Because she was born 145 years ago today. And I know hardly anything about her, other than she was an anarchist and a feminist, and spoke out against sex slavery, but apparently was an individualist? Is she in the bad camp?
Authored on
November 17, 2011
Ramona wrote: Is she in the
Ramona
Depends on who you ask... I don't like this "camping" much myself.
Worse than that, she was
Worse than that, she was 'anarchist without adjectives'.
"There is nothing un-Anarchistic about any of [these systems] until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to. (When I say 'do not agree to' I do not mean that they have a mere distaste for...I mean serious differences which in their opinion threaten their essential liberties...)...Therefore I say that each group of persons acting socially in freedom may choose any of the proposed systems, and be just as thorough-going Anarchists as those who select another."
So no, you definitely don't.
Fuck, I've got a book by her.
Fuck, I've got a book by her. Glad I haven't read it now. 8-)
Oh that's a shame. And yeah I
Oh that's a shame. And yeah I was being a bit flippant with my use of 'bad camp', that prob didn't come across ;)
Fall Back wrote: Worse than
Fall Back
Truth be told, I don't quite see the problem there.
Or is it that 'not a communist, so not an anarchist' stuff?
Go to town if ya want: Essays
Go to town if ya want:
Essays and Other Writings by Voltairine de Cleyre
Railyon wrote: Truth be
Railyon
Non-communist anarchists love all that bullshit about the contractual freedom of individual subjects to enter into any arrangement according to their own free will.
I'm not even being polemical when I say that substantively, there's no difference to classical liberalism.
They should read Paschukanis:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pashukanis/1924/law/ch04.htm
Angelus Novus
Angelus Novus
Does that also apply to non-communist socialists or just to those individualist or capitalist types?
Because if so, I can see why some accuse communists of dogmatism if only their system is 'the right one'.
why would anyone be a
why would anyone be a communist if they didn't think it was right?
radicalgraffiti wrote: why
radicalgraffiti
Yeah well, obviously I think communism is the 'real deal' myself or I wouldn't be here, but what happened to pluralism?
The way your question sounds, it makes it seems like we're all in some giant tug-of-war here and we must show our superiority (at least that's the underlying feeling I get from that, sorry if I'm making more out of it than it is). Who was it again who said communists must not propose a solution, but critique? Dupont?
to be honest i don't know who
to be honest i don't know who Dupont is/was or why i'd care what he thought. I'm just saying everyone thinks their own ideas are better than those of everyone who disagrees with them or else they would have different ideas.
I'm not sure what you mean by pluralism?
"I was for several years an
"I was for several years an individualist, but becoming convinced that a number of the fundamental propositions of individualistic economy would result in the destruction of equal liberty, I relinquished those beliefs. In doing so, however, I did not accept the proposed economy of Communism, which in some respects would entail the same result, destruction of equal freedom; always, of course, in my opinion, which I very willingly admit should not be weighed by others as of equal value with the opinions of those who make economy a thorough study, but which must, nevertheless, remain supreme with me. I am an Anarchist, simply, without economic label attached. "
De Cleyre was a great anarchist, not to mention feminist, I wouldn't know why we shouldn't wish her a happy birthday. She got shot you know...
Like most honest,
Like most honest, non-ideological, anarchists, she was skeptical economic agnostic.
Not only did she get shot, she was shot by a former pupil (she taught English to immigrants) and refused to press charges or speak to the cops about it. That she stuck to her anti-statist principles even under such horrific circumstances (she lived in constant pain until her death) puts her head and shoulders above most historical and contemporary anarchists.
black spaghetti wrote: "I was
black spaghetti
Yeah, she certainly was a great anarchist, and although I don't personally believe in ceremonial rituals such as 'birthdays' (everyday would be a birthday in a non-elitist anarchist society)---I would nevertheless give her homage on 365 occasions when I lit a cigarette rather than a candle on a cake.
But I don't understand this hatred that is directed mostly against individualists, as if they are fascists, I can only wince at how the proletariat are considered by these very same slanderers, or are the commonality exempt from criticism from these ideologists because of their political naivety? This approach to social relationships verges on paternalism.
