WI: Anarchism more influential than Marxism

In their context though there were explicitly leftist, and historically have been (and should be) treated as such. Calling someone like Thoreau a rightist just screams of double-speak.

I would say the same of somebody who demanded they be considered leftist.

Words change. Again, if they are Left, then who's Right?
 
I would say the same of somebody who demanded they be considered leftist.

Words change. Again, if they are Left, then who's Right?

The conservative reactionaries in charge running the show in Prussia-Germany, Piedmont-Italy, France, Russia, Spain, etc. Again, you have to consider these things within their context.
 
I would say the same of somebody who demanded they be considered leftist.

Words change. Again, if they are Left, then who's Right?
Since most of the people named considered themselves socialists, and adopted very socialist political platforms, not calling them left-wing would be ridiculous.
 
I would say the same of somebody who demanded they be considered leftist.

Words change. Again, if they are Left, then who's Right?

Throne-and-altar conservatism, absolute monarchism, proto-fascism...

As a general definition, I would suggest that leftists mostly think that equal relationships are generally better, while rightists mostly think that hierarchical relationships are generally better.
 
So the American Anarchists are not relevant? I'm baffled. Even outside of the US, Proudhon and his ideology straddles the line, and is very very close to what we would now refer to as Right Anarchism.

Anyway, as to the OP, as has been said there were many places where Anarchism was the driving ideology of revolutionaries, so you can just look to that and see how different it works out. Outside of that though, it's pretty difficult to imagine I think. I can't really think what an Anarchist Russia might have looked like, though I think there was a TL about that in the Post-1900 forum.
American anarchists were leftists. The image of the "bomb-throwing anarchist" originates from (well, doesn't originate, but was solidified during) the First Red Scare. Anarchism in the first part of the twentieth century was primarily associated with the I.W.W. (the Industrial Workers of the World, also known as the Wobblies), which was the driving thrust (along with the more conservative AFL) behind the first General Strike in North American history.

I suppose you could argue that Thoreau was right-wing; personally I think attributing a left-wing or a right-wing tendency to him is inappropriate and somewhat anachronistic. Remember, his criticism was not limited to merely government; he was disgusted by the expansion of railways into previously untouched areas, for example.

Also, while Proudhon is probably more acceptable to right anarchists than other left anarchist philosophers, I think it's a stretch to think of it as anything but a movement of the left. Interestingly, certain left anarchist philosophers (including Proudhon) tend to be appropriated by fascists, as both ideologies are generally syndicalistic.
 
Then who were the Rightist Anarchists at the time?
:rolleyes:

There were none at the time. That's what we've been trying to tell you. Just because the anarchists were left-wing does not mean they had to have a right-wing counterpart who were also anarchists.

That would simply be anachronistic. A right-wing, pro-capitalist anarchism is an intellectual exercise only possible in an advanced stage of capitalist development, when capitalist ideology has insinuated itself into every form of human social relations.

It's simply impossible for such an endeavor to occur without those preconditions. "Right-wing" anarchism before the Fukuyaman faux "end of history" ideological entrenchment is just as anachronistic as transhumanism prior to the development of the integrated circuit.
 
To be fair, there were people who right anarchists claim as their predecessors - Lysander Spooner, for example.

But yeah, mostly what Jello Biafra said. Libertarians love to steal terms that historically belonged to leftists and then get pissed off when leftists contunue to use them (like the word "Libertarian," for example). With one caveat - modern right anarchism predates the west's victory in the Cold War/"final victory of capitalism"/"end of history."
 
:rolleyes:

There were none at the time. That's what we've been trying to tell you. Just because the anarchists were left-wing does not mean they had to have a right-wing counterpart who were also anarchists.

Implying that's my thought process on calling some of them Right wing. Which isn't.

Secondly Lightman stated that left Anarchism was "The only one of real relevance in the 19th century" a statement which implies that there was a Right Anarchism at the time, just that it was irrelevant in the 19th century. If it wasn't the American Individual Anarchists, then what was it? If you have been trying to tell me "There were none at the time" then the previous statement was miswritten, not only for implying the existence of Right Anarchists at the time, but for even saying "Left Anarchists" because if there is no right, then a distinction of the left is pointless. Of course, you're not Lightman, so you can't really make a definite statement on that.

That would simply be anachronistic. A right-wing, pro-capitalist anarchism is an intellectual exercise only possible in an advanced stage of capitalist development, when capitalist ideology has insinuated itself into every form of human social relations.

What? There are a lot of things I find confusing here. First off, who said anything about Right Anarchism being "pro-capitalist." The number of Anarchist flavours that are completely okay with Capitalism can be counted on one finger, and major well known proponents of it are three at the most. Claiming that it is the totality of "Right Anarchism" makes a Right/Left division pointless.

