power to persuade

 

First of let me state that because anarchism is such a truley diverse way thinking (one that consistently rejects the rigidity of ideology), if you were to ask 15 self-described anarchist to define "anarchism" you'll likely get 15 different answers in return.

What interests me about the statement you just made is the word 'abandonment'. The reason being is that most if not all leftist ideology doesn't advocate the abandonment of private property, but rather the 'redistrubution' of private property. There is a world of difference between the abandonment of the laws which protect and enforce so called 'property rights', and the forceful redistribution of property.

For example, in a leftist society former Upper Middle Class member 'Jose' had about 20 acres of land that he deemed his own. The right to own that land was protected and enforced by the State. Now that the state is leftist, 15 acres of 'Jose's' land is taken and given either to 3 members of the Proletariat for purposes of equality or over to the state "in the name of" the Proletariat in order to be deemed communally owned.

In an anrchists society (and lets not forget that an anrchist society will be filled with anarchists) former Upper Middle Class member 'Jose' had about 20 acres of land that he deemed his own. The right to own that land was protected and enforced by the State. Now that the state has been dissolved, there is nothing protecting 'Jose's' ownership of his 20 acres from any individual needing to use that land. We've gone from the State backed consolidation of property to 'Jose' as an individual consolidating property. Step 1 complete.

Now you may say "well things still are not equal, all 'Jose' has to do is hire his own private army to enforce his ownership of the 20 acres". That may well be true, but that is also assuming an anarchist society void of anarchists. What person will work under a master to secure that man's land when he already has the freedom to use that land? When the ephasis is taken off of Class and put back on the Individual, the individual will rise up. Instead of a State run society with a workerism fetish, we have a society of individuals practicing free association.

Instead of forcing equality we should be actively destroying the intitutions that advocate, enforce, and protect inequility.

It's the difference between an individual protecting his rights and an organization protecting an individuals rights on behalf of...

 

No.

You are either missreading the text or are twisting the words.
It DOES NOT say anarchy advocates "less-overtly authoritarian" ways.
It DOES say the Leftists and Left Oriented Anarchist advocate "less-overtly authoritarian" ways.

Here it again:

Which, of course goes to the topic of the article: The need for anarchists to seperate themselves from the pitfalls of the left.

 

Ah, the ol' "Human Nature/Requirment Of Perfect People" arguement.

An Anarchist society will not be a perfect or utopian society.
It will be a society with individual humans who all have their own problems, hopes, and fears. People do not need to be perfect or to change their basic humanity in order for an anarchist society to work. They only need to be free.
Of course, Anarchists believe that a free society will produce people who are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs, in turn reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by reasonable methods (the use of juries, mutual third parties, or community and workplace assemblies).

In fact, the imperfection of people is exactly why it is never a smart idea to place power and authority in the hands of one person or a group of elites.

This arguement also assumes an anarchist society void of anarchists.

This is because even if the government disappeared tomorrow, the same system would soon grow up again, because the power has never really rested with government, but the people who believe that they must have someone/something to obey in order to function.

Now, you might think that statement underscores your point, ie that humanity isn't ready for anarchy...

Which is exactly the resaon why anarchy needs anarchists (and why your reasoning for rejecting anarchism is flawed).

You are assuming that freedom is something to be given, to be handed down to the Masses.

It is not.

It is something that has to be taken, by each individual.

And that is why anarchy is possible, and as long as it's possible it's something to live and die for.

They quote Kropotkin advocating anarcho-communism but the same arguement applies to post-left anarchism as well.

 

Also, let me respond to the question you've chosen as the topic:


Is anarchy post-left?

anarchy in itself can not be left, right, green, or post anything.

'Post-Left Anarchism' is merely a current and recent attempt by a large number of self-described anarchists to seperate themselves from the aftermath of the political Left's death throes.

Anarchism has been duking it out with the left since there has been a left (think Marx Vs. Bakunin).

 

You are wrong.

The idea of anarchy is that hierarchal institutuions and ways of thinking are unavoidably harmful to the individual and as a consequence harmful to the community.

the individual and as a consequence harmful to the community.

This wording is deliberate.

 

Jose’s land

So this is an Anarchist society –In an anrchists society (and lets not forget that an anrchist society will be filled with anarchists)

And because of this Jose would be unable to "is hire his own private army to enforce his ownership" because they would be anarchists.

