anarchism and "authoritarianism"

[Luther Blissett]

Ah, but in their time Capitalists and Communists have been the groupings writing what becomes accepted as history, so it's hardly surprising that anarchists and anarchism are misrepresented, given that those writing history have a vested interest in not acknowledging their own perfidy.

A very good example of this historical misrepresentation are the various distorions and betrayals of Nestor Makhno's anarchist movement in the Ukraine by the authoritarian-butchers, Lenin & Trotsky during the Bolshevik revolution.
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/how_len.htm
Lenin & Trotsky used all manner of tricks to discredit Makhno's movement - from accusations of anti-semitism, to the ordered massacre of whole villages who supported the anarchist bid to free Ukraine of the Bolsheviks, to their ultimate betrayal and execution by firing squad.

Anarchists of a more pacific bent denounced these groups as "Sicilian bandits" who used the cloak of anarchism to conceal the predatory nature of their activities. For the moderates, robbery and terrorism were grotesque caricatures of anarchist doctrines, which served only to demoralize the movements true adherents and to discredit anarchism in the eyes of the public. Renouncing violent action, the milder anarchists armed themselves with nothing more lethal than pen and ink and mounted a verbal attack on the Soviet dictatorship. A major theme of their criticism was that the Bolshevik Revolution had merely substituted "state capitalism" for private capitalism, that one big owner had taken the place of many small ones, so that the peasants and workers now found themselves under the heel of a "new class of administrators - a new class born largely from the womb of the intelligentsia." (5) In their view, what had taken place in Russia closely resembled the earlier revolutions in Western Europe: no sooner had the oppressed farmers and craftsmen of England and Francfe removed the landed aristocracy from power than the ambitious middle class stepped into the breach and erected a new class structure with itself at the top; in a similar manner, the privileges and authority once shared by the Russian nobility and bourgeoisie had passed into the hands of a new ruling class composed of party officials, governments bureaucrats, and technical specialists.

As the Civil War deepened, the government grew less and less tolerant of such criticisms and started clamping down on anarchist groups in Moscow and Petrograd. As a result, there began an exodus of anarchists to the Ukraine, the perennial haven of fugitives from the persecutions of the central government.
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/avrracw.htm

You would need to read the whole of the Avrich essay to get the full picture.

 

[Karen Eliot]

at the anarchist society at my university (its called the Autonomous Society, but thats just another way of saying anarchist, really).

they have rules as to who can speak when, and you have to make hand gestures to indicate whether you agree, disagree or are neutral to the previous point

i have never been, but a freind who goes told me their rules, and this put me off instantly.

The more i think about this the clearer it becomes that those silly bloody games, far from being an essential component of direct democracy are actually an exclusionary tactic.

 

[Gmart]

An example of how capitalism operates and how i'd like it to operate or of a future anarchist society?

No, an example of a law you would be happy to have applying differently to different people.

 

[Karen Eliot]

And i ask again, when? Now or in some post-revolutionary society?

It strikes me that you're concentrating too much on the end result and too little on the process, the same process can, of course, have different results for different societies given that there is a multiplicity of desires and needs and that these groups might choose to meet them in different ways.

 

[rhys gethin]

And i ask again, when? Now or in some post-revolutionary society?

It strikes me that you're concentrating too much on the end result and too little on the process, the same process can, of course, have different results for different societies given that there is a multiplicity of desires and needs and that these groups might choose to meet them in different ways.

Don't you think there might be some basic principles, like not killing people, or mistreating children, which applied everywhere?

 

[Karen Eliot]

Of course, how does that affect my point? It doesn't as far as i can see.

The very idea that all laws must be universal is patently absurd - a quick look at different legislation currently existing in different countries shows this - we already have different laws for different societies. The fact that these societies also share some common laws is not an argument that all law must then be universal.

 

[rhys gethin]

Of course, how does that affect my point? It doesn't as far as i can see.

The very idea that all laws must be universal is patently absurd - a quick look at different legislation currently existing in different countries shows this - we already have different laws for different societies. The fact that these societies also share some common laws is not an argument that all law must then be universal.

I must have missed that bit. I don't disagree with the general principle, but I'd want to see as few laws as possible: no killing, no rape, no torture, no bullying, no preventing free speech. What sort of example would you give of a locally-specific 'law' (and it needn't be one you'd agree with)? I'd have some thoughts about destruction of local languages and such, maybe, but otherwise I find the concept tough.

 

[kyser_soze]

no preventing free speech

Got to ask you on this, is all speech and thought sacrosanct under this, or are there exceptions? And by that I don't mean 'Will you allow kiddie porn' since I think that point won't really serve to advance the discussion here...

 

[Gmart]

And i ask again, when? Now or in some post-revolutionary society?

You feel that having the same laws for all people NOW is wrong? I would like to find out why you believe this. Why, for example, might you justify better worker's rights for one set of people than another. And if you feel that worker's rights are an absolute right then surely this goes towards a necessary world accord on certain laws.

