Pdfs on christian anarchism

I understand that "The Kingdom of God is Within You" is a key text among christian anarchist types.

Reading a book on the Fabians and have heard mention of 'Labour Churches,' which I'd never read about before. Sounds like they're more socialist than anarchist though.

Deku #3

‘The first Labour Church was founded at Manchester in October 1891 by a Unitarian minister, John Trevor. Soon the Church expanded to other towns including Birmingham, Bradford, Bolton, Leeds, London, Nottingham, Oldham, Plymouth and Wolverhampton. Some of these churches were formed in a direct response to another church, or church minister, in the town promoting liberal views. Within five years of the first Labour Church there were over 50. The Labour churches were at that time attracting between 300 and 500 members to each congregation.
After John Trevor left in 1900, the Labour Church began to decline. At the annual conference of 1909, held in Ashton-under-Lyne, the name Labour Church was changed to Socialist Church. However by the beginning of World War I the recently renamed Labour Church had disappeared.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Church

In the 1970s in Glasgow there was a Unitarian minister, Woodside I think, who was very sympathetic to anarchism.
Some children I grew up with went to the local Socialist Sunday School.

EDIT
Should have made it clear Woodside was where his church was located. Cannot remember his name. A comrade in the ORA was asked to deliver a 'sermon' on anarchism, which he did.

Interesting, thanks.

Some writing from Aotearoa (New Zealand). http://www.jesusradicals.com/uploads/2/6/3/8/26388433/revolution-of-hope-graham-cameron.pdf

There is quite an active network of christian anarchists - the South Pacific Christian Anarchists (SPCA ... :-)).

More here http://www.jesusradicals.com/anarchism.html

I don't get it. Are these people who seek to convert anarchists to Christianity, or the other way round - Christians into anarchists. And, ffs, why bother your arse? I couldn't give a monkeys if someone is a Christian, Muslim or whatever as long as this didn't keep rearing its head in relation to their political outlook.

Whist there are important differences between different christian organisations and their practice, I can't see that there is any logical or consistent correlation between anarchist (or at least anarchist-communist) philosophy or politics and christianity in today's world and it seems that somewhere along the line the attempt to marry the two will cause problems in the practice of any organised anarchist political group. That doesn't of course mean that people can't work together in many everyday circumstances on the basis of what we all do rather than the peculiar mix of contradictory ideas we may hold in our heads. An old working class 'militant' here in the north of England recently deceased claimed both an anarchist-syndicalist and anglo-catholic practice recognised as valid by other of his anarchist comrades but that to my knowledge was an exception to the rule. Other anarchist-syndicalists perceived that combination to be more problematical.

How does one beleive in God and be an anarchist?

What does God want with workers self organisation?

I'll bite.

Leaving aside for now whether class-conscious libertarian socialism is compatible with the recognition of some kind of divine authority---the kinks are ultimately up to each individual to work out---I would recommend Alexandre Christoyannopoulos' Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. It's the most exhaustive exegesis of its kind that I'm aware of, and it's fairly accessible even to those less well-versed in Scripture.

This a good summary of AC's concerns: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/Christiananarchism.pdf

Might also want to look into the work of the Catholic Worker Movement.

Coming in a bit late here, but did you get anywhere with your attempts to find a mix of anarchist and Christian positions? Reason I'm asking is my own experience as a Quaker. By Quaker, I mean original Quaker beliefs, not liberal or evangelical offshoots. The former can be roughly summed up in the words: "Christ has come to teach his people himself". The outcome of that is a faith and way of living where people are guided inwardly by Christ, not outwardly pastors, priest, government, police, courts etc. It also confronts the human nature problem, but from the inside rather than outside. I just put that out as it brought together two parts of one whole which I couldn't resolve through mainstream "Christianity".

Other folks have pointed you towards Catholic Worker, Pinch of Salt, Jesus Radicals. All good. "Christian Anarchism" by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos is currently being read in the Radical Reading Group at London Catholic Worker.

Elgeeto

I'm Interested in mixing christianity and anarchism into a kind of existential philosophy/belief system. I want to paint pictures of biblical rebels and punks calling the shots in history, exposing the insane changes modern figures endear to the characters and attitudes of the bible, who were all really righteous people before their names and ideas were given different voices by confused and also bitter peoples. Stressing less on organization and more on personal philosophy about howbwe interact with authority on personal levels -- how not to take crap with moral footing!

Anyone know any good starts on my ideal? Pdf's or music or w/e?

Does god watch you wank?

potrokin

Does god watch you wank?

I don't know about that, but that comments reveals you to be a wanker.

This is all I need to know about christianity http://www.evilbible.com/

This is all I need to know about christianity

That's very principled you you to stand by your ignorance quite so resolutely. What a crappy website.

Fleur

This is all I need to know about christianity

That's very principled you you to stand by your ignorance quite so resolutely. What a crappy website.

how have I displayed ignorance, oh great judge of all things ignorant? The website tells you all you need to know about christianity.

how have I displayed ignorance, oh great judge of all things ignorant? The website tells you all you need to know about christianity.

Yes, you are being very ignorant and rather juvenile. There are good critiques of organised religion, but asking someone if God can see them wank and linking to a shit website does not count as "critique". What you have done instead is to attack a new poster...

Khawaga

how have I displayed ignorance, oh great judge of all things ignorant? The website tells you all you need to know about christianity.

Yes, you are being very ignorant and rather juvenile. There are good critiques of organised religion, but asking someone if God can see them wank and linking to a shit website does not count as "critique". What you have done instead is to attack a new poster...

I think it's a website that anyone proffessing to be a christian should look at. I haven't attacked anyone. If there are better critiques as you say then perhaps you could post them.

Although, frankly I don't think I want to spend anymore time on a thread that defends religion so readily, in a way lacking so much in humour also.

potrokin

I haven't attacked anyone.

You asked Elgeeto if God watches him wank.

If there are better critiques as you say then perhaps you could post them.

There are a shit ton of such critiques on this site and even Marx's opiate comment has more substance than that website you posted.

Religion is cancer.

Marx

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people

Religion is such a poisonous crock of shit (organised or not) that I refuse to waste anymore of my time debating the topic. There are more important things to discuss and if you had been harmed by religion like I have you would understand that.

There are more important things to discuss and if you had been harmed by religion like I have you would understand that.

I'm sorry that you've been harmed by organised religion, but your experience is not a universal one so you should not be that solipsistic and also not engage in homogenising all religion and all people of faith.

Religion is shit. Attacking people simply because they believe in a religion is also shit. By all means, criticise but you'd do well to reread that Marx quote because it contains far more humanity than your "does God watch you wank" nonsense.

But if god is omnipotent and omnipresent, which is the universal experience (lamentably), then unfortunately he is doomed to watch everyone masturbate simultaneously until the end of time. A strange question no? And a genuine one.
As for my experience not being a universal one, it may not be but it is very common and to say otherwise is to also undermine the suffering of millions of people- including the girls and women having their clitorises removed and women having their reproductive rights attacked in the US. Perhaps there is a reason that the spanish anarchists burned churches down.
And please comrades lets keep our sense of humour and ability to mock religion, an inability to mock something and speak one's mind is a cornerstone of fascism- anarchism would imply that you don't need to look up at any being or higher power. The problem with mixing anarchism and religion is that to defer critical thinking ( to have faith) and responsibility you have to relinquish your own autonomy and that of others. I am disappointed at this website for catering to religion so much, religious people do not tolerate our views on the whole- why should we be so tolerant of religion, which is hierarchial. A ruling class, on the mortal plain or not is still a ruling class. That is all I have to say right now. I know I said I quit this discussion but I changed my mind.

Elgeeto might be interested in;

“ Friedrich Nietzsche and Christian Anarchism”

I don’t like Nietzsche one little bit, but despite lunatic rants of sophistry etc he was I think quite capable of flashes of genius.

I had a ‘similar’ analysis of early christainity or the gospel material myself but with a somewhat different value analysis or conclusion or whatever.

I can never be sure if he is taking the piss, being ironic or playing devils advocate or not.

he was similar to Stirner in some ways

….but suffice it to say that it was precisely because he saw Jesus as the teacher of a “typical socialist doctrine” that he found said teachings so repugnant. For Nietzsche, morality was commensurate with strength, and immorality with weakness.

Christianity, socialism, anarchism, and similar moral doctrines were, according to Nietzsche, born out of ressentment–a way for the weak to [ ..ideologically..] punish the strong and validate [ ..rationalise..] the morality of meekness, mildness, self-sacrifice, etc. as opposed to the morality of the strong, who valued self-determination, self-mastery, self-overcoming, etc. There is much more that could be said on this, but hopefully this will serve as a sufficient prelude to the following…..

https://livingthegreys.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/friedrich-nietzsche-and-christian-anarchism/

Elgeeto

I'm Interested in mixing christianity and anarchism into a kind of existential philosophy/belief system. I want to paint pictures of biblical rebels and punks calling the shots in history, exposing the insane changes modern figures endear to the characters and attitudes of the bible, who were all really righteous people before their names and ideas were given different voices by confused and also bitter peoples. Stressing less on organization and more on personal philosophy about howbwe interact with authority on personal levels -- how not to take crap with moral footing!

Anyone know any good starts on my ideal? Pdf's or music or w/e?

A good starting point would be to have a fundamental understanding of both anarchism and christianity and realising that anarchism is not a nebulous spirituality. For example- Romans 13-

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Peter 2:13, Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

Can you see how these passages from the Bible contradict the very fundamentals of anarchism?

And a genuine one.As for my experience not being a universal one, it may not be but it is very common and to say otherwise is to also undermine the suffering of millions of people- including the girls and women having their clitorisis removed

You do realize that FGM has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with African culture?

But if god is omnipotent and omnipresent, which is the universal experience (lamentably). Then unfortunately he is doomed to watch everyone masturbate simultaneously until the end of time. A strange question no? And a genuine one.

Not all religious people or even religions believe in an omnipotent God. For example, the Mormons believe in a fallible God. The problem is that you're conflating religion with Christianity and your experience with it. For example, IIRC only Christians believe in ex nihilio creation so taking that religion as the basis for all is problematic.

Perhaps there is a reason that the spanish anarchists burned churches down.

Yes, but that's because the Church supported the fascists and that the Church has been a fucking exploiting land-owner for years and years. But then there are the counter-examples from Latin America where liberation theologists have been some of the most radical folks around; radicals that have been killed by the state for preaching a more just society and that people should take control over their own lives.

. And please comrades lets keep our sense of humour and ability to mock religion,

Of course, but you mocked another poster. There is a difference.

I am disappointed at this website for catering to religion so much, religious people do not tolerate our views on the whole- why should we be so tolerant of religion.

This site is highly atheist. Just because some people challenge your simplistic critique of religion in one thread started several years ago, does not mean libcom is so tolerant. Religion hardly gets discussed on this site.

Khawaga

And a genuine one.As for my experience not being a universal one, it may not be but it is very common and to say otherwise is to also undermine the suffering of millions of people- including the girls and women having their clitorisis removed

You do realize that FGM has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with African culture?

But if god is omnipotent and omnipresent, which is the universal experience (lamentably). Then unfortunately he is doomed to watch everyone masturbate simultaneously until the end of time. A strange question no? And a genuine one.

Not all religious people or even religions believe in an omnipotent God. For example, the Mormons believe in a fallible God. The problem is that you're conflating religion with Christianity and your experience with it. For example, IIRC only Christians believe in ex nihilio creation so taking that religion as the basis for all is problematic.

Perhaps there is a reason that the spanish anarchists burned churches down.

Yes, but that's because the Church supported the fascists and that the Church has been a fucking exploiting land-owner for years and years. But then there are the counter-examples from Latin America where liberation theologists have been some of the most radical folks around; radicals that have been killed by the state for preaching a more just society and that people should take control over their own lives.

. And please comrades lets keep our sense of humour and ability to mock religion,

Of course, but you mocked another poster. There is a difference.

I am disappointed at this website for catering to religion so much, religious people do not tolerate our views on the whole- why should we be so tolerant of religion.

This site is highly atheist. Just because some people challenge your simplistic critique of religion in one thread started several years ago, does not mean libcom is so tolerant. Religion hardly gets discussed on this site.

If FGM is just an African problem then why is it so prevalant in countries such as Eqypt and Saudi Arabia? There are girls in this country having their clitorises removed also. To just call it an African problem is to dismiss the magnitude of the problem and fail to acknowledge that it is happening all over the world- the sort of thing that plays right into the hands of the far-right. The Victorians also imposed FGM so it is also a western thing (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/02/fgm-happened-to-me-in-white-midwest-america)- and where do you think the Victorians got the ideas behind FGM from? Yeah- Christianity. And there is more than one way to control people's sexuality and that includes heavy psychological damage to people's idea of themselves and their own freedom, thats what religion does- it controls people, especially women. Mormonism is a fraudulent cult, not a proper religion so I don't care what mormons believe- most religious people believe in an omnipresent god. I mocked the posters' religion- not them personally. As if none of you have ever mocked posters on here. And I'm sure many religious organisations and individuals are prone to supporting conservative ideology, even ultra-conservative ideology, and they'll be a reason for that- uniformity of type. In Spain the work of Bakunin was very popular within the anarchist movement - and he had very similar views on religion to myself which you defenders of theology would do well to remember. Very weak arguments Khawaga.

(psst - egypt is in africa)

petey

(psst - egypt is in africa)

It certainly is but Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern counttirs are not in Africa and neither is Mid-West America- where FGM has also happened, thanks to christian sects- so obviously Khawaga is wrong- it's not just an African thing.

Khawaga

Yes, but that's because the Church supported the fascists and that the Church has been a fucking exploiting land-owner for years and years. But then there are the counter-examples from Latin America where liberation theologists have been some of the most radical folks around; radicals that have been killed by the state for preaching a more just society and that people should take control over their own lives.

Perhaps like Oscar Romero, Salvadoran priest and subject of Herman & Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent who was critical of US military aid to the Salvadoran junta and murdered by a right wing death squad.

zugzwang

Khawaga

Yes, but that's because the Church supported the fascists and that the Church has been a fucking exploiting land-owner for years and years. But then there are the counter-examples from Latin America where liberation theologists have been some of the most radical folks around; radicals that have been killed by the state for preaching a more just society and that people should take control over their own lives.

Perhaps like Oscar Romero, Salvadoran priest and subject of Herman & Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent who was critical of US military aid to the Salvadoran junta and murdered by a right wing death squad.

A very rare exception and one who was part of a hierarchy.

It certainly is but Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern counttirs are not in Africa and neither is Mid-West America- where FGM has also happened, thanks to christian sects- so obviously Khawaga is wrong- it's not just an African thing.

I said: a problem from "African culture". Culture is not the same as country; I never mentioned any countries, but how culture and religion mixes. Culture is not something that stays fixed in one place, it tends to move when people move. It changes when it's hybridised with other cultures and so on. Fact is, the practice of FGM came from African cultures IIRC around the horn of Africa. It spread from there. So it's African in origin, but has come to be part of, for example, Arab culture in Upper Egypt or in Saudi. The point I was making is that you were so absolutely incorrect to ascribe this practice to religion.

Mormonism is a fraudulent cult, not a proper religion so I don't care what mormons believe- most religious people believe in an omnipresent god.

This is a pretty revealing comment from you. If you're atheist, why on earth would you make theological judgements as you do here? Wouldn't any christian group be fraudulent? And what in your atheist eyes, is the difference between fraudulent cult and proper religion?

I mocked the posters' religion- not them personally.

Yes, but you do know--since you once were religious (or brought up to act like one)--that religion is something quite personal to many people. By mocking religion, you attacking them personally.

In Spain the work of Bakunin was very popular within the anarchist movement - and he had very similar views on religion to myself which you defenders of theology would do well to remember. Very weak arguments Khawaga.

My arguments may be weak, but you're not making any. What you're doing here is simply two appeals authority: revolutionists in Spain and Bakunin. FYI, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

As I said initially, it is perfectly fine to critique religion, but the way you do it is just really weak. You're simply presenting your personal views on religion as a critique of it. The best post you made in all of this was actually when you quoted scripture and asked whether that is compatible with anarchism. That is actually something substantive rather than the ranting you've engaged in the rest of the thread.

Potrokin, it seems to me that if you wish to (rightly) critique religion and mysticism, then you should counter such irrational tripe with reasoned argument instead of just being a dick. You'll find very little sympathy for religion on Libcom but being silly about it will only get you short shrift. Also, equating all religion with FGM and other such vile practices is just sloppy arguing.

Edit: just seen Khawaga's post which nails it.

Khawaga

It certainly is but Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern counttirs are not in Africa and neither is Mid-West America- where FGM has also happened, thanks to christian sects- so obviously Khawaga is wrong- it's not just an African thing.

I said: a problem from "African culture". Culture is not the same as country; I never mentioned any countries, but how culture and religion mixes. Culture is not something that stays fixed in one place, it tends to move when people move. It changes when it's hybridised with other cultures and so on. Fact is, the practice of FGM came from African cultures IIRC around the horn of Africa. It spread from there. So it's African in origin, but has come to be part of, for example, Arab culture in Upper Egypt or in Saudi. The point I was making is that you were so absolutely incorrect to ascribe this practice to religion.

So, the cultures of the Victorians and the Christian sects in Mid-West America are African? I don't think so. I do believe, however, that all of the Abrahamic religions take a dim view of female sexuality which explain the instances of FGM- many of which occur in Muslim countries and communities (Islam being an Abrahamic religion ofrcourse). I'm not denying that FGM is an african cultural problem (which is being countered with some success) but that the thought behind it is also backed up by the scripture of all Abrahamic religions aswell, particularly Islam and Christianity.

Khawaga

This is a pretty revealing comment from you. If you're atheist, why on earth would you make theological judgements as you do here? Wouldn't any christian group be fraudulent? And what in your atheist eyes, is the difference between fraudulent cult and proper religion?

