PDA

View Full Version : Contemporary anarchism


Michael
Jul 29th 2010, 02:04 PM
Contemporary anarchism

By ERIC KERL

Eric Kerl is a longtime socialist activist whose writings have appeared in Socialist Worker and International Socialist Review. He is a regular speaker on the politics of anarchism and Marxism. Eric is a printer by trade and works in Chicago.

IN DECEMBER 2008, Time magazine ran the headline, “Could Greece’s Riots Spread to France?”1 The article was accompanied by fiery images of anarchists battling police on the streets of Athens. Four months later, Britain’s Telegraph newspaper fretted that a planned march against the G-20 meetings in London, “could be hijacked by anarchists who are known to create so-called ‘black blocs’—tight, hard-to-break units which can smash through police lines.”2 More recently, student resistance to the economic crisis facing colleges and universities in the United States has sparked debates with anarchists who propose a maximum strategy to “occupy everything” and yet, “demand nothing.”3

Since the advent of the global justice movement of the 1990s, anarchist ideas have had a renaissance, and continue to attract growing numbers of adherents, despite detractors in the mainstream media and political repression from the police. For the social movements of the past decade, the broad ideas of anarchism have defined the political landscape. These ideas express themselves in a multitude of ways: from consensus based decision-making models, activist collectives, spokes councils, and affinity groups to black bloc tactics at demonstrations and targeted property destruction (bank windows, ATMs, Starbucks, parking meters, etc).

While the black-hooded anarchist rioters of global justice demonstrations remain the media’s favorite spectacle, anarchists of all types are currently debating new tactics, political shifts, and reassessments of the anarchist tradition. Importantly, strains of contemporary anarchism have offered convincing critiques of the lifestyle approach to social change, rehabilitated the legacy of syndicalism, reoriented to class struggle, and initiated new ways of relating to the working class and social movements. At the same time, other anarchists have mounted vicious attacks on the organized political left and activism in general.

This article is an attempt to explore these new developments and seek common ground with the best aspects of today’s anarchism. Further, this article will analyze the shared assumptions of these disparate strains of anarchist thought and offer a Marxist critique of anarchism’s historical, as well as present, shortcomings.

Article (http://www.isreview.org/issues/72/feat-anarchism.shtml)

This looks like an interesting and thought provoking article. I figured I'd share it here and hopefully spark some discussion on the topic. :)

MetallicaFan
Aug 26th 2010, 04:25 AM
Article (http://www.isreview.org/issues/72/feat-anarchism.shtml)

This looks like an interesting and thought provoking article. I figured I'd share it here and hopefully spark some discussion on the topic. :)
I'll be honest, I read that little exert, which was a Marxist criticizing anarchism, and I pretty much knew what the arguments were gona be.

In the mid 19th century, when Marx was forming his new socialist/communist group, along side the anarchists and syndicalists etc, there was great debate over who was right. I feel history is a vindication of anarchist philosophy more than any other, whilst it still leaves flaws in the ideas of anarchists.
Essentially the big boys of both philosophies, between Marxism and anarchism, which (in my opinion) are Bakunin and Marx, give insight into the flaws of both.

Marxism it is thought by anarchists, along with all other state operating ideologies, to be inherently bound to fail because the state is seen to be naturally corrupt and destined to allow only exploitation and suppression of the working man, and thus anarchists hold a complete refutation of the use of the state system.
Whilst Marxists beleive the state can be used to achieve socialist ends and means. Marx talked of turning the state into the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (which means completely ruled by the workers), to which Bakunin directly asked "Well sir, there are 400000 workers in Germany - do you wish them all to be in government?"

To non anarchic, socialist revolutionaries, anarchy seems to have been proven false through its followers rejection of the state and hence rejection of power and the ability to make real difference. This in a way is a good point. There have been various times where an anarchist in power could have done wonders - in Spain during the Civil War, or even better in the Russia during 1917, when the Provisional Government asked the founder of communal-anarchism, Kropotkin, to be education Minster but he rejected the call.

On the other hand Marxists in power, best shown in the 1917 October Revolution - the Bolsheviks, showed that any body in control of the state really does find themselves controlled instead by the state apparatus. The Russian Revolution quite realistically vindicated anarchic philosophy in that it showed the state inevitably corrupts and allows for socialism to be destroyed, as it did with the rise of Stalin.