Secondly...what?

The distinction between Right and Left Anarchism is in my mind, Right is Individualist. Left is Collectivist.

If this is wrong, then what is Right Anarchism? If its just the An-Caps, why act like there's an entire section of Anarchism that is "Right" when it's just a single, small, disliked group among dozens of other "Left" ones?.

To be fair, there were people who right anarchists claim as their predecessors - Lysander Spooner, for example.

If by "Right Anarchists" You mean An-Caps, they claim the entire Individualist tradition as their predecessors. Hence it seems fair for the modern man to lump the Individualists into a Right-Anarchist label.
 
Implying that's my thought process on calling some of them Right wing. Which isn't.

Secondly Lightman stated that left Anarchism was "The only one of real relevance in the 19th century" a statement which implies that there was a Right Anarchism at the time, just that it was irrelevant in the 19th century. If it wasn't the American Individual Anarchists, then what was it? If you have been trying to tell me "There were none at the time" then the previous statement was miswritten, not only for implying the existence of Right Anarchists at the time, but for even saying "Left Anarchists" because if there is no right, then a distinction of the left is pointless. Of course, you're not Lightman, so you can't really make a definite statement on that.
You're being transcendentally pendantic

What Lightman thinks on this subject is irrelevant. What we're discussing is what you wrote on the subject. And the problem is that you're criticizing the ahistoricity of an opponents claim while also falling into the same trap yourself.

Yes, in some cases his sentence would imply that there was a contemporaneous right-wing anarchist movement. But this isn't the case. "Left anarchism" would have been entirely redundant in that era, because there was no right-wing anarchism.

But the problem is that your own notions of left and right are ahistorical, a point which I will elaborate later.

What? There are a lot of things I find confusing here. First off, who said anything about Right Anarchism being "pro-capitalist." The number of Anarchist flavours that are completely okay with Capitalism can be counted on one finger, and major well known proponents of it are three at the most. Claiming that it is the totality of "Right Anarchism" makes a Right/Left division pointless.
Secondly...what?

The distinction between Right and Left Anarchism is in my mind, Right is Individualist. Left is Collectivist.

If this is wrong, then what is Right Anarchism? If its just the An-Caps, why act like there's an entire section of Anarchism that is "Right" when it's just a single, small, disliked group among dozens of other "Left" ones?.
And here's the ahistorical definition I spoke of. What compounds this problem is not only a false dichotomy between individualism and collectivism, but the fact that this is a very recent redefinition of "left-wing" vs. "right-wing".

Historical, "left" and "right" with reference to politics has meant one's relation to the existing system of political-economic power. It dates back to the French Revolution, when the supporters of the aristocracy, the Church and the monarchy sat on the right side of the National Assembly, while their opponents, the classic liberal Girondins and Jacobins, sat in the center-left and left respectively. And when the Jacobins were in power, the Enrages and the politically organized sans-cullotes, described themselves as being to the "left" of the Jacobins.

What is crucial to this is that nothing about these distinctions ever included collectivism or individualism as the distinction. ANd if it ever entered into the discussion, it was usually the left who was championing the individual against the hierarchical arch-collectivism of the existing social order, whether it was the feudal ancien regime in France, or modern industrial capitalism.

Early American anarchists weren't right-wing by any meaningful sense of the term. They may have been pro-market, but their notions of property were very socialist in nature. Nearly all of them were Georgists, and very explicitly rejected homesteading legitimations of property. They all opposed absentee ownership, whether of land or capital, and opposed wagedom as a hierarchical and misanthropic.

This is why men like Spooner and Spencer considered themselves socialists, and opposed capitalism: these things they rejected were all antecedents of the capitalist economic system,and they quite explicitly placed themselves on the socialist left.

Frankly, there's almost no similarities between classic American individualist anarchists and modern anarcho-capitalists, beyond a general respect for markets. Their notions of propriety and liberty stand fundamentally at odds with each other, and any attempt by anarcho-capitalists to latch onto their legacy is is base opportunism, of which they are hardly alone in doing. Spiritually baptizing the deceased as exponents of your ideology is one of man's oldest intellectual exercises.
 
You're being transcendentally pendantic

Is that a joke? It sounds like one.

What Lightman thinks on this subject is irrelevant.

What Lightman thinks on the subject is highly relevant to me since I originally replied to him.

And the problem is that you're criticizing the ahistoricity of an opponents claim while also falling into the same trap yourself.

You seem to be having difficulty with my claims. I pointed out that IF we take your claim, or his agreement with you to be true, THEN his claim is questionably worded. IF we take myself to be correct, his claim is worded fine, just not really true.

Yes, in some cases his sentence would imply that there was a contemporaneous right-wing anarchist movement. But this isn't the case. "Left anarchism" would have been entirely redundant in that era, because there was no right-wing anarchism.