Ofcourse I think all religions are fraudulent but there is an argument to be made that Joseph Smith was more obviously a fraud than the proponents of the other main religions.

[quote=Khawaga] mocked the posters' religion- not them personally.

Yes, but you do know--since you once were religious (or brought up to act like one)--that religion is something quite personal to many people. By mocking religion, you attacking them personally.

Me being brainwashed and coerced as a child to worship and praise Jesus doesn't really count as me once being religious in my view- it wasn't a choice of mine. My experience with religion taught me not to give it respect I guess and certainly to not let it dominate me, or others, in any way.

[quote=Khawaga]

In Spain the work of Bakunin was very popular within the anarchist movement - and he had very similar views on religion to myself which you defenders of theology would do well to remember. Very weak arguments Khawaga.

My arguments may be weak, but you're not making any. What you're doing here is simply two appeals authority: revolutionists in Spain and Bakunin. FYI, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

.

Well, I can only speak for myself (and other anarchists I know aswell) and the fact that for me and others, Bakunin's views on religion are spot on and compliment anarchism perfectly.

Victorian era clitoridectomy had nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. It was predicated in the the prevailing medical opinion that women's mental health was connected to their reproductive organs, hence the theories about wandering wombs, hysteria etc. Women were subjected to clitoridectomy because it was considered a cure for insanity ie masturbation makes you mad. It was inflicted upon women who were in some way defying social norms and whether or not their parents/husbands were religious is moot. It was no more a religious practice than other dangerous medical practices which have been variously in fashion, such as trepanation and the craze in the early twentieth century for putting radium in face creams, toothpaste and just about anything which could be sold as being beneficial.

Ofcourse I think all religions are fraudulent but there is an argument to be made that Joseph Smith was more obviously a Fraud than the proponents of the other main religions.

But that's merely your opinion unless you actually give arguments as to why that is. I can guess at what you're referring to, but if you're an atheist, then why make a gradation of less/more fraudulent religions.

Me being brainwashed and coerced as a child to worship and praise Jesus doesn't really count as me once being religious in my view- it wasn't a choice of mine.

Which is why I wrote, "or you were brought up to act like [a believer]. Meaning, you should know how religious people conflate the religious and the personal. You knew exactly what you were doing when you made that wanking comment. Your arguments may be weak on this tread, but I know you're not stupid from your behaviour on other threads (which, tbh is part of the reason why I am giving you a hard time here).

Well, I can only speak for myself (and other anarchists I know aswell) and the fact that for me and others, Bakunin's views on religion are spot on and compliment anarchism perfectly.

Again, that perfectly fine, but instead of just name dropping Bakunin as if that's an argument, you should say what it is about his critique of religion that is worthwhile. But here's the thing, I know several Christians and Muslims (though mainly Sufis) that think their religion "compliments anarchism perfectly". Wouldn't you expect them to justify that statement rather than just accepting it? And if that the case, you should hold yourself to a similar standard of argumentation--as anarchists we should shy from dogma in any shape or form, even if it comes from "our saints".

I'm not denying that FGM is an african cultural problem (which is being countered with some success) but that the thought behind it is also backed up by the scripture of all Abrahamic religions aswell, particularly Islam and Christianity.

It's on you then to show these scriptures that back it up. The current highest authority in Sunni Islam (the dudes in the Al-Azhar mosque/university) have categorically stated that there is nothing in the Quaran or Hadith that supports FGM. I am pretty sure that the highest Shia authority has said something similar (although, who is the highest authority in Shia Islam is less obvious and imams are freer to issue their own fatwas). Sure, some crackpot imam in some Upper Egyptian village may justify this with Islam, but then again, many psycho christian priests will say all kinds of shit as well without any jurisprudent backing.

Fleur

Victorian era clitoridectomy had nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. It was predicated in the the prevailing medical opinion that women's mental health was connected to their reproductive organs, hence the theories about wandering wombs, hysteria etc. Women were subjected to clitoridectomy because it was considered a cure for insanity ie masturbation makes you mad. It was inflicted upon women who were in some way defying social norms and whether or not their parents/husbands were religious is moot. It was no more a religious practice than other dangerous medical practices which have been variously in fashion, such as trepanation and the craze in the early twentieth century for putting radium in face creams, toothpaste and just about anything which could be sold as being beneficial.

A fair point- I do still feel that such practices could well have been backed up in people's minds with Biblical attitudes towards female sexuality. Were these Victorians African?

Khawaga

You do realize that FGM has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with African culture?

As far as I know this is not entirely true. There are various different attitudes to FGM from an islamic perspective ranging from wrong, acceptable, preferable, to obligatory

A fair point- I do still feel that such practices could well have been backed up in people's minds with Biblical attitudes towards female sexuality.

You do realise you're desperately trying to get the facts fit your hypothesis? That's not how argumentation works. Not saying that you're wrong, but you need to back this shit up with actual evidence, not your belief.

So, the cultures of the Victorians and the Christian sects in Mid-West America are African?

Didn't see this earlier. Anyway, I was only referring to FGM and Islam. FGM anywhere else I have little knowledge of. But after Fleur's post, I do remember reading something about this stuff in relation to female hysteria. So in this case it seems like the secular God of "science" was the culprit.

D

As far as I know this is not entirely true. There are various different attitudes to FGM from an islamic perspective ranging from wrong, acceptable, preferable, or obligatory

The practice came from African culture, but as I wrote in a few posts above, has come to be mixed with Arab cultures that are predominantly Muslim. And yes, there are Muslims with different attitutes towards this practice in the range you're describing, but official Islam says it is completely wrong.

Khawaga

D

As far as I know this is not entirely true. There are various different attitudes to FGM from an islamic perspective ranging from wrong, acceptable, preferable, or obligatory

The practice came from African culture, but as I wrote in a few posts above, has come to be mixed with Arab cultures that are predominantly Muslim. And yes, there are Muslims with different attitutes towards this practice in the range you're describing, but official Islam says it is completely wrong.

What is "official islam"? Do you mean the most common interpretation? Islam has always had variations.

On FGM there are various haddiths that are argued by some islamic scholars to refer to FGM. The shia sect Dawoodi Bohras has it as a religous obligation afaik.

Were these Victorians African?

You're just being silly now.

Victorian attitudes to sexuality were far more complicated than it is generally believed to be. The strict control of female sexuality had far more to do with class than religion. These operations were always carried out on affluent/upper class women who were expected to conform to societal, patriarchal norms. Attitudes to working class women's sexuality was different. And that would be a whole different thread, if I could be bothered.

D

What is "official islam"? Do you mean the most common interpretation? Islam has always had variations.

On FGM there are various haddiths that are argued by some islamic scholars to refer to FGM. The shia sect Dawoodi Bohras has it as a religous obligation afaik.

Yes, Islam has always had variations, but with official Islam I am referring to the four schools of jurisprudence and also the official "church" of Sunni Islam (Al-Azhar). I wrote about this stuff a bit above, but anyhoo. Whereas today official Islam goes very much against FGM (I can't remember when they said this; relatively recently, but before it was more of a blind eye), there are of course all kinds of sects and imams that have different interpretations. Now your example is from Shia Islam, which to my knowledge is much less monolithic than Sunni Islam (and I have a much more limited understanding of Shia Islam). IIRC, shias are more free to issue fatwas than Sunnis (although issuing a fatwa does not mean anything to anyone but to those who followed the person issuing the fatwa). But I am not at all surprised that some people/sects say they have found hadith that support the practice. But then again, depending on the hadith, many would even dispute that it would be an accepted hadith (verifying hadith is its own science).

But the point is: if some crackpot priest said that it is ok freebase stem cells and pointed to some scripture, should we take that as representative of all of Christianity? Not saying that you're doing that at all D with your example, but that is definitively what potrokin is doing.

Khawaga

Yes, Islam has always had variations, but with official Islam I am referring to the four schools of jurisprudence and also the official "church" of Sunni Islam (Al-Azhar). I wrote about this stuff a bit above, but anyhoo. Whereas today official Islam goes very much against FGM (I can't remember when they said this; relatively recently, but before it was more of a blind eye), there are of course all kinds of sects and imams that have different interpretations. Now your example is from Shia Islam, which to my knowledge is much less monolithic than Sunni Islam (and I have a much more limited understanding of Shia Islam). IIRC, shias are more free to issue fatwas than Sunnis (although issuing a fatwa does not mean anything to anyone but to those who followed the person issuing the fatwa). But I am not at all surprised that some people/sects say they have found hadith that support the practice. But then again, depending on the hadith, many would even dispute that it would be an accepted hadith (verifying hadith is its own science).

But the point is: if some crackpot priest said that it is ok freebase stem cells and pointed to some scripture, should we take that as representative of all of Christianity? Not saying that you're doing that at all D with your example, but that is definitively what potrokin is doing.

I agree that suggesting fgm is purely or even predominantly down to islam is inaccurate and you were right to point out the inaccuracy of that claim.

Regarding the 4 schools you mention wikipedia lists the following

"The Shafi'i school considers female circumcision to be wajib (obligatory).[36]
The Hanbali school considers female circumcision to be makrumah (honorable) and strongly encouraged, to obligatory.[37]
The Maliki school considers female circumcision to be sunnah (optional) and preferred.[37]
The Hanafi school considers female circumcision to be sunnah (preferred).[37]"

Perhaps this is also wrong. I know the Muslim council of Britain declared it unislamic but the from the brief research ive done it seems a very grey issue tbh

Regarding the 4 schools you mention wikipedia lists the following

"The Shafi'i school considers female circumcision to be wajib (obligatory).[36]
The Hanbali school considers female circumcision to be makrumah (honorable) and strongly encouraged, to obligatory.[37]
The Maliki school considers female circumcision to be sunnah (optional) and preferred.[37]
The Hanafi school considers female circumcision to be sunnah (preferred).[37]"

Perhaps this is also wrong. I know the Muslim council of Britain declared it unislamic but the from the brief research ive done it seems a very grey issue tbh

Thanks, this is interesting. Al-Azhar being the religious authority on all of these schools did come out against FGM as unslamic as well. Then again, the doors of ijtihad (interpretation) was apparently closed some time back so I don't know if institutions like Al Azhar can change these schools. So my bad on assuming al-Azhar being able to roll back what the schools have said on FGM.

But all the arguments I am making was based on what I learned about the issue while living in Egypt (at the time, and still is, 90+ percent of women are mutilated) and Al-Azhar would go out repeatedly against the practice. From what I could figure out was that the practice was extremely strong in rural villages where the government or al-Azhar do not really matter.

But I agree that within Islam today FGM is a grey issue in terms of practice, though within official Sunni Islam it is pretty clear that it is frowned upon.

[quote=D]Khawaga

I agree that suggesting fgm is purely or even predominantly down to islam is inaccurate and you were right to point out the inaccuracy of that claim.

I never actually stated that. I am aware that it is an African cultural problem and have been for some time. I was merely pointing out that it also occurs in religious communities, including Muslim ones- and that anti-female teachings in scripture (or by the clergy/clerics) probably back-up the practice to some extent, in a similar way to this sort of thing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/02/fgm-happened-to-me-in-white-midwest-america (which I can imagine being prevalent in the Victorian era) -masturbation being considered haaraam by atleast some muslim clerics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-RYtMjCdvo aswell as oral sex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S54B05lbbAE

I think what is going on here is more fundamental and general.

So when we have any set of ideas eg communism, Islam, anarchism, Christianity, Marxism, Darwinism etc etc.

And they evolve in meaning and concept into popular or ‘vulgar’ ‘memes’; do we take the popular form as the true representative of the original and completely ignore the historical development(s) of the (original) ideas and so on?

So communism is Stalinism; according to the Christian Chris Hedges?

Muslims and anarchists are bomb throwing terrorists.

Christians are, well, the list is too long.

Darwinists are selfish gene ‘social Darwinists’ (Darwin said the opposite).

Again this is despite the fact that the evolution into the popular memes can be quite clearly and categorically determined.

Thus Stalin in 1906 opposing the idea of the state and political power in socialism and communism, terms he used then unequivocally interchangeablely a moneylss economic system.

Darwin arguing forcibly for social animals and in particular humans having their behaviour regulated by a strong cooperative social instinct.

With Islam we have an extremely large set of post Mohammed works called the Hadiths which forms the bedrock of vulgar Islam.

When I read the Quran I found it almost unrecognisable from the material I was formerly familiar with.

There was a ‘muslim’ fairly recently who had a Fatwa issued against him for merely saying that the extra Quranic material was unnecessary for believe etc.

I suppose the ‘Christians’ have two sets of there own Hadith type material.

The writings of Paul and the more extensive blather of the Saints or infallible popes if you are a catholic I suppose.

As well as the old testament; but that applies to Islam as well.

As we are on omnipotent Christian God, ‘Christian’ mutilation of female genitalia, masturbation and I guess homosexuality is yet to appear; one of the first modern genocides was of self described ‘christians’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

There is a strong socio economic and ideology strand to this ie their class base?

I will use the description of them from the catholic church itself; as they were expunged from history we have to rely almost exclusively from contemporary catholic sources.

…..but rejected any idea of priesthood or the use of church buildings. They divided into ordinary believers who led ordinary medieval lives and an inner Elect of Parfaits (men) and Parfaites (women) who led extremely ascetic lives yet still worked for their living - generally in itinerant manual trades like weaving. Cathars believed in reincarnation and refused to eat meat or other animal products. They were strict about biblical injunctions - notably those about living in poverty, not telling lies, not killing and not swearing oaths.

Basic Cathar Tenets led to some surprising logical implications. For example they largely regarded men and women as equals, and had no doctrinal objection to contraception, euthanasia or suicide. In some respects the Cathar and Catholic Churches were polar opposites. For example the Cathar Church taught that all non-procreative sex was better than any procreative sex.

The Catholic Church taught - as it still teaches - exactly the opposite. Both positions produced interesting results. Following their tenet, Catholics concluded that masturbation was a far greater sin than rape (as mediaeval penitentials confirm).

Following their principles, Cathars could deduce that sexual intercourse between man and wife was more culpable than homosexual sex. (Catholic propaganda on this supposed Cathar proclivity gave us the word bugger, from Bougre, one of the many names for medieval Gnostic Dualists)

In the Languedoc, known at the time for its high culture, tolerance and liberalism, the Cathar religion took root and gained more and more adherents during the twelfth century. By the early thirteenth century Catharism was probably the majority religion in the area. Many Catholic texts refer to the danger of it replacing Catholisism completely.

http://www.cathar.info/

The Cathars appear to be a slight variation on Marcionism which is well documented in the second century; as the material of early church fathers that we have seemed to be more interested in attacking that than discussing their own theology.

People believe god is on their side basically or as Fuerbach put it god is a projection of their own personal value systems, concerns and ideologies.

Which as ‘superstructure’ should be influenced by their own socio economic position; in as much as they are in control of fashioning their own ideological systems to fit in with their own realities etc.

The Cathars and Marcionites believed that an omnipotent and interventionist Satan was in charge and the creator of the material world.

That would be a theological position one might expect from oppressed class of “itinerant manual trades like weaving” who were not doing that well.

[The same class as JC. The class position of JC was not a trivial issue in the second century, the virulent anti Christian Celsus made a great deal of it including scoffing at Mary being a weaver of cloth, and a whore as well.]

[Although Marcion was the son of a Merchant capitalist.]

Pro-creational sex was keeping the game going and reincarnation a multiple life sentence, for no fault of their own, for those 'trapped' in Satanic prison ruled by his imps; the ruling class.

--------------

Paul was a member of the ruling class; as ‘Jew’ having bought himself a citizenship of Rome; and that didn’t come cheap.

What is interesting with Paul, as the ideological founder and theoretician of vulgar Christianity is that he shows very little evidence of being familiar, even second hand, with the contents of gospel material.

Exceptions being he knew JC had been crucified by Pilate, ‘was the messiah’, and had a brother James who he had met.

There is some debate about whether or not a passage on divorce was similar to what JC ‘had said’.

If people want to pick out a gobshite, anti anarchist ruling class passage of Paul’s.

I think the following is the most ‘interesting’.

1 Timothy 6

http://biblehub.com/niv/1_timothy/6.htm

So here it opens up with classic vulgar Christianity.

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfarea of their slaves.

Footnotes:
a 2 Or and benefit from the service

Not much analysis required there I think?

Then we have this;

Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

This looks a bit radical and indeed was expanded upon at some length by the leftwing redistribution of wealth John Chrysostom c. 349 – 407.

However, particularly given Paul’s context, it is really criticism of the financial ambitions of the already poor slaves and endorsement of the status quo with a liberal tinge?

Compare that to the eye of the needle thing, probably rope in fact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle

And of course when JC was allegedly “testifying before Pontius Pilate” he didn’t demand to be sent to Rome to have an interview with the emperor like Paul did.

The historical political point?

is re Christianity; as we are on the subject.

If there was an anti organised religion ‘anarchist’ in the socio economic cauldron of Judea in the first century.

When virtually everyone had a God(s) position, including the ‘atheist’ Epicureans

What class would he come from?

What would he have said?

And most importantly how would the state have reacted to it?

Not that I think it will or anything but if this boils up I will be offline very soon for a week.

Elgeeto

thx! As soon as I liberate my tablet from the pawn shop, I'll fit in the eyeboxing time.

Haven't you tried praying for the release of your tablet?

Incidentally the complicity of certain posters on here in helping a wannabe cult leader in his quest to combine anarchism with religion is fucking disgusting- you make me fucking sick and are poor excuses for lib-commies/anarchists. But thankyou for showing yourselves up.

fwiw, before any dumb argument about the existence of god happens, I am an atheist. I have always been an atheist, including during the time I went to a school which had a religious affiliation.

