Being outcasted by anarcho communists

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Spent two days exploring the ranks of anarcho communists online at one of their websites. Needless to say I’ve become more pessimistic about a majority of so called current anarchists. A majority of anarchists today are Marxists and if you convey a ideology or philosophy that is non-marxist they will devour you like a pack of angry rabid dogs.

I introduced myself as a individual anarchist and they of course viewed me as an antique out of fashion with suspicion right off the bat. As soon as I criticized feminism or their idealistic collectivist utopian notions then came the banning.

When did Marxism and communism take over a variety of anarchist movements around the world? This is all very disheartening.

It’s as if all the major different schools of anarchist thought became swallowed up by the Marxists. Sure, there are the anarcho capitalists, but I despise capitalists as much as I do communists.

I’ve decided here recently that I am going back to my anarcho primitivist roots because that seems to be the only place I fit anymore in terms of anarchist identity with my rugged individualism undertones. More and more I am going to have describe my views as post left. With some of my other notions philosophically I may just start my own brand in what I shall describe as the extreme post left or E.P.L.

It wasn’t a complete waste of time conversing with these idiotic marxist anarchists as I learned some very inconvenient truths about politicized feminism that has given me ideas for a new thread here at ILP later.

2

Modern anarchism is dead taken over by zombies who don’t realize the absurdities of the philosophies they promote that also leads to a dead end.

What choice does an aspiring anarchist have in terms of identity? Marxist anarchism or anarcho capitalism? Both systems are absurd.

There has to be a more thorough position for the modern aspiring anarchist.

I think it can be found in anarcho primitivism, but even it has its own current inconsistencies that must be resolved. Still I find it a better position than the other two.

These recent explorations however have made me more pessimistic than ever before and this shall become a focal point of my writing going fourth.

3

How can any claim anarchists if they are part of a coordinated group following a common idea/ideal? That situation is not anarchism. If you are an anarchist why would you gravitate to a group?

4

So you went to an anarcho-communist forum and concluded that ‘a majority of anarchists today are Marxists’. Can you not see the problem in that logic?

That does not surprise me. You aren’t particularly diplomatic.

That’s a leading question. You have completely failed to establish that Marxism has taken over a variety of anarchist movements around the world. But to make things a bit clearer for you: Marxism is an anarchistic philosophy, in its ideals. ‘The state will wither away’ according to Marx, as Socialism supposedly evens everything out and pushes the reset button so we can live in a stateless, classless, nationless communist society Perhaps you’d do well to, y’know, read some Marx before making judgments about Marxism ‘taking over’ other movements.

As I’m sure you are capable of finding out for yourself, there are such philosophers as Proudhon (a sort of anarcho-socialist) and Kropotkin (an anarcho-communist) who were writing well over a century ago, i.e. before there were internet forums. So anarcho-communism or anarcho-Marxism is not a new phenomenon. History+philosophy=understanding. Spending time with ideological dipshits on internet forums = misunderstanding.

This is patently untrue. The most popular form of internet anarchism these days is anarcho-capitalism, and they hate ‘Marxism’ and ‘Socialism’ with a passion. Of course, most of them have never read any history or philosophy either, but check out Stefan Molyneux’s youtube channel and his website - far more hits than any anarcho-communist group or site is getting. Now, a lot of that is down to Molyneux’s rather obvious psychological manipulations and salesmanship, but nonetheless I hear far, far, far more ‘anarchists’ prattling on about the theoretical glories of the ‘free market’ than I do making any reference to Marx.

Stop trying to define which particular philosophical school you want to belong to and get on with actually achieving things in your life. Stop looking for badges, icons and labels.

Try doing something more than just posting threads on ILP about books you’ve never read and movements you don’t know the history of, because you have the potential to do so much more.

Grow the fuck up and stop having such an adolescent approach to these subjects. So some dipshits on a forum banned you because you (probably) insulted them for not believing what you believe. So fucking what? That makes no difference at all to whether ‘modern anarchism’ is alive or dead.

Stop looking at anarchism as an ‘identity’.

There is, but it requires that you actually read some anarchist texts instead of briefly engaging with people on internet forums and then running away to another internet forum to complain about them.

Why?

Great. I look forward to hearing yet more arguments from ignorance about books you haven’t read and history you don’t understand.

5

I’ve read Proudhon, Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Bakunin, Goldman, Stirner, Walker, Marx, Engels, and Tucker thank you very much. You assume too much Das.

I thought you were better than that, but apparently not.

I’ll reply more in depth later.

6

It’s my impression that there are quite a lot of talented and driven people on this board, many of whom share comparable political ideals, but virtually all of whom have a different take on how to accomplish their goals and on the category they belong to.

In terms of politics (not of philosophy) it would be wise to separate these two concerns whenever we address another. I say this because I have the feeling it’s no longer trivial - I feel a momentum gathering, topics become slightly less abstract, there is a growing consensus about certain societal values.

Those who hold on to the status quo become more and more radical and are having trouble taking themselves seriously.

My advice (perhaps strictly rhetoric, just so say it) is to acknowledge that there is a revolution under way, and that revolutions always comprise many very different perspectives.

7

Then I would have thought you’d realise that the connection between Marxism and anarchism goes back a long, long way, and thus some of your questions above were downright stupid.

By ‘haven’t read’ I mean both literally having not read something but also having read it but paid no attention and make no attempt to incorporate it into your current understanding. If you had read these books and taken the time to understand them then you would not have posted what you’ve posted here.

