This is a modest attempt to draw the line between those who are legitimate "anarchists" who are entitled to use the label and those from whom anarchists would rather disassociate themselves. This is a quick attempt to provide "anarchism" with some theoretical clarity, in short.

I think the basis of anarchism that makes the most semantic and historical sense is being "against all authority." If you wish to frame it in a positive sense, it is advocation of "social equality."

Therefore, using this basis, what schools of thought make the cut--and which don't?

The no-brainers:
*Anarcho-communism, platformism--in

*Anarcho-syndicalism--in

*"Anarcho-capitalism"--out (this is probably the area of least contention among serious anarchists, thankfully. In fact there have been ongoing edit wars on wikipedia for several years now between cappies who want to get "anarcho-capitalism" into the anarchism section and serious anarchists who want to keep them out).

*"National anarchism"--out (racism, even when it tries to hide behind the fluff slogan of "racial seperatism," is, fundamentally, the assertion that certain groups of people are "superior" and others are "inferior." This would obviously preclude any social equality therein).

*Anarcha-feminism--in


The slightly controversial:
*primitivism--out. If there's anything that resembles primitivist groups, it is small, secretive leninist vanguards. There's often the general view in these circles that most people are so slovenly trapped into consumerist life that they won't realize they are killing the earth until it is too late. Thus, the primitivists must single-handedly take down industrial civilization by themselves (without any participation from the working class), whether through hacking, sabotage, etc. There's also somewhat of a neo-puritanical element to this segment of activism--"You must abstain from all meat and dairy products, or you are just a horrible butcher, you must live on a self-sustaining farm, ride a bike, live an ascetic lifestyle, etc." It's almost like entering a monastic order. Primitivism also takes a rather dogmatic stance on things from time to time (such as the usefulness of technology. Instead of studying technology in real-world situations, many give a knee-jerk response of "It's all bad!") Not exactly what anarchism as a whole wants.

*Green anarchy--in. As long as it critically (and non-dogmatically) examines how people and the environment are intertwined and inter-dependent (social ecology, as opposed to "deep ecology"), it is a useful segment of anarchist thought and activism. Increased ecological awareness is useful. Especially if it is connected with a critique of capitalism, as it is most of the time with green anarchy.

*Religious "anarchism" that recognizes any earthly or supernatural authority--out. You can't defy authority and be your own master if you are kneeling before god. This means a rejection of "Christian anarchists" (although it's not like that's a huge current in anarchist thought anyways) and anything else like that.

*Teenage/school/sexual liberation--in.

*Libertarian marxists--in. If any council communists/autonomists/situationists/non-leninist marxists want to label themselves "anarchist," I have no problem with that.


More controversial:
*Anarcho-punk rockers--depends...if they are just appropriating anarchist terminology and imagery for "shock-value," then they're out. If they honestly know what they are talking about and have an explicit awareness of anti-capitalism, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, etc. in their lyrics, then they are definitely in. Most anarcho-punk I've run into are of the latter variety, thankfully.

*Lifestyle anarchists--depends...see above. I have problems with self-styled anarchists who wear the clothing and frequent the "scene" and still have no idea what anarchism means or what history is behind it. All anarchists should have at least a cursory awareness of important anarchist historical developments, such as the Spanish anarchists, at the very least, and a very rudimentary understanding of anarchist theory. Basically, if they have at least read the wikipedia article on anarchism and agree on anti-capitalism, they probably know enough to at least put efforts in the right direction and explain to others what anarchism is really about.

*"Individualist anarchists"--out. Nominally this stance is socialist (contrary to what the "anarcho-capitalists" say) in that they advocate cooperative ownership of businesses, and end to usury, an end to interest, free expropriation of unused land, etc. However, they are often adamantly opposed to the collectivist strains of anarchism and insist on a free-market approach to acquiring personal (non-productive) goods and such. I think this approach would have a high likelihood of leading back into capitalism eventually. This approach would also be openly hostile to anarcho-communism and such--not a thing I'm willing to tolerate. It also seems to me that, to make sure a market mechanism functions properly, there would need to be a State in order to enforce personal possession regulations, which is also not something I'm willing to tolerate. Plus, ruling individualist anarchism out will put even more distance between serious anarchists and the crazy "anarcho-capitalists." Sure, there might have been a time that individualist anarchism seemed to have some promise. I think the best way to treat it would be as a sort of "proto-anarchism" sort of like how the Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen are treated as "proto-socialists." Nobody that I know looks at Robert Owen and Utopian socialism as a viable vision for modern society. Sure, it made some contributions and laid some necessary theoretical groundwork for socialism, but it has long since been improved upon. We know better now with regards to a lot of things. Same thing with Proudhon and the other individualist anarchists. They made important contributions as "proto-anarchists", but their visions have long since reached their "sell by" dates. In any case, Individualist anarchism is about as moribund as ideologies go in the modern world (except with regards to the "anarcho-capitalists," who are trying desperately to revive individualist anarchism and in the same stroke appropriate it to their own uses, seeking to establish a legitimate link to the word "anarchism." But it's not working).