I find arguing with militant atheists as pointless and boring as arguing with people who hold religious beliefs. I have read the bible, from cover to cover, it's mostly very boring, interspersed with passages of "whoah! That's wild!" Much of the OT is based on stories and mythology from other religions. Whether a man called Abraham actually existed or whether he was a literally concept, the Abraham of biblical fame was a Babylonian who up sticks and moved to Samaria, or whatever that region was called at the time. Much of the Abrahamic prohibitive laws, all that anti-sex stuff, all that patriarchal crap, were in direct contradiction of things which were socially acceptable and legal in much less sexually repressed Babylon. It's why Babylon has such a bad reputation, a bunch of killjoys didn't like the shenanigans going on in their bigger, much richer and more powerful neighbouring country.

Taking these passages out of context and using them to basically mock and belittle someone's personal beliefs is incredibly immature. I doubt if the OP really wants to have his son stoned to death by the city elders for disobedience or cares about the prohibition of tattoos or is rabidly anti-masturbation. This -

Haven't you tried praying for the release of your tablet? Or is it all part of god's divine plan? If it's the latter then praying would be a waste of time.

is just a childish and stupid comment.

I don't have any religious beliefs but the church up the road from me has the only youth LGBTQ group and safe space I know of in this city and do so without judgement and with love. It's great that the kids have somewhere to go and it's really wonderful in the summer when they have their prom. Quite honestly, I'd rather spend time with people who do good and behave with kindness and humanity as a consequence of their religious faith than people who use atheism and anarchism as an excuse for their bigotry.

Blessed be the name of Bakunin and all that he spake.

I guess I failed the ideological purity test if I'm not down with spitefully mocking an individual. Achievement unlocked.

Fleur

I find arguing with militant atheists as pointless and boring as arguing with people who hold religious beliefs.

I don't have any religious beliefs but the church up the road from me has the only youth LGBTQ group and safe space I know of in this city and do so without judgement and with love. It's great that the kids have somewhere to go and it's really wonderful in the summer when they have their prom. Quite honestly, I'd rather spend time with people who do good and behave with kindness and humanity as a consequence of their religious faith

I find 'christian-anarchists' and gnostic christians to be weird culty people who want power- that is my experience of such people, born again literalists are not the only christians I have encountered and you can include homophobia in the beliefs of the christian anarchists I have met.
As for your acceptance of LGBTQ youth being manipulated by a church-that says much about you- the same people will turn people away from their church foodbank, I know people this has happened to and the same fucking church supported the local refugee campaign and anti-racist protests, promoting their toxic bullshit religion at a political event with public blessings and prayers- all fine and dandy with the local Trots- but not me as an anarchist. I object when a political event is exploited to promote religion. Thats my experience with 'radical' or 'compassionate' christianity.

They're not being manipulated. This church is offering them a safe space where no-one else is. Do you see everything in such simplistic ways? Have you no nuance? Or are your opinions only dictated to by dogma, which would suggest you haven't eschewed your religious background at all, you've just adopted another one. There's more than one kind of church. I attended the vigil with these kids after the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. Nobody brought religion into it.

Without black churches in the US, there wouldn't be a civil rights movement - why do you think so many black churches get bombed or burnt down?

Nobody's forcing you to pray, you're just making yourself look petty.

Fleur

They're not being manipulated. This church is offering them a safe space where no-one else is. Do you see everything in such simplistic ways? Have you no nuance? Or are your opinions only dictated to by dogma, which would suggest you haven't eschewed your religious background at all, you've just adopted another one. There's more than one kind of church. I attended the vigil with these kids after the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. Nobody brought religion into it.

Without black churches in the US, there wouldn't be a civil rights movement - why do you think so many black churches get bombed or burnt down?

Nobody's forcing you to pray, you're just making yourself look petty.

Fucking hell- did you even read my post in detail? FFS!

Fleur

I don't have any religious beliefs but the church up the road from me has the only youth LGBTQ group and safe space I know of in this city and do so without judgement and with love. It's great that the kids have somewhere to go and it's really wonderful in the summer when they have their prom. Quite honestly, I'd rather spend time with people who do good and behave with kindness and humanity as a consequence of their religious faith than people who use atheism and anarchism as an excuse for their bigotry.

Yeah and the Bovine community just love Farmer Hacksaw's Cow Hotel- much in the same way jewish people felt at home at Uncle Hitler's Friendly Jew Camp. Fucking hell! How thoughtful of your local church eh? Well, when they start their 'conversion therapy' that'll be interesting.

Yeah and the Bovine community just love Farmer Hacksaw's Cow Hotel- much in the same way jewish people felt at home at Uncle Hitler's Friendly Jew Camp. Fucking hell! How thoughtful of your local church eh? Well, when they start their 'conversion therapy' that'll be interesting.

Well, that answered my question about you being simplistic and having no nuance then.

Yeah and the Bovine community just love Farmer Hacksaw's Cow Hotel- much in the same way jewish people felt at home at Uncle Hitler's Friendly Jew Camp. Fucking hell! How thoughtful of your local church eh? Well, when they start their 'conversion therapy' that'll be interesting.

Is this the one true path to atheism then? Sounds like dogmatic dogshit to me. Apart from the couple of Christians who posted on here earlier, I don't think anyone else has been defending religion but instead have been having a dig at your playground name-calling. I think we all get it, you're very angry. Aside from your own personal baggage though, if you want to critique religion then fair fucks but could you at least try and do it without sounding such a right smacked arse?

Serge Forward

Yeah and the Bovine community just love Farmer Hacksaw's Cow Hotel- much in the same way jewish people felt at home at Uncle Hitler's Friendly Jew Camp. Fucking hell! How thoughtful of your local church eh? Well, when they start their 'conversion therapy' that'll be interesting.

Is this the one true path to atheism then? Sounds like dogmatic dogshit to me.

Trying to help some nutjob set up their own religious racket is what I call dogshit.

Elgeeto

I'm Interested in mixing christianity and anarchism into a kind of existential philosophy/belief system.

Why? What is the point of that? Anarchism does not need any christian or religious component- religion may need it's own type of 'anarchism' but not the other way round. What is the use of this?

I must have missed that. Could you point out where people are helping "some nutjob set up their own religious racket" please.

Interesting isn't it. Certain people can jump to this person's defense but they can't answer for themselves.

Serge Forward

I must have missed that. Could you point out where people are helping "some nutjob set up their own religious racket" please.

You simply have to go to the start of the thread and carry on from there and you will notice certain people post resources or info about certain churches etc.

So like... could you show us... I'm still not getting it.

Serge Forward

So like... could you show us... I'm still not getting it.

You only have to look at the comments of boozemonarchy and auldbod and then the creator of the thread thanks them for their help.

The OP stated that they wanted to combine christianity and anarchism.

Potrokin, I understand you have been damaged by your experiences of organised religion. It occurs to me that this damage extends to passionately believing you have a special insight into other people’s ‘spiritual’ beliefs. This may explain why you wish to exorcize all trace of these ideas from anyone or anything associated with anarchism. If so, I do not think using mockery or sarcasm is a very profitable way to accomplish this task.

The more I learn of religion makes me glad I’ve never had any interest in being involved with it. It appears to often warp people’s ability to be generous to ‘outsiders’ – whose who do not share their mind-set.

Watching ‘Time Team’ on telly a few weeks ago, the archaeologists were investigating a prehistoric site on Dartmoor. The location, a shallow valley with water and small islands, was considered important as it was hidden completely from sight until its secret presence was suddenly revealed. It was thought very likely to have been made into a ritual site. One person said that the religious practices grew out of the landscape. I felt this was a good materialist explanation. Post-capitalism, new beliefs and practices will develop and the old myths will wither on the vine.

Like it or not, there is a tradition known as "Christian Anarchism", which personally, I think it's a load of old cobblers. That said, I've shared a picket line with a bloke who defines himself as a Christian Anarchist. He knows I think his ideas are rubbish even though he does the right thing when it counts... but I wouldn't dream of doling out childish insults to him in the way you are keen to do. Nor would I accuse him of being a nutter trying to set up his own religious racket (he's really not trying to do such a thing, though I admit he believes some proper weird shit). Being rude to him though would be extremely crass and counter productive. For all I know, it could even be the same guy asking his questions earlier in the thread, so I wouldn't be rude to him on here either, even if I think his politics/religion is utter cack.

Honestly, a handful of posters shared some information, about 2 years ago, that they knew about left-wing christians and you are behaving like they're apprenticing to David Koresh. Calm down.

Khawaga

There are more important things to discuss and if you had been harmed by religion like I have you would understand that.

I'm sorry that you've been harmed by organised religion, but your experience is not a universal one so you should not be that solipsistic and also not engage in homogenising all religion and all people of faith.

Not universal? Doesn't matter if it's (religion as a malicious force) experienced by everyone as that malicious force. What matters is the function of religion as a social institution; it's social role. And no, please don't trot out "liberation theology" as an example as how the social function of religion isn't 'universally" to support the existing order of things. That's a classically liberal argument-- on a par with arguing that the Democratic Party isn't "universally" anti-socialist.

Good luck to whomever wants to find "christian rebels" "calling the shots" in history, and throwing money-lenders out of the temple-- so that another temple with different racketeers can be established.

But really, Potrokin's got the right idea, despite its crude expression... indeed perhaps the crude expression is the appropriate response.

Serge points out that he's met a christian anarchist and wouldn't insult that person when on a picket line, or at a demonstration. Great. But that has nothing to do with the current circumstances. We're not talking about or to someone with certain beliefs who isn't promoting those beliefs when engaging in a common action. We're talking about someone who wants to construct an ideology based on a fundamental source of human oppression.

Serge Forward

Nor would I accuse him of being a nutter trying to set up his own religious racket

Well you might have a point about how I went about things but the OP did state that the poster wanted to combine christianity and anarchism into a new belief system and that pissed me off. That is what I was objecting to.

S. Artesian

Khawaga

There are more important things to discuss and if you had been harmed by religion like I have you would understand that.

I'm sorry that you've been harmed by organised religion, but your experience is not a universal one so you should not be that solipsistic and also not engage in homogenising all religion and all people of faith.

Not universal? Doesn't matter if it's (religion as a malicious force) experienced by everyone as that malicious force. What matters is the function of religion as a social institution; it's social role. And no, please don't trot out "liberation theology" as an example as how the social function of religion isn't 'universally" to support the existing order of things. That's a classically liberal argument-- on a par with arguing that the Democratic Party isn't "universally" anti-socialist.

Good luck to whomever wants to find "christian rebels" "calling the shots" in history, and throwing money-lenders out of the temple-- so that another temple with different racketeers can be established.

But really, Potrokin's got the right idea, despite its crude expression... indeed perhaps the crude expression is the appropriate response.

Serge points out that he's met a christian anarchist and wouldn't insult that person when on a picket line, or at a demonstration. Great. But that has nothing to do with the current circumstances. We're not talking about or to someone with certain beliefs who isn't promoting those beliefs when engaging in a common action. We're talking about someone who wants to construct an ideology based on a fundamental source of human oppression.

Finally, someone understands.

S. Artesian

We're talking about someone who wants to construct an ideology based on a fundamental source of human oppression.

Exactly. Thankyou.

potrokin

Serge Forward

Nor would I accuse him of being a nutter trying to set up his own religious racket

Well you might have a point about how I went about things but the OP did state that the poster wanted to combine christianity and anarchism into a new belief system and that pissed me off.

Potrokin makes the essential point that everybody, everybody seems to have missed. Go back and read the OP-- "new belief system"-- we call that ideology. That's what P. attacked. All the other shit about FGM, liberation theology, radical priests, Mormonism, etc. is irrelevant to the OP.

Anybody here want to help somebody set up a "new belief system" that combines Christianity and anarchism, go right ahead. Step right up, be the first to get your ticket to Jonestown.

I understood you, Potrokin. I like you fella but you just presented things like a right div. Watch and learn from that S. Artesian, somrone who I don't usually get along with :D but who puts it nicely on this occasion!

S. Artesian

Anybody here want to help somebody set up a "new belief system" that combines Christianity and anarchism, go right ahead. Step right up, be the first to get your ticket to Jonestown.

What matters is the function of religion as a social institution; it's social role. And no, please don't trot out "liberation theology" as an example as how the social function of religion isn't 'universally" to support the existing order of things. That's a classically liberal argument-- on a par with arguing that the Democratic Party isn't "universally" anti-socialist.

What's your point besides equating liberation theology with liberalism and comparing the OP to Jim Jones? Romero was against the existing order of things in El Salvador and sympathetic to the left, and he was murdered for that. He wasn't forcing anyone to drink Kool-Aid. To say that religion mixed with politics necessarily leads to Jonestown is just a gross oversimplification.

What Zugzwang said. Anyway,

Not universal? Doesn't matter if it's (religion as a malicious force) experienced by everyone as that malicious force. What matters is the function of religion as a social institution; it's social role. And no, please don't trot out "liberation theology" as an example as how the social function of religion isn't 'universally" to support the existing order of things. That's a classically liberal argument-- on a par with arguing that the Democratic Party isn't "universally" anti-socialist.

This is pure sophistry and has very little to do with the discussion or what I actually wrote.

I guess that's the problem I have with your posting style Artesian is that sometimes you're spot on with your critiques, but then there are times that you just read like a teenage edgelord. In all of your experience, I am sure you must have organised with plenty of religious folks and I sincerely doubt that you adopted the edgelord style of argumentation you're posting here.

What's an edgelord?

Khawaga

What Zugzwang said. Anyway,

Not universal? Doesn't matter if it's (religion as a malicious force) experienced by everyone as that malicious force. What matters is the function of religion as a social institution; it's social role. And no, please don't trot out "liberation theology" as an example as how the social function of religion isn't 'universally" to support the existing order of things. That's a classically liberal argument-- on a par with arguing that the Democratic Party isn't "universally" anti-socialist.

This is pure sophistry and has very little to do with the discussion or what I actually wrote.

I guess that's the problem I have with your posting style Artesian is that sometimes you're spot on with your critiques, but then there are times that you just read like a teenage edgelord. In all of your experience, I am sure you must have organised with plenty of religious folks and I sincerely doubt that you adopted the edgelord style of argumentation you're posting here.

How do you feel about someone who intends to create a new belief system combining anarchism and christianity? You have yet to say. If objecting to that is being an 'edgelord' acording to you then I am fine with being considered one.

Serge Forward

What's an edgelord?

Someone who tries to be cool by being 'edgy'. Someone seeking attention in trying to deliberately shock.

Anyone who thinks you can marry anarchism and christianity is wrong- unless you change the definition of anarchism (like the 'anarcho-capitalists' have)- which I disagree with as an anarchist.

Really, Khawaga, you have a problem because you don't think that has anything to do with what you wrote?

But you wrote this:

m sorry that you've been harmed by organised religion, but your experience is not a universal one so you should not be that solipsistic and also not engage in homogenising all religion and all people of faith.

Which has nothing to do with the OP, and has nothing to do with P's reply.

Then you criticize P thusly:

The problem is that you're conflating religion with Christianity and your experience with it. For example, IIRC only Christians believe in ex nihilio creation so taking that religion as the basis for all is problematic.

when in fact the OP specifically refers to Christianity, not religion.

I'm not pretending to be anything-- you OTOH are trotting out the classic liberal "let it be" apologies for religious ideologies that pretend to have some sort of affinity to the cause of human emancipation-- as in liberation theology, Marx's little bit of sophistry about religion ("heart of a heartless world" my dying ass)

The OP wants to create a "new system of beliefs" so that people will "believe" in some sort of religious justification for opposing oppression and exploitation, which happens to be the racket of all rackets, when opposing and ultimately abolishing oppression and exploitation ultimately require emancipation from religious justification.

The sophistry you perceive happens to be all yours.

How do you feel about someone who intends to create a new belief system combining anarchism and christianity? You have yet to say. If objecting to that is being an 'edgelord' acording to you then I am fine with being considered one.

I'd object to that the same way that someone who was trying to combine anarchist with post-structuralism into a new belief system. I'd look into it and evaluate it on its own grounds before making up my mind or outright reject it.

You do realise that secular ideologies like anarchism represents as much of a belief system as that of religion, especially in the sense that many people submit to such belief systems in pretty much the same way as a religion. So no, if someone wants to combine anarchism with religion, I really do not care. If that belief system is used to fuck over people, I'd object in the same as I would do to manarchists or others that use and abuse anarchism to gain power. In my experience, the biggest domineering assholes I've met in the anarchist scene were always atheists and the religious anarchists or commies I've met have been ok folks.

If you haven't realized it by now: what I have been trying to get across, and what I assume Serge and Fleur have done as well, is just to add some nuance into your quite superficial critique.

My edgelord comment wasn't directed at you at all, but if you think the shoe fits...

As offensive as I have been- I am offended by some bastardized hybrid of anarchism and christianity.

Khawaga

How do you feel about someone who intends to create a new belief system combining anarchism and christianity? You have yet to say. If objecting to that is being an 'edgelord' acording to you then I am fine with being considered one.

I'd object to that the same way that someone who was trying to combine anarchist with post-structuralism into a new belief system. I'd look into it and evaluate it on its own grounds before making up my mind or outright reject it.

You do realise that secular ideologies like anarchism represents as much of a belief system as that of religion, especially in the sense that many people submit to such belief systems in pretty much the same way as a religion. So no, if someone wants to combine anarchism with religion, I really do not care. If that belief system is used to fuck over people, I'd object in the same as I would do to manarchists or others that use and abuse anarchism to gain power. In my experience, the biggest domineering assholes I've met in the anarchist scene were always atheists and the religious anarchists or commies I've met have been ok folks.

If you haven't realized it by now: what I have been trying to get across, and what I assume Serge and Fleur have done as well, is just to add some nuance into your quite superficial critique.

My edgelord comment wasn't directed at you at all, but if you think the shoe fits...

Unfortunately you fail to see that anarchism is different to christianity in that, with christianity we are all under god. Try finding bits of the Bible that say you can live autonomously without authority- Doesn't exist.

zugzwang

S. Artesian

Anybody here want to help somebody set up a "new belief system" that combines Christianity and anarchism, go right ahead. Step right up, be the first to get your ticket to Jonestown.