So is Jose the only non-anarchist? I mean if he was an anarchist he wouldn’t care about the 20 acres since as I’ve said he would understand the idea of complete community ownership, right?

If he is not the only non-anarchist he is likely to join up with the other non-anarchists who have an interest in preserving the old system.

And since what you seem to envision is a land grab this is definitely going to mean conflict.

It sounds like two systems in conflict, which would mean it wasn’t just an anarchist society filled with anarchists, or are you saying that only Jose with his 20 acres held out?

Plus your example involves the enforcing of one set of ideas over those of another, not by persuasion but by their power (authority) to take against the wishes of an individual.

So are you saying that if an individual has views contrary to those of the group the group have the authority to impose their viewpoint?

**

To me the major problems are damaging exploitation and the welfare of the community.

I don’t really care if Jose has 20 acres or 200 the questions that need to be asked are is the land serving the community and is any exploitation taking place?

**

Ah, the ol' "Human Nature/Requirment Of Perfect People" arguement.

An Anarchist society will not be a perfect or utopian society.
It will be a society with individual humans who all have their own problems, hopes, and fears. People do not need to be perfect or to change their basic humanity in order for an anarchist society to work. They only need to be free.
Of course, Anarchists believe that a free society will produce people who are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs, in turn reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by reasonable methods (the use of juries, mutual third parties, or community and workplace assemblies).

In fact, the imperfection of people is exactly why it is never a smart idea to place power and authority in the hands of one person or a group of elites.

This arguement also assumes an anarchist society void of anarchists.

This is because even if the government disappeared tomorrow, the same system would soon grow up again, because the power has never really rested with government, but the people who believe that they must have someone/something to obey in order to function.

Now, you might think that statement underscores your point, ie that humanity isn't ready for anarchy...

Which is exactly the resaon why anarchy needs anarchists (and why your reasoning for rejecting anarchism is flawed).

You are assuming that freedom is something to be given, to be handed down to the Masses.

It is not.

It is something that has to be taken, by each individual.

And that is why anarchy is possible, and as long as it's possible it's something to live and die for.



**

So until there are enough anarchists to bring about anarchy, anarchy isn’t possible?

Which is what I said.

Once people understand the need and rightness of an anarchistic society there can be an anarchist society.

Which is what I said.

**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balbus

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the idea of Anarchy was the abandonment of all private possessions, everything was jointly owned by the community.
**



You are wrong.

The idea of anarchy is that hierarchal institutuions and ways of thinking are unavoidably harmful to the individual and as a consequence harmful to the community.

the individual and as a consequence harmful to the community.

This wording is deliberate.

**

Well having more than someone else could be viewed as being part of a hierarchical system. So presumably in a complete hierarchy free system no one would own more than another (or would want to)

So everything would be everyone’s, and no one would take more than they needed?

Which was what I said.

**

 

The thing is that nothing said so far seems to point to a new movement with new ideas.

To go back to the article –
‘Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind’ by Jason Mcquinn
http://www.anarchist-studies.org/article/articleview/43/4/1/

The author makes it plain that calling anarchy ‘post-left’ is just a matter of re-branding

“Post-left anarchy is not something new and different…It is simply intended as a restatement”

Why does this author believe that anarchy needs re-branding?

Because he thinks that after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire left wing views might be seen - by the ill informed - as irrelevant. He seems to fear that interest in, and following of, left wing views might collapse. In this he isn’t that different from a number of right wing thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama. He seemed to think that the fall of the USSR was a triumph of that particular brand of right wing capitalism prevalent at the time in the US and that the left wing views that opposed those ideas were ‘defeated’.


McQuinn makes this very clear

“If we want to avoid being taken down with the wreckage of leftism as it crumbles, we need to fully, consciously and explicitly dissociate ourselves from its manifold failures”

In other word it is the rat jumping from what he thinks is a burning ship, it is the hope that if Anarchy could re-brand itself it might be able not to be seen as left wing while still remaining to all intents and purposes a left wing philosophy.

 

Of course it's 2 systems in conflict. Always has been. Elitists will never voluntarily resign their status as the alpha class. Fear of conflict should'nt be an obstacle though. It wasn't for Gahndi(sp), King Jr., Goldman, ect...

I said that it would be filled with anarchists, not that those who would still cling to a heirarchal form of society would vanish all together. As anarchism becomes closer to being a reality the conflict will get bloodier.