*Non-hierarchical, non-dogmatic anarcho-neo-pagan-mystical-pyscho-babble--out. From what I've experienced, this usually comes as a part of the "primitivist package." I suppose if individuals want to flirt with that kind of stuff on their own or bullshit about it with their friends while they are high on acid "Whoa, man, what if trees really are sentient?" then I can still accept them as anarchist. But if they start to advocate the stuff in a serious manner, then they are going to find a lot of distance between myself and them very quickly.

Nihilists/egoists--depends. In this case, you really just have to feel each individual out with regards to his/her thinking. If they are egoists or "nihilists" of the Russian nihilist variety circa 1870 who have nothing but bitter contempt for authority and the prevailing social order and lots of pent-up revolutionary spirit just looking for an opportunity to smash capitalism and the State and bring about stateless communism, then they will be fine comrades in the struggle. If they are, however, more of the postmodern "nothing matters, I might as well die, woe me..." type of nihilist or the postmodern egoist along the lines of "All reality is relative depending on what my mind construct, reality only exists according to my subjective interpretation of it, I demand absolute autonomy (as if that were possible), then their prattling will get annoying very quickly and they will hear me say, out!



Have I left anything out?

To elaborate, the minimum requirements, I suggest, should be:

• Atheism -- rules out "Christian anarchists"
• anti-racism -- rules out "national anarchists"
• anti-sexism -- rules out stupid people
• anti-electoralism (with regards to "capitalist democracy") -- rules out the "vote for Kerry" anarchists
• anti-statism (duh)
• anti-capitalism (duh) -- rules out the "anarcho-capitalists"
• pro-stateless communism -- rules out the "individualist anarchists"
• anti-imperialist--no excuses -- rules out more stupid people
• anti-leninist/anti-vanguardist -- rules out leninists and primitivists
• The person should have some basic knowledge of the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, and May 1968.
• The person should have some basic knowledge of and read at least one work by at least two of any of the following: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Karl Marx, CrimethInc., infoshop.org's Anarchist FAQ, Noam Chomsky, Rudolph Rocker, or other sourches of anarchist theory and action that I have forgotten to mention. These last two qualifications rule out the "lifestyle anarchists" and anarcho-punk rockers who don't know what they are talking about.

what about insurectionist anarchists?

They are anarcho-communists.

It's one of the differences between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism.

I hate to live up to my name, but this is pretty useless and pompous. Honestly, if I considered myself an anarchist, yet didn't fit your criteria/"minimum requirements" and you tell me that I'm not entitled to use the term to describe my beliefs.... I'd frankly tell you to fuck off.

Though it did remind me of an excerpt of an essay by Bob Black:

Anarchist ideologues propound still sillier explanations for their impotence. Chaz Bufe, for instance, blames "fashion anarchists" for the enduring unpopularity of a doctrine which was unfashionable long before teenagers adorned their black leather jackets with circle-A's. Rather, these punks are a main source of recent recruits to the anarchist ranks. If (as charged) their acquaintance with anarchist tradition is scanty that is perhaps a point in their favor. The ignorant can learn. The deluded hoe the harder row of mis-education. If anarchist fathers like the goofy Bufe really mean to dictate a dress code to youths attracted to anarchism they will be received, as well they should, like the high school principles these kids have had quite enough of already. Better fashion anarchists than fascist anarchists.

Insofar as anarchism is genuinely revolutionary it would be its success, not its failure, that needed explaining. That would explain, up to a point, why Marxism prevailed over anarchism for so long. Its rejection of the existing order is much more superficial and it is correspondingly more elastic in adjusting to the status quo. When it assumed power it was predisposed to assimilate bureaucrats, managers and military officers into its own apparatus since it had no objection to their functions and was only concerned with their loyalties. The temporary anarchist success in Spain proves the point. The anarcho-syndicalist leaders joined the government even as the militants enforced labor discipline and sacrifice on the shop floor and in the fields. Only the Fascist victory saved the anarchists from exposure of their counter-revolutionary coercion of a decidedly refractory working class.

A few years ago, anarcho-syndicalist Michael Kolhoff issued a "Call" for an official, authoritative North American anarchist organization in which he undoubtedly expected a post. At the 1989 anarchist gathering (or blathering) in San Francisco, those attending overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, as American anarchists always have. It was not so much a considered anti-organizational position (although not a few people had reflectively arrived at one) as an instinctive recoil from control. It may well have been the single most widely shared opinion at the event. The organizers were just too blatantly power-hungry schemers. Even the fashion anarchists steered clear of the proto-officialdom.

That's not true.

Anarchist Commuism is directly antithetical in large parts of theory and practice to Insurrectionary anarchism.

Insurrectionary anarchism is very often anti-working class and class struggle in general.

