Stop calling each other anarchists and replace it permanently with the term Libertarian Communists?
Oct 14 2009 10:08
Just since the image of an anarchist to most ppl is someone setting stuff on fire and may put alot of ppl off. I know I sound like a trot.
Oct 14 2009 10:21
#2
and the image of communism that most people have is gulags, the kgb and military parades, how is that less likely to put people off?
Oct 14 2009 10:24
#3
I know but hopefully the lib before it makes them realise its different from gulag communism
Oct 14 2009 10:26
#4
Not for nothing is this site libcom.org and not fullanarchy.com 
Oct 14 2009 10:32
#5
allybaba wrote:
I know but hopefully the lib before it makes them realise its different from gulag communism
well for many people libertarian means free market capitalism, so instead of sounding like we want to set everything on fire we'll sound like we want an authoritarian dictatorship where businesses are free to do what ever they want 
Oct 14 2009 10:41
#6
fuck that only in america it does
Oct 14 2009 10:47
#7
Both the words "libertarian" and "communist' are worse seen than anarchist in this country. Personally I think that it's more important to discuss concrete politics than labels; we all know that if you scratch beneath the surface, you get people with wildly differing politics beneath the same label. The only way forward is to concentrate on specific analyses of the issues, proposing ways to challenge power structures and ways to replace them, and making your views louder than your label.
Oct 14 2009 11:05
#8
allybaba wrote:
fuck that only in america it does
true, but there are alot of us.
on the other hand,
Quote:
we'll sound like we want an authoritarian dictatorship
actually you won't, as right-libertarians want no more government than any of us here.
this bit of course is right:
Quote:
where businesses are free to do what ever they want
Oct 14 2009 16:50
#9
No, all the terms are misunderstood. What label you give something is largely irrelevant. If some ideas get taken up by large numbers of workers and become a threat to the capitalist system, the words used for the label will be viciously distorted and attacked - like the word "Republican" used to be under monarchies.
There's no point trying to jump to new words which aren't yet sullied by association, because I've they get taken up by lots of people they soon will be. As other people point out, the word "communism" is far more negative to most people than "anarchism" anyway.
Oct 14 2009 18:21
#10
Where would this leave us non-communists?
Would I have to refer to myself from now on as, "Libertarian Communist, non-communist variety, with certain socialist and mutualist leanings."
Oct 14 2009 19:58
#11
jaocheu wrote:
Where would this leave us non-communists?Would I have to refer to myself from now on as, "Libertarian Communist, non-communist variety, with certain socialist and mutualist leanings."
That description pretty much guarantees you'll be shot after the revolution whoever ends up winning.
Oct 14 2009 22:08
#12
If I had a choice between being perceived as a crazy hippy setting fire to stuff or being FULL 'DISAPPEAR YOU IN THE NIGHT' KGB or Stasi agent, I know which I'd choose.
Oct 14 2009 22:26
#13
I suppose this raises another related question, which is why we insist on describing ourselves as libertarian/anarchist communists when socialism means almost exactly the same as communism, but with (IMO) much less of the negative baggage.
Oct 15 2009 10:29
#14
Farce wrote:
I suppose this raises another related question, which is why we insist on describing ourselves as libertarian/anarchist communists when socialism means almost exactly the same as communism, but with (IMO) much less of the negative baggage.
people think the labour party is socialist. If there is a choice between being seen as a supporter of the labour party and supporting gulags i know what id chose
Oct 15 2009 09:33
#15
I got a new one I can't remember where i heard it but its quite long winded and not as good as Libertarian Communist in my eyes anyway.ANTI AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISTS wooohoo!
Oct 15 2009 13:25
#16
Anti Authoritarian Socialist
Libertarian Communist
We could rename this thread Oxymoron of the Day.
Anarchy Rules!
Oct 15 2009 13:42
#17
If we make it about mutualism, we can just do away with the oxy bit.
Oct 15 2009 14:57
#18
Steven. wrote:
No, all the terms are misunderstood. What label you give something is largely irrelevant. If some ideas get taken up by large numbers of workers and become a threat to the capitalist system, the words used for the label will be viciously distorted and attacked - like the word "Republican" used to be under monarchies.There's no point trying to jump to new words which aren't yet sullied by association, because I've they get taken up by lots of people they soon will be. As other people point out, the word "communism" is far more negative to most people than "anarchism" anyway.