What matters is the function of religion as a social institution; it's social role. And no, please don't trot out "liberation theology" as an example as how the social function of religion isn't 'universally" to support the existing order of things. That's a classically liberal argument-- on a par with arguing that the Democratic Party isn't "universally" anti-socialist.

What's your point besides equating liberation theology with liberalism and comparing the OP to Jim Jones? Romero was against the existing order of things in El Salvador and sympathetic to the left, and he was murdered for that. He wasn't forcing anyone to drink Kool-Aid. To say that religion mixed with politics necessarily leads to Jonestown is just a gross oversimplification.

The point is precisely what I said it is. The fundamental, inherent, essential role of religion in class society, maintaining the subordination and the allegiance of the oppressed to the conditions of their own exploitation. And an exception, like Romero, does prove the rule.

The OP wasn't talking about Romero, or liberation theologists-- he's talking about a self-aggrandizing project where he creates a new system of beliefs serving.......serving what besides himself? Well, it's all about serving the mythology that says Christianity is radical, that Christ was a socialist, that liberation is found in some sort of moral code based on eternal commandments from a source and power superior to human beings.

Does anyone think the role of religion is an accident that somehow can be made good, or offset, bythe kindly actions of one official who takes a bullet on behalf of the poor?

Does anyone think religion is not an institution dedicated to perpetuating ignorance, the subjugation of women, sexual repression because death squads attack Maryknoll nuns?

Nobody endorses any such attacks. But nobody should endorse joining the Catholic Church because, at one point, it had dissident elements (which were eventually suppressed, expelled, by the church itself).

Does anyone want argue that nothing in religion is intrinsically anti-emancipation? I think that's going to be a tough argument, given that religion is based on ignorance, and the inability to acknowledge the actual material forces at work.

Somebody comes on a Libcom website and says "help me out. I want to build a new church dedicated to.....anarchism..." and some get all in a twist when P. says, not so politely-- "up yours, you tosser"???

There's no sophistry here. There is, on the part of some, pure liberalism-- abstraction that capitulates and preserves the world of the concrete.

potrokin

As offensive as I have been- I am offended by some bastardized hybrid of anarchism and christianity.

To be fair, most strands of contemporary anarchism are a bit shit even without the religious element.

Artesian, you are still not getting it.

Khawaga

Artesian, you are still not getting it.

I do get it. And I do get you. You want to pretend this is and academic or scholarly inquiry, and deserves the full spectrum of consideration.

I say that's not the case. The OP wants to set up a racket that grounds some ersatz version of emancipation in the mythology of a church.

You think that's worth listening to, warrants a search through history for examples, and should be afforded a comradely hearing.

I say it's a racket;it's nonsense; and fundamentally part of maintaining the condition of anti-emancipation.

You don't like that. So you call it sophistry and say I don't get it.

Which is why you don't deal with any concrete issues. None. Zero.

How about if the OP came here and said, "I'm establishing a 503(c) charitable organization that wants to raise money to build a Christian anarchist church. Please contribute in anyway you can-- liturgical texts, examples of martyrs, or monetarily."

What would you say then, K? Would it be different from what you've said in this thread, and if so why? Because of the money?

Pretty sure P's response would be the same as it is here. So would mine.

I say that's not the case. The OP wants to set up a racket that grounds some ersatz version of emancipation in the mythology of a church.

My comments, if you read them carefully, were never about the OP. That's why you're not getting what I am saying.

And yet again you engage in one of your favourite debating tactics: putting words into peoples' mouths. Which, as you know, is straw-man arguing.

Khawaga

I say that's not the case. The OP wants to set up a racket that grounds some ersatz version of emancipation in the mythology of a church.

My comments, if you read them carefully, were never about the OP. That's why you're not getting what I am saying.

And yet again you engage in one of your favourite debating tactics: putting words into peoples' mouths. Which, as you know, is straw-man arguing.

Exactly my point. You never dealt with the OP. P. did. And when that is pointed out to you-- you cry sophistry. The fact that you never dealt with the OP didn't stop you from referring to P as a wanker for his response to the OP, and then defending some imagined viability or vitality of religious anarchism.

As I said, you provided classically liberal arguments-- abstractions that have zero to do with the concrete.

I get you completely. Unfortunately.

S. Artesian

The point is precisely what I said it is. The fundamental, inherent, essential role of religion in class society, maintaining the subordination and the allegiance of the oppressed to the conditions of their own exploitation. And an exception, like Romero, does prove the rule.

Continuing with the Romero example, Romero struggled for the opposite to subordination, in fact. He sent a letter to the US imploring them to cease military aid to the Salvadoran junta. If what you say were true, and that all religious figures like Romero love subordination and oppression, then why did he sacrifice himself speaking out against the injustices - the murders and other crimes - carried out by the right during the El Salvador Civil War?

The OP wasn't talking about Romero, or liberation theologists-- ...

My comment was in regards to Khawaga's allusion to Latin American religious figures who were relatively radical and did not align with the right; Romero would be that glaring example, among many others, contrary to what you and Potrokin say about him being an exception (wasn’t Haiti’s first democratically-elected president a supporter of liberation theology and overthrown by a US-backed coup?). Khawaga's comment was in turn a response to Potrokin's implying that religion (or Christianity?) necessarily aligns with the right, an argument which you seem to be making as well by saying: "the fundamental, inherent, essential role of religion in class society [is to] maintain the subordination and the allegiance of the oppressed to the conditions of their own exploitation."

P didn't really "deal" with the OP, that came in much later. Serge, Fleur, and I were just pointing out how juvenile P's arguments were and that if s/he wants to critique religion (which we all said are perfectly fine and justifiable), you better come up with something better than just asking whether God watches you wank. And that assuming all religious people are the same and that someone's personal experience of religion cannot be taken for the general experience of religion. That was the point of my posts, but apparently you have a better internet connection or a laptop than I since your tech can apparently figure out what I actually meant with my posts even though I keep telling you that you don't have a fucking clue. Sadly, it is quite typical of your posting style Artesian.

So no, you absolutely did not get me.

And that assuming all religious people are the same and that someone's personal experience of religion cannot be taken for the general experience of religion. That was the point of my posts,

Yes, as I specifically stated, that may be the point of your posts, but it is irrelevant to both the OP, to P.'s response (according to him, I understood his position).

And that nonsense about someone's personal experience cannot be taken for the general experience of religion....? WTF? Seriously WTF? Can someone's personal experience of...feudalism, of capitalism, of Stalinist Russia be taken as "a general experience" of feudalism, capitalism, Stalinist Russia?

That false distinction you pose is a classic liberal pose-- individual experience trumps(!) historical origin and social function.

Give us a break K. It's not that complicated, although you would like to pretend it is-- allows you to quote Marx's little bit of word play in defense of the "non-general" experience of religion.

"religion necessarily aligns with the right"-- right, left are irrelevant. Religion is created by and perpetuated through the conditions of human oppression and exploitation. Religion buttresses those conditions. Singular exceptions might exist. So what? Did the Church endorse slavery and divide the "new world" and the slaving trade between Portugal and Spain?

Who cares if some Christians on the basis of their Christianity then demurred. What ended slavery were slave revolts, rebellions, civil wars, and material, not spiritual, movements.

So if that's an accurate assessment, then why when someone shows up here and says, "Hi, boys and girls, I want to start a new mythology that will base emancipation in religious cant," is it treated seriously, to the point of criticizing as immature, the one responder who calls it out, vulgarly or otherwise?

P was in fact dealing with the OP, by telling him/her to piss-off, and take the religious myth-making quest somewhere else. That he then defended himself from the bullshit attacks on those so intent on the so-called fine liberal art of "keeping an open mind..." is of course understandable-- Those who made the attacks can be understood, too. As liberals.

Yes, as I specifically stated, that may be the point of your posts, but it is irrelevant to both the OP, to P.'s response (according to him, I understood his position).

Oh, you're fucking daft. I completely understood P's position, I just took issue with how he presented it, saying that there are better ways to critique religion than engaging is hurling shite at the wall.

And that nonsense about someone's personal experience cannot be taken for the general experience of religion....? WTF? Seriously WTF? Can someone's personal experience of...feudalism, of capitalism, of Stalinist Russia be taken as "a general experience" of feudalism, capitalism, Stalinist Russia?

Exactly, It cannot. P seems to assume that his/her experience of indoctrination is general and while there are plenty who share that experience, it is not the case with everyone. So how you, for example, talk to one person about anarchism, religion, racism or whatever should depend on an understanding of their experience. You know, this is precisely the point of Paulo Freire's pedagogy of the oppressed.

That false distinction you pose is a classic liberal pose-- individual experience trumps(!) historical origin and social function.

Again, you are putting words into my mouth or you seem to think you know my beliefs and attitudes better than I do. You don't, so why the fuck don't you stop basing your arguments about your own assumption of what I mean?

Give us a break K. It's not that complicated, although you would like to pretend it is-- allows you to quote Marx's little bit of word play in defense of the "non-general" experience of religion.

Give us a break, A. It's not that complicated, although you would like to pretend it is-- allows you to put words into people's mouths and you get to call people liberals.

P was never an edgelord here, but you are. The only thing is that since you're of the older generation the edgiest thing you can think of is to call people liberals. I mean, don't you get tired of writing the same posts over and over. When you find something that you disagree with (real or imaginary), it is pretty fucking predictable what you will end up writing. Those times that you are able to play the ball, you're a fucking juggernaut, but in cases like this and many others, all you are capable of is toppling straw men.

Thanks for sharing, K.

So what is it you're claiming? That it's impossible to determine what the function, role of an institution is because individual experiences differ? No, that's not your claim? If religion is as described, organized in and perpetuating the exploitation and oppression of human beings, of what possible consequence is it if some enjoy, welcome, find comfort in the experience?

Exactly, It cannot. P seems to assume that his/her experience of indoctrination is general and while there are plenty who share that experience, it is not the case with everyone. So how you, for example, talk to one person about anarchism, religion, racism or whatever should depend on an understanding of their experience.

Priceless. You miss the point and by a mile K. The personal experience is valuable precisely to the degree that it corresponds to the historical origin, social function, the determinants, of the institution.

The issue isn't if all people experience things the same way. The issue is the functioning of the institution and what are the forces that cause it to be experienced in differing ways by the different individuals. So the bourgeois ideologue can find in capitalism the ultimate expression of "freedom,"-- as an abstraction designed to cover and perpetuate the accumulation of capital at a cost borne by others. Workers don't find it to be so free, or maybe they find it to be way too free.

The point is that an evaluation is based on the social role. I think someone requesting aid to build a "new belief system" where Christ rocks the empire, gets down with the brothers and sisters, proclaims against the "state" while claiming to be the son of god should be pointed the right direction, and that direction is somewhere else; regardless of the noble sacrifice of Romero, or the Maryknoll nuns; or the courage shown by other "believers." Y

The issue was and remains what should the response be to someone who wants to build a "church of anarchism," repeats the same old, same old nonsense about Christ as a radical; about Christianity as an instrument of the poor; a "divine" message of the righteousness of socialism?

That's what's not complicated; doesn't require reference to the early Marx, or to Freire.

P gave his response. He said fuck off wanker. I gave mine. Serge gave his. You have given us nothing.

To a Christian anarchist some of these responses look like the worst kind of pro-state Calvinism (agree with us or get a good beating). Back in the day anarchists had a range of viewpoints and it was O.K. We were clear about differences in beliefs (pacifist, non-pacifist, Christian, agnostic, atheist etc) but joined together in the practical stuff.

Well, I'm not Christian, and I'm not an anarchist, and I haven't said anything about agree with me or get a good beating. But maybe that's my narcissism, thinking that you must be meaning me when you say "worst kind"

I've worked in any number of organizations with people whose views on religion never came up, because they never brought them up.

That is not the case here. Read the OP. Create a new system of belief-- a new mythology. Nobody started a thread on mandatory atheism.

Artesian, from now on I'll reply if I think you've actually said something, anything of substance, which so far, you haven't.

One of the posters on this thread calls him/herself Zugzwang; you should look up what that means considering your posting style is an example of it.

Fleur

Yeah and the Bovine community just love Farmer Hacksaw's Cow Hotel- much in the same way jewish people felt at home at Uncle Hitler's Friendly Jew Camp. Fucking hell! How thoughtful of your local church eh? Well, when they start their 'conversion therapy' that'll be interesting.

Well, that answered my question about you being simplistic and having no nuance then.

Well, from my own experience- I used to hang out with someone brought up as a christian anarchist, his dad was an important figure in the Brotherhood Church. He once told me that their church's view on homosexuality was that gay people were possessed by demons that needed to be expelled. So, I think my conversion therapy comment is actually very relevant.

I'd respond to your post K., but you havent' brought up anything of substance. Really....you are just too full of yourself.

As Frost said about Gorman...........

potrokin

Fleur

Yeah and the Bovine community just love Farmer Hacksaw's Cow Hotel- much in the same way jewish people felt at home at Uncle Hitler's Friendly Jew Camp. Fucking hell! How thoughtful of your local church eh? Well, when they start their 'conversion therapy' that'll be interesting.

Well, that answered my question about you being simplistic and having no nuance then.

Well, from my own experience- I used to hang out with someone brought up as a christian anarchist, his dad was an important figure in the Brotherhood Church. He once told me that their church's view on homosexuality was that gay people were possessed by demons that needed to be expelled. So, I think my conversion therapy comment is actually very relevant. As for this thread being two years old- I was unaware of that.

potrokin

Fleur

Yeah and the Bovine community just love Farmer Hacksaw's Cow Hotel- much in the same way jewish people felt at home at Uncle Hitler's Friendly Jew Camp. Fucking hell! How thoughtful of your local church eh? Well, when they start their 'conversion therapy' that'll be interesting.

Well, that answered my question about you being simplistic and having no nuance then.

Well, from my own experience- I used to hang out with someone brought up as a christian anarchist, his dad was an important figure in the Brotherhood Church. He once told me that their church's view on homosexuality was that gay people were possessed by demons that needed to be expelled. So, I think my conversion therapy comment is actually very relevant.

Christianity is a major source of homophobia, but there are also gay people who are religious, homophobia is not a universal feature of religion, and there are atheist homophones.
it does us no good to act like everyone we disagree with is exactly the same

...too right they didn't, but look what we've got!

"religion necessarily aligns with the right"-- right, left are irrelevant. Religion is created by and perpetuated through the conditions of human oppression and exploitation. Religion buttresses those conditions. Singular exceptions might exist. So what?

Right, left right was directly relevant to what I said, because I was making the point that religion can be an instrument of the right (in keeping the status quo) as well as the left (in changing things, as with Romero and Aristide). There's nothing singular about Romero (just take a look at the American Civil Rights Movement), not to mention the fact that not all religious people are the obnoxious, in-your-face screaming types (sure, the vast majority might be). To say that religion today is all about subordination and oppression is just, as I said before, a gross oversimplification.

I imagine Watson would also like to see capitalist class relations destroyed and discarded in historical trash bin, just like we've done with slavery and feudalism. I don't imagine they want to force anyone into doing anything for religious reasons; I'm sure he/she is a very reasonable person. So what's the deal here?

To say that religion today is all about subordination and oppression is just, as I said before, a gross oversimplification.

OK, so in your view, our take on religion needs more nuance. Not to put words in your mouth, do you think religion supports, on the whole, human emancipation?

And if so, would you also argue that saying capitalism is all about subordination and oppression is a "gross oversimplification" ? And if not, why not? What makes your evaluation of capitalism different from your evaluation of religion?

I think you need to do a bit more research into the functioning of Aristide, and the black church in the US, before you take them as icons of human freedom.

No one doubts the great courage shown by black church men and women, and the role it played at a particular moment in the civil rights struggle-- however, as that struggle advanced, the church became more conservative.

Let me offer my last word on this, by posting the relevant part of the OP:

I'm Interested in mixing christianity and anarchism into a kind of existential philosophy/belief system. I want to paint pictures of biblical rebels and punks calling the shots in history, exposing the insane changes modern figures endear to the characters and attitudes of the bible, who were all really righteous people

Now does anyone think this is a worthwhile endeavor-- that communists should line up to support this? Offer aid to this?

"Attitudes of the bible"? "Really righteous people" ?

No, we're not demanding, or requiring, atheism of anyone or everyone, but when someone comes soliciting for help in creating a liberation mythology, don't you think there's some obligation to point out how religion actually functions?

S. Artesian

To say that religion today is all about subordination and oppression is just, as I said before, a gross oversimplification.

OK, so in your view, our take on religion needs more nuance. Not to put words in your mouth, do you think religion supports, on the whole, human emancipation?

And if so, would you also argue that saying capitalism is all about subordination and oppression is a "gross oversimplification" ? And if not, why not? What makes your evaluation of capitalism different from your evaluation of religion?

I don't know - whose religious beliefs are we talking about here? If we accept that there are some religious people who reject capitalist class relations, then we could say some do support human emancipation, from the hierarchical and exploitative nature of capitalism at least. Religion is not like capitalism, however, especially with how people interpret and practice it - not everyone is the in-your-face screaming type, or wanting to force you to do something for religious reasons.

I think you need to do a bit more research into the functioning of Aristide, and the black church in the US, before you take them as icons of human freedom.

No one doubts the great courage shown by black church men and women, and the role it played at a particular moment in the civil rights struggle-- however, as that struggle advanced, the church became more conservative.

Wasn't taking anyone as "icons of freedom." That's you inventing stuff up. Nobody is perfect, not even political theorists like Bakunin or Proudhon with their racism and sexism, or their collectivism and mutualism... In no way do I idolize Aristide, who's also a priest by the way; he was wanting to do modest reforms for the poor and was opposed and overthrown for that reason. That's the only thing noteworthy about him...