So please, why should any group have a different set of laws, an example please.

 

[118118]

deleted post.

 

[rhys gethin]

Got to ask you on this, is all speech and thought sacrosanct under this, or are there exceptions? And by that I don't mean 'Will you allow kiddie porn' since I think that point won't really serve to advance the discussion here...

I don't think a healthy society would have that problem, but I was saying free 'speech', not publication. I suppose it would be okay for some old drunk to burble on about his fantasies if anyone could bear to listen. On the whole I dislike the concepts of 'madness' or 'perversion', but I suppose we'd have to weigh up the dangers to actual children against the dangers of setting up prisons, AND think about the possibilities of 'cure'. I can't feel that people outside capitalism could possibly override their need to care for children, but I suppose you always get monsters. Dunno.

 

[Karen Eliot]

You feel that having the same laws for all people NOW is wrong? I would like to find out why you believe this. Why, for example, might you justify better worker's rights for one set of people than another. And if you feel that worker's rights are an absolute right then surely this goes towards a necessary world accord on certain laws.

So please, why should any group have a different set of laws, an example please.

You seem to be having some trouble grasping my point and for some reason are pretending that i'm attacking workers rights or that i'm trying to justify and agenda that does so. I could as easily turn your question back to you and ask why you would support a universal law applicable to all that sets the standard working week at 60 hours and makes unions and strikes illegal. But that would be to make a mockery of the debate wouldn't it?

My point is quite straighforward - societies differ, they have different traditions, norms, expectations etc They also have some things in common. It's perfectly possible to envisage a scenario where a number of these societies decide that they're going to have differing policies on certain issues - this already happens. Different countries have different laws, they even have different laws whilst sharing the same deliberative and legislative process.

Now there is nothing in that argument that says that wider or even universal 'laws' (not the term that i'd use myself but there you go) are a no no. In fact, the argument that laws or rules should be decided on by those subject to them can easily be used to support the argument that things such as global pollution by its nature needs to be managed on a global scale - but it doesn't then follow that every single aspect of social life needs to be governed by universal laws - to leap to that conclusion is to ignore the diversity of humanity.

Do you accept that there are different societies with different traditions? If so why would you deny them the right to develop their own rules and standards of behaviour (as far as practically possible of course) in favour of imposing an external set of universal laws?

 

[kyser_soze]

@ rhys...You're also assuming there that the moral codes remain identical to those that are present - sexual relations between children and adults are as old as humanity itself so CSA is not something you can lay at the feet of capitalism (your comment on how CSA is an 'override' on the need to care for children is interesting), I was more thinking about speech related to hate and intolerance...

 

[rhys gethin]

@ rhys...You're also assuming there that the moral codes remain identical to those that are present - sexual relations between children and adults are as old as humanity itself so CSA is not something you can lay at the feet of capitalism (your comment on how CSA is an 'override' on the need to care for children is interesting), I was more thinking about speech related to hate and intolerance...

kyser - My own feeling is that sexual relations between children and adults are certainly age-old, but also that they are entirely dominative, and entirely at odds with human freedom. I reckon that it is all a matter of false belief in the 'ego', which capitalists tend to give absolute rights, but which is in fact a fantasy.

Speech related to hate and intolerance, I think doesn't matter unless the toads have the opportunity to dominate discussion and actually put their obsessions into practice. Once they could pick on black people, now they pick on Muslims: the question is not whether they should be allowed to speak but whether the rich own the media. There are lots of English, for instance, who hate 'Welsh' people, but they can't hurt us, so let them rant. In a free society the media would be free, so who's afraid of the ranting wolf?

 

[kyser_soze]

Don't necessarily agree with yer first paragraph but that's a whole other thread (indeed, probably an MA)...was more interested in how far your committement to free speech went, having met a lot of people who are pro free speech until they come across something that dislike others saying...

 

[118118]

just out of interest, do any anarchists postng on thsi thread feel that its ok/benefifical to belittle people that disagree with them. i don't get it, is it something to be with wanting to seem "street". its really very discouraging, sometimes proper annoying, but rarely upsetting. but discouraging, you know.

fwiw, op was referring to something more specific, rather than what i was contending is a contempoaray manifestation of lefort's criticism: just intolerance of oddity in the anarchist scene.

 

[Gmart]

My point is quite straighforward - societies differ, they have different traditions, norms, expectations etc They also have some things in common. It's perfectly possible to envisage a scenario where a number of these societies decide that they're going to have differing policies on certain issues - this already happens. Different countries have different laws, they even have different laws whilst sharing the same deliberative and legislative process.

What you say sounds fine, maybe one person should have a different law from another. I would certainly be very happy to organise a straight law say limitting the age when one can work to say 16. Or more obviously having one law against murder which applies to all.

