HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| Longamagonga
Longamagonga
♂️
[25609184]
[2013-02-14 13:21:52 +0000 UTC]
(Unknown)
# Statistics
Favourites: 605; Deviations: 46; Watchers: 11
Watching: 24; Pageviews: 4441; Comments Made: 254; Friends: 24
# Comments
Comments: 148
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for the watch, it's much appreciated
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks for the fave, don't forget to check out the rest of my work
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the deviantwatch!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for all the favorites and for the watch!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And I can't help but say you're welcome
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're Welcome ^_^
Thanks for the faves back
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Welcome 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
To clear up on our previous conversation there are two forms of anarchism, the first and original form is what you described, but individualist anarchism also exists. It really just means urging for a society without government. It started out as anarcho-communism or left-anarchism or whatever you wanna call that, but capital-anarchism and individualist anarchism just as well exists, and is a form of anarchism. From what you told me, I do not question Chomsky's sincerity anymore. In fact I just deleted that deviation, but anarchism does just mean a stateless society without government or authority. That is the solid definition of anarchism. Whatever Bakunin's mindset was, was the basis for, what I would call collectivist anarchism (because socialism is considered by many to simply mean government regulation of the economy, an economic mentality rather than a political one), but not anarchism as a whole.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm aware that "Individualist Anarchism" and "Anarcho-Capitalism" do exist, but I don't believe they have anything in common with the original "Anarchist Communism". As such I wouldn't call them forms of Anarchism unless you reduce the word to its lowest common denominator; Anti-Statism. Traditionally (I by that I mean what has been advocated by writers suck as Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Makhno, Emma Goldman and many others including today's Noam Chomsky) any form of capitalism whatsoever has been considered a negation of the word, is it requires hierarchies to exist and exacerbates inequality. The word anarchy itself literally means 'without rulers' and refers not only to the abolition of government but the abolition of all forms of systematic domination or exploitation and all forms of systemic inequality on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or rather importantly, class. for try anarchy to exist then, the workers must have control of the means of production and federate on the grounds of direct democracy. That is to say, anarchism both historically (it's been around a lot longer and been advocated by many more people than the "anarcho" capitalist or individualist ideologies) and by its very definition advocates communism. Whether or not you agree with this ideology (and I'm guessing you don't) it’s what Anarchism has long been defined as... You refer to "anarcho-communist or left-anarchism or whatever you wanna call that" as it makes up but a small part of the "anarchist movement" when in fact it makes up the Anarchist movement in its entirety.
I once again state that I am aware that "individualism anarchism" and "capital anarchism" as you put it do exist, but I deny that they are in any way related to the anarchist tradition but for the word that you've attached to two ideologies that actually entirely contradict Anarchism. Note that Anarchists still believe in the freedom of the individual, but that it can only truly happen and should only happen in a society where everyone is equally free, which is obviously not the case when some have many more resources at their disposal than others. Furthermore, "Anarcho-Capitalism" in addition to being a relatively recent idea compared to real Anarchism doesn't seem to exist as a movement in any meaningful form outside of the USA, whereas Anarchism in its quest for a world without states or borders is an internationalist ideology and has a relatively large presence all over the world. Even the word "Libertarian" has come to mean something different in America to the rest of the world and, well, history. On that subject I leave you with a video of Chomsky talking about the word Libertarian: www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1rK4P…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am well aware that anarchism calls for the abolition of all forms of authority and rule, and as such many anarchists do see capitalism as being a form of that, and no I don't agree with their ideology at all, but some do not consider capitalism to be a form of authority because it is a contractual agreement a boss and worker make. Because this is an agreement many people would not consider this to be a case of authority or superiority, including many anarchists, because the workers only need to do their jobs so long as the bosses are paying them what they need. Maybe this form of anarchism is not in tune with the original anarchism but that's only because the socialist form of it was what started it. Similarly, you would make the argument that Catholics and Protestants aren't really Christians because they didn't come first. Does that make sense?
I know about the change of definitions with libertarian. Don't worry. The modern libertarianism is really classic liberalism, and originally libertarian was used to refer to the anarchists. What probably happened to cause this shift was that the progressives were starting to call themselves liberal, which led to the classical liberals calling themselves libertarians, and the anarchists with just being called anarchists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No I wouldn't make that argument about Catholics and Protestants but I don't think the analogy is particularly accurate either. Anarchism as it was originally defined and continues to be defined by many is an explicitly ant-capitalist ideology. It's just as important an aspect of the movement as anti-statism is, so to have an overtly capitalist ideology that labels itself "anarchist" is actually in complete contradiction to what the term previously meant and continues to mean. In my opinion it's more like saying that Christianity part of Judaism because both religions believe in god. Bothe ideologies share anti-statist sentiments but that alone does not define the social and political movement of anarchism and those who label themselves "Anarcho-capitalists" advocate something not just different to, but fundamentally opposed to the ideas and values of the Anarchist movement.
