Libertarian Party Uk

[ViolentPanda]

To repeat:



To expand:
Anarchists don't try to maximise liberty in the immediate. They have a long term strategy of communism in which to realise greater liberty. They are willing to coerce now in order to achieve greater liberty later.

Mmmm, that might, in some instances, be the case for anarcho-communists, but not all anarchists are communists.

I hope that's clear. I am aware that I am generalising and that anarchists are a diverse bunch and that the above is not applicable to all anarchists. I reach the above conclusion by looking at Kropotkin, who in my opinion is the most interesting and coherent anarchist theoretician. Perhaps it is an odd and dated take on anarchism...

There are almost as many "takes" on anarchism as there are anarchists, and while many anarchists are informed by Kropotkin's work (and by Bakunin, Zinn, Arshinov, Chomsky, Proudhon, Rocker and a thousand others), you don't tend to get monolithic adherence to ideology, so there are few "Proudhonists" or Bakuninites" in anarchism.

 

[Knotted]

So to you resistance or opposition necessarily equate to the use of coercion?

Resistance or opposition to what?

Let's use Kropotkin again. Liberty is the possibility of action without being influenced in those actions by the fear of punishment.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that coerce is to try to deprive a liberty. To resist is to try to prevent the possibility of an action. That is unless resistance is mere persuasion.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You've generalised so much you're basically making it up.

What you say about anarchists is grossly incorrect. Also, you keep trying to pretend that anarchism=communism. Another big mistake.

Even if you're referencing Kropotkin as the inspiration for that error.

 

[Blagsta]

Resistance or opposition to what?

Let's use Kropotkin again. Liberty is the possibility of action without being influenced in those actions by the fear of punishment.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that coerce is to try to deprive a liberty. To resist is to try to prevent the possibility of an action. That is unless resistance is mere persuasion.

You're going round in circles. Give it up.

 

[Knotted]

There are almost as many "takes" on anarchism as there are anarchists, and while many anarchists are informed by Kropotkin's work (and by Bakunin, Zinn, Arshinov, Chomsky, Proudhon, Rocker and a thousand others), you don't tend to get monolithic adherence to ideology, so there are few "Proudhonists" or Bakuninites" in anarchism.

That's fair enough. Its difficult to discuss anarchism at all without generalising a bit. I am trying not to do it and probably failing.

 

[tangentlama]

Actually, a lot of anarchists would agree that they're socialists. I certainly describe myself as a libertarian socialist. Pretty much synonymous with anarchist as far as I'm concerned.

Well, we can't escape the social, can we. If we do, then we're invidualists.

However, anarchists are not socialists-with-a-capital S.

Socialists-with-a-capital-S are often hierarchical and centralised.

Anarchists share social power horizontally, whereas Socialist 'parties' tend to have an hierarchical form of power-sharing/devolution.

(ViolentPanda can probably sum this up more succinctly)

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm really curious about this one. Which anarchists are not communists? I don't mean this as a criticism of anarchists - quite the opposite.

[I can understand that not many would want to call themselves communists after Stalinist abuse of the term.]

If you're taking adherence to the Marx/Engels document as your basis for anarchists being "communists" (and I can't see how else one can rationally define the simplistic brand of "communism" you appear to be talking about), then I'd say that only a minority of anarchists are. The fact that many anarchists see the appeal of life based around the community living in equity isn't Marxism-spawned.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Opposing exploitation is not self-defence although self-defence may be involved in opposing exploitation.

It is if you're the one being exploited.

 

[tangentlama]

Even if [knotted is] referencing Kropotkin as the inspiration for that error.

Kropotkin is getting on a bit as anarchist theorists go, yet Kropotkin saw anarchism as a progressive social science and not an ideology, which is why "Modern Science and Anarchism" is still a relevant classic anarchist work today.

[Unlike that misogynist outmoded pig Proudhon who imo is only worth reading so we know what to avoid in contemporary society]

e2a: knotted did it again - he referenced Kropotkin and misused that quote to justify his own logic. :eeek:

 

[ViolentPanda]

Actually, a lot of anarchists would agree that they're socialists. I certainly describe myself as a libertarian socialist. Pretty much synonymous with anarchist as far as I'm concerned.

Anarchist "socialism" tends to consist of community and society-centred practices carried out from the ground up, whereas normative "socialism" tends to be read as party-political, power-centralising and heavily hierarchical, even though in the end both strands may have similar goals. I think that the lack of distinction between party socialism and community and personal practices that follow a socially-beneficial (and therefore "socialist") route really mires many attempts by people to "get" anarchism.

 

[tangentlama]

Resistance or opposition to what?

Let's use Kropotkin again. Liberty is the possibility of action without being influenced in those actions by the fear of punishment.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that coerce is to try to deprive a liberty. To resist is to try to prevent the possibility of an action. That is unless resistance is mere persuasion.

Nonono, let's not USE Kropotkin to justify your own logic-error.
Don't start quoting Kropotkin like a biblical literalist might.
He is not a hero, he's just a theorist. Important, but when misquoted in this way you could use his words to justify a thousand crimes-against-human society.