The most famous Insurrectionary anarchists were a group called the Bono Gang in italy that went around robbing bankc. Sometimes they would shoot the workers in the banks if they did no comply.

Insurectionary anarchism is also anti-movement, where as anarchist communist believes in building a mass movement.

However, there are some very interesting points to insurrectionary anarchism which are worth adhereing to, such as the politics of rioting and defiance.

Leave Crimethinc out of it, anti-organisational punk rock politics have nothing to do with Anarchism.

And WetBlanket, that essay seems incredibly stupid and mis-informed and perhaps only relevant from an American perspective in regards to Anarchist 'recruits' mostly being from the counter-culture ranks, as in most places this is simply not tue anymore and hasn't been since the mid-80s. And in the instances where this does actually happen, they make up a lifestylist/individualist/activisty section that is growing increasingly smaller in the Anarchist movement today. That essay does little more than try to espouse Anarchism by making a few irrelevant points about bad decisions taken by individuals in its history. Having a whole paragraph on some 'Anarchist' nutjob who wanted part of the American Anarchist movement to have an 'official, authoritative North American anarchist organization' in 1989 without actually making a clear point as to why its included in the essay at all says everything really. You seem to have chosen the most pisspoor essay on the planet as a foundation for your 'arguement' (whatever that might be).

To characterize CrimethInc. as 'anti-organizational' is pretty silly... considering the fact that they're an organization. Situationist-inspiried movements(pro-situ) such as punk and CrimetInc. have quite a bit to do with modern anarchism's break from workerism.

Well, Bob Black is hardly someone I'd consider misinformed as he's pretty widely published and one of the more prominent anarchist authors of our day. As for the counterculture idea, it's true that the political punk movement is/has all but faded away, but the essay was written in the 90's and there was still quite a bit of that going on. But you're right, most new anarchists are not coming from what's left of the underground punk movement, they're coming from the whole 'Green' movement.

From what I see, it's the other way around... The syndicalist strains of anarchism in america are becoming, unfortunately, irrelevant. What are the infamous wobblies up to these days? Organizing Starbucks employees who are demanding to work MORE hours(Whatever happened to demanding a 4 hour work day?). There's also been reports of a stripper carrying a wobbly card.
The "lifestylist/individualist/activisty" anarchists are the only ones actually DOING anything.

Did you miss the paragraph about Spain?

There's more to the essay, I only posted an excerpt. If you'd like to read why he was writing about the call for centralization and whatnot, you can do so Here. The Spunk Library has many other works by him that were electronically published, they're all pretty accessible and interesting though I can't say I agree with the guy on everything.
My 'argument' was really just that this whole premise of "lets set the guidelines for who can and cannot call themselves anarchists" is fucking absurd and it's pretty sad if you don't see the irony in it.

Them calling themselves an organisation and that particular organisation being anti-organisational does not constitute the same thing, their complete rejection of any kind of theory and ridiculous methods perpetrated by their retarded bourgeoisie membership makes them incredibly anti-organisational and anti-revolutionary.

I'd hardly classify him as a greatly prominent anarchist author of our day, but then again I've come across little of his work. Maybe that says something

[/QUOTE]From what I see, it's the other way around... The syndicalist strains of anarchism in america are becoming, unfortunately, irrelevant. There's also been reports of a stripper carrying a wobbly card. The "lifestylist/individualist/activisty" anarchists are the only ones actually DOING anything.Did you miss the paragraph about Spain?My 'argument' was really just that this whole premise of "lets set the guidelines for who can and cannot call themselves anarchists" is fucking absurd and it's pretty sad if you don't see the irony in it.[QUOTE]

Well of course theres going to be 'guidelines', if you didn't adhere to them you would be a hypocritical idiot. Would you have a communist that didn't stick the the 'anti-capitalist guideline'? You can't just have people swanning around claiming to be Anarchists and making the principles up as they go along...we have already seen the effect of this with lifestylists who do just that, it only ends in confusion and a quagmire of people all with different views on this that and the other, calling themselves Anarchists when infact, a large percentage of them are not.

Edit - my ability to quote has gone to pot, sorry :blush:

The way I see it, insurrectionary anarchism can be fruitful, but you still need good theory and understanding of anarchism in order to put it to good use. Otherwise, you launch an uprising that totally fails and you are crushed. Or, your uprising has totally unforeseen effects (unforeseen to someone who doesn't have any theoretical or historical knowledge) that actually hamper the struggle. Or, your uprising is successful, but because you don't have a clear idea of what you want to do after the revolution, you end up botching things afterwards and inadvertently (or purposefully) erecting some sort of despotism, thinking that that is the best way forward. As one anarchist writer advised, "Don't fuck up your revolution." You are going to be putting your life on the line. You usually only get one shot at a revolution in a lifetime (if that). Make sure you know what you are doing. Make it count. And don't let something like the Soviet Union happen again.