Railyon wrote: Yeah well,
Railyon
Well, what do you mean by "pluralism"? If "pluralism" is supposed to mean something like, "I don't think people should be jailed or shot because of their beliefs", then ok, I'll go along with that, but since no one on this thread was suggesting anything like that, I don't quite understand what point you're trying to make.
If, on the other hand, "pluralism" is supposed to mean something like, "I should respect ideas that I regard as wrong", then that makes no sense. I wouldn't have a position if I thought all the opposing positions were equally valid.
I'll reiterate: non-communist anarchism, especially of the individualist variety, is pretty much indistinguishable from classical liberalism. The only difference is that those types of anarchist are basically disgruntled because really existing liberalism fails to live up to some "ideal" liberalism.
Quote: Yeah, she certainly
Another reason I don't like VdC...
batswill wrote: I don't
batswill
Sorry, little Johnny. Ever since the glorious Revolution birthdays have been exposed as the individualist bourgeois nonsense they truly are. I fed your cake to the dog.
tastybrain wrote: batswill
tastybrain
Marie Antoinette fed cake to her pedigree dogs:) But seriously, on what date did that glorious revolution occur? Be careful, your answer may reveal a hero worshipping of some kind.
tastybrain wrote: batswill
tastybrain
Lucky dog! Marie Antoinette lacked your generosity towards the needy.
Black Badger wrote: Like most
Black Badger
Got shot three times, and said this about her would-be assassin:
This, despite the fact, as Black Badger says, she was left in severe pain by the shooting. She might not be the most memorable of the anarchist ilk in terms of her output, but she certainly has my admiration for this act alone. Happy birthday de Cleyre.
batswill wrote: tastybrain
batswill
You didn't hear about it? It was last week. It was all over CNN.
Fall Back wrote: Worse than
Fall Back
On that note, what's your opinion on Rudolf Rocker? He's on my to-do list. Wikipedia says he was a self-professed anarchist without adjectives.
snipfool wrote: Fall Back
snipfool
I thought he was an anarcho syndicalist?
tastybrain wrote: snipfool
tastybrain
Yeah, from what I've gathered (including from the same article!), which makes it a bit confusing. What do you guys think about this particular self-profession? Is it even actually true?
I think all this will to
I think all this will to label is very un-anarkie-ist ;)
He describes himself as an anarchist without adjectives, but he is also the man who wrote the text Anarcho-Syndicalism , so go figure :confused: . I think (I am probably wrong here), but he is taking a 'without adjectives' stance against contemporaries on the left (early 20th century had some pretty shit leftists).
Yeah Rocker was definitely
Yeah Rocker was definitely not a textbook anarcho-syndicalist despite his actual involvement in grassroots revolutionary unionism. IIRC he had a very big tent notion of what anarchism is, and in his book on anarchism in America he pretty much includes all the betes noires of libcom (from Thoreau to the individualists) in the anarchy camp. He even talks about "Lincoln' anarchic tendencies" ffs! But this brings me to my point. Who cares that de Cleyre and Rocker had a dodgy understanding of ideological anarchism? Both of them, esp. Rocker, were utterly devoted to the cause of the labour movement, and devoted their energies to materially improving the lives of working people; neither sided with the state on any issue (well Rocker may have given vocal support to the Allied war effort, but then Kropotkin was guilty of the same and no one would accuse His Beardness of not being a proper anarchy).
Boris Badenov wrote: Yeah
Boris Badenov
Very helpful, thanks. I believe this is the book you were talking about.
Boris Badenov wrote: neither
Boris Badenov
So remember, kids, when the Bolsheviks crush a sailors' uprising, it's because they're evil statists, but when Rocker or Kropotkin support the allies, they still aren't "siding with the state on any issues."
I love the consistency of principles of big-tent anarchism. As long as somebody calls themselves an anarchist, they get a pass on anything. Oh, if only Lenin and Trotsky had just circled their As!
Angelus Novus wrote: Boris
Angelus Novus
Naturally, Noam Chomsky should also be in the list of those who supported imperialist powers. He supports the Allies in World War 2, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in the Vietnam War and the Indian invasion of Bangladesh in the India-Pakistan war of 1971.
Angelus Novus wrote: Boris
Angelus Novus
Kropotkin and Rocker should certainly be criticised for there stupid political decisions, but none of them are the same as shooting workers to suppress revolution.