I actually think that 'anarchist' and 'communist' 'socialist' and so on, are somewhat contradictory because of the real contradictions that existed in the historical movements from which they are derived. Communism isn't associated with state-capitalism just because of the crafty linguistic distortions of the ruling classes, but because of the state capitalist tendencies that were inevitably intertwined with it, pretty much from its inception.
I don't really have an answer, but it seems to me that you can do one of two things. You can do what Dauve and others have done and identify communism as something other than the actual, historical movement calling itself communism. Or you can not call yourself a communist (anarchist, socialist, whatever), and use some other word to describe the tendency you are part of.
Anyway, 'labels are irrelevant' is bs.
~J.
Oct 15 2009 18:24
#19
That's a bit Humpty Dumpty isn't it? Just because the Bolsheviks called themselves communists, they were? Bearing in mind, this was actually long after communism's inception, not to mention anarcho-communism's.
A word summarising a whole theory is always going to be a load of shite.
Oct 16 2009 09:26
#20
*does a drunk-post*
Oct 16 2009 08:11
#21
The Italian lot of the First International codified anarcho-communism in the late 1870's, a decade before the Second International was created.
Still, I don't think dates hugely matter. State capitalists dressed themselves up as communists, but if they didn't adhere to you know, the core principals, then they weren't.
Oct 16 2009 09:20
#22
I am sorry - but why should anarchists discuss such non-important matter? 
Oct 16 2009 09:25
#23
It's not non-important. Having the right terminology for things is essential if we're gonna communicate.
Plus, I don't think it's the case that 'state capitalists dressed themselves up as communists'. It's not like the workers in the second international didn't actually propose a lot of what the bolshies eventually put into practice - nationalisations of the banks as a means to socialism, tight state control of the economy etc. etc. Communism wasn't really distorted by Stalin and co., rather, one of the strands within communism was carried to its logical extreme.
~J.
Oct 16 2009 10:09
#24
Well either way you look at it, the words communism and anarchism and all their variants are tainted, being synonymous with Russia and Tolstoy respectively. All the libertarian prefix isn't going to stop someone going "communism!? ARGH!!!" all anime style. So terms mean nothing if the ideas they represent are going to be dismissed immediately.
I never disputed the Second International wasn't a load of shite. I did say it came after anarcho-communism had been married together though. Besides, it implies the labour movement has always been this dogmatic, set in stone thing. Communism didn't end in the 1899, it carried on and developed progressively like with the councilism movement. That state capitalists used the label doesn't really matter. When someone says the USSR was communism, it's quite simple to say it's not because...
Oct 16 2009 13:53
#25
molly0000000s wrote:
Tolstoy
Oct 16 2009 14:39
#26
Nice picture weeler. Just like myself in 1981...And punk rock will never die... (although the Crass said the opposite many years ago.)
I think we should call us council communists, left communists and anarchists.Why do not anarchists do like Daniel Guerin says at the end of his book on "Anarchy" - merge intelligent Marxism and Anarchy/Anarchism?
pannekoek-bakunin
Oct 16 2009 16:34
#27
Because if they did they wouldn't really be anarchists, they'd be anarcho-council communists. Hm...
~J.
Oct 16 2009 16:42
#28
Is this some sort of odd spot the link game? Lets play.
What do Tolstoy and Sex Pistols have in common? They're both raconteurs? Are men? Were 'punks'?
J, this is what I don't get. Today, currents within libertarian communism overlap and are influenced by each other. Anarcho-communism today borrows an awful lot from councilism, even so that there is councilists in anarcho-communist groups. I find the difference between the two to be practically none. You make it sound like it's still all factionalised.
Oct 16 2009 17:00
#29
There were historically big differences between the anarchist and council-communist movements - here, I'm talking about back when they were movements, and not the ghetto they are today. Both had different theoretical roots, and both had different practices; though there was a degree of overlap, they were definitely different beasts.
Today, though, workers who stumble into the anarcho-communist/councilist ghetto looking for some answers about why their life is so sh*t, often end up taking elements from both traditions. This is completely sensible, but it can lead to confusion when we try to come up with labels for ourselves.
~J.
Oct 16 2009 22:20
#30
But that's the point, historically. Nowadays, the only good thing going for libertarianism is the decent synthesis (not of your fucking without adjectives kind) of worthwhile currents. I wouldn't say there's any confusion though.
No wai. 'Anarchist' has more class.
~J.