Simply robbing banks contributes nothing useful in and of itself. Does the act inspire resistance to the existing ruling class? Does it show up weaknesses in the ruling class's domination? Does it acquire useful funds to be used to further anarchist resistance in other ways? Or does it somehow strengthen the rule of the ruling class?

Exactly. And that's a problem. You even admit it yourself. If there's one area in the current anarchist movement that could use a lot more activity, it is syndicalism. I'd like to add that I totally agree with what Bob Black says with regards to the "abolition of work as an activity seperate from life." That's what communism is ultimately all about, it seems like to me. But in order to get there you have to bring this message to the working class first. I don't see much of that in the current anarchist movement.

It's called making a living. Don't get me wrong, I think vagabondage and dumpster diving is brilliant for those who desire it and can feasibly make it work. For someone with a family, or with medical problems, or someone who is older, it's a rather difficult way to live. And it's not like these Starbucks workers are consumerist pigs. I imagine they work so that they can pay the rent, buy food, and get medical care. Some of them may have a car (although that's less likely. I imagine many of these folks ride a bike or a bus. Starbucks isn't exactly the most high-paying job in the world). I don't fault them for wanting to work more hours. If your only job is Starbucks (because the hours are so crazy you can't feasibly work another job into your schedule), it makes sense that you would want to work a few more hours so that you and your family can eat.

What's going on at Starbucks is very promising. It's probably got the Starbucks owners scared shitless. If this spreads all across the franchise, there goes the owners' profits! There needs to be more of this--more IWW organizing, more militant unionism, more assertion of working class power, more worker solidarity. Just because these things are at a low ebb right now doesn't mean it always has to be like this. In fact, I expect that the IWW will experience even more growth in the future as the material conditions become more conducive for people to engage in militant worker-managed unionism, regardless of what you or I say on this board.

And strippers have every right to unionize, of course!

I'm not sure we're on quite the same page here. I was speaking of "individualist anarchists" with regards to the anarchists of the mid-1800s who thought the likes of Proudhon were on to something big with mutual banking and cooperative enterprises functioning within a market system. I don't think there are very many of those still around.

I would bet that the vast majority of present-day anarchists whom you would consider "individualist" or "activisty" are really anarcho-communists (whether they realize it or not) in both theory and practice, in that they are striving for stateless communism and engaging in class struggle (even if it may take different forms, such as shoplifting, destroying a Nike-town, throwing tear gas canisters back at cops during a WTO protest, etc.) And I have no problem with those types of anarchists. They are doing very good work, and they know what they are doing. They have researched why the various institutions of global finance capital are harmful to the working class and must be opposed. During the anti-globalization protests, these anarchists specifically target corporations that engage in sweat-shop labor, oppression of indigenous people, etc. That's very good action. And there's theory and knowledge behind it, whether the participants would like to admit it or not. These anarchists do not just destroy stuff willy-nilly, contrary to what the capitalist media would like to portray.

When I refer to "lifestyle anarchists," I'm talking about the punk teenager who thinks anarchy "sounds cool" and who doesn't have a clue about it. That's why I said "it depends" when considering "lifestyle anarchists." Because some really do know what they are doing and choose to manifest that in their lifestyle. I think that's cool. But I have no use for someone who is just going along with the crowd and painting some anarchist symbolism on his/her clothing. In fact, such a person is arguably antithetical to anarchist practice in that the person is not thinking for his/herself, but instead just mindlessly following. We can't have that in our anarchist movement if we want it to stand for anything.

But all hope is not lost. I was saying that, if I could get that person to spend just a week reading two books on anarchist theory/practice (that's not asking much), I'd feel much better about accepting them as "comrades in the struggle." If they are seriously interested in anarchism and anarchist action, they will leap at the opportunity to acquire more anarchist theory, knowledge, and skills. Of course, it's not like I'm going to demand that they present me a signed note from their moms saying that they read such-and-such book on anarchism. It's going to be immediately obvious if they have a clue about what they are discussing once I begin talking with them. I'm going to expect them to be able to talk intelligently about anti-capitaism, anti-racism, anti-statism, class struggle, workers' councils, direct democracy, etc. I'm going to expect them to be able to talk intelligently about the Spanish anarchists, the Makhnovischa during the Russian Revolution, May '68, etc. This isn't asking much. Heck, even CrimethInc. had an excellent article about the Makhnovischa during the Russian Revolution in their latest publication Rolling Thunder. It might take them a whole week or two to acquaint themselves with this stuff, if they were seriously interested in anarchism and dove right into it.