I see a lot of you were talking about FGM, I suppose this case study in Senegal might be of interest, where a coalition of NGO's, mothers and Imam's opposed the practice and manage to kick off a movement throughout west Africa.

http://libcom.org/history/1997-98-senegalese-mothers-end-female-circumcision

potrokin

Well, that answered my question about you being simplistic and having no nuance then.

Well, from my own experience- I used to hang out with someone brought up as a christian anarchist, his dad was an important figure in the Brotherhood Church. He once told me that their church's view on homosexuality was that gay people were possessed by demons that needed to be expelled. So, I think my conversion therapy comment is actually very relevant.[/quote]

Err yeah, if the church Fleur was talking about is a front for the Brotherhood or a fellow traveler. Do you have any evidence that it is? Because if not your just trying to disregard an inconvenient fact with a generalization.

I mean in the UK and Ireland the most hardline and homophobic mainstream sect is the Free Presbyterians, and yet the largest church to preform same sex marriages is also a Presbyterian sect the United Reform Church.

zugzwang

Right, left right was directly relevant to what I said, because I was making the point that religion can be an instrument of the right (in keeping the status quo) as well as the left (in changing things, as with Romero and Aristide). There's nothing singular about Romero (just take a look at the American Civil Rights Movement), not to mention the fact that not all religious people are the obnoxious, in-your-face screaming types (sure, the vast majority might be). To say that religion today is all about subordination and oppression is just, as I said before, a gross oversimplification.

Probably not a good idea to bring up Aristide in this kind of conversation, not only was he a President of a nation in the world capitalist system. But the second time he got to be President he used riot police to smash Haitian workers organizations.
http://libcom.org/library/free-markets-death-squads-ricky-baldwin

More disturbingly, the Aristide government also began cracking down on emerging workers' organizations. In 2003 riot police beat and shot at garment assembly workers demonstrating at a Portau-Prince factory belonging to Wilbes & Co., a supplier of Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Sears, and other discount outlets. When orange pickers unionized the year before at the major liqueur supplier Guacimal, they faced beatings, imprisonment, and death by dismemberment at the hands of Haitian police.

Its probably not a good idea to use Liberation Theologists at all really, they're extremely liberal for the church (even the "Marxist" Sandinistas have been the main enemy of abortion access in Nicaragua) but they aren't really anti capitalist, they're more moral capitalists. I get where your coming from they were and are willing to commit themselves to struggle for a better world. But there's not really much overlap.

Reddebrek

Probably not a good idea to bring up Aristide in this kind of conversation, not only was he a President of a nation in the world capitalist system. But the second time he got to be President he used riot police to smash Haitian workers organizations.
http://libcom.org/library/free-markets-death-squads-ricky-baldwin

More disturbingly, the Aristide government also began cracking down on emerging workers' organizations. In 2003 riot police beat and shot at garment assembly workers demonstrating at a Portau-Prince factory belonging to Wilbes & Co., a supplier of Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Sears, and other discount outlets. When orange pickers unionized the year before at the major liqueur supplier Guacimal, they faced beatings, imprisonment, and death by dismemberment at the hands of Haitian police.

Its probably not a good idea to use Liberation Theologists at all really, they're extremely liberal for the church (even the "Marxist" Sandinistas have been the main enemy of abortion access in Nicaragua) but they aren't really anti capitalist, they're more moral capitalists. I get where your coming from they were and are willing to commit themselves to struggle for a better world. But there's not really much overlap.

I admittedly haven't done much research about Aristide other than what I've already said, partly because I can't find much about him. (Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.) I was wanting to read that one book he has published, The Eyes of the Heart, as well as that Damming the Flood Book whenever I get the chance. Anything else, articles and so on, you might recommend?

Khawaga

P didn't really "deal" with the OP, that came in much later. Serge, Fleur, and I were just pointing out how juvenile P's arguments were and that if s/he wants to critique religion (which we all said are perfectly fine and justifiable), you better come up with something better than just asking whether God watches you wank.

So no, you absolutely did not get me.

I was just getting warmed up and actually I did elaborate on my wanking comment and was very pleased with the point I made about it. What the OP did was very vulgar- stating that he/she wanted to create a new belief system out of anarchism and christianity- two things which are incompatible in a dangerous way and fundamentally opposed to one another. It is possible to be a practicing anarchist and be a christian, as long as you are not trying to create your own cult and respect the boundaries of the two things. Christianity is constantly looking up to a god, anarchism is about not looking up to anyone or anything. I guess anarchists are allowed the choice of looking up to someone or something if you want to but Christianity states that you must obey the authority of god and the man-made authorities that 'represent' him, so there is no choice involved.

How not to take crap but with moral footing ? Mmmm

zugzwang

Continuing with the Romero example, Romero struggled for the opposite to subordination, in fact. He sent a letter to the US imploring them to cease military aid to the Salvadoran junta. If what you say were true, and that all religious figures like Romero love subordination and oppression, then why did he sacrifice himself speaking out against the injustices - the murders and other crimes - carried out by the right during the El Salvador Civil War?

I can't say I know a great deal about people like Romero (although I have heard/read mention of him) but just because he was opposed to US interference in South America and based what he did on helping the poor (or claiming to be doing that) doesn't mean he didn't have his own racket and his own hierarchy, particularly when you consider that he was a priest.

A middle age woman no less

How not to take crap but with moral footing ? Mmmm

You are quite right to be suspicious. Is the OP suggesting that we intend to not take crap in an immoral way? It would certainly appear so and no doubt the poster in question sees religion as the remedy for our immorality. Unfortunately it's an old post and it appears the poster is no longer around to discuss things.

Reddebrek

I see a lot of you were talking about FGM, I suppose this case study in Senegal might be of interest, where a coalition of NGO's, mothers and Imam's opposed the practice and manage to kick off a movement throughout west Africa.

http://libcom.org/history/1997-98-senegalese-mothers-end-female-circumcision

potrokin

Well, that answered my question about you being simplistic and having no nuance then.

Well, from my own experience- I used to hang out with someone brought up as a christian anarchist, his dad was an important figure in the Brotherhood Church. He once told me that their church's view on homosexuality was that gay people were possessed by demons that needed to be expelled. So, I think my conversion therapy comment is actually very relevant.

Err yeah, if the church Fleur was talking about is a front for the Brotherhood or a fellow traveler. Do you have any evidence that it is? Because if not your just trying to disregard an inconvenient fact with a generalization.

I mean in the UK and Ireland the most hardline and homophobic mainstream sect is the Free Presbyterians, and yet the largest church to preform same sex marriages is also a Presbyterian sect the United Reform Church.

zugzwang

I think you'll find find such bigotry in most denominations- 'born again', baptist, catholic whatever it may be, even 'anarchist'. And ofcourse homophobia is amongst atheists but I would argue it's more prevalent in religious communities and more acceptable in such circles, aswell as sexism etc.

potrokin

Reddebrek

I see a lot of you were talking about FGM, I suppose this case study in Senegal might be of interest, where a coalition of NGO's, mothers and Imam's opposed the practice and manage to kick off a movement throughout west Africa.

http://libcom.org/history/1997-98-senegalese-mothers-end-female-circumcision

potrokin

Well, that answered my question about you being simplistic and having no nuance then.

Well, from my own experience- I used to hang out with someone brought up as a christian anarchist, his dad was an important figure in the Brotherhood Church. He once told me that their church's view on homosexuality was that gay people were possessed by demons that needed to be expelled. So, I think my conversion therapy comment is actually very relevant.

Zugzwang wrote:

Err yeah, if the church Fleur was talking about is a front for the Brotherhood or a fellow traveler. Do you have any evidence that it is? Because if not your just trying to disregard an inconvenient fact with a generalization.

I mean in the UK and Ireland the most hardline and homophobic mainstream sect is the Free Presbyterians, and yet the largest church to preform same sex marriages is also a Presbyterian sect the United Reform Church.

I think you'll find find such bigotry in most denominations- 'born again', baptist, church of england, catholic whatever it may be, even 'anarchist'. And ofcourse homophobia is amongst atheists but I would argue it's more prevalent in religious communities and more acceptable in such circles, aswell as sexism etc.[/quote]

I am very suspicious of taking labels, including religious or political, at face value and then to project onto individuals your understanding of the label. Years ago I knew a lot of people who described themselves as ‘Christian’. No two were identical. I never heard anyone describe any authority as god’s representative on earth (except a few practising Roman Catholics, who imagined the pope was infallible). The nearest was someone describing the Queen as ‘the defender of the faith’ (her own boast I understand).

I’ve also known people who described themselves as ‘anarchist’, who I know to be wife beaters and two almost certainly rapists. All this is to say – don’t judge the book by the cover.

Religion is a racket but not everyone is a racketeer. The OP imo is a harmless nut who is probably now trying to marry Christianity to Star Trek.

potrokin

I think you'll find find such bigotry in most denominations- 'born again', baptist, catholic whatever it may be, even 'anarchist'. And ofcourse homophobia is amongst atheists but I would argue it's more prevalent in religious communities and more acceptable in such circles, aswell as sexism etc.

Yeah, that isn't remotely close to what you were saying. You were calling a group you don't know anything about homophobic torturers and compared them to cattle slaughterers based on your own personal experiences with a completely different group. You basically did the no true Scotsman/Christian fallacy.

Auld-bod

The OP imo is a harmless nut who is probably now trying to marry Christianity to Star Trek.

Great Roddenberry almighty! Leave Star Trek out of it, if you don't mind.

What Auld-bod said. I've come across some self-described anarchists who have been complete assholes but I wouldn't want to make gross generalisations about all anarchists.

Just for the record, although I don't have any definitive evidence that the United Church of Canada is not a front for some kind of cult, hell bent on torturing LGBTQ people, or that some kind of Jim Jones mass murder is about to take place up the road, it is possible that the fucking great big rainbow flag fluttering outside is just some kind of lure, to reel in unsuspecting people to their doom. I should probably warn the lesbian couple around the corner who go there (with their dog sometimes) that it's actually a trap and this logo, which is slapped all over their stuff

is actually subterfuge. Also, this mission statement is a lie.
http://affirmunited.ause.ca/affirming-ministries-program/

Once more with feeling, I am an atheist. I don't go to church but I do show up for fundraisers for the LGBTQ kids group and I always pop into their fairs because the jams on sale are fucking outstanding.

Fleur

What Auld-bod said. I've come across some self-described anarchists who have been complete assholes but I wouldn't want to make gross generalisations about all anarchists.

Just for the record, although I don't have any definitive evidence that the United Church of Canada is not a front for some kind of cult, hell bent on torturing LGBTQ people, or that some kind of Jim Jones mass murder is about to take place up the road, it is possible that the fucking great big rainbow flag fluttering outside is just some kind of lure, to reel in unsuspecting people to their doom. I should probably warn the lesbian couple around the corner who go there (with their dog sometimes) that it's actually a trap and this logo, which is slapped all over their stuff

is actually subterfuge. Also, this mission statement is a lie.
http://affirmunited.ause.ca/affirming-ministries-program/

Once more with feeling, I am an atheist. I don't go to church but I do show up for fundraisers for the LGBTQ kids group and I always pop into their fairs because the jams on sale are fucking outstanding.

Good for you Fleur, what do you want? A medal for liberal of the year? Right on man.

Fleur

What Auld-bod said. I've come across some self-described anarchists who have been complete assholes but I wouldn't want to make gross generalisations about all anarchists.

Just for the record, although I don't have any definitive evidence that the United Church of Canada is not a front for some kind of cult, hell bent on torturing LGBTQ people, or that some kind of Jim Jones mass murder is about to take place up the road, it is possible that the fucking great big rainbow flag fluttering outside is just some kind of lure, to reel in unsuspecting people to their doom. I should probably warn the lesbian couple around the corner who go there (with their dog sometimes) that it's actually a trap and this logo, which is slapped all over their stuff

is actually subterfuge. Also, this mission statement is a lie.
http://affirmunited.ause.ca/affirming-ministries-program/

Once more with feeling, I am an atheist. I don't go to church but I do show up for fundraisers for the LGBTQ kids group and I always pop into their fairs because the jams on sale are fucking outstanding.

How sanctamonious, aswell as pious. I guess the christian community is perfect for you.

You know what, potrokin? Go fuck yourself. You know that thing I said about not judging all anarchists? You're not included. I've judged you already. Grade A asshole.

edit: also, I get that you've had a bad experience with religion and for that I am sorry. However, you clearly don't grasp that not everything is not the same as your experience. Tbh, the only people who have significantly fucked me over in my life have been white English men. It would be a bit dumb to assume that all white English men are bastards.

Fleur

What Auld-bod said. I've come across some self-described anarchists who have been complete assholes but I wouldn't want to make gross generalisations about all anarchists.

Just for the record, although I don't have any definitive evidence that the United Church of Canada is not a front for some kind of cult, hell bent on torturing LGBTQ people, or that some kind of Jim Jones mass murder is about to take place up the road, it is possible that the fucking great big rainbow flag fluttering outside is just some kind of lure, to reel in unsuspecting people to their doom. I should probably warn the lesbian couple around the corner who go there (with their dog sometimes) that it's actually a trap and this logo, which is slapped all over their stuff

is actually subterfuge. Also, this mission statement is a lie.
http://affirmunited.ause.ca/affirming-ministries-program/

Once more with feeling, I am an atheist. I don't go to church but I do show up for fundraisers for the LGBTQ kids group and I always pop into their fairs because the jams on sale are fucking outstanding.

I seem to remember the EDL also being very accommodating to the LGBTQ community, and that rainbow flag being flown on their demos aswell as the existence of Gays For Trump.

I know, I'm supposed to have said my last word, but this:

edit: also, I get that you've had a bad experience with religion and for that I am sorry. However, you clearly don't grasp that not everything is not the same as your experience. Tbh, the only people who have significantly fucked me over in my life have been white English men. It would be a bit dumb to assume that all white English men are bastards.

requires a response. So while it might be a bit dumb to assume that all white English men are bastards, you still oppose patriarchy, correct? You still oppose the institutions that empower men to fuck over women simply because men are men and women are women, correct?

If someone posted a query on Libcom in which he was looking for help creating a new belief system that "proved" not that patriarchy didn't exist, but that patriarchy in fact was "revolutionary" and socialist, would you tell that person to piss-off?

S. Artesian

I know, I'm supposed to have said my last word, but this:

edit: also, I get that you've had a bad experience with religion and for that I am sorry. However, you clearly don't grasp that not everything is not the same as your experience. Tbh, the only people who have significantly fucked me over in my life have been white English men. It would be a bit dumb to assume that all white English men are bastards.

requires a response. So while it might be a bit dumb to assume that all white English men are bastards, you still oppose patriarchy, correct? You still oppose the institutions that empower men to fuck over women simply because men are men and women are women, correct?

If someone posted a query on Libcom in which he was looking for help creating a new belief system that "proved" not that patriarchy didn't exist, but that patriarchy in fact was "revolutionary" and socialist, would you tell that person to piss-off?

Exactly. I couldn't have put it better.

Jesus fucking christ, go find another windmill to tilt at. I never suggested that you shouldn't critique religion, no-one here has - that's just a construct you & potrotkin seem to be making up. Perhaps just try and not be a dick when it comes to personally attacking individuals. Potrotkin, in his delightful way, was comparing a bunch of pretty sweet (mostly little old ladies fwiw) Christians that I know to Hitler.

If someone posted a query on Libcom in which he was looking for help creating a new belief system that "proved" not that patriarchy didn't exist, but that patriarchy in fact was "revolutionary" and socialist, would you tell that person to piss-off?

I'd think they were probably just an idiot, not worth wasting my time with. (Which makes me wonder why I'm back here again...) It's very unlikely that I'd reanimate a very dead thread for a protracted two minute hate.

It's really kind of pathetic to be erecting strawmen and calling people here liberals just because they don't agree with you on whether you should personally abuse someone.

I can't be bothered with this. It's just inane.

Real American by Rick Derringer (lyrics)

When it comes crashing down and it hurts inside you gotta take a stand
It don't hurt to hide if you hurt my friends then you hurt my pride I gotta
be a man I can't let it slide
[Chorus]
I am a real American fight for the rights of every man I'm a real American
fight for what's right fight for your life
I feel strong for very long I don't take trouble for very long I've got something
deep inside of me courage is the thing that sets us free
Repeat chorus x 2
If you hurt my friends then you hurt my pride I gotta be a man I can't let
them slide
[Repeat chorus x 4 til fade]

I think it's obvious that if we examine these lyrics (Hulk Hogan's theme song) that we can clearly see how Hulk Hogan is a committed anarchist, after all he fights for the rights of every man and knows how to set himself free (as he has a courage deep inside). He fights for his friends (comrades) aswell and he can't let his pride and his friends slide. His philosophy is- fight for whats right, fight for your life.

Wow, that's deep.

Khawaga

Wow, that's deep.

For me it's equivalent to saying that christianity is anarchist. If christianity can be anarchist then why not Hulk Hogan? Why not anything infact?

Potrokin, very poor form that is, dishing out the "L" word willy nilly. Not sure what the song's about either. You do have a simplistic black and white view though and have used pretty much every poor argumentation technique in the book. Also, your anger at personally being a victim of some religious weirdo is really no excuse for being a total bellend with people you should be comradely with.

Fleur

. I never suggested that you shouldn't critique religion, no-one here has - that's just a construct you & potrotkin seem to be making up.

But at the same time you didn't call out the OP and did infact defend religion (an oppressive belief system) instead. At no point did you critique the wannabe cult leader professing a desire to create a new religious belief system, which at the same time was intended to be bastardized anarchism. That was left to me, the 'grade A asshole' and 'bigot'.

Maybe I didn't call out the OP because there's no fucking point, what with him disappearing two years ago. You really have no capability for nuance or any kind of joined up thinking if you think that my opinion that not everyone who has a religious belief is a baby eating bastard is a defence of religion as a structural thing. I am talking about individual people's decent behaviour to other people, which is clearly not something you're very good at.