Angelus Noxious wrote: Boris
Angelus Noxious
Absolutely ridiculous comparison.
Lenin and Trotsky were typical political opportunists; their involvement in labour disputes was usually with the purpose of making a strike into a platform for their poxy Party. Can't say I know much about de Cleyre's activities, but Rocker organized immigrants in the East of London for pretty much no profit to himself at a time when no one else would. He got sweatshops unionized, made solidarity campaigns with local striking dockers possible, and gave shelter to radical fugitives from all over Europe under pain of exile or imprisonment.
That in old age he made the mistake of seeing the Allies as the only force capable of stopping Nazi Germany (even though as a German he was imprisoned in Britain during the war) in no way invalidates his championing of working class causes.
What did Trotsky do except squirm his way through the Petrograd soviet's chain of command and became a repulsive autocrat and opportunist?
Lenin and Trotsky waged AN ACTUAL WAR on the working class in Russia. Rocker and Kropotkin merely expressed certain opinions, which stupid and misinformed though they are, are nothing compared to Kronstadt and the destruction of workers' democracy by the Bolsheviks.
Uh, Trotsky was elected
Uh, Trotsky was elected vice-chair of the Petrograd Soviet as far back as the 1905 revolution. So either the soviets were working-class institutions, and you thus have to account for working-class support of those eeevil party-based Marxists within the soviets, or all those evil party-based Marxists were mere chair warmers who never got their hands dirty with "real" working class politics, but in that case you also have to forgo any criticism of the later Bolshevik suppression of the soviets, since by your own assessment they weren't "real" working-class institutions anyway.
And my broader point is still valid: counter-revolutionary activity by self-proclaimed anarchists can always be excused as a "betrayal" of anarchist principles, while counter-revolutionary activity by party-Marxists is somehow always a fulfillment of sinister intentions.
Angelus Novus wrote: Uh,
Angelus Novus
Angelus dear, do take a break from this sophistic gymnastics or you'll tire yourself out.
The thing is I'm not talking about "anarchist principles" or "marxism," you, and you alone, are. Ideas are fine and grand on paper, and some are finer and grander than others (in this sense yeah, I do think most strands of anarchist communism will always trump political marxism), but it's deeds that matter the most. The fact is Rocker, through his solidarity work, improved the material conditions of many workers. He never had any political ambitions of any sort, as far as I know. That he became a war apologist later in life is something which definitely cannot be reconciled with his earlier work as anarchist organizer, and I'm not trying to do that. Pro-war Rocker was not the Rocker of Arbeyter Fraynd. People are different things at different stages in their lives, depending on what conditions they find themselves in. I would've thought that was painfully obvious to anyone with even only a quasi-materialist understanding of history/society.
Trotsky was at best a leftist agitator who "helped" stoke a revolutionary fire that was already burning quite intensely without him (he comes close to saying as much himself in his History of the RR).
The fact that he and other professional partyists were "seat warmers" does not mean soviets per se were anti-working class. This is a ridiculous way of looking at anything; soviets were both organs of working-class self-organisation AND (esp. after the October events) embryonic vehicles of the Party's dictatorship. The latter tendency won out in the end (because of specific historical circumstances).1 The soviets were never just one thing; no organ of class struggle is (see "occupy" events for contemporary examples).
Yadda yadda
Yadda yadda yadda.
Translation into English: what anarchists do is "improve the material conditions of many workers". What Marxists do is always a "party dictatorship in embryo".
Truisms of anarchist sectarianism, episode #308. Tune in next week for more.
jeez Angelus, way to alienate
jeez Angelus, way to alienate the crowd ;).
Translation to English" What Marxists do 'explain how Trotsky really was a nice guy and how things could have all been different*'
*if the bastard hadn't have implemented Taylorist working conditions SOMETHING NEITHER ROCKER NOR KROPOTKIN WOULD HAVE EVER DONE! :mrt:
Arbeiten wrote: Translation
Arbeiten
Nope, that's the thing, I really don't things would've been all that different if, say, Trotsky had been in power rather than Stalin. Maybe there wouldn't have been show trials directed against upper echelons of the party, but there probably would have been a party dictatorship and some variant of forced accelerated industrialization.
I'm not a moralist who thinks good intentions have some sort of magical ability to transcend material conditions.