Plus, if I resist someone's desire to kill me, or deprive me of the means to sustain my life, then am I depriving them of the possibility of action? Where are you going to draw the line with this kind of logic?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Resistance or opposition to what?

To exploitation.

Let's use Kropotkin again. Liberty is the possibility of action without being influenced in those actions by the fear of punishment.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that coerce is to try to deprive a liberty. To resist is to try to prevent the possibility of an action. That is unless resistance is mere persuasion.

It's quite possible for resistance to be "mere persuasion".
Coercion, it seems, will always be defined by the interests of the opposing parties. Employers say that strikes are coercion, employees say that strikes are "mere persuasion", that the practice of the right to withdraw labour is a hard-won liberty.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He's getting on a bit as theorists go, however Kropotkin saw anarchism as a progressive social science and not an ideology, which is why "Modern Science and Anarchism" is still a relevant classic anarchist work today.

The count has "staying power" precisely because he didn't get into the whole "belief system" schtick, IMHO.

[Unlike that misogynist outmoded pig Proudhon who imo is only worth reading so we know what to avoid in contemporary society]

My great-gran didn't like Proudhon either. If she mentioned "the French shit", you knew instantly who she was ranting about.

 

[tangentlama]

I like your great-gran

 

[Knotted]

If you're taking adherence to the Marx/Engels document as your basis for anarchists being "communists" (and I can't see how else one can rationally define the simplistic brand of "communism" you appear to be talking about), then I'd say that only a minority of anarchists are. The fact that many anarchists see the appeal of life based around the community living in equity isn't Marxism-spawned.

I don't mean in the sense of Marx and Engels at all. Just the very broad collection of tendencies that wished to overthrow capitalism and the state and continue production on a communal or collective basis of some form.

 

[Darios]

Rubbish. Consistent opposition to coercion includes the right to resist coercion and self defence.

You insist on Positive Rights. Negative Rights are - effectively - freedoms. Whilst Positive Rights are demands. Someone or something has to answer that demand - in the current status quo, it is the state. Presumably in the spooky collectivist anarchist land it will be the almighty, all knowing "collective".

If these demands must be met, then someone has to provide them.

This necessarily requires coercion, whether from the state, or the spooky "collective".

If you're working on the basis of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" you're going to be a bit fucked without coercion.

 

[Darios]

Anarchists would argue that opposing the exploitation of your class is also self defence. I thought you'd read the anarchist faq? All the arguments I'm using are in there.

So you'd justify violence against actual people in the name of a collective entity whose very existence is dubious at best.

 

[Knotted]

Nonono, let's not USE Kropotkin to justify your own logic-error.
Don't start quoting Kropotkin like a biblical literalist might.
He is not a hero, he's just a theorist. Important, but when misquoted in this way you could use his words to justify a thousand crimes-against-human society.

Plus, if I resist someone's desire to kill me, or deprive me of the means to sustain my life, then am I depriving them of the possibility of action? Where are you going to draw the line with this kind of logic?

You don't understand at all. I use Kropotkin because he is pretty much the only anarchist theorist I know of who has anything to say of any depth and coherence on the question of the nature and importance of liberty to anarchists. If you have a different theory then be my guest. I would love to hear it. Really.

Next you are quizzing me about Kropotkin's logic after complaining bitterly that I am talking too much about Kropotkin. I will explain Kropotkin to you the best I can if you want, but I suspect you will use it as an excuse to whine at me.

Why is it up to me to explain anarchist theory to you? Why am I doing your job? Why can't you explain anything to me? Why am I having to come up with the examples? If you are failing on your side of the argument don't blame me.

 

[Knotted]

To exploitation.

It's quite possible for resistance to be "mere persuasion".
Coercion, it seems, will always be defined by the interests of the opposing parties. Employers say that strikes are coercion, employees say that strikes are "mere persuasion", that the practice of the right to withdraw labour is a hard-won liberty.

Do employees really say that strikes are "mere persuasion"? I wouldn't. This all just semantics of course. But I would say that a strike is 100% a form of coercion.

The following analogy will probably not sound convincing to you, but it conveys exactly how I personally view the semantics of "coercion".

Suppose a pacifist said they were opposed to all violence. You ask them whether they believe that even in the case of self-defence. They say in reply that if you punch, kick or stab a person in self-defence then this is not really violence. Is this person really opposed to violence? No. They are just fooling with words. What's more they are quite possibly willing to excuse violence that you wouldn't because they have the freedom to interpret the concept of 'self-defence'. Perhaps self-defence would mean the defence of property, perhaps it could mean the defence of business interests. People who fool with words should not be trusted.

Any high principle which is based on concepts open to interpretation is not really a high principle. Principles like this are about power. About control. People who mangle words this way are controling dialogue itself. They control the terms of the debate. For all this talk about authoritarianism it seems that when you say that the exploited cannot coerce then you are engaging in linguistic authoritarianism. That is unless you have a very clear definition of "coerce", because otherwise nobody will know what you mean.