OK. What I’m particularly interested in is why you see anarcho-primitivism as more potent or realistic or ‘better’ in whatever way than anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism. After all, neither of us believe in the state, that much is clear.

8

I did my anarchist years, read everything anarchist, no bank account, lived underground for years.
The mistake you make and most people make is this, anarchism is not about technique, the x and o of
how society works. No, anarchism is the attitude you have and by that I mean, what is your attitude toward
people? Conservatives believe people are fixed and unchangeable, liberals believe that people can change and
become better, Marxist believe people need direction before they can know the way and that direction comes
from a party, anarchist, so what do anarchist believe? We believe people are essentially good and want to do
the right thing. The factor that corrupts people is government and so by having no government, we eliminate that
factor which corrupts people. It is really no more then that. It is not about the x’s and o’s of society, but
about people. I still have a soft spot in my heart for anarchism hence the name, but I believe anarchism will come
with changes in technology. So for me, anarchism is just a few hundreds of years early, so I am going to make
the changes I can as a liberal democrat, because I truly believe anarchism will come, just not in my lifetime.

Kropotkin

9

To Kropotkin:

Anarchism will come with technological advancement?

I very much disagree. It is clear that with every technological advancement the state becomes more systematically powerful in controlling everything, more over social inequality increases with specialization. After that people just end up becoming systematically obsolete and replaced by machines altogether.

I spit on the ideals of a technological utopia or technocracy.

10

Genuine anarchism will come after the death and collapse of modern civilization not before. More and more I support the annihilation of modern civilization. If 10,000 people die in some part of the world getting us closer to global destruction that’s a good thing.

11

Marxism is only anarchistic in it’s utopian Higher Communism form, where people act like socialists for no reason other than they all mutually agree that it’s the best way to do everything, forever. It’s hard to believe anybody using that as an actual operating goal. In any form short of Higher Communism, Marxism is statist, generally autocratic, and faux-democratic at best.

12

Wow, we agree on something. Quick, somebody break out the champagne bottle! Me, and Uccisore agree on something!

However your very description can be said about capitalist systems also.

You see I’m the type of guy that looks at capitalism and communism both reaching the same destination by different means. This is why I abhor both systems.

13 
Marxism and Libertarianism suck for similar reasons, yes. The libertarian is the fair-weather friend of the true conservative, because they are united in opposing the present liberal-marxist threat. 

Yeah. Since I'm not a libertarian, I don't see capitalism as a 'system'. I see it as the description of what happens when you leave people alone to do what they want with their money.   Capitalism is defensible because it is just a form of liberty, and it serves as a means to an end- innovation and ambition.  Like any other liberty, it can cautiously be regulated when works at cross purposes to it's end, though you're paying a price in liberty that isn't nothing.  By comparison, Marxism is just an idea that somebody had that turned out to not work very well.
14

Both capitalism and communism mean a monopolization by a few.

Under communism it’s the state. Under capitalism it’s private corporate enterprise.

15

No offence my friend but you’re using the best example ever of why that isn’t always true - the internet. The internet poses all kinds of problems for the state, and I don’t think the military dudes who created it ever realised how fast it would take off and the impact it would have. Hence the rush to try to find ways to re-privatise and re-hierarchise the internet that we’ve seen in the last few years.

Technology is as good or as bad as the person/people wielding it. When the state uses technology you’re right, it’s for control and to either turn humans into something else or to render them obsolete. But when a monkey uses a rock to crack open a coconut so he and his monkey friends can eat the coconut, that’s great.

So do I, but I don’t spit on technology per se.

If your prediction comes true then a lot more than 10,000 will die, and one of them might be you. I think the fundamental difference between me and you is that you’re pessimistic, which is why you keep seeking a label to pin on yourself and a gang to be part of, because you don’t believe in yourself as much as you can and should. My only advice to you is to cultivate more self-belief, and to tell you that comes from trying to do things and sometimes succeeding. If you try to do nothing, and seek to simply be a spectator to a collapse that may or may not happen, then you’ll be a pretty miserable spectator and won’t achieve an awful lot.

16

Das, they’re slowly taking full control of the internet. Five years from now they’ll make it into a super serveillance system where there won’t be any free speech anymore, that saying anything offensive or not liked by the party system will get you put into jail. The communist Chinese system is their model.

I also noticed you ignored by specialization argument when it comes to technology because that totally makes your position of embracing technology to create a egalitarian future lose all credibility.

17

You’re damn right that I’m a pessimist with a utter complete lack of humanity.

What is there for anybody to feel positive about?

The only thing positive for me is that eventually this chimaira joke of a system will destroy itself and only then shall people be once again free.

18

You’re driven by a nagging humanity, which is what’s charming.
No one believes that you are “cold”. You’re just young angry and frustrated and a funny writer.
The best chance of success you’d have is by writing pieces for commercial magazines in which government is criticized in a poppy way.

As it is you’re functioning as an agent of the system. Your perspective is exactly what they’d like to be held by every slave. Just waiting for the collapse like a rag doll lying on the toilet floor, murmuring ‘‘my time will come’’…

19

“The State” is actually an organization. It’s those people, over there, in that building. “Private Corporate Enterprise” isn’t an organization, it’s a concept- the actual people with power are ever changing, and they get there for completely different reasons. Also, in a Capitalist state, you have a state to limit the power of the capitalists.