[Utopian_Anarchist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchism

Basically for anarchists to separate themselves from the other leftist movements that have tried and failed, or become increasingly authoritarian. What do anarchists think (although I guess anyone can answer)?

[Korimyr the Rat]

I don't think your movements keep failing because they're associated with old movements.

You can't make good soup out of bad soup by changing the label.

[Le Rouge]

‘Post-left’ anarchism is more or less a form of the paradoxical ‘romantic materialism’ of college students and new age hippies. They dream of a utopian society in which everyone does whatever they want as long as they are motivated by love. This is the same old bullshit repeated by those who don’t want to fight for a better society — from the transcendentalist, German pacifists, and the American hippies.

[Utopian_Anarchist]

I don't think your movements keep failing because they're associated with old movements.

You can't make good soup out of bad soup by changing the label.

Maybe check up on the Spanish Civil War for starters. Many Anarchists considered other leftist to have betrayed them.

‘Post-left’ anarchism is more or less a form of the paradoxical ‘romantic materialism’ of college students and new age hippies. They dream of a utopian society in which everyone does whatever they want as long as they are motivated by love. This is the same old bullshit repeated by those who don’t want to fight for a better society — from the transcendentalist, German pacifists, and the American hippies.

Maybe you haven't read my name? And why not have a society of free love? Better than a society of competition and cut-throat business where if you lose you can starve to death (and many do).

[SpiderMonkey]

Interesting. I'm considering myself an anarchist (sort of - I dislike political labels) these days, and one thing that I think anarchism desperately needs is to put as much distance between anarchists and marxists as possible. We have to shout about the atrocities of the USSR and its satellites even louder than the right if we are to be considered anything other than rebranded commies.

[Utopian_Anarchist]

We have to shout about the atrocities of the USSR and its satellites even louder than the right if we are to be considered anything other than rebranded commies.

That is the main point in distancing ourselves especially from the atrocities of the USSR.

This might be an odd question (since I'm not particularly fond of labels and neither are you) but would you consider yourself a collective anarchist, an individual anarchist or a capitalist anarchist?

[SpiderMonkey]

That is the main point in distancing ourselves especially from the atrocities of the USSR.

This might be an odd question (since I'm not particularly fond of labels and neither are you) but would you consider yourself a collective anarchist, an individual anarchist or a capitalist anarchist?

Certainly not capitalist. Probably a mix of individual and collective.

[Deutschmania]

Yes we must denounce red fascism as much as any other kind. Genuine Communism isn't a totalitarian police state however. Council Communism is, in my opinion, what communism should be like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism

[Potemkin]

You do realise the word 'Soviet' is simply the Russian for 'Council', don't you? If you're a 'Council Communist', then, strictly speaking, you're a Soviet Communist.

[Kon]

You do realise the word 'Soviet' is simply the Russian for 'Council', don't you? If you're a 'Council Communist', then, strictly speaking, you're a Soviet Communist.

Your just going into semantics here, communism in the USSR in the early years had strong elements of council communism in it (eg: general strikes being called by the soviets), but once the commies took power of the country they stopped relying on soviets and began infighting and this lead to a dictatorship.

[Red Star]

I am wondering whether putting much distance between the communists and anarchists would achieve anything for either side. Such fracturing has shown itself to be massively problematic - including in the afore-mentioned Spanish Civil War.

The Left has a tendency to concentrate on the nearest political competitor on its side of the spectrum (see the communists' criticism of the SDP in Germany in the 20s and 30s) rather than the real problems.

I do not believe that putting a lot of distance between yourselves and the rest of the left would achieve much. Sure, you are entitled to a difference in views, as well as a right to face up to past mistakes, but ultimately, the Left needs unity much more than labelling.

[Potemkin]

It's not strictly correct to say that the Bolsheviks stopped relying on Soviets. And the downgrading of the role of the Soviets was certainly not part of the ideology or official policy of the Bolsheviks. In fact, one of the Party's main theoreticians, Preobrazhensky, suggested to Lenin as early as 1921 that the Party should be absorbed into the Soviets and be allowed to 'wither away', since it had served its historical purpose. Lenin eventually decided against this, since the new regime required a strong, centralised state apparatus if it was to survive the attacks of the capitalist-imperialist powers which encircled it. What eventually ended up happening was that the Soviets were absorbed into the Party and gradually withered away. This was always seen by the Soviet leadership as a bad thing, and even Stalin suggested as late as the 1940s that the role of the Party within Soviet society should be downgraded and perhaps even reduced to almost nothing. It never came to anything, of course.