Those who interpret the rules are those who rule. Look at any religion.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't mean in the sense of Marx and Engels at all. Just the very broad collection of tendencies that wished to overthrow capitalism and the state and continue production on a communal or collective basis of some form.

To pigeonhole all such tendencies as "communism", which is a specific ideological formation, is ridiculous.

 

[Blagsta]

Well, we can't escape the social, can we. If we do, then we're invidualists.

However, anarchists are not socialists-with-a-capital S.

Socialists-with-a-capital-S are often hierarchical and centralised.

Anarchists share social power horizontally, whereas Socialist 'parties' tend to have an hierarchical form of power-sharing/devolution.

(ViolentPanda can probably sum this up more succinctly)

Yes. However, social anarchists are socialists.

 

[Blagsta]

Anarchist "socialism" tends to consist of community and society-centred practices carried out from the ground up, whereas normative "socialism" tends to be read as party-political, power-centralising and heavily hierarchical, even though in the end both strands may have similar goals. I think that the lack of distinction between party socialism and community and personal practices that follow a socially-beneficial (and therefore "socialist") route really mires many attempts by people to "get" anarchism.

Indeed. However, the term "anarchism" comes with too much baggage I think. Which is why I prefer the term "libertarian socialist".

 

[Blagsta]

I'm really curious about this one. Which anarchists are not communists? I don't mean this as a criticism of anarchists - quite the opposite.

[I can understand that not many would want to call themselves communists after Stalinist abuse of the term.]

Individualist anarchists are not communists as I understand it. Neither are mutualists.

 

[Blagsta]

I take definitions straight from anarchist theory. Everyone makes assumptions, I state mine so that they can be scrutinised.

I am really interested in who these non socialist/communist anarchists are. Individualist anarchists? I thought they were pretty fringe and close to right wing libertarianism anyway?

This might help
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secGcon.html

 

[Blagsta]

You insist on Positive Rights. Negative Rights are - effectively - freedoms. Whilst Positive Rights are demands. Someone or something has to answer that demand - in the current status quo, it is the state. Presumably in the spooky collectivist anarchist land it will be the almighty, all knowing "collective".

If these demands must be met, then someone has to provide them.

This necessarily requires coercion, whether from the state, or the spooky "collective".

If you're working on the basis of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" you're going to be a bit fucked without coercion.

Positive rights are not demands. They are freedoms to do things.

As for you rubbish about an all knowing collective? Pfffft.

 

[Blagsta]

So you'd justify violence against actual people in the name of a collective entity whose very existence is dubious at best.

You're making shit up again. Please stop.

 

[Blagsta]

You don't understand at all. I use Kropotkin because he is pretty much the only anarchist theorist I know of who has anything to say of any depth and coherence on the question of the nature and importance of liberty to anarchists. If you have a different theory then be my guest. I would love to hear it. Really.

Next you are quizzing me about Kropotkin's logic after complaining bitterly that I am talking too much about Kropotkin. I will explain Kropotkin to you the best I can if you want, but I suspect you will use it as an excuse to whine at me.

Why is it up to me to explain anarchist theory to you? Why am I doing your job? Why can't you explain anything to me? Why am I having to come up with the examples? If you are failing on your side of the argument don't blame me.

This might help
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca22

Funny though, you claim to have read it.

 

[Blagsta]

Do employees really say that strikes are "mere persuasion"? I wouldn't. This all just semantics of course. But I would say that a strike is 100% a form of coercion.

The following analogy will probably not sound convincing to you, but it conveys exactly how I personally view the semantics of "coercion".

Suppose a pacifist said they were opposed to all violence. You ask them whether they believe that even in the case of self-defence. They say in reply that if you punch, kick or stab a person in self-defence then this is not really violence. Is this person really opposed to violence? No. They are just fooling with words. What's more they are quite possibly willing to excuse violence that you wouldn't because they have the freedom to interpret the concept of 'self-defence'. Perhaps self-defence would mean the defence of property, perhaps it could mean the defence of business interests. People who fool with words should not be trusted.

Any high principle which is based on concepts open to interpretation is not really a high principle. Principles like this are about power. About control. People who mangle words this way are controling dialogue itself. They control the terms of the debate. For all this talk about authoritarianism it seems that when you say that the exploited cannot coerce then you are engaging in linguistic authoritarianism. That is unless you have a very clear definition of "coerce", because otherwise nobody will know what you mean.

Those who interpret the rules are those who rule. Look at any religion.

All concepts are open to interpretation. Unless you want to appeal to some kind of Platonic realm.

 

[Knotted]

To pigeonhole all such tendencies as "communism", which is a specific ideological formation, is ridiculous.

It isn't a specific ideological formation. Not in the slightest. Its a very broad range of tendencies and ideolgies including the Diggers, Robert Owen, various 19th century utopian sects and indeed, I think, most anarchists.

 

[Knotted]

This might help
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca22

Funny though, you claim to have read it.

It helps only in the sense that it shows that anarchists tend to not know what they mean by liberty. I'd rather read something more clued up.

For example:

Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in which individuals and groups practice self-management

This is just a category error. If it isn't then it is circular ie. liberty just means anarchy which in most cases is communism.