Explain how such actions as squatting could be viewed as using authority?
More like passive resistance.
The only force used would be on Jose's part when he tries to enforce his 'right to property'.
If/when Jose uses a small army to enforce his 'right to property' he is not acting as an individual, but as an agent of heirachal force and oppression and will be dealt with accordingly.

I can only equate this to the 'good master' arguement of slavery.

ex. Yeah, Steve is a slave owner, but as long as he's not mistreating his slaves it's okay, right?

It does not matter if State has 'good intentions' or is 'working on behalf of the people'.
By it's existence it is oppressive.

It does not matter what Jose uses the land for.
If he uses the state and/or force to claim land (a finite resource) as his own and either denies usage to others or demands compensation of any kind, he is not serving the community and benifiting from exploitation.

Nope.
What you stated was:

I admire much about Anarchist philosophy and think it’s goals worth working for but I don’t believe that the human race has reached the level of emotional and intellectual maturity for it to work in any practical way for quite some time.

And:

Basically by some means yet to be fully explained people are meant to change the values of freedom to mean self restraint from actions that might hurt others, and individuality to mean doing as a single person what is best for the wider community.


Implying that this is more than just a numbers game, but that humanity was not 'ready' for anarchism either mentally or emotionally and therefore anarchism is not yet a viable option.

When the truth is that humanity does not have to reach some new advancement in maturity in order for anarchism to come about or to prosper.

Nope.

1. You stated that anarchy is "abandonment of all private possessions". Anarchists are not against private possessions.

2. Communal ownership of property is one of many consequences of anarchy, not it's focus.

 

I'm certain i addressed this:

Also, let me respond to the question you've chosen as the topic:

Is anarchy post-left?

anarchy in itself can not be left, right, green, or post anything.

'Post-Left Anarchism' is merely a current and recent attempt by a large number of self-described anarchists to seperate themselves from the aftermath of the political Left's death throes.

Anarchism has been duking it out with the left since there has been a left (think Marx Vs. Bakunin).

As i stated before, anarchism and the left have been in conflict for over 150 years.

He didnt say 'rebranding' as in cast in a new and different mold, he said it's a 'restatement' as in going back to the roots of anarchism before all the left and anarchist syntheses.

Leftist anarchism became predominate after the temporary rise of leftism as the main rival against capitalism.

Now that the left is dying off, it's time for anarchists to re-evaluate this marriage and the compromises that have been made for what was thought of at the time to be a benefit to the anarchist movement.

anarchy is not an antistate leftist movement.

You used the metaphor of a rat jumping from a burning ship.

I see it more as person 10 years into a marriage realizing that the 2 have more differences than the do similarities.

Again, not 'rebranding' anarchism, but 'restating' what anarchism has always been and 're-evaluating' our relationship with the left.

 

Another great article about Post-Left Anarchism:
http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/ioaa/life.html

FROM POLITICS TO LIFE:
Ridding anarchy of the leftist millstone


By
Wolfi Landstreicher

excerpt:

"Now that leftism has ceased to be a significant force in any way distinguishable from the rest of the political sphere at least in the West of the world, there is certainly no reason to continue carrying this millstone around our necks. The realization of anarchist dreams, of the dreams of every individual still capable of dreaming and desiring independently to be the autonomous creators of their own existence, requires a conscious and rigorous break with the left. At minimum, this break would mean:

1. The rejection of a political perception of social struggle; a recognition that revolutionary struggle is not a program, but is rather the struggle for the individual and social reappropriation of the totality of life. As such it is inherently anti-political. In other words,it is opposed to any form of social organization – and any method of struggle – in which the decisions about how to live and struggle are separated from the execution of those decisions regardless of how democratic and participatory this separated decision-making process may be.

2. The rejection of organizationalism, meaning by this the rejection of the idea that any organization can represent exploited individuals or groups, social struggle, revolution or anarchy. Therefore also the rejection of all formal organizations – parties, unions, federations and their like – which, due to their programmatic nature, take on such a representative role. This does not mean the rejection of the capacity to organize the specific activities necessary to the revolutionary struggle, but rather the rejection of the subjection of the organization of tasks and projects to the formalism of an organizational program. The only task that has ever been shown to require formal organization is the development and maintenance of a formal organization.