Apart from the obvious lack of rulers implied in the name one of the most important aspect of anarchism, the real anarchism, traditionally has been equality; something which simply cannot exist in a class-based society. By the same token, capitalism cannot exist without a class based society; there will always be a class of bosses, there will always be a class of people that have disproportionate amounts of wealth and disproportionate access to resources. This means that there is a hierarchy inherent in the very economic system as those with more wealth or resources have more freedom then those that essentially serve them; the working class. No matter how voluntary a capitalist society is there will always be economic inequality and as a result an unequal distribution of power amongst the population. Furthermore so long as these inequalities exist that society cannot, by definition, be an anarchist one.
Also it's even harder to use political terms over here in Australia because the 'Liberal Party' is actually the most conservative and authoritarian of our major parties haha.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I see. So anarchism is really the same as communism in terms of ideology, and anti-statism is where both ideologies can play in, communism, anarchism, "capital-anarchism" etc. right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
More or less... It depends what you mean by "Communism". A Communist society is one where the workers have taken control of the means of production and there is no state... Even in Marx's definition of communism it takes place after the post revolutionary state has disappeared (or has Marxists say, “withered away and died” and the resulting stateless egalitarian society is communism. Marxists believe, unlike anarchists, that a transitory period is necessary between a revolution and a communist society (or in the case of socialist political parties that this transitory state can be achieved through reform instead of revolution) and that transitory state between a capitalist society and a communist one is what they refer to as socialism.
That being said, the end goal of both ideologies is almost identical (there are probably some slight differences here and there simply because of the different philosophies involved), however the process of achieving that goal, and the philosophies behind the two ideologies are fundamentally different in a number of ways. Marxists believe that in a post-revolutionary situation a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is necessary in order to prevent capitalist uprisings and to organise a number of functions of society. Anarchists are generally very critical of this, and very opposed to Marxism (Leninism in particular) because of the process of centralisation that they advocate. Lenin even said things like “the productive source, the foundation of socialism – calls for absolute and strict unity of will... But how can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one.” To anarchists this is just as bad as capitalism or right-wing fascism and it actually undermines the communist ideology by taking a number of actions that directly contradict the ideals that the Marxists claim to hold. Furthermore, this top-down structure of organising, wherein the workers all obey the state and the product of their work goes to the state is not in any way a communist system, but state-capitalism. The state owns the capital and as such it pays the workers through welfare in exchange for the work they do that actually produces far more then what they are paid back. Everything is managed by, and wether by design or not, benefits a privileged few who control the state. Hence we have a new class system and the new ruling class- the likes of Lenin- who have a vested interest in maintaining that class system like the capitalist before them.
So in theory, yes, the goals of both Anarchists and Marxists are the same; a communist society. Please don’t equate the philosophy or methodology of one with the other though, as previous “communist” societies such as Soviet Russia have been, by the word’s very definition, nothing of the sort. Anti-statism is something both the anarchist (or as you call it left-anarchist) movement and the other so called “anarcho” movements do share a common ground, and in that regard Anarchists are no further from “Anarcho-Capitalists” or even Libertarians than they are from Marxists. At the end of the day though, we do advocate a Communist society, just not in the same way that Marxists do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see, so where would anarcho-communism (red anarchists) fall under?
And that last sentence revealed to me you're an anarchist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah I wasn't trying to hide it, I just have a habit of speaking in the third person haha. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "fall under" to be honest... If you're not familiar with the political compass basically it's traditional "left-right" with and added vector of "authoritarian (top)-anti-authoritarian (bottom)... although in thes case they're used the word "Libertarian" instead. I think this graph is pretty accurate (although I don't think everything is on there...) i14.photobucket.com/albums/a33…
Note that by "LibComs" They're referring to Libertarian Communists, which although seldom used anymore is a term that's interchangeable with 'Anarchism'.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No no I'm familiar with the compass. I even took it and I have to say the result was pretty inaccurate. What I meant was what is the goal of anarcho-communism, given the distinction you gave me before between the anarchists and communists because if anarchists don't believe in the socialist step and communists do, then what do anarcho-communists believe in with that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh OK yeah I don't think the compass test is very accurate either but the graph itself a can be useful at times...