For me anarchy is more powerful, but I stick with Tolstoy in that field of thought. If you are a Christian, and an anarchist, like is was for a while, he is the only guy who knows what is really what.

Michael
Aug 26th 2010, 08:41 PM
I'll be honest, I read that little exert, which was a Marxist criticizing anarchism, and I pretty much knew what the arguments were gona be.

In the mid 19th century, when Marx was forming his new socialist/communist group, along side the anarchists and syndicalists etc, there was great debate over who was right. I feel history is a vindication of anarchist philosophy more than any other, whilst it still leaves flaws in the ideas of anarchists.
Essentially the big boys of both philosophies, between Marxism and anarchism, which (in my opinion) are Bakunin and Marx, give insight into the flaws of both.

Marxism it is thought by anarchists, along with all other state operating ideologies, to be inherently bound to fail because the state is seen to be naturally corrupt and destined to allow only exploitation and suppression of the working man, and thus anarchists hold a complete refutation of the use of the state system.
Whilst Marxists beleive the state can be used to achieve socialist ends and means. Marx talked of turning the state into the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (which means completely ruled by the workers), to which Bakunin directly asked "Well sir, there are 400000 workers in Germany - do you wish them all to be in government?"

To non anarchic, socialist revolutionaries, anarchy seems to have been proven false through its followers rejection of the state and hence rejection of power and the ability to make real difference. This in a way is a good point. There have been various times where an anarchist in power could have done wonders - in Spain during the Civil War, or even better in the Russia during 1917, when the Provisional Government asked the founder of communal-anarchism, Kropotkin, to be education Minster but he rejected the call.

On the other hand Marxists in power, best shown in the 1917 October Revolution - the Bolsheviks, showed that any body in control of the state really does find themselves controlled instead by the state apparatus. The Russian Revolution quite realistically vindicated anarchic philosophy in that it showed the state inevitably corrupts and allows for socialism to be destroyed, as it did with the rise of Stalin.

For me anarchy is more powerful, but I stick with Tolstoy in that field of thought. If you are a Christian, and an anarchist, like is was for a while, he is the only guy who knows what is really what.
Excellent comments. :hatoff:

Indeed, you leave me nothing to critique! :tape:

That is quite unusual to say the least. Not too many people can name-drop Marx and Bakunin around me and get away with it. :lol:

Do that with Plato, Rousseau and Nietzsche and I'll be very impressed, to say the least. ;)

Bethatasitmay, I am curious about your Tolstoy comment. I'm familiar with some of Tolstoy's literature, but not his biography or politics.

MetallicaFan
Aug 26th 2010, 10:07 PM
Excellent comments. :hatoff:

Indeed, you leave me nothing to critique! :tape:

That is quite unusual to say the least. Not too many people can name-drop Marx and Bakunin around me and get away with it. :lol:

Do that with Plato, Rousseau and Nietzsche and I'll be very impressed, to say the least. ;)

Bethatasitmay, I am curious about your Tolstoy comment. I'm familiar with some of Tolstoy's literature, but not his biography or politics.

Thanks.
Well about Tolstoy, I dont know too much about his life, (that is I dont know much). I do know he was the son of a rich family. He joined the army and I think he might have seen some action, but I dont know. Anyway he became really religious as he started to study the words of Jesus and realized that most churches had manipulated his words to condone war and violence.
Tolstoy basically argues that Jesus isn't the son of God, but he was enlightened and that every Christian should embrace Jesus teaching of pure love which revealed that the Kingdom of God could realized within us and the earth. His book "the Kingdom of God is within you" explains all of this. As a Christian myself, feeling very disillusioned, I found and read the book and developed a much deeper understanding. He explained how a Christian, capable of only love as Jesus ordered, who can not resist violence and cannot judge or condemn others cannot participate in governemnt, as he believed it a form of coercion.

He believed that only through spreading the meaning and truth of Jesus word could people be enlightened and Jesus actual purpose be fulfilled. He is basically a pacifist anarchist, in political terms, but he is a deeply Christian philosopher that even Gandhi said was one of his idols. If you are a Christian I recommend you get that book I mentioned. You might not agree with all of it, I dint agree with everything, but he does speak a lot of truth.
Tolstoy is a bit of a hero of mine, I hope that answers your question.