You speak in idealistic lingo without actually stepping up to the plate and giving an example of when you would envisage a different law for different people. I could suggest an answer, since you seem reluctant. One country votes to have a minimum age of 12 for working and another has a minimum age of 16.

Can you see why this might be difficult? All the work would go to the first country where the laws are more liberal, and the supply of labour is greater leading to lower wages. Thus my suggestion that the two countries should discuss a common law to avoid this lowest common denominator system. This is BTW the basis for cooperation in Europe, and indeed the basis for cooperation to save the planet from the greenhouse effect. If ALL governments decide to have the same law then the issue might be resolved, however if even 1 decides to exercise its freedom (which you seem to be supporting) to have a more liberal emissions law, then all the business would go there and the issue would NOT be resolved.

This is why one has to work with examples. I hope you understand my concerns now. How would you solve this?

 

[inflatable jesus]

just out of interest, do any anarchists postng on thsi thread feel that its ok/benefifical to belittle people that disagree with them. i don't get it, is it something to be with wanting to seem "street". its really very discouraging, sometimes proper annoying, but rarely upsetting. but discouraging, you know.

fwiw, op was referring to something more specific, rather than what i was contending is a contempoaray manifestation of lefort's criticism: just intolerance of oddity in the anarchist scene.

I think I know the tendency you're talking about, having seen it in my experiences with organised (heh) anarchism.

I think it's partly that a lot of people involved in direct action or community based politics spend a great deal of time being frustrated about how little tends to be achieved, so sometimes they tend to vent that in the wrong ways. I noticed a big tendency for some anarchists to tend to blame the failure of their projects on other group members not pitching in rather than accepting that their idea was just a bit crap.

I think it's also partly that when you try to apply anarchist principles to your own life, you tend to start believing that you need to assert strongly that you don't take shit from people and I think that a lot of people feel like they need to play up their working class tough guy image to counteract the innate middle-class-ness of spending your time reading obscure books and talking like a hippy about vegan food and carbon emissions.

Those are my thoughts anyway. You shouldn't discount the more simple explanation that some people are just cunts though.

 

[118118]

discount the more simple explanation that some people are just cunts

point taken, but isn't the more complicated explanation more worrying?

 

[118118]

need to assert strongly that you don't take shit from people and I think that a lot of people feel like they need to play up their working class tough guy image

do you think its necessary/useful?

thanks

 

[118118]

yeah, its just part of the culture of anarchism isn't it... is it useful though? cos if it isn't, well, tbh they can stick "anarchism" or what remains of it up their "proverbial".

 

[118118]

nah, imvho the culture has got something to do with the 'freedom'. e.g. if you can't be a "moralist" then you can't really have a go at people in a certain way, you're left with showing/having outlets for agression in different ways. by being street, or beligerantly trying to humiliate. if there is no legitimate form of exoression of conflict - where does it go! if justice does not exist except in your head - how can you legitimately express disagreement? i mean, anarchism coupled with subjetivism - bad news, you are the boss of nothing. there is no conlfict.

will think more about this, tho fairly sure will agree with lefort.

 

[revol68]

nah, imvho the culture has got something to do with the 'freedom'. e.g. if you can't be a "moralist" then you can't really have a go at people in a certain way, you're left with showing/having outlets for agression in different ways. by being street, or beligerantly trying to humiliate. if there is no legitimate form of exoression of conflict - where does it go! if justice does not exist except in your head - how can you legitimately express disagreement? i mean, anarchism coupled with subjetivism - bad news, you are the boss of nothing. there is no conlfict.

will think more about this, tho fairly sure will agree with lefort.

you do know that subjectivism doesn't equal relativism, infact with out subjectivism there is no conflict.

 

[118118]

yes, but it usually does, doesn't it? and it looks like i have argued that if it doesn't then its self-defeating. tho maybe I see your point wrt no conflict... I think.

how do you suggest conflict is settled? arbitarily?

I will be unable to finish this discussion for a few weeks

 

[inflatable jesus]

point taken, but isn't the more complicated explanation more worrying?

I think it would only be worrying if you honestly believed that organised anarchists were going to produce something extremely worthwhile. While I still think that anarchism is a really useful way to approach difficult questions, I don't think that very many of the 'grassroots' projects will really make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

do you think its necessary/useful?

It could be in the right context. Like when dealing with certain authority figures or religious or Trot groups that are trying to muscle in on a campaign that you support or run. Taking that approach in general conversation just makes you a dick though.

yeah, its just part of the culture of anarchism isn't it... is it useful though? cos if it isn't, well, tbh they can stick "anarchism" or what remains of it up their "proverbial".

I don't think it negates the entire range of anarchist ideas. I think it just means that if you are going to get involved in activism you need a thick skin and an ability to deal with some unpleasant people. Sometimes it's worth it because you can make a difference and meet some really cool people.

I'm not in any rush to get back into it though.