And with that, I'm definitely out because you're simply not worth my time.

Jesus fucking christ, indeed. Fleur doth protest way too fucking much, and worse, the over-protest is about as lame as it gets.

Of course the issue isn't if P insulted your very kind little old ladies from a nearby church; the issue isn't if you think all white men are dumb-- the issue is the nonsense mythology that the OP wants to elaborate.

That bothers you, or Watson, or K or Z to call it a nonsense mythology? No apologies-- that's exactly what it is-- a nonsense mythology. No I'm not demanding anyone give up their religious beliefs. Just don't peddle them as "radical" "socialist" or "emancipatory." Keep them personal.

S.Artesian

Not sure if I can remember a particularly coherent argument from you ever, not sure if you've leapt to Godwins law quite so readily as you knuckleheaded chum, however I feel I I should just pop back to sat the invective I gave to potrotkin applies to you also. Have fun playing in the straw.

Fleur-- thank you-- and to quote you to yourself--- something along the lines of go fuck yourself asshole......

This is getting very silly.

Reminds me of this lyric:

'A lot of people don't have much food on their table
But they got a lot of forks and knives
And they gotta cut something.'

His Bobness

Some things are so moronic that they deserve ridicule and contempt and a fusion of anarchism and christianity is one of them. As the person in question is no longer around though I fail to see how any 'harm' has been done.

radicalgraffiti

Christianity is a major source of homophobia, but there are also gay people who are religious

There were also jewish conversos in spain and kapos in nazi germany, there are working class people who vote torie and ukip- whats your point?

potrokin

radicalgraffiti

Christianity is a major source of homophobia, but there are also gay people who are religious

There were also jewish conversos in spain and kapos in nazi germany, there are working class people who vote torie and ukip- whats your point?

i don't know, maybe if we look at the original...
radicalgraffiti

potrokin

Well, from my own experience- I used to hang out with someone brought up as a christian anarchist, his dad was an important figure in the Brotherhood Church. He once told me that their church's view on homosexuality was that gay people were possessed by demons that needed to be expelled. So, I think my conversion therapy comment is actually very relevant.

Christianity is a major source of homophobia, but there are also gay people who are religious, homophobia is not a universal feature of religion, and there are atheist homophones.
it does us no good to act like everyone we disagree with is exactly the same

who could possible say what this meant

[quote=radicalgraffiti]
radicalgraffiti

homophobia is not a universal feature of religion

Well, I disagree. And even it were not the case- religion still has an oppressive hierarchy and is dogmatic in other ways. It is also not based in the material- which anarchism is and should be. We should live in the real world as anarchists or lib commies or whatever. The material is real- thats why the doctors and specialists in hospital don't try and pray you better- they use medical science. In a similar way, anarchists have identified hierarchy as a problem, because we live in the real, material world. Religion is our first attempt as a species to understand the world, it is therefore our worst- we don't need it anymore. It can only be a hindrance to us.

Fleur

You know what, potrokin? Go fuck yourself. You know that thing I said about not judging all anarchists? You're not included

How nuanced

potrokin

radicalgraffiti

homophobia is not a universal feature of religion

Well, I disagree. And even it were not the case- religion still has an oppressive hierarchy and is dogmatic in other ways.

you can be wrong if you want

radicalgraffiti

potrokin

radicalgraffiti

homophobia is not a universal feature of religion

Well, I disagree. And even it were not the case- religion still has an oppressive hierarchy and is dogmatic in other ways.

you can be wrong if you want

so can you.

What is this thing about things having to be universal in order to be of any importance ?

radicalgraffiti

potrokin

radicalgraffiti

Christianity is a major source of homophobia, but there are also gay people who are religious

There were also jewish conversos in spain and kapos in nazi germany, there are working class people who vote torie and ukip- whats your point?

i don't know, maybe if we look at the original...
radicalgraffiti

potrokin

Well, from my own experience- I used to hang out with someone brought up as a christian anarchist, his dad was an important figure in the Brotherhood Church. He once told me that their church's view on homosexuality was that gay people were possessed by demons that needed to be expelled. So, I think my conversion therapy comment is actually very relevant.

Christianity is a major source of homophobia, but there are also gay people who are religious, homophobia is not a universal feature of religion, and there are atheist homophones.
it does us no good to act like everyone we disagree with is exactly the same

who could possible say what this meant

Infact, I already dealt with this in an earlier post. It may not be universal but is still very common- you yourself stated that christianity is a major source of homophobia. It doesn't matter though (whether it's universal or not), for obvious reasons that I just pointed out in a recent post.

The way this thread is going reminds me of Orwell's Coming up For Air:

'It was a voice that sounded as if it could go on for about a fortnight without stopping. It's a ghastly thing, really, to have a sort of human barrel-organ shooting propaganda at you by the hour. The same thing over and over again. Hate, hate, hate. Let's all get together and have a good hate. Over and over. It gives you the feeling that something has got inside your skull and is hammering down on your brain.'

In the Mass Psychology of Fascism Wilhelm Reich claimed that, at root, 'red fascism' was driven by the same spirit as nazism, a desire to simplify things you can't understand or cope with and beat them out of existence. (Bakunin's antisemitism springs to mind).

In sharp contrast to this inability to deal with difference and a desire to police people's thoughts and experiences is Kropotkin's balanced assessment of early Christianity, and a willingness to make a distinction between authentic Christianity and a compromised version of Christianity:

'In the Christian movement against Roman law, Roman government, Roman morality (or, rather, Roman immorality), which began in Judea in the reign of Augustus, there undoubtedly existed
much that was essentially anarchistic. Only by de­grees it degenerated into an ecclesiastical
movement, modeled upon the ancient Hebrew church and upon Imperial Rome itself, which killed the anarchistic germ.....'

....and of Tolstoy he writes:

He makes a searching criticism of the prejudices which are current now concerning the benefits conferred upon men by the church, the State and the existing distribution of property, and from the teachings of the Christ he deduces the rule of non-resistance and the absolute condenmation of all wars. His religious arguments are, however, so well combined with arguments borrowed from a dispassion­ate observation of the present evils, that the anarchist por­tions of his works appeal to the religious and the non-religious reader alike.

....or Marlow's recent essay of Christian Anarchism:

'An articulation between intellectual strands of Christian anarchy and rationalistic anarchy could prove seminal. Christianity’s conception of human nature could act as a counter-balance to anarchism’s more utopian tendencies, the prospect of a total eradication of societal power relations for example. Likewise, rational anarchism could provide a springboard for transcending the orthodox doctrine of the fall as a negation of the transformation of society. However, the possibility of any such dialectic will rest on anarchism’s realisation that Christianity does not necessarily presuppose established and rigorously maintained political power structures, and Christianity’s recognition that anarchy is the only political position in accord with scripture. Only then can Christians take their place beside anarchists.'

..,..or Chomsky's admiration for Catholic Worker

Right, so now we're espousing hate, hate, hate, hammering brains, and driven by the same primitive urges as fascists, and desire to police peoples' thoughts.

And you think we're stepping on people's toes when we characterize certain arguments as "liberal"?

Red fascism isn't playing here. But passive-aggressive bullshit is on a double bill, continuously, and at a reduced admission fee.

Nobody is policing anybody's thoughts. I'm not policing yours. Reich had an excuse for feeling persecuted. You don't.

You give us this:

'In the Christian movement against Roman law, Roman government, Roman morality (or, rather, Roman immorality), which began in Judea in the reign of Augustus, there undoubtedly existed
much that was essentially anarchistic. Only by de­grees it degenerated into an ecclesiastical
movement, modeled upon the ancient Hebrew church and upon Imperial Rome itself, which killed the anarchistic germ.....'

which, besides being subject to vigorous dispute-- or has validity to the extent that most religions have their origins in the links to the mercantile concerns of the founders-- also says nothing about the Christian movement today.

And then this:

An articulation between intellectual strands of Christian anarchy and rationalistic anarchy could prove seminal. Christianity’s conception of human nature could act as a counter-balance to anarchism’s more utopian tendencies

Hilarious. Right, create the mythology of Christian anarchy so that its conception of human nature-- see creation myth-- evil Eve flashes dumb male; tempts same with apple, leads to eviction and permanent homelessness-- could act as counter-balance to anarchism's utopian tendencies, when the fucking utopian tendencies are the best thing anarchism has going.

Well, all you utopian anarchists out there, how do you feel about them apples, and I do mean apples.

Finally, a personal favorite:

..,..or Chomsky's admiration for Catholic Worker

not to mention Chomsky's admiration for Bernie Sanders and his advice to "hold your nose and vote for Hillary"-- if you're in a "swing state."

actual ignoring the cuntery from S. Artesian and potrokin for a minute, aren't Catholic workers assange supporting transphobes?

But let's not ignore yours RG, particularly in your choice of epithets.

It's always a bad sign when a thread has ~100 new posts.

Guys, can you reign it in a bit with the personal insults? Not got time to delete them now but anymore and the thread will just be locked.

Ed,

How about you develop a feature that allows one to close his/her account on this website?

Had my fill of being called a red fascist and a cunt.

Fuck you all.

S. Artesian

not to mention Chomsky's admiration for Bernie Sanders and his advice to "hold your nose and vote for Hillary"-- if you're in a "swing state."

Let me guess, Chomsky's a liberal now as well? Chomsky hardly has an "admiration for Bernie Sanders"; he described Sanders as a New Deal democract and a breath of fresh air. He gave pretty good justification for voting against Trump, which meant voting for Clinton. Voting for more preferable third party candidates is just a wasted vote, especially in swing states, and I don't understand why you're putting quotations around "swing state." A swing state is where it matters which way you vote, so if you vote for a third party candidate and not the lesser evil it's probably going to have an effect on who wins that state. In safe states (say, like red or blue states), where it doesn't really matter which way you vote, he said vote for anyone you like or not at all.

He wrote an entire essay about lesser evil voting.

https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/

i'd call chomsky a leftist rather than a liberal, but hes not an anarchist

Serge Forward

Potrokin, very poor form that is, dishing out the "L" word willy nilly. Not sure what the song's about either. You do have a simplistic black and white view though and have used pretty much every poor argumentation technique in the book. Also, your anger at personally being a victim of some religious weirdo is really no excuse for being a total bellend with people you should be comradely with.

No, the right to call people liberal is reserved for other posters isn't it. I see no reason to be comradely with people who are so easily personal and hostile. What is simplistic is the inability of the majority of posters on this thread to just admit that they missed something observed by myself in the OP and to just have some respect for my anger at a religious huckster trying it on. Instead the majority of posters are stubborn and needlessly insulting and now an intelligent poster who only had good intentions feels they can't continue on here.

radicalgraffiti

i'd call chomsky a leftist rather than a liberal, but hes not an anarchist

Maybe we should start another thread.

What makes you say he's not an anarchist when he describes himself as such in countless interviews and writings, wrote the introduction to Guerin's Anarchism (as well as authoring a book himself called Chomsky on Anarchism), is quoted extensively in the Anarchist FAQ, considered dropping out of university to join Israeli Kibbutzim, etc., etc. I'm just curious how you define anarchist (an advocate of workers' self-management put simply, no?) and decide who is worthy of the title.

I would just like to say, not that i expect this to mean anything to anyone. I joined this site five years ago, i have not felt confident coming on here as i am dyslexic and there seems to be an unpleasent intellectual snobbery and a clique group think surely we can do better than this .I dont feel comfortable with the group rounding on artesian and potrokin like this ,just too personal..they both had valuable things to say.

A middle age woman no less

I would just like to say, not that i expect this to mean anything to anyone. I joined this site five years ago, i have not felt confident coming on here as i am dyslexic and there seems to be an unpleasent intellectual snobbery and a clique group think surely we can do better than this .I dont feel comfortable with the group rounding on artesian and potrokin like this ,just too personal..they both had valuable things to say.

Yes, it's as if insults are seen as a remedy for flaming which no doubt puts new posters off getting involved in discussion.

Let me guess, Chomsky's a liberal now as well? Chomsky hardly has an "admiration for Bernie Sanders"; he described Sanders as a New Deal democract and a breath of fresh air. He gave pretty good justification for voting against Trump, which meant voting for Clinton. Voting for more preferable third party candidates is just a wasted vote, especially in swing states, and I don't understand why you're putting quotations around "swing state." A swing state is where it matters which way you vote, so if you vote for a third party candidate and not the lesser evil it's probably going to have an effect on who wins that state. In safe states (say, like red or blue states), where it doesn't really matter which way you vote, he said vote for anyone you like or not at all.

He wrote an entire essay about lesser evil voting.

Fucking priceless. "New Deal Democrat and a breath of fresh air." WTF? How fucking stupid do you have to be to swallow that bullshit? Don't tell me, I already know.

Read this and puke

Nothing pleases me more when "anarchists" tell us how important it is to vote for the candidates of the bourgeois parties as a "lesser evil."

So you got Aristide, Romero, Chomsky and who else in this pantheon of the righteous?

Lesser-evil ism and christian anarchism; how lame can you get? Oh...sorry, that makes me a red fascist. Well, it's just my human nature, and my incurable belief in utopia. Maybe if I studied more Kropotkin or Tolstoy or the gospel, I'd be able to understand the nuance, subtlety, and depth of Chomsky's "lesser evil ism."

Tell you one thing-- this sorry ass shit makes Lenin look like a fucking genius.

Yeah, hold your nose and vote for Clinton, you christian-anarchists. Nothing wrong with that. I'm holding my nose right now when I answer Z's pathetic bullshit. s

Tell me again about your r-r-r-r-evolutionary anarchism while you pull the level for Hillary.

Just one more fuck you to K, F, RG, Z-- the whole fucking lame lot of you.

Out.

Fucking priceless. "New Deal Democrat and a breath of fresh air." WTF? How fucking stupid do you have to be to swallow that bullshit? Don't tell me, I already know.

You do realize accompanying anything someone says with "WTF?!" lends zero weight to anything you're saying, right?

Nothing pleases me more when "anarchists" tell us how important it is to vote for the candidates of the bourgeois parties as a "lesser evil."

So Trump is just as bad as Clinton? Okay... Need I really run through all their positions and campaign promises? These are things affecting people's lives, you do realize?

So you got Aristide, Romero, Chomsky and who else in this pantheon of the righteous

Never used the word righteous. Never used the words "icons of freedom." Just you inventing stuff up.

Two people up-voted that comment claiming that Chomsky is not a libertarian socialist. Now, I'm really intrigued what information you people have that you could share with me in regards to Chomsky's political leanings (assuming it's not the Potrokin-Artesian duo just up/down-voting anything in their path - it probably is). Please try explaining to me how Chomsky is not a libertarian socialist without becoming irate and using vulgarities, which seems to be Artesian's approach to anyone who disagrees with him.

Classy example of passive aggresiveness

S.Artesian happens to be right on all the "lesser evilism" stuff. Romeo and Aristide, my arse. Trouble is, he argues ultra competitively, often nastily. I also get the impression that people who are soft on religion have more recently thrown in their two pennorth. Religion is bullshit and should be attacked. Potrokin, this is not the same as childish name calling jibes at individuals or throwing a wobbler at people who haven't posted here in years.

zugzwang

Two people up-voted that comment claiming that Chomsky is not a libertarian socialist. Now, I'm really intrigued what information you people have that you could share with me in regards to Chomsky's political leanings (assuming it's not the Potrokin-Artesian duo just up/down-voting anything in their path - it probably is). Please try explaining to me how Chomsky is not a libertarian socialist without becoming irate and using vulgarities, which seems to be Artesian's approach to anyone who disagrees with him.

Can you prove this? I don't think anyone here, in any case, would deny that Chomsky was a libertarian socialist, but one that is certainly kinda reformist. Certain people did state that they didn't think he was an anarchist though.

zugzwang

You do realize accompanying anything someone says with "WTF?!" lends zero weight to anything you're saying, right?

Equally, calling people bellends and bigots and telling them to go fuck themselves and referring to other poster's comments as cuntery- aswell as falsely claiming people who disagree with you have less nuance than yourself - also is just as ineffective and inflammatory. The same can be said of blatant passive aggressiveness.

Serge Forward

S.Artesian happens to be right on all the "lesser evilism" stuff.

Explain. So is Trump not worse than Clinton policy-wise? Would a Clinton presidency have been the same as the Trump presidency we currently have (at least if you live there), who's already approved the DAPL and Keystone pipelines, imposed a blanket muslim ban, denys climate change and wants to pull out of international agreements, wants to slash taxes on the rich, etc.? Explain to me how Clinton is not the lesser evil and how it's inconsequential who's president?

I never said anything on the level of admiration with respect to Aristide and Romero; I said they were examples of religious figures advocating change and helping the mass of people rather than keeping the status quo. It was a comment originally directed at Khawaga's comment on Latin American liberation theologists. I'd suggest reading through this entire thread before making such accusations that I "admire Aristide."

potrokin

Can you prove this? I don't think anyone here, in any case, would deny that Chomsky was a libertarian socialist, but one that is certainly kinda reformist. Certain people did state that they didn't think he was an anarchist though.

Libertarian socialist and anarchist are equivalent terms. Using the state to do things for the mass of people, advocating more taxes on the rich, more social programs, etc. does not mean you can't still have libertarian socialist political views... That's just absurd to suggest you can't be in favor of those things, or vote for Sanders in the primaries, and still be a libertarian socialist. These are things affecting people's lives, as I said.

Okay, so Chomsky's somehow not an anarchist/libertarian socialist, and it apparently doesn't matter who's president because they're all from the ranks of the bourgeoisie and are all equally evil. Come on, someone explain this stuff to me instead of just repeating/up-voting one another. Don't be shy.

zugzwang

radicalgraffiti

i'd call chomsky a leftist rather than a liberal, but hes not an anarchist

Maybe we should start another thread.