3. The rejection of democracy and the quantitative illusion. The rejection of the view that the number of adherents to a cause, idea or program is what determines the strength of the struggle, rather than the qualitative value of the practice of struggle as an attack against the institutions of domination and as a reappropriation of life. The rejection of every institutionalization or formalization of decision-making, and indeed of every conception of decision-making as a moment separated from life and practice. The rejection, as well, of the evangelistic method that strives to win over the masses. Such a method assumes that theoretical exploration is at an end, that one has the answer to which all are to adhere and that therefore every method is acceptable for getting the message out even if that method contradicts what we are saying. It leads one to seek followers who accept one’s position rather than comrades and accomplices with which to carry on one’s explorations. The practice instead of striving to carry out one’s projects, as best one can, in a way consistent with one’s ideas, dreams and desires, thus attracting potential accomplices with whom to develop relationships of affinity and expand the practice of revolt.

4. The rejection of making demands to those in power, choosing rather a practice of direct action and attack. The rejection of the idea that we can realize our desire for self-determination through piece-meal demands which, at best, only offer a temporary amelioration of the harmfulness of the social order of capital. Recognition of the necessity to attack this society in its totality, to achieve a practical and theoretical awareness in each partial struggle of the totality that must be destroyed. Thus, as well, the capacity to see what is potentially revolutionary – what has moved beyond the logic of demands and of piece-meal changes – in partial social struggles, since, after all, every radical, insurrectionary rupture has been sparked by a struggle that started as an attempt to gain partial demands, but that moved in practice from demanding what was desired to seizing it and more.

5. The rejection of the idea of progress, of the idea that the current order of things is the result of an ongoing process of improvement that we can take further, possibly even to its apotheosis, if we put in the effort. The recognition that the current trajectory – which the rulers and their loyal reformist and “revolutionary” opposition call “progress” – is inherently harmful to individual freedom, free association, healthy human relations, the totality of life and the planet itself. The recognition that this trajectory must be brought to an end and new ways of living and relating developed if we are to achieve full autonomy and freedom. (This does not necessarily lead to an absolute rejection of technology and civilization, and such a rejection does not constitute the bottom line of a break with the left, but the rejection of progress most certainly means a willingness to seriously and critically examine and question civilization and technology, and particularly industrialism. Those who are not willing to raise such questions most likely continue to hold to the myth of progress.)

6. The rejection of identity politics. The recognition that, while various oppressed groups experience their dispossession in ways specific to their oppression and analysis of these specificities is necessary in order to get a full understanding of how domination functions, nonetheless, dispossession is fundamentally the stealing away of the capacity of each of us as individuals to create our lives on our own terms in free association with others. The reappropriation of life on the social level, as well as its full reappropriation on the individual level, can only occur when we stop identifying ourselves essentially in terms of our social identities.

7. The rejection of collectivism, of the subordination of the individual to the group. The rejection of the ideology of collective responsibility (a rejection that does not mean the refusal of social or class analysis, but rather that removes the moral judgment from such analysis, and refuses the dangerous practice of blaming individuals for activities that have been done in the name of, or that have been attributed to, a social category of which they are said to be a part, but about which they had no choice – e.g., “Jew”, “gypsy”, “male”, “white”, etc.). The rejection of the idea that anyone, either due to “privilege” or due to supposed membership in a particular oppressed group, owes uncritical solidarity to any struggle or movement, and the recognition that such a conception is a major obstruction in any serious revolutionary process. The creation of collective projects and activities to serve the needs and desires of the individuals involved, and not vice versa. The recognition that the fundamental alienation imposed by capital is not based in any hyper-individualist ideology that it may promote, but rather stems from the collective project of production that it imposes, which expropriates our individual creative capacities to fulfill its aims. The recognition of the liberation of each and every individual to be able to determine the conditions of her or his existence in free association with others of her or his choosing – i.e., the individual and social reappropriation of life – as the primary aim of revolution.

8. The rejection of ideology, that is to say, the rejection of every program, idea, abstraction, ideal or theory that is placed above life and individuals as a construct to be served. The rejection, therefore, of God, the State, the Nation, the Race, etc., but also of Anarchism, Primitivism, Communism, Freedom, Reason, the Individual, etc. when these become ideals to which one is to sacrifice oneself, one’s desires, one’s aspirations, one’s dreams. The use of ideas, theoretical analysis and the capacity to reason and think abstractly and critically as tools for realizing one’s aims, for reappropriating life and acting against everything that stands in the way of this reappropriation. The rejection of easy answers that come to act as blinders to one’s attempts to examine the reality one is facing in favor of ongoing questioning and theoretical exploration.