And I'm not against these "fashion anarchists" per se, I'm just not going to accept them as fellow anarchists until they acquire at least a skeletal understanding of anarchist theory and history. Yes, people learn. If these "fashion anarchists" are really serious, they will slowly but surely learn. In a few weeks or few months time I will come to feel confident in them and secure in knowing that these "comrades in the strugge" do have a clue about what they are saying and doing. I myself was at one time ignorant of May '68, the Makhnovischa, etc. Now as I look back, I would not have labelled myself as an anarchist at that point. My understanding was still too scant at that time. But I learned (and rather quickly at that)--because I was seriously interested in anarchism. The problem I see with several self-proclaimed "anarchists" at my high school is that they don't have a clue about it and they don't care. I have to assume that they aren't serious anarchists because they aren't at all interested in learning about how to bring about anarchist society. In the end, having the circle-A stitched on the back of your punk-rock jacket is not some sort of magical talisman that will endow you with instant anarchist powers. To get to anarchist society from here, you have to know, more or less, what you are doing.

It's perhaps understandable the aversion that some have to reading about "theory" and "history." There's a lot of crappy (and awfully dreary) theory and history floating around these days, ranging from leninism to reformism. But good theory is always useful and empowering. I personally find good theory and exciting anarchist history to be fun reading. Maybe I'm more of the academic type. Who knows? But you don't even necessarily have to read. Just conversing with someone who is knowledgable about this kind of stuff can accomplish the same thing. Unfortunately, there seems to be a sentiment in my anarchist circles that talking about theory or history is "uncomfortable" or "annoying." That just doesn't make sense to me!

It's not really about "entitlement." Being an "anarchist" is not some sort of "noteworthy honor." (In fact, usually the opposite is true--it gets you criticism and disdain.) It's about terminological clarity. If I was an "anarcho-capitalist" and I wanted to call myself an anarchist, you'd object, no? If I was quite explicitly espousing Nazi ideas but insisted in calling myself an anarchist, you'd object, no?

Well, let's say I'm an ignorant fool who doesn't have a clue what anarchism is about. For all you know I could have fascist, sexist, and/or racist views, and just have a penchant for calling myself "anarchist" because the word has a large "coolness factor" and respect in the circles I travel in. Because I really can't articulate what anarchism is about. I think it might have something to do with anti-statism and anti-capitalism, but I have no idea why exactly they are harmful, why those things exist, or how to confront them. I can't articulate what kind of anarchist society I am working towards. I can't point to historical examples and say, "That was something that anarchism needs to learn from" because I don't have any historical awareness. I'm clueless. Would you object to me calling myself an anarchist?

I would feel very hesitant about embracing such a person as a "comrade in the struggle." I would probably offer the person a few pieces of anarchist literature (probably CrimethInc.) and leave them at that for a few weeks. Then, next time we meet, if they seem really excited about the stuff he/she has read and it seems like he/she knows what he/she is talking about, then I am fully ready to work together with this person as a fellow "comrade."

And concerning CrimethInc.: on the whole, it's very good. They have a few wierd ideas, but if one exposes one's self to a balanced array of anarchist literature (some old, some new, some workerist, some punk, etc.), that's not a problem. You figure out what's the good stuff and what's the crap. Days of War, Nights of Love is, on the whole, a very suitable introductory text on anarchism for the youth, it seems to me. And like I said, even CrimethInc., which has a chapter specifically devoted to downplaying "History" in Days of War, had an excellent article on the Makhnovischa in Rolling Thunder.

The whole organization is crap. Its lifestylist, and lifestylism must be ousted from the anarchist movement as a whole. They directly deny that theory is relevant and tell everyone not to follow it. These people think dumpster diving and spray painting is being revolutionary. Living alternativley to capitalism does not make you revolutionary and it does not make you an anarchist. I will never call one of these people my comrade.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-syndicalist at all. I agree, it's really unfortunate that the radical labor movement is slowly dying off. Although I don't necessarily think that it's reemergence is unlikely in the future, but as things are today in america the movement is really irrelevant for most people.

Yes, I understand that, but I was using it as an example of how petty the movement is these days. I think that a wobbly starbucks union could very well be a good thing. However, as I pointed out, they're wobblies demanding a longer work week! Does anyone but me see something very wrong with that picture? It's a glaring contradiction which highlights the dismal situation that the working class is faced with. I can understand the need to have more money to feed themselves and their family, but if these people were serious they'd be demanding more compensation/control over the products of their labor, not begging to work more hours.
It's one thing to talk the talk and carry a wobbly card, and it's another thing to strike and/or sabotage the workplace to force the employer to give in to your demands. But I'm no pessimist, and I do hope the best for the radical union movement, I would love to see the day where every cafe here in seattle is a union shop and the workers shut them down until they have nothing less than complete control over what they do and what they make.

Of course they do. I was just using it as an example illustrating how pathetic the movement is at the present... One stripper joins the IWW and suddenly she's being featured in the 'Industrial Worker'. I'm not impressed.

Oh there's plenty of them around. Ever heard of the 'fair trade' movement? Plus there's all sorts of anarchist collective businesses around the world. Bookstores, cafes, pizza places. The vast majority of people I know who are involved with such things don't consider it an end in and of itself, but rather as a means of supporting themselves or a cause within our current society. Granted, it's not the most revolutionary approach to things, it is not doing any harm and I'm not going to tell them they're not allowed to call themselves anarchists.

