Anarchist history questions

no-one seems keen on taking up yr offer
I'll get the ball rolling with a stupid one...
What was Goldman's favourite food?

 

I have a couple of curious questions for you.

First, do you vote? Why/why not?

Secondly, what are your thoughts on -modern- (more fiscally-motivated) libertarianism?

Third, I've read about how Proudhon was a bit of a sexist. If this is true, can you point me to some source material corroborating that?

Thanks!

 

I know this was meant for the thread originator, but I thought you wouldn't mind a second opinion. I'd also highly recommend the "Vote & elections" thread where this is covered in-depth.
Yes, I vote. The short answer is because I care. I care about people, individually, and in general. I loathe the state as an institution but no sane, moral person would argue for the overnight dissolution of the state. It would be mass murder. While the state may be a bad thing, it does not follow that it is not capable of good things. It provides medical care for seniors, and school lunch for poor children, etc. These are good things.
Also, at least the state has a mechanism for accountability. Corporations do not. You can't impeach Phil Knight for having sweatshops in Indonesia, they'll just laugh at you. They are completely unaccountable. We should be supporting the public option (Even though it's a compromise from single-payer, which is ideal.) because it will provide cheap medical care to people who need it. Over 60% of bankruptcies in America are due to medical costs. It's absolutely devastating to the poor and middle class. Moreover, by placing these industries in the public arena, we get more control, more of a say, we actually INCREASE freedom.
That said, dropping out just isn't an option. like Zinn said; "You can't be neutral on a moving train." The ostrich syndrome doesn't work. I knew what George Bush's policies would be, what he was going to do, so I made it a point to vote against that, to do one thing that I could do to stop that. If more people had done so as well, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. i don't dispute it's a choice between lesser evils, but that doesn't excuse you from choosing. If you're in a burning building and you can't save everybody you don't just say "Fuck it." and sit down and let everybody die, you do what you can. This is something everybody can do. Again, it comes down to "Do you care?" if the answer is "No', I don't see any sense in being an Anarchist or fellow traveler, or whatever.
I also find it mind-boggling that people who bemoan the lack of accountability discard every presently available mechanism to hold the system accountable. You don't have to overthrow the government to get better conditions in your workplace you can unionize, if you haven't, you can go to union meetings, etc. We now have gay marriage and decriminalization of cannabis in my state, both of which were accomplished without guerilla tactics.
Lastly, I just want to remind that voting is the root of all other rights and freedoms. Once that is compromised it's a police state, autocracy. However the people might be presently marginalized, there is a world of difference. Anyone who says otherwise is stupid or deluded.

There are some very big differences. First of all Libertarians (Big "L".) have a totally negative conception of freedom. If you took the crudest form of this to it's teleological end you could argue against imprisoning or monitoring known pedophiles, because technically, we'd be more free. of course this is a gross exaggeration, but I'm trying to make a point. There needs to be a "Freedom to" to complement the "freedom from." Also, while good, freedom is not the goal simply in itself. The purpose of freedom is to enrich and improve human life, it needs that context. That is another difference: humanism. That is something in which big "L" libertarians are sorely lacking. they are also free-marketeers, going against the overwhelmingly socialist tendencies of Anarchism. I also think it's ideologically bogus. while I dislike the sort of "socialism-for-the-rich" which we have now, but there is no reason to believe a free market would be any better. For instance, markets always undervalue risk. The public sector can do things markets can't. This tends to get miscast as an issue of "freedom', but the freedom in question is for massive monolithic multinationals, which are much scarier than the state.

I've heard charges he was anti-semitic to some degree, I haven't done enough research. As for sexism, I have no idea, however, I would judge that through the prism of the time he was living in.

 

For Prouhdon, he probably was sexist in his purpose, and anti-semitic, but like you say, we're living in our time. Second, do you think the anarchist movment is not longer suitable because it's broke into a multiple of piece. Anarcho-green, anarcho-feminist, anarcho-primitivism, we are no longer in front of the uniformity of 1936 civil Spain war.
And you, where do you place yourself in those multiple option?!

 

affinities are not problem, problem are people who favorize only their affinity. mixing of groups in actions and support each for other is necessary to disable this separation. but it is so in theory, in practice, whatever someone need, very hard that people will give more than verbal support. people are not ready to do anything concretely for other people, and my beliefs are that we should make mutual aid, not only verbal solidarity. simply, I will not fight with someone against the state if he left me in trouble.
you can't compare today situation with 1936, because movement from 1936 was consisted from totally different people than today. it was people's movement, but today it is youth (mostly student) movement. anarchists from today are not "from the people", they are from some professions which are middle class and not connected with poor workers, immigrants and peasants.

 

Unfortunately, due to the factionalisim you mentioned I don't think we can even call Anarchism a movement, per se. More like loosely intertwined communities of thought. I would also say I think you left out a few categories.
The primativists worry me the most, both because of the flaws in their ideology, and the fact that for some reason the madness is spreading.