You're wrong on one. IF you make a distinction, the implication is that the distinction is meaningful, thereby saying "Left-Wing" Anarchism implies a "Non-Left-Wing" Anarchism at the time. IF you're correct that there was no "Right-wing anarchism" at the time, THEN I once again point out that his claim is oddly worded. The wording of his statement is relevant in that it implied something that I already agreed with hence we're having this discussion. That there was what we moderns might call Right Anarchism at the time.

And here's the ahistorical definition I spoke of. What compounds this problem is not only a false dichotomy between individualism and collectivism, but the fact that this is a very recent redefinition of "left-wing" vs. "right-wing".

But it is a definition. It's all well and good that you have your knowledge on where these definitions came from and what they used to mean. It has no relevance however. Words aren't static. As far as I know, the way I am using these words is a common modern way of doing it. If you don't like it, tough cookies.

Early American anarchists weren't right-wing by any meaningful sense of the term.

So are you saying they weren't Individualist? Or that a dichotomy based on individualism/collectivism isn't a meaningful distinction?

They may have been pro-market, but their notions of property were very socialist in nature. Nearly all of them were Georgists, and very explicitly rejected homesteading legitimations of property. They all opposed absentee ownership, whether of land or capital, and opposed wagedom as a hierarchical and misanthropic.

Okay going through. I don't see how you could say they were Georgist. I don't agree they rejected Homesteading, but it depends on what you mean by that. I do agree they rejected absentee ownership, but don't see this as a significant difference from An-Caps, considering some An-Caps reject it too. And you're absolutely wrong about wages.

This is why men like Spooner and Spencer considered themselves socialists, and opposed capitalism: these things they rejected were all antecedents of the capitalist economic system,and they quite explicitly placed themselves on the socialist left.

Another change in words between then and now is how An-Caps refer to "Capitalism" and how most other Anarchists do, including those in the past. You will find that Capitalism, as non-An-Cap Anarchists see it, is intrinsically bound to the state. The Capitalism that say, Proudhon or the contemporary Carson refer to was/is defined as something that could not exist without the state to hold it up. An-Caps however, speak of a Capitalism that can not exist while the state does. Clearly they are not speaking of the same thing. You can even see in writings that what is refered to in the past is not "Ideal Capitalism" as An-Caps speak of, but "Capitalism as it exists" as An-Caps deny as being real Capitalism.

Frankly, there's almost no similarities between classic American individualist anarchists and modern anarcho-capitalists....

Astonishment! It is indeed possible to find a particular Mutualist, and a particular An-Cap who agree on everything, that's how close those two are. The only major difference I see is that An-Caps tend to not want to live under a society that accepts a labour theory of value, though some do.

Their notions of propriety and liberty stand fundamentally at odds with each other, and any attempt by anarcho-capitalists to latch onto their legacy is is base opportunism, of which they are hardly alone in doing. .

Care to prove it? PM me if you like. I'm not going to reply in thread about it.
 
Implying that's my thought process on calling some of them Right wing. Which isn't.

Secondly Lightman stated that left Anarchism was "The only one of real relevance in the 19th century" a statement which implies that there was a Right Anarchism at the time, just that it was irrelevant in the 19th century. If it wasn't the American Individual Anarchists, then what was it? If you have been trying to tell me "There were none at the time" then the previous statement was miswritten, not only for implying the existence of Right Anarchists at the time, but for even saying "Left Anarchists" because if there is no right, then a distinction of the left is pointless. Of course, you're not Lightman, so you can't really make a definite statement on that.
No, my reference to left-anarchism does not imply that a right anarchism existed in the 19th century. I was making the distinction because such a distinction exists today, and that distinction seemed to be creating confusion for various people.

What? There are a lot of things I find confusing here. First off, who said anything about Right Anarchism being "pro-capitalist." The number of Anarchist flavours that are completely okay with Capitalism can be counted on one finger, and major well known proponents of it are three at the most. Claiming that it is the totality of "Right Anarchism" makes a Right/Left division pointless.
Considering that right anarchism was not an actual thing prior to "anarcho-capitalism," the distinction makes a great deal of sense.
Secondly...what?

The distinction between Right and Left Anarchism is in my mind, Right is Individualist. Left is Collectivist.

If this is wrong, then what is Right Anarchism? If its just the An-Caps, why act like there's an entire section of Anarchism that is "Right" when it's just a single, small, disliked group among dozens of other "Left" ones?.
I don't understand what your problem actually is.


If by "Right Anarchists" You mean An-Caps, they claim the entire Individualist tradition as their predecessors. Hence it seems fair for the modern man to lump the Individualists into a Right-Anarchist label.
And, as has been pointed out, the modern man would be incorrect.
 
Top