The way I look at it, the more young people who think anarchism is 'cool', the better. The ignorant and curious can be taught. I'm not going to hold it against anyone if they don't know much about a rather esoteric political concept, if they want to follow along, that's really fine with me. I see no real reason, outside of some sort of self-important "how dare they call themselves an anarchist, they're not the REAL DEAL" mindset, to put them down. Frankly I don't really care if they're the REAL DEAL or not in most cases as long as they're doing something. Even if they're not doing anything, I don't really care too much. At least they're interested, even if it's just for a fashion statement.
I'm not going to tell some rich kid with a circle-A on his jacket that he's not an anarchist unless he can tell me who peter kropotkin was or any of that trivia. They can call themselves anarchists all they want.

There's a time and a place for it.

Seriously, who cares? Part of the reason Anarchism has such interesting ideas is because the lack of authoritative anarchist doctrine. There's an obvious basic premise ,opposition to state authority, which encompasses such a wide range of ideas allowing for a lot of freethinking.

Actually, I wouldn't. Anarcho-capitalism is a valid strain of anarchism as far as I'm concerned.

Now that's just silly. I guess if that ever happened, I'd just remind you of the obvious contradiction. But if you really wanted to call yourself an anarchist, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that.

No, I wouldn't. I'd offer to talk about the subject sometime and maybe teach a few things that I know if the listener was genuinely interested, but I'm not going to say "HEY, YOU'RE NO ANARCHIST!"

I agree with this.



Are you referring to This?
Personally, I think that living alternatively to capitalism is the ONLY way to be a revolutionary.

Maybe you're referring to the States, but in terms of Europe that's just not true. The anarcho-punk scene in Europe is massive.

What are they doing? In the context of what?

The problem is, workerist politics is so unglamorous these lifestylists don't care or know about the fact that class-struggle anarchists stand on picket lines, go into communities and help struggle against council housing.

Lifestylists have no interest in being apart of daily struggles because they're arduous, time consuming and ultimately not very exciting.

I had a conversation with an individualist anarchist at our social centre a few weeks ago and he said to me class politics is an abstract. I said: "Yes of course it's an abstract to you, you're middle class."

Now, no matter what you say, the massive majority of those "anarchists" who subscribe to this anti-left anti-politics lifestyle stuff are middle class, I mean it's simply a fact. I live in a squat with a bunch of them.

Incidentally, the two anarcho-punks I also live with are the most working class blokes I've ever met and for them, working class politics is certainly not an abstract.

Lifestyle anarchism is a middle class trend that has no basis in workerist politics because those people who adhere to these lifestyles have no need to be apart of it. They have no idea what it means to struggle, and so what we have now is a strain of anarchists who's sole concern is fluffy animals, the environment and pacifism.

If you sit down and debate with lifestylists about the context of their struggle and what their objectives are, it is clear to see it becomes confusing. Lifestylism has no analysis on what's going on around us and ultimately what it takes to change it, except idealist pratter about "showing people the right way to live."

Lifestylists may be doing "stuff", but is it challenging capitalism or the state? The answer is clearly no.

Well, I don't see the irony?

There are, whether you like it or not quite frankly, specific fundamentals to being an anarchist.

You'd agree that someone who was not anti-state could hardly call themselves an anarchist. Someone who was not anti-authoritarian? Could they be an anarchist?

Someone who is not anti-state is not an anarchist, and therefore there are guidelines, or whatever you want to call them.

But there is an authoritative anarchist doctrine. The basis of it being: Class struggle

This is not the basic premise of anarchism. Anarchism's basic premise is the emancipation of the working class from the exploitation of capitalism.

The question of the state was a theoretical break with Marxism and has specific implications and consequences in the context of class struggle.

Anarchism rejects authority and hierarchy and because of these things those middle class radicals who have shopped around for a belief system have understood the hype and stereotypes and jumped on the band wagon, claiming that anarchism is about freethinking.

Anarchism is not a free for all, it is a specific ideology based on historical materialism and class struggle.

I imagine their visions and goals are anarcho-communist in nature, even if they are having to play in the market as of now. Unless they really enjoy straining to meet the rent for their collective shop at the end of each month??? I work in a volunteer collective bookstore (Radish Infoshop--see signature) and I can tell you that all of the anarchists there would definitely prefer anarcho-communism and not having to worry about paying the rent anymore. It's just that practicing anarcho-communism as of yet is rather difficult. We still live in a market society, and our well beings are still subject to its whims, so we have to play the game a little longer.

Yes, the syndicalist movement is certainly at a low ebb currently (although I still don't think there is anything petty about it. For those working class folks who are making a better living because of it, there's nothing petty about it.) I expect this to change over the next 30 years, and I think we should do everything we can to push the syndicalist movement to be more widespread.