Well in a post-revolutionary situation (and by 'Revolution' I mean rapid change to the systems by which the society operates... opinions vary a lot but I don't think such a situation has to be violent (depending on your definition of violent) and in the case of it being violent we should take every action possible to minimise that violence and have as few casualties, both for the revolting masses and the Bourgeoisie enemy, as possible.) anarchists think that the socialist step is not just unnecessary but inherently detrimental to the new society and all its inhabitants but for a privileged few that declare themselves "The Vanguard". (That was a term Lenin actually used (in Russian) to describe the Bolsheviks...) There's an inherent contradiction in Marx's works, stating that through the process of a revolution the workers learn, out of necessity, how to function without their bosses and without the state since they are in open opposition to both, yet Marx also states that state socialism is necessary to help construct the new society. Hence we propose, instead, that in a post revolutionary society that the society should remain in what's known as "Full Communism". That is not to say without organisation, however. These organisations should and cannot take on the form of a State though. They must all be directly democratic. There is no such thing as 'state property'. Private property may or may not exist to varying degrees... for example I'm rather fond of Proudhon's ideas of "legitimate" and "illegitimate" private property. As a general rule though, all property is public. It cannot under any circumstances belong to anything resembling a state.
The other reason Marxists believe in the necessity of a state is to stop 'Petty Bourgeoisie uprisings' trying to retake the power and privilege that was once theirs. I am of the opinion that if the masses are capable of bringing down the system in the first place they are more than capable of keeping if from reappearing... and as I've already stated Anarchists are quite happy to have organisations or confederations of organisations dedicated to almost any and all purposes but those organisations have to be directly democratic and centralisation cannot happen. The centralisation of power or resources, as we've seen with a number of so called "Communist" societies never ends well because it simply creates a new ruling class often far more brutal and dictorial than the capitalist one that came before. There are actually numerous examples Anarchists attempting to mount armed rebellions against socialist dictators (e.g. the Kronstadt Uprising and the 'Black Army' of Ukraine) and even now we don't get along so well... On the whole we believe that any post revolutionary society must remain egalitarian, voluntary and free on an individual level as suppressing these qualities, apart from being an act heinous in and of itself, is directly contradictory to the ideology and the society that communism represents.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No I understood all of that. I still don't think you understand. I'm talking about a political group of people called Anarcho-Communists (Anarchism+Communism). What do they believe in contrast to Anarchists and Communists/Marxists?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When I used the terms "Anarchist(s)" or "Anarchism" in my previous comment I was referring to "Anarcho-communists". Everything I wrote was in refernce to Anarcho-Communism. that term has been very rerely used until quite recently though because the word 'Anarchist' did, and to the best of my knowledge still does everywhere outside of the U.S., mean by default "Anarcho-Communist". There is no fusion of 'Anarchism+Communism', the goal of Anarchism, excluding later and contradictory strains such as "individual(ist) Anarchism" or "Anarcho-Capitalism" the goal of Anarchism is a communist society.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OK now I'm not usre if you're being sarcastic or not haha
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No I was being serious. I didn't realize you were referring to anarcho-communists from the start, but now that I think about it I guess that makes sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah sorry I thought I'd clarified that in one of my first comments about the other things that call them self "Anarcho" that I consider "Anarchism" to mean Anarcho-Communism by default simply because of the meaning of the word and the origins of the social movement. That might have been on the chomsky picture though haha
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I see why I would have been able to see that, it was just a big vague. As for myself, being a libertarian, I am a capitalist and an individualist, so Chomsky is not one of my idols. I'd lean much more towards Jefferson as a political hero, but that's just me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Note: when I used conservative there I was referring to what alot of people think the word to mean (here at least, not sure about in America...) Fundamentalist christianity, nationalism, using fear-mongering tactics to make refugees scapegoats of all our problems and instituting blatantly racist policies to keep them out... These are all attributes of the "Liberal Party" we have over here -_-
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Welcome ^_^
Your stuff is amazing
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thanx for the favs) I'm a music student too, I play the viola:3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome
Always nice to no there are people out there who actually play Viola
(I joke, I joke... I like viola...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're welcome
Keep up the good work
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No worries... You did an amazing job on it... I actually saw the thumb before I clicked on it and thought "hey that looks like Rena crossed with Johnny Rotten"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>