As I said in the other thread, I don't really feel the need to square myself into a little bracket. I align myself with the socialist tradition within Anarchism, coming from Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin and such,..my most significant modern ideological influence is Noam Chomsky. My perspectives change and grow with time, today I would probably define myself as a Transhumanist Anarchist.

 

I'm aware of that, but what I mean is that anarchist seem to get into micro-piece with time, and how do you do when you want to do someting with poeple who focus more in other point that yours. Do you have to make compromises? Do you debate it with the other around you?

(example how do you want to mix a anarcho-primitivism with a anarcho-feminist, the whole point of equality isn't disturb if people focus more on what seem more important to their point of view instead of fighting together?)

 

well, I think sometimes you can't make people to work together if they didn't solve problems in their heads. AND you must not forget: when people are ready, they will act together. if you want that time of readiness to come faster, you must make more and more discussions about it. we must wait that people change some things in their heads. it is the same when we wait, and act in that direction, that many people in society start to support anarchist idea and fight for abolishing of the state and exploitation (and hierarchy, etc). we can only discuss with people, from mouth to mouth, or with help of our media, everybody choose alone how to do it and how much to do it. mouth are micro media, so if someone repeat the same thing million time, he is like CNN. therefore it is important how much someone will be media and in which way.
you must know character of people if you want to make success: to bring them to situation to work together. it is psychology also.
me personally, I don't want to do anything with primitivists, I don't have anything common with them and I don't try to connect people who are totally different. but in your case, I don't know what type of anarcho-feminsits they are, as I said you must know them personally and you must know personally primitivists and then you can try to make connection between them. as you said, I can conclude they are not ready in their brain to make compromise, so you must speak with them about such things: principles and compromise, plus and minus about it, etc. you must discuss with them more times and leave them period to rethink all of it. then time will show will they cooperate together or not. if not, find somebody else for cooperation, don't catch yourself for one group of people. potential for fight against the state exist everywhere, you saw what was happened in greece. people are waiting for initiator and then marginalized groups exploded. big trouble for ruling class even it was not revolution but it was big rebellion. the state was shaken seriously. and anarchist were not majority and marginalized groups cooperated with anarchists (at least in copenhagen, they had meetings and fire was set in 10 cities in denmark, plus in copenhagen were 2 big burnings of everything). of course, people can coordinate themselves but they can't control groups inside of rebellion, so of course some people will burn anybody's car instead of car of riches, etc. but coordination should exist in order to make rebellion more effective.

 

I have a doubt about one persone repeating the same thing can be cnn, but anyway.

Depending on wich scale you would like to do it. Otherwise, I have not a lot fo faith about anarchist revolution because I don't think that people are ready (well for canada cause I don't know exactly the situation in england of usa) to make a move cause they got everything they want.

 

I think one of the great things about anarchy and anarchists is that although we have occasionally different focuses,1.We Are fighting for the same ultimate goal. 2.Communicate our ideals and motivation without it resulting in mindless conflict. For example I am a Christian Anarchist and i Believe strongly that no peace can come from violence (Not just physically but mentally and spiritually as well), On that note i will do what i can (Non violently of course) to support a fellow anarchist in their conquest for change. "You May like Beer,I May Like Bourbon,But we both like to get drunk"

 

I agree with the above statement.

The factions of anarchism shouldn't matter. We're ultimately fighting for the freedom to live our lives and organise our own communities as we see fit, so there's room for almost any ideology or societal structure, so long as it doesn't oppress.

I think the biggest factor is, as mentioned in the second point above, the means by which we achieve our goals. I personally have no problem with violence against the state and the uprising of a people, only that in my country (the UK) it is highly unlikely to occur any time soon. If I lived in Greece, I might feel differently.

 

Okay some points I picked out from the discussion.
Violence:
As stated somewhere else I'm against any kind of non-consensual violence. Meaning if for instance I go to a martial arts class I consent to the fact that I will act violently to someone else and they will act violently towards me, however after class I therefore cannot hold a grudge (unless he/she went way too far on purpose and seriously injured me), same goes for mosh pits in a way. If you don't want to get beaten, don't get in there.

Separation into smaller groups:
Isn't it so that the longer an idea or ideology exists and the more people follow that idea/ideology, the more they get their own opinion of it? This, to me, is the only reason there are separate groups of anarchists, Christians, Muslims, etc.

Unity between those groups:
A simple quote from Sonic Boom 6's Bigger Than Punk Rock: 'do we have all the unity we sing of in this crowd?'
Only if we can look past our differences will we be able to see where we agree, no?

Mouth = CNN:
Theoretically if one person can reach enough people (s)he will have the same effect as CNN, but methinks CNN reaches millions of people, so there's a challenge in that

 

What strikes me btw is that Jack, who started this thread, has since been absent from it 0.o