The stripper works for a club. He/she earns a wage and produces surplus value for his/her boss. The stripper is exploited. I don't see how this is any more or less glamorous than being an exploited automotive worker. And societies change. Work in the U.S. is much more service-oriented than it used to be. That said, the IWW is sorely lacking industrial workers. This needs to be rectified.

This may provide a nice gateway for these folks becoming interested in anarchism, but if they don't ever feel compelled to take it past the "anarchism sounds cool" stage, then they aren't really doing anything. They are at best cheerleaders for the anarchist movement. That said, having cheerleaders isn't necessarily bad. But it's not quite sufficient to just cheerlead if you are serious about moving society in an anarchist direction. From what I can tell, many of these kids aren't serious about it because many of these have it "all right" as it is. They feel no complusion to really change things. Just wearing some different clothes will suffice for them. That won't suffice for working class people who actually need anarchist revolution in order to have a decent life. Now, if the lifestylist kids are doing infoshop work or something like that, then it's totally different. That's no longer lifestylism. That's doing something.

Yes, teaching is good. And it's not like I'm going to confront them and yell to their face, "HEY, YOU'RE NO ANARCHIST!" I'm just not going to politically associate myself with such people. I'm also going to be hesitant about asking such people to work together with me on anarchist projects. And if a third party were to ask me, "Are they an anarchist?" I'd probably reply, "Sort of, but not quite. They have an anti-authoritarian spirit, which is definitely something good, but I don't think they've fully investigated what it's all about yet."

I hardly think it's the only way. It perhaps serves the purpose of showing middle-class folks still caught up in the consumerist rat-race that a plasma screen t.v. is not necessary in order to live. It can also highlight the manifest idiocy of capitalism at times rather well. But it seems to me that living alternatively to capitalism in and of itself is more of a means to and end rather than a revolutionary end in itself. The nice thing about living a dumpster-diver lifetsyle is that you don't have to work, and the nice thing about that is it leaves you with lots of free time that one can devote to revolutionary politics. That's where it becomes revolutionary. Just being a dumpster-diver might highlight to others the waste of capitalism and the option of getting resources through non-conventional means. But to go beyond that one needs to use one's resulting free time to specifically further anarchism. For instance, one of my friends lives a dumpster-diver lifestyle. As a result of not working (for a wage), he's able to volunteer at the local infoshop almost everyday. He's a huge help to us, and it's primarily made possible by his lifestyle. A means to an end.

I agree with wet blanket..
there is no point of all of this. if some1 calls himself an anarchist, then let him be
ppl who arent really anarchists and call themselves anarchists will realize tht they dont like the theory and will walk away.. like what happened to a couple of my friends. ppl tend to call themselves anarchists to fit in the punk rock scene n stuff like tht.. just be who u are. if u consider urself an anarchist then let it be..

Firstly I love your AntiFa avatar.

Secondly, there is a point to it and a very serious one. What we have seen over the last seventy years is the emergence of a disaffected middle class youth creating rebellious concepts in politics, art and literature.

The end of the Second World War saw countries like France turn into dullish, unimaginable shit holes, with very little for young people to get excited about, except work and starvation.

The Letterists, which was a movement created in the late 1940's under Isidore Isou, saw youth as a revolutionary moment and that the destruction of convention which had existed for so long over art, life and literature should be attacked.

Imagine being a middle class kid in France in 1949 at the height of rationing in a post-war country, devastated by occupation. You've come through a war where you had nothing to look forward to, to discover that you still had nothing to look forward to now the war had ended. The attraction of movements like this was very big. The Letterists became this new movement of middle class teenagers, rebelling against life, getting drunk and attacking the French intellectual and art scenes.

Equally, in America the emergence of the Beatniks which created, probably more so than the Letterists, internationally, into this new rebellious scene, dominated largely by young middle class teenagers.

There is an argument to be made that the Beatnik movement has had a direct link to many aspects of individual anarchism.

These attitudes have not changed, only the form in which they appear.

Young middle class people, more conscious than the young working class people who subscribe to the DIY punk scene largely, are calling themselves anarchists and redefining what that means, adapting it to suit their individual desires for struggle.

This middle class individualism and to some extent, the DIY punk scene has absolutely no baring on anarchism what so ever, except for that fact that people call themselves anarchists.

These have moved further and further away, the very point of anarchism, which is the working class expropriation of the means of production. That is what anarchism is, and simply calling yourself an anarchist will not suffice.

There is of course argument's that anarchism has evolved and developed and that class-struggle anarchism no longer has relevance and it is this reason why anarchism has taken a distinct environmentalist and animal rights nature.

A valid assertion, no one denies that anarchism has had to adapt to the changing nature of capitalism, but there is absolutely no argument that I have ever seen that can refute beyond a doubt, objectively, the necessity of class struggle.

Class-struggle for these individualists and lifestylists is an abstraction because it simply has no relevance to their lives or to the struggles they have decided to fight for in the name of anarchism.