As I see it, these are what constitute a real break with the left. Where any of these rejections are lacking – whether in theory or practice – vestiges of the left remain, and this is a hindrance to our project of liberation. Since this break with the left is based in the necessity to free the practice of anarchy from the confines of politics, it is certainly not an embrace of the right or any other part of the political spectrum. It is rather a recognition that a struggle for the transformation of the totality of life, a struggle to take back each of our lives as our own in a collective movement for individual realization, can only be hampered by political programs, “revolutionary” organizations and ideological constructs that demand our service, because these too, like the state and capital, demand that we give our lives to them rather than take our lives as our own. Our dreams are much too large for the narrow confines of political schemes. It is long past time that we leave the left behind and go on our merry way toward the unknown of insurrection and the creation of full and self-determined lives."

 

.....

 

People who want to place anarchism within the structure of a right to left political spectrum are oblivious to the fact that most (European?) anarchists declare themselves apolitical in that sense. How? due to the fact that anything along a left - right line of politics involves ideas that are shaped around an economy of somekind that is debated within traditional forms of language - almost like a game of chess or a dance where most of the moves are well known. Anarchists have a tradition of not caring to be included within that politic - their defence being that a managed economy and any debate to do with it - smacks of government and the left is equally reviled as the right by anarchists. The point being that post revolutionary politics will not look as shapely as revolutionaries had planned them - the debate is only credible if anarchists do align themselves behind or alongside the left (which in reality - most do)

 

You guys off in fantasy land? Ok, I'll leave.

 

Shane

“those who would still cling to a heirarchal form of society would vanish all together. As anarchism becomes closer to being a reality the conflict will get bloodier”

So anarchy, in your view, is ultimately based on coercion.

**

“Explain how such actions as squatting could be viewed as using authority?
More like passive resistance.
The only force used would be on Jose's part when he tries to enforce his 'right to property'.
If/when Jose uses a small army to enforce his 'right to property' he is not acting as an individual, but as an agent of heirachal force and oppression and will be dealt with accordingly.”

If those that oppose you taking something can be “dealt with” it is not squatting it is the taking of something with menaces. It is no different than pointing a gun at someone and asking him or her to hand over their valuables, if they then resist they are using force against you and you are therefore able to shoot them.

**

The thing is that some of your arguments against leftism seem to be based on its supposed predilection toward using authority heavy handily and its supposed repressive violence

Yet you seem to be saying that when anarchist have power (have the authority) they will do what they want and if people don’t like it they will be dealt with, even in a bloody way?

**

 

Again, not 'rebranding' anarchism, but 'restating' what anarchism has always been and 're-evaluating' our relationship with the left.

**

But what most anarchists ultimately want still seems to be left wing.

What you have shown is that you seem to be a bit confused over what your methods should be.

Are you for a non authoritarian and un-coercive system or one based on the authority of the majority and backed up by bloody coercion.

 

First off, if you're going to quote me don't use 1/2 a sentence out of context.
This is what i said:

Anarchy is not based on coersion. Heirarchy is. The closer anarchy comes to being a reality the more coersion and force heirarchy will employ. Proponents of anarchy (just as every individual) retain the right to defend themselves.

**

Wrong.
The 'ownership' of land is illegitimate. With no State protected 'right to property' how is something be taken from them? Land would not be something to take or give. It would be free to all for use by all. Also, when i say dealt with i did not say 'with violence', however if violence is used on the part of the 'land owner' to hoard land that does not belong to him alone, individuals retain the right to defend themselves, violently if need be.

Again, you misunderstand me. Anarchists will not have power. There will be no "Anarchist Republic for the People of North America". That is a leftist mentality. Individuals will be free, and when their freedom is threatened by wannabe dictators, those individuals have the right to defend themselves.

going back to Jose for example:
Jose will no longer be able to claim a piece of land as his own and use violence or coersion to enforce that, because when he tries to forcible remove someone from land that belongs to all, the individuals in questions will defend themselves.

Not theft.

 

No, that would be democracy, which i reject.

Again, defense of oneself from violence, force, and coersion (even with violence) is not imposing authority over anyone but oneself.