As long as we're talking about who our favorite superheros are, I think Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko's mid-60s creations for Marvel comics are still the best.
well, that was was actually
well, that was was actually meant in jest (the post that is). But its nice to know that the stereotypes of comms having no sense of humour bares some relation to reality ;) . Still Rocker is to Trotsky what Superman is to the Green Lantern!
What's that then, shit?
What's that then, shit?
swings and round abouts
swings and round abouts really. All comics are shite. I just always thought the Green Lantern looked particularly bad ;)
It has a ring that can make
It has a ring that can make anything you imagine. ANYTHING. Even your smutty deeds with Scarlett Johnansson a reality.
the button wrote: Fuck, I've
the button
So rather than read a book you've yourself selected and bought, you'd rather believe nine lines on the Internet from FallBack rather than forming your own opinions from your own reading and subsequent judgement. What independepence of thought.
This is an old thread, but
This is an old thread, but I've been reading old copies of Mother Earth and I have to say Voltairine de Cleyre who was one of the main contributors is pretty sound in it. Her's an article on the Mexican Revolution she wrote.
The Mexican Revolt
By Voltarine De Cleyre
Seems a bit cheap to
Seems a bit cheap to valourise a Mexican revolt which is blatantly ambiguous about being identified with anti-capitalism or the capitalistic attack on landed property, to attack socialist movements generally. The marriage of socialism with capitalism is of course the apotheosis of forms 'without adjectives,' but otherwise not much. Other than that, seems often to be vaunting about things without really any clear ground-work to elaborate why, and then throwing around buzz-words to attack others without clarifying where from. Surely the reader isn't expected to get excited about the text's exclamations when its overall orientation between capital and communism, for instance, is left unclear. It's a bit like an empty shout where the 'revolt' could lead to anything, as one might expect say from a banshee. The Marxist elements come across as without conviction and appropriated to some kind of strange agenda quite foreign to their original meaning, although we are presumably to consider that the writers of the Manifesto would have looked kindly on such altered borrowings from an anarchist, whom they could have little patience for usually. The polemic is hollow, and the rest phrases.
The writers of the Manifesto were not, of course, known for their appreciation of Mexicans - however much the 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' could be accused of hypocrisy on Mexican issues, and strangely it receives quite faint praise in comparison. Needless to say, some further predictions of the notability of the struggle from then have not always panned out, and the tendency of earlier socialists to feel the need to say such things about every struggle might have led to disillusionment later on among movements that kept doing this, which kind of thing generally hastened the incorporation of the 'left' into lax liberalism.
Bit of a strange thread. Seems to be a swathe of repetitions of the same misunderstandings by different people - people finding it inconceivable that communists dislike someone who apparently doesn't mind or advocates ('without adjectives') opposed forms, etc. - and also this:
Battlescarred
Slightly weird case. As if they were refusing to read it due to someone expressing their opinion on it - in which case their 'independent judgement' of this person is that they believe them - rather than having de Cleyre's position clarified briefly and opting to skip reading that.
In any case, it's been a while since people talked like 'the button' there as much, in as it were a heyday for such fora. Nowadays all that communists can seem to agree with each other on is whether something is 'fun' or not.
Why shouldn't she have
Why shouldn't she have supported the Mexican Revolution, which actually had anarchist elements in it? And why shouldn't I have valorized the Arab Spring when hundreds of thousands of people confronted brutal police states?
Because the real Mexican
Because the real Mexican revolution is immigration...
More seriously, I didn't particularly say that they were wrong to support the Mexicans, because I wasn't generally just commenting on their position in abstraction. I'm sure Murray Rothbard or most 'market anarchists' could also be 'acceptable' by such criteria, at times. Plenty of liberals valourised the 'Arab Spring,' the point is why. In this case, a liberal supported the Mexican Revolution, but in saying that their support of this generally involved a fair amount of noise which was neutral in nature between communism and (rather fervent) capitalism, and hence problematic, need not be too far astray from their actual trajectory.
Sorry chum, but you come over
Sorry chum, but you come over as a pompous ass.
Battlescarred wrote: Sorry
Battlescarred
Not a battlescarred one, then.
Here's a myosin protein
Here's a myosin protein dragging an endorphin along a filament to the inner part of a human brain's parietal cortex to create happiness:
Happy Birthday big V.