But the problem is that the message of anarchism gets distorted and not only do we have to counter the lies and hypocrisy of the ruling class, we have to battle and argue against the stereotypes and myths that lifestylism has created.

What constitutes anti-imperialism? Do anti-imperialists have to be for national liberation? I think they should, but most of the active members of libcom.org would disagree.

The very act of refusal to enter the workplace and be exploited, to wander and live their lives as they please without allowing anyone to profit from their activities. That itself is 'doing something'.
Many other things too. Most notably, organization and direct action in terms of serious demonstrations. Take the WTO protests here in Seattle. Most of the anarchists and black blocs who were provoking and physically resisting police intimidation and repression consisted of young folks who would be considered "lifestylists".

An even larger part of the problem lies within workerism and work itself.

Can you really blame them? All of them seem like very valid reasons to opt out of the workerist paradigm if given the choice.

While I wouldn't agree with him at all... calling him 'middle class' instead of actually addressing the point is a logical fallacy called an ad-hominem.

Again with the fallacy, obviously they're not middle class anymore if they're living in a squat. Besides, I don't think their class of origin makes them any less of an anarchist. Remember where our old friend Peter Kropotkin came from?

It is certainly not an abstract and if they're actively involved in class struggle, good for them.

When it comes down to it, nobody needs to be a part of it.

This is a sloppy straw man, but I'm not taking the bait to even respond to this bullshit.

Well from those I've talked to involved with the CrimethInc. organization, I get an idealist vibe from them although it's coupled with a very strong situationist-influenced analysis of everyday life and the necessity of detournement.

The battle has many fronts, some more important than others, but at least they're doing something. I'm also not going to generalize and pretend I know wether or not their actions deserve the 'anarchist stamp of approval'.

For people who desire to abolish authority, you sure are exercising a lot of it when it comes to who can and cannot use "your" word.

Of course, one needs to look no further than the etymology of the word itself.

No. Being a statist is in direct contradiction of the definition of the word 'anarchist'.

Like I said, look no further than the definition.

The concept of anarchism has been around long before Marx. History and the struggle against the state didn't begin with the first international. What of those who arrived at anarchist conclusions by different means? Max Stirner, Henry David Thoreau, and a whole slew of individualist-anarchists... Although in asking this question, I have an idea of what your answer is going to be: "They're not anarchists".

Again with the ad-hominem, you really seem disdainful of everyone who chooses not to be working class. As much as you'd like to turn anarchism into an ideology, I'm going to have to disagree and stick with the etymology in deciding what is and is not anarchist.

I must say it's awfully funny you should insist on turning the concept into some structured ideology when your title says "create a situation", have we learned nothing from the writings of the Debord?


This is really a non-issue, get over it. What do you want, a tissue?

Nothing relevant to class-struggle: The basis of anarchism.

Demonstrations that have achieved very little.

A valid point and I don't dispute it. In fact I support black bloc and indeed direct action at events like WTO and the G8, even more so when these tactics are used within communities.

However, although people in Black Bloc could be considered as lifestylists, this is not necessarily through a conscious decision of individualism. Many Black Bloc are in fact working class who have workerist politics or identify themselves with insurrectionary anarchism.

At least in my experience.

Work is a necessary product of existence. Without working we wouldn't be able eat. Work is going to be necessary, even in an anarchist society.

Through workerist politics, however, we will achieve the destruction of capitalism, the state and bring this process of work under our control.

My point precisely.

This is simply an example of the selfish individualist attitudes that pervade the "anarchist" movement.

Unfortunately for the world, consciousness in you is not as valid as consciousness in the millions of exploited and oppressed workers and unemployed who struggle daily in their lives without realising the power they have in society.

That takes time, action and debate.

Most middle class people, especially individualists, have no tangible understanding of being working class.

Your house is not how you define your class relation in society.

In the context of class struggle it could be argued that their class origin makes them less of an anarchist.

They're prejudices and lack of experience has defied the basis of anarchism.

Well, no, not unless they want to destroy capitalism, the state and create an anarchist society.

That has nothing to do with what I said. Lifestyle anarchism does not challange capitalism or the state.

That old chestnut. I'm simply stating facts.

Well there you are then...

No it hasn't.

The concept of anti-statism and community co-operation has been however.

Thoreau never used the word anarchism, but he did subscribe to certain anarchist ideals.

Max Stirner however, was the beginning of the defamation of anarchism into what we have now. A reactionary of the worst kind.

Well, I'm wary of the middle classes, and why should I not be?

But it already is one, and has been for the last 175 years.

I'm not turning it into a structured ideology, Bakunin, Malatesta and Kropotkin already achieved that, and much more in-depth and intelligently than me.

As for Guy Debord, the authoritarian egotistical plagiariser that he was, I have learnt very little. But the Situationist analysis of consumer society is a valid one.

And remember, the Situationists were class strugglists.

No, I want you middle class tossers to get with the programme or fuck off!

"No War but the Class war" seems somewhat fitting.