[Red Star]

Don't you think this suggests that communism couldn't really flourish unless a few neighbouring states have a revolution at the same (or similiar) times? As I agree that a centralised state is needed to fend off an inevitable counter-revolution and even outside hostility, that poses the question - wouldn't the Party become so entrenched during this fight that it would simply constitute a class in itself? And as the state cannot wither away until the Party does too, we have simply replaced one hierarchy with another?

I am asking this question as Lenin was right (to me) that the Soviets absorbing the Party would allow outside powers to probably crush the revolution. However, the Party being absorbed by the Soviets was probably the best way to achieve communism. So how can this problem be solved - both fending off outside attack and not allowing the Party to become a new ruling caste?

[Kon]

Don't you think this suggests that communism couldn't really flourish unless a few neighbouring states have a revolution at the same (or similiar) times?

This is where Trotsky was correct, communism cannot survive unless all countrys have revolutions at the same time or close to eachother (permanant revolution), I believe something similar in regards to libertarian socialism. My belief is that it will be able to survive attacks from capitalist countries in only small underdevolped areas (like Chiapis) or it will only be able to survive if a massive area full of enough industrys for self sustainibility is taken over.

[Red Star]

Yeah, I guess that was what I was getting at - but as soon as you mention Trotsky, many people start digging out the tomahawks.

[Mikolaj]

...or at least have enough countries to get a decent trading bloc.

[Kon]

...or at least have enough countries to get a decent trading bloc.

This is correct; a bloc large enough for a gift economy to flourish wouldn't need size per say, it would need either natural resources or large reserves collected before the revolution.

I believe that occupied factories (before an libertarian socialist syndicate, a government free country, is established) should partake in the capitalist system in order to survive, but they will not survive long (or will degrade into a socialist government) unless a large enough area is taken over by the workers, another thing necessary to the establishment and defense of such a society from capitalism would be agricultural unions.

[Red Star]

So we are getting at the fact that one country is not an island - that in a modern world we cannot have a real communism, unless at least a few countries overthrow their regimes at around the same time, allowing a bloc to be formed? (Pretty much what Marx stated anyway).

How can that be feasibly achieved?

[Napuljun]

Here is a good article which gives a proper solution to what you are discussing about:

http://infoshop.org/afterleftism.html

[The Anarchist Tension]

Basically for anarchists to separate themselves from the other leftist movements that have tried and failed, or become increasingly authoritarian. What do anarchists think (although I guess anyone can answer)?

Firstly, you're not making a distinction between leftism in general or leftist anarchism? There's obviously a massive difference.

Secondly, traditional anarchist movements have not become authoritarian, there methods and organisation have been consistent. The only instance of authoritarianism is the platform and the CNT's tactics during the Spanish civil war, but they are specific examples rather than a gradual transformation.

Thirdly, there is an idea that we can abandon theoretics in place of lifestyle and that this transition is somehow going to destroy capitalism and the state. There is no explanation that is founded in logic on how that will be achieved. I'm assuming you accept logic as a basis for reality? Maybe you don't...?

Whether or not one agrees with Marx's analysis of capitalism is of no relevance. It's still a set of facts that the post left anarchist movement or anyone else in fact have ever refuted: Saying "they're outdated" is nothing more than conjecture, and conjecture is not an argument.

I grant you that things have altered since Marx was alive, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that class relationships have completely changed or, as you people would have us believe, become non-existent.

Whether you like it or not, working class people are the only people in society that have direct power over capitalism. It is only people who work within the process of production that can bring those processes down.

Let me put it simply: Imagine what would happen if the entire working class decided not to work? Capitalism would collapse. However, the post-left anarchist movement consists of predominantly middle class young people who do not work or whom are students. Even if they decided to occupy their universities or create a climate action camp capitalism would still continue to function because the working class would still be making it so.

Whether you like it or not class analysis and class struggle are the only relevant ideas and actions which will bring down capitalism. Providing of course that's what you want to achieve?

Maybe check up on the Spanish Civil War for starters. Many Anarchists considered other leftist to have betrayed them.

Stalinists and reformists betrayed the anarchists and the left Marxists, which was always a risk anyway. I would argue that it's difficult to be betrayed by people who aren't on your side in the first place.

Also remember that the CNT become directly involved in the state and this, as is proven constantly, is a recipe for disaster. You would have thought anarchists new better?

And why not have a society of free love?

Why not indeed? The problem is that saying "let’s live in a society of free love" or in fact loving people is not going to destroy capitalism and the state.

You can't just say "We live in a free love society" and it becomes so...

Better than a society of competition and cut-throat business where if you lose you can starve to death (and many do).

Yes, but you have to get rid of the society of competition in order to create something better. Post left anarchism has no tangible way of achieving that.