What makes you say he's not an anarchist when he describes himself as such in countless interviews and writings, wrote the introduction to Guerin's Anarchism (as well as authoring a book himself called Chomsky on Anarchism), is quoted extensively in the Anarchist FAQ, considered dropping out of university to join Israeli Kibbutzim, etc., etc. I'm just curious how you define anarchist (an advocate of workers' self-management put simply, no?) and decide who is worthy of the title.

i don't think his self description is particularity relevant, lots of people claim to have politics that doesn't match what they do. Imo the anarchist faq is far to focused on individuals.

"an advocate of workers' self-management " is really not an adequate description of what an anarchist is, stalinists will say they support that so will trots and virtually every kind of marxist, liberals will probably agree its a good idea too. What separates them from anarchists is that anarchists want the workers (and oppressed groups) to improve their situation though their own actions, though engaging in struggles against the bourgeois directly, though solidarity with each, not by electing people to fix things for them. this was one of the reasons for the split between marxists and anarchists, the anarchists recognised the problems with trying to engage with the parliamentary process.

but here we have chomsky saying stuff like

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

and

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

this is terrible, and its not a sudden thing brought on by the shock of trump, he's been telling people to vote for the democrats for years, while the democrats drift ever rightward. Faced with a choice between a mass murdering racist who hates the poor and trump and hes says its vary important to vote for statues quo mass murdering racism in case the scary guy gets in.
has it ever occurred to him that those "most victimized by a Trump administration" have been treated like shit for decades regardless of administration? This is the writing of somone who views the masses as an inert lump acted upon by outside forces

radicalgraffiti

i don't think his self description is particularity relevant, lots of people claim to have politics that doesn't match what they do. Imo the anarchist faq is far to focused on individuals.

The Anarchist FAQ has been praised by numerous different sources and is regarded as an authority on anarchist political thought. What else is there to go by, though? How do you personally determine if someone is anarchist or not? I'm really intrigued. I'm sorry, but what are anarchists supposed to do? He's been involved in writing about anarchist political ideas for decades (see Guerin); he wanted to drop out of university to join Israeli Kibbutzim, etc. I don't get it... Do you expect him to be throwing cocktails in the streets or what?

"an advocate of workers' self-management " is really not an adequate description of what an anarchist is, stalinists will say they support that so will trots and virtually every kind of marxist, liberals will probably agree its a good idea too. What separates them from anarchists is that anarchists want the workers (and oppressed groups) to improve their situation though their own actions, though engaging in struggles against the bourgeois directly, though solidarity with each, not by electing people to fix things for them. this was one of the reasons for the split between marxists and anarchists, the anarchists recognised the problems with trying to engage with the parliamentary process.

I think workers' self-management is actually one of the most important and defining features of libertarian socialism. The difference with the other Marxists who say they're in favor of workers' control is that the anarchists actually mean what they say: the workers themselves controlling their own affairs democratically without interference from any state claiming to represent them. And this goes all the way back to Proudhon who advocated a market version of socialism with self-managed cooperatives (and who also, like with Bakunin, opposed the 'authoritarian socialists' affiliated with Marx).

but here we have chomsky saying stuff like

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

and

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

...

I'll just repost this again...

So is Trump not worse than Clinton policy-wise? Would a Clinton presidency have been the same as the Trump presidency we currently have (at least if you live there), who's already approved the DAPL and Keystone pipelines, imposed a blanket muslim ban, denys climate change and wants to pull out of international agreements, wants to slash taxes on the rich, etc.? Explain to me how Clinton is not the lesser evil and how it's inconsequential who's president?

Chomsky is also a member of the IWW and has been interviewed by them before.

Swings and roundabouts innit. One is a fucking megalomaniac and the other is that cunt Donald Trump. On the US home front, Clinton may have been more tolerable but on the international front, it's possible she was more of a warmonger. But who can really say? For a clever chap though, that Chomsky should know better. Still, it seems to be a sign of the times, anarchos sucking up to reformists. It's as irritating as when you hear about long term anarchists over here suddenly throwing in their lot with Corbyn's Momentum.

I don't think anyone here, in any case, would deny that Chomsky was a libertarian socialist, but one that is certainly kinda reformist. Certain people did state that they didn't think he was an anarchist though.

For a clever chap though, that Chomsky should know better. Still, it seems to be a sign of the times, anarchos sucking up to reformists. It's as irritating as when you hear about long term anarchists over here suddenly throwing in their lot with Corbyn's Momentum.

Not to give the impression that I spend too much time reading the Anarchist FAQ, or have bought both paperback volumes and highlighted every inch of them, but there's a nice section on this:

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionD1

The anarchist position is, therefore, a practical one based on the specific situation rather than a simplistic application of what is ideologically correct. Rolling back the state in the abstract is not without problems in a class and hierarchy ridden system where opportunities in life are immensely unequal. As such, any "effort to develop and implement government programs that really were equalisers would lead to a form of class war, and in the present state of popular organisations and distribution of effective power, there can hardly be much doubt as to who would win." [Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, p. 184] Anarchists seek to build the grassroots resistance for politicians like Reagan, Bush Snr and Jnr, Thatcher and so on do not get elected without some serious institutional forces at work. It would be insane to think that once a particularly right-wing politician leaves office those forces will go away or stop trying to influence the political decision making process.

The task of anarchists therefore is not to abstractly oppose state intervention but rather contribute to popular self-organisation and struggle, creating pressures from the streets and workplaces that governments cannot ignore or defy.

(I promise it was just coincidence that Chomsky happened to be quoted in that passage.)

Just because you advocate more welfare or social programs, more taxes on the rich, or spend an hour or so voting for a New Deal type candidate - it doesn't make you any less of a libertarian socialist if that's what you believe and strive for. That's just ignoring the reality we live in, as the text points out.

zugzwang

radicalgraffiti

i don't think his self description is particularity relevant, lots of people claim to have politics that doesn't match what they do. Imo the anarchist faq is far to focused on individuals.

The Anarchist FAQ has been praised by numerous different sources and is regarded as an authority on anarchist political thought. What else is there to go by, though? How do you personally determine if someone is anarchist or not? I'm really intrigued. I'm sorry, but what are anarchists supposed to do? He's been involved in writing about anarchist political ideas for decades (see Guerin); he wanted to drop out of university to join Israeli Kibbutzim, etc. I don't get it... Do you expect him to be throwing cocktails in the streets or what?

aren't most of his books about American imperialism? i haven't read everything he wrote by any means, but i can see he keeps making statements in support of engaging in elections and not on organising along anarchist lines to actual change stuff

the anarchist faq is nice for refuting some of the more common myths and misunderstandings about anarchism, but its is not the be all and end all of anarchist thought, in my opinion it focuses too much on well known individuals, and tryes to include too broad a spread of politics.

zugzwang

"an advocate of workers' self-management " is really not an adequate description of what an anarchist is, stalinists will say they support that so will trots and virtually every kind of marxist, liberals will probably agree its a good idea too. What separates them from anarchists is that anarchists want the workers (and oppressed groups) to improve their situation though their own actions, though engaging in struggles against the bourgeois directly, though solidarity with each, not by electing people to fix things for them. this was one of the reasons for the split between marxists and anarchists, the anarchists recognised the problems with trying to engage with the parliamentary process.

I think workers' self-management is actually one of the most important and defining features of libertarian socialism. The difference with the other Marxists who say they're in favor of workers' control is that the anarchists actually mean what they say: the workers themselves controlling their own affairs democratically without interference from any state claiming to represent them. And this goes all the way back to Proudhon who advocated a market version of socialism with self-managed cooperatives (and who also, like with Bakunin, opposed the 'authoritarian socialists' affiliated with Marx).

of course workers self management is important, but who are you to say who means it and who doesn't? i'm sure Leninist mean it when they say the support it, but they are massively wrong about how to bring it about, likewise Chomsky with his advocating voting for the democrats and little else is wrong. Anarchism has to be distinguished by tactics, because if not then what? that other socialists are lying when they say the want the same stuff as us? (yes there is more to anarchism than tactics)

i dont see how proudhon can possible be considered an anarchist, he was massively sexist and racist, anarchists at the time denounced him for this, and i'm only willing to consider bakunin because anarchists at the time apparent considered him one, and with his secret society obsession i'm really not sure what grounds he had to call marx authoritarian, marx most definitely wanted a society run by the workers them selves

zugzwang

but here we have chomsky saying stuff like

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

and

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

...

I'll just repost this again...

So is Trump not worse than Clinton policy-wise? Would a Clinton presidency have been the same as the Trump presidency we currently have (at least if you live there), who's already approved the DAPL and Keystone pipelines, imposed a blanket muslim ban, denys climate change and wants to pull out of international agreements, wants to slash taxes on the rich, etc.? Explain to me how Clinton is not the lesser evil and how it's inconsequential who's president?

lesser evilism is what got things in the position where trump could win, if every leftist votes for the democrats incase the republicans win then guess what, there is no pressure form the left, only the right, like really if you actual want to engage with election you should be voting for the most left wing party so they have to engage with the left to get votes back :)

Serge Forward

Swings and roundabouts innit. One is a fucking megalomaniac and the other is that cunt Donald Trump. On the US home front, Clinton may have been more tolerable but on the international front, it's possible she was more of a warmonger. But who can really say? For a clever chap though, that Chomsky should know better. Still, it seems to be a sign of the times, anarchos sucking up to reformists. It's as irritating as when you hear about long term anarchists over here suddenly throwing in their lot with Corbyn's Momentum.

its not like its got no precedent, Kropotkin did support he first world war after all, but seriously the more people quote chomsky in defence anarchist getting involved with elections, the more i think hes not anarchist

aren't most of his books about American imperialism? i haven't read everything he wrote by any means, but i can see he keeps making statements in support of engaging in elections and not on organising along anarchist lines to actual change stuff

I'm afraid that's not true: he's always telling people to 'organize.' He touches upon a lot of different topics in his books (like the mass media in Manufacturing Consent), but most are, like you say, about the US and its interference in other countries' affairs. He talks a lot more about libertarian socialism in the interviews he does, or the essays/articles he writes, some of which are on the site.

the anarchist faq is nice for refuting some of the more common myths and misunderstandings about anarchism, but its is not the be all and end all of anarchist thought, in my opinion it focuses too much on well known individuals, and tryes to include too broad a spread of politics.

Of course not, but I still would argue it's a pretty reliable source if we're talking about anarchism.

of course workers self management is important, but who are you to say who means it and who doesn't? i'm sure Leninist mean it when they say the support it, but they are massively wrong about ...

I had in mind Maurice Brinton's book, 'Workers' Control' in which the various meanings 'workers' control' has taken is discussed. The difference between anarchists and the Marxists is that the anarchists don't believe in a state at all, if ever come a revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie; they want to destroy the state immediately rather than capture it and turn it into a "worker/proletariat state." To quote Bakunin:

Once it has taken over the State, it should, as we see it, destroy it immediately for it is the age-old prison of the proletarian masses: now, according to Mr. Marx's theory, the people not only should not destroy the State but should instead reinforce it, make it even mightier and place it, in this new form, at the disposal of its benefactors, tutors and educators, the leaders of the Communist Party - in short, at the disposal of Mr. Marx and his friends who will promptly set about liberating it after their fashion.

i dont see how proudhon can possible be considered an anarchist ...

I think he made contributions to libertarian socialist thought, if anything.

lesser evilism is what got things in the position where trump could win, if every leftist votes for the democrats incase the republicans win then guess what, there is no pressure form the left, only the right, like really if you actual want to engage with election you should be voting for the most left wing party so they have to engage with the left to get votes back :)

How does that work if everyone else in your state is voting Republican or Democrat and your preferred candidate is in the minority?

radicalgraffiti

its not like its got no precedent, Kropotkin did support he first world war after all, but seriously the more people quote chomsky in defence anarchist getting involved with elections, the more i think hes not anarchist

Please read my comment, #181, again.

You lot can't even come up with a decent explanation, argument as to why Chomsky's and Z's lesser-evil-ism is at best fruitless, and in reality, antithetical to building a movement independent of the ruling class structures and actually able to do something.

So because two people contacted me privately and asked, I think I owe them the benefit of any argument against Z's and Chomsky's liberalism, and liberalism is exactly what lesser evil ism is all about.

First off, look-- the very nature of bourgeois politics in the US, given a two party system, is that someone is always going to be a "lesser evil" if we make that determination by personalities or claims or party platforms. So Johnson was a lesser evil than Goldwater-- and that got us Vietnam. And Humphrey was a lesser evil than Nixon; and McGovern was even less evil; and Carter was less evil than Ford, and Reagan; and Mondale was less evil than Reagan, and Clinton less evil than Bush and Dole, and Gore less evil than Bush, as was Kerry, and Obama less evil than McCain or Romney....

And that's swell if your pretense at socialism is like your christian anarchism-- purely a personal belief; a sentiment; an ethical code, that has nothing to do with building a social movement to remove the institutions of oppression and exploitation. Every movement that has gone down the route of lesser evil-ism has collapsed in on itself and left the evils greater or lesser firmly in power to have another go at it. Look at the anti Vietnam war movement; the anti Iraq war movement; the Sanders movement etc.

So if you think that it's all about "exerting pressure" on the government-- look around to what happened to the other pressure exerters once they were co-opted by the Democrats. And that is what makes Chomsky precisely what he is-- a dead end liberal.

It's not a question of personality, but of institution, and class.

Secondly, the lesser evil argument rests on some notion that voting by "socialists" is really going to make a difference. Anybody familiar with the structure of US elections, with the gerry-mandering of districts; electoral college; the voting restrictions in place; the culling of voter registration lists knows that's not going to happen. In this case, the Republicans have been hard at work since Obama's election (and before) making sure black people, poor people, the elderly, students etc. can't vote, or at least find it more difficult to vote.

Thirdly, in the present case, the issue isn't Trump vs. Clinton, but it is the social forces behind Trump-- the gelling of the amalgam of Koch-ites, tea-parters, white supremacists, shopkeepers, bond traders, hedge fund motherfuckers around Trump who represent and more or less feast off the breakdown in the old mechanisms of capital accumulation. These fucks are out for blood, and blood is what capital requires at this point in time.

The issue isn't that Trump's policies are any worse or better. This is not an issue of "voluntarism"-- as in, oh a more evil guy with more evil policies beats a less evil person with less evil policies. It's the social movement behind the "guy" and the policies. And that movement cannot be defeated by voting for the lesser evil. As a matter of fact that only disorients those willing to work against the institutions and against that reactionary movement. Trump wants to deport millions? Guess what? Obama, the previous lesser evil, already did that. Trump wants to reduce Medicare coverage and increase premiums? Guess what? Obama already did that. Trump wants to militarize the police? Exactly who do you think has been selling the police all those weapon systems? Trump wants to tear up NAFTA? Who gives a fuck? Why should we support a program that gives the bourgeoisie of any country better access to any other country? Trump is going to increase voter suppression? Yeah, so why didn't the lesser evil make it a point to attack voter suppression-- to denounce the states that have instituted voter suppression laws? Why didn't the previous lesser evil leader denounce voter suppression? Why, when the Roberts Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, an act unanimously approved in Congress every time it came up for renewal, wasn't the lesser evil guy on the spot with a new up-to-date voting rights act? Why didn't the Dems, in 2-3 years, after that decision, introduce a new act that would place the issue front and center?

The answer of course is that the Dems also play the lesser evil game, and unlike Chomsky they have no illusions what the lesser evil is: the lesser evil to them is Trump; the lesser evil to them is North Carolina's voter suppression activities; the lesser evil to them is the gutting of the VRA. The greater evil is the risk of sparking a social movement they can't control. Just look today at Schumer and Sanders, falling all over themselves to suck Trump's cock after just the hint that Trump wants to "work with moderate Democrats."

Trump's backed by right wing nut jobs? No shit, Sherlock and when and where have right-wing nut jobs, when and where has a movement of right-wing nut jobs ever been defeated by a movement that supports the institutions and the economic relations that spawn, nurture right wing nut jobs?

The necessity is to oppose the class relations of capitalism with a social movement that is opposed to the institutions of that capitalism-- the parties, the Congress, the presidency, the courts, private ownership of the means of production, wage labor. That is the only alternative there is. Chomsky simply doesn't know what he's talking about, a true sign of liberalism.

zugzwang

aren't most of his books about American imperialism? i haven't read everything he wrote by any means, but i can see he keeps making statements in support of engaging in elections and not on organising along anarchist lines to actual change stuff

I'm afraid that's not true: he's always telling people to 'organize.' He touches upon a lot of different topics in his books (like the mass media in Manufacturing Consent), but most are, like you say, about the US and its interferring in other countries' affairs. He talks a lot more about libertarian socialism in the interviews he does, or the essays/articles he writes, some of which are on the site.

telling people to organise in the abstract an actually advocating specific methods tactics etc are two different things, like how is it even possible for an anarchist to write an an entire article on how important it is to vote while not even once mentioning how important it is to resist regardless of who is elected and specific ways people can organise that resistance?

zugzwang

the anarchist faq is nice for refuting some of the more common myths and misunderstandings about anarchism, but its is not the be all and end all of anarchist thought, in my opinion it focuses too much on well known individuals, and tryes to include too broad a spread of politics.

Of course not, but I still would argue it's a pretty reliable source if we're talking about anarchism.

of course workers self management is important, but who are you to say who means it and who doesn't? i'm sure Leninist mean it when they say the support it, but they are massively wrong about ...

I had in mind Maurice Brinton's book, 'Workers' Control' in which the various meanings 'workers' control' has taken is discussed. The difference between anarchists and the Marxists is that the anarchists don't believe in a state at all, if ever come a revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie; they want to destroy the state immediately rather than capture it and turn it into a "worker/proletariat state." To quote Bakunin:

Once it has taken over the State, it should, as we see it, destroy it immediatley for it is the age-old prison of the proletarian masses: now, according to Mr. Marx's theory, the people not only should not destroy the State but should instead reinforce it, make it even mightier and place it, in this new form, at the disposal of its benefactors, tutors and educators, the leaders of the Communist Party - in short, at the disposal of Mr. Marx and his friends who will promptly set about liberating it after their fashion.

marx said

One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

or in response to bakunin
marx

bakunin

The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?

Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.

maybe you'd be better off quoting marx on what marx wanted rather than one of his most famous enemies

zugzwang

i dont see how proudhon can possible be considered an anarchist ...

I think he made contributions to libertarian socialist thought, if anything.

from what i see his contributions are vastly exaggerated and his flaws glossed over, he even stated out right that his most famous quote came from the French revolution

Property is robbery! That is the war-cry of ’93! That is the signal of revolutions!

i suspect hat many of his ideas came from taking to other radicals and he just happend to be one of the few who could write a book and get it published

zugzwang

lesser evilism is what got things in the position where trump could win, if every leftist votes for the democrats incase the republicans win then guess what, there is no pressure form the left, only the right, like really if you actual want to engage with election you should be voting for the most left wing party so they have to engage with the left to get votes back :)

How does that work if everyone else in your state is voting Republican or Democrat and your preferred candidate is in the minority?

i'm in the uk if it matters, and am not in the busyness of giving advice on how to do electoral politics properly, but recently in the uk, we recently had a referendum on leaving the eu, and do you know why that happened? because a party call ukip was formed which was positioned to the right of the tory party, was gaining votes, splitting the tory vote, which pressurised the torys to adopt ukip policies, i see no reason why this wouldn't work the other way if a party to the left of the democrats was splinting their vote, it would just require an giving up on lesser evilism.

but really, this is none of my business since i'm confidant direct action is a more effective way to exert pressure on the ruling class than elections

zugzwang

radicalgraffiti

its not like its got no precedent, Kropotkin did support he first world war after all, but seriously the more people quote chomsky in defence anarchist getting involved with elections, the more i think hes not anarchist

Please read my comment, #181, again.

Kropotkin literally told people to fight for the allies in ww1, that was awful political judgement, and support for imperialism

an no, nothing about this is about opposing social programs like free health care or benefits for unemployed people, the point is, voting is elections is basically the most ineffective thing you can do to get or defend those things

And that's swell if your pretense at socialism is like your christian anarchism-- purely a personal belief; a sentiment; an ethical code, that has nothing to do with building a social movement to remove the institutions of oppression and exploitation. Every movement that has gone down the route of lesser evil-ism has collapsed in on itself and left the evils greater or lesser firmly in power to have another go at it. Look at the anti Vietnam war movement; the anti Iraq war movement; the Sanders movement etc.

...

The quote I gave at #181 is Anarchist FAQ/Chomsky telling the reader to build organizations and movements outside of bourgeois politics, as well as to participate in politics when on behalf of the mass of people (so like increasing taxes on the rich, etc.) or to prevent certain outcomes (say, like, construction of DAPL and Keystone or muslim bans, etc.) It takes like an hour or so to vote… That’s all it is. It's not about getting behind Sanders in "attacking the 1% (rather than the capitalist class)." If you don't see a difference in the positions of Clinton and Trump, or just think they're both from the ranks of the bourgeoisie and are therefore equally evil and therefore it doesn't matter, then I don't know what to really say. I think it would come as a surprise to a lot of libertarian socialists that just because you vote, you're suddenly a liberal. Voting doesn't have to mean anything, and that was the point being made in the Chomsky essay I linked to; it's not about "voting how you think or what you believe in," because "no candidate will represent our lust to not be represented," as was put in one pamphlet I read somewhere that was for abstaining.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarchists-never-vote

radicalgraffiti

an no, nothing about this is about opposing social programs like free health care or benefits for unemployed people, the point is, voting is elections is basically the most ineffective thing you can do to get or defend those things

That's what Trump campaigned to do: redistribute income upward, slash taxes for the rich and destroy all the social programs - but you know, under the disguise of "bringing back jobs and making America great again." (I'm from the states by the way.) If one cared about those social programs, lived in a swing state where voting matters, he/she could at least spend an hour or so voting for the candidate who supported those things, and then go home and take a shower or whatever. There's no reason you can't build other kind of organizations and movements outside bourgeois politics and vote for the lesser evil, and it's not about getting behind people like Sanders or Clinton. To quote the essay I linked to:

Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4). The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.

I'm going to make a few suggestions, they are not so much "anarchist" but pretty Close.

1. John Howard Yodar - The Politics of Jesus: this is a MUST have for any christian Anarchist, it goes over the New testament data in a scholarly way showing how Jesus and his movement basically created a parallel Group opposed to the Roman State and created a re-distributive "jubilee" community.

2. Christian Origins - A Peoples history of Christianity: a few essays by various scholars on early Christianity, breaking Down the text.

3. Jesus and Empire - Richard Horsely: A great book on the sayings of Jesus in light of imperial Roman domination and economic exploitation.

4. All Things in Common: the economic practices of the early Christians: By me, but it's not out yet, it's going to be probably in May, depending on the Publisher: This is more a historical analysis of Acts 2:42-47, and 4:32-37 in light of parallel jewish, christian and hellenistic documents and the historical context .... a little self-advertising but I think you'll find it interesting, when it's out I'll let you know.

I remember listening to Chomsky's views on porn quite recently and he is anti which I thought was great but then at the end of the interview he says- "I don't think it should be banned, but let's not pretend it doesn't degrade women" That sounds pretty liberal to me to be honest. I would say, as I've already said- I think he's a libertarian socialist or anarchist that supports reformism, and therefore I can see why he is accused of liberalism. Alot of the time when listening to him, on Democracy Now or just in one of his talks online, he sounds more like a leftist than an anarchist, I can understand what people mean when they say that. Ofcourse the likely reason he has opted for this reformism is the lack of a genuinely revolutionary movement.

For the People trashing religion here.

Christianity, (and for that matter most religions), are a lot more complicated than simply Reading the text and saying "aha, this is what the religion is", theology is a very deep subject and one has to study it to really understand it.

There really is not such thing as "religion", there are systems of thought, there are practices, and so on, but they don't have much in common. For example the Catholic Church in the 1300s was extremely different in everyway to the national mythologies of the ancient near east, which bare almost no resemblance to Buddhist thought ... yet we Call them all "religion". So its really not smart to talk of "religion" in a broad sense.

There is nothing in secularism that is pro-anarchism or pro-socialism, it's really just a rejection of theistic metaphysical narratives, that's it. In fact I would argue (as for example the philosopher Charles Taylor as well as the Theologian David Bently Hart) that secularism, With the atomization of human beings, the ridding of the world of any "telos" and the assumption that individual selfishness is the driving force of society is what brought about the ideology of Capitalism.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/christs-rabble
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/06/mammon-ascendant

Christianity, properly understood, is completely incompatible With capitalism, and really With nattionalism, and it basically was that until the Roman empire adapted it, even then it basically got rid of slavery and created a never before seen focus on poverty and welfare.

Rommon, I understand that there are those who say "real" Christianity has nothing in common with what mainly passes for Christianity. I am aware of people like Thomas Muntzer, the Diggers, Tolstoy, etc, as well as contemporary Christians with progressive views. I would also acknowledge similar elements within liberal and progressive Judaism and certain Islamic sects. You could probably find such progressives in most religions. I don't think it does any good to take the piss out of such people (as Potrokin has done) and think it actually makes those doing it look foolish with weak ideas.

However, communism, anarchism or whatever we want to call it, is not just about being progressive or nice to each other but is about the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system other and replacing it with a free society based on need rather than profit. It has nothing in common with mystical ideologies that ultimately create yet another barrier to seeing the world as it is or are used as an excuse for putting up with shit in the here and now because the "afterlife" will be paradise.

In short, I know some very nice religious people who I know, should it come to the crunch, will be on the right side of the barricades and may hold one or two ideas in common with communists or revolutionary anarchists. However, ultimately, religion is just garbage.

For example, IIRC only Christians believe in ex nihilio creation so taking that religion as the basis for all is problematic.

Khawaga, I agree With just about everything you said; except ex nihilo is basically the doctrine for all the Abrahamic faiths.

[quote][/This is all I need to know about christianity http://www.evilbible.com/ quote]

As someone who's spent years studying theology, biblical literature, the New testament in the orignial greek and the history of Christianity ... No, basing Your view on Christianity on that website is as silly as basing Your view of evolution on Ken Hams creationist museum ... I looked at the website, it's rediculously shallow, rediculously unscholarly, it doesn't actually deal With any serious theology, and it's basically the secularist equivalent of a fundamentalist arguing against evolution on the basis of Ken Ham's nonsense, or saying something like "if evolution was true how come there are still monkeys around."

No serious theolgian looks at every part of the bible as literal and normative ... hell, no serious person does that.

"religion is Garbage" doesn't mean anything becuase there is no single thing called "religion", it's a Catch all term for all kinds of beliefs and systems, many that don't even answer the same questions or deal With the same issues.

I have no idea about you, but often when I see People Write off religion as just "religion is Garbage" I often find that their knowledge of actual theology is at the Level of Richard Dawkins, i.e. none at all. If you really want to understand, at least Christianity, you have to go a little deeper, at least understanding the classical arguments and definitions from People like Aquinas, or more moder popular theologians like David Bently Hart, anyway, that's a side point.

As for Your idea of the effect of a belief in an afterlife, it's interesting that in first Century Judaism it was the conservatives, the collaborators, and the aristocracy that promoted a lack of belief in ressurection, whereas the more revolutionary ones, the ones motivated by, for example, the maccabees, pushed the idea of an afterlife: The idea of an afterlife is not individual, but rather that justice will prevail and it is Worth it to fight for it.

But again, that's a sociological question.

"real Christianity" is basically New testament christianity, and there are many People who, to a greater of lesser degree, try to live up to that. In the United States however, at least for the last half Century, what passes as "christianity" is really nothing more than a wing of the republican party. I've spoken to many conservative christians from the US, many of them are very sincere; but once you start breaking Down to them, what is actually standard theology in scholarship (for example almost every historical Jesus scholar recognizes that his mission statement was based on Isaiah 61:1-2, which was a revolutionary statement, i.e. declaring the Jubilee), they very often Close Down; becuase in reality they are more "republican" than they are "conservative", and many (not all, there are many good churches out there) American Churches behave more as political fronts for the GOP than anything else, others for the democrats ... but this is a very American phenomenon unfortunately, it does happen in other countries, but in America it's basically Institutional.

[quote=Serge ForwardYou could probably find such progressives in most religions. I don't think it does any good to take the piss out of such people (as Potrokin has done) and think it actually makes those doing it look foolish with weak ideas. [/quote]
Yet again you miss the point completely. I was taking the piss out of someone because of their intention to create "a new belief system" marrying anarchism with christianity- not just because they were religious- how many fucking times do I and Artesian have to state that?. What is so difficult to understand about that?

I know who you were taking the piss out of and why. And how many times before you realise that it makes you look a right twat?

Serge Forward

However, communism, anarchism or whatever we want to call it, is not just about being progressive or nice to each other but is about the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system other and replacing it with a free society based on need rather than profit. It has nothing in common with mystical ideologies that ultimately create yet another barrier to seeing the world as it is or are used as an excuse for putting up with shit in the here and now because the "afterlife" will be paradise.

However, ultimately, religion is just garbage.

So you would object if someone stated their desire to create a new 'anarchist religion'? Or would you just let it slide?

Serge Forward

I know who you were taking the piss out of and why. And how many times before you realise that it makes you look a right twat?

Thats just evading the question.

zugzwang

radicalgraffiti

an no, nothing about this is about opposing social programs like free health care or benefits for unemployed people, the point is, voting is elections is basically the most ineffective thing you can do to get or defend those things

That's what Trump campaigned to do: redistribute income upward, slash taxes for the rich and destroy all the social programs - but you know, under the disguise of "bringing back jobs and making America great again." (I'm from the states by the way.) If one cared about those social programs, lived in a swing state where voting matters, he/she could at least spend an hour or so voting for the candidate who supported those things, and then go home and take a shower or whatever. There's no reason you can't build other kind of organizations and movements outside bourgeois politics and vote for the lesser evil, and it's not about getting behind people like Sanders or Clinton. To quote the essay I linked to:

Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4). The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.

the likely consequence of you voting are nothing, exete you feel like you've done something, its like a petition that way.

i'm not saying people cant be anarchists and vote, i'm saying arguments like this are not anarchist, in fact they don't even make sense if you think electoral poultices is worthwhile

https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

insisting that you have to support the democrats or else you don't care about the poor, minorities etc is ridiculous, and despite your talk of the effect of actions is actual a moralistic plea that ignores the actual effects of the actions in question

Rommon

"religion is Garbage" doesn't mean anything becuase there is no single thing called "religion", it's a Catch all term for all kinds of beliefs and systems, many that don't even answer the same questions or deal With the same issues.

religion typically involves: supernatural beliefs; teachings that are claimed to tell about how the world is and how people should live, usually passed down in the form of scriptures although they may also be mesmerised; individuals who claim greater knowledge/connection with spiritual things, and who are accepted as specialists in these matters by ordinary believers, its also common for ideas of the spiritual world to mirror the material world of those who developed the religion

there may be other commonalities that i missed.

"religion is Garbage" is a crude statement, and it risks getting you lumped in with dawkins bros, but i'm not seeking any reason why someone cant disagree with all religion

potrokin

Serge Forward

However, communism, anarchism or whatever we want to call it, is not just about being progressive or nice to each other but is about the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system other and replacing it with a free society based on need rather than profit. It has nothing in common with mystical ideologies that ultimately create yet another barrier to seeing the world as it is or are used as an excuse for putting up with shit in the here and now because the "afterlife" will be paradise.

However, ultimately, religion is just garbage.

So you would object if someone stated their desire to create a new 'anarchist religion'? Or would you just let it slide?

this thread is 2 years old, your far to late.

also anyone asking about combining anarchism with a religion is probably someone from a religious background who has become interested in anarchism and is trying to reconcile it with there faith, and i'm not sure how you think "does god watch you wank" the sort of thing they have probably seen from dozens of atheist dude bros all across the internet, is going to convince them or anyone else that an entirely materialistic approach is a the way to go

potrokin

So you would object if someone stated their desire to create a new 'anarchist religion'? Or would you just let it slide?

Fair fucks to em... but I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot barge pole. Such nonsense should have no place in a revolutionary anarchist or communist movement. Obviously, I know you'd like us all to be jumping up and down going apo-bastard-plectic but life's just too short. In short, I suppose I'm a "let it slide" kinda guy.

And as RG points out... it's 2 years too late to have any impact on the OP.

potrokin

I remember listening to Chomsky's views on porn quite recently and he is anti which I thought was great but then at the end of the interview he says- "I don't think it should be banned, but let's not pretend it doesn't degrade women" That sounds pretty liberal to me to be honest. I would say, as I've already said- I think he's a libertarian socialist or anarchist that supports reformism, and therefore I can see why he is accused of liberalism. Alot of the time when listening to him, on Democracy Now or just in one of his talks online, he sounds more like a leftist than an anarchist, I can understand what people mean when they say that. Ofcourse the likely reason he has opted for this reformism is the lack of a genuinely revolutionary movement.

Chomsky is not a bloody liberal - period. Saying you wouldn't mind taxing the rich, or voting for the lesser evil, as well as believing the workers should handle their own affairs are not two mutually exclusive positions. He's a member of the IWW for heaven's sake (and was even interviewed by them), and is influenced by Rudolf Rocker, and frequently quotes Bakunin's popular "people's stick" expression, etc. You may dislike Chomsky, or have read nothing from him, but don't go around calling people liberal because they don't match you image of socialist or communist.

radicalgraffiti

I don't think your slandering of Chomsky is worth very much considering how you've already confessed to reading nothing from him.

Also, your calling Proudhon 'not an anarchist,' I might say, is also at odds with a lot of - you know - anarchists as well as libertarian socialist literature which describes him and views as such. Proudhon advocated workers' self-management and opposed the so-called 'authoritarian socialists.' He's regarded as one of the fathers of anarchism, along with Stirner, both of whom wrote around the same time period. Incidentally, this is why you see him appearing in anthologies like Guerin's No Gods No Masters - also a highly recommended collection of works if you're wanting to learn about anarchism. (A Chomsky blurb, funny enough considering how he's apparently a liberal, also appears on the back cover. For being such a liberal, Chomsky certainly is inescapble when it comes to reading up about anarchism.)

I met a Polish anarchist in the early 1970s who had started his own religion. If I remember correctly, his name was Paul Pawlowski and he’d written an amusing pamphlet entitled, ‘How to Kill A Magistrate Non-Violently’, based on his experiences in a London courtroom.

The last I remember of him was when I contributed to a collection. He was due to appear in a Scottish court after being arrested at Faslane Polaris base as he’d been using some very colourful words in front of the Dunbartonshire constabulary. I think he was sent for a psychiatric report.

typically involves: supernatural beliefs; teachings that are claimed to tell about how the world is and how people should live, usually passed down in the form of scriptures although they may also be mesmerised; individuals who claim greater knowledge/connection with spiritual things, and who are accepted as specialists in these matters by ordinary believers, its also common for ideas of the spiritual world to mirror the material world of those who developed the religion

Almost all Pagan religion had nothing to do with how one should live, and basically all religion is is a world view, some of it is based on scripture some isn't, some is more based on practice.

But anyway, I'm not gonna get into theology here, unless you want to. But I suggest, if you're interested, David Bentlt Harts book "the experience of God", it gives a general overview of the classical view of God and its relationship to traditions and scriptures.

Who are the real anarchists?
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
Only the shadow knows!

zugzwang

radicalgraffiti

I don't think your slandering of Chomsky is worth very much considering how you've already confessed to not reading anything from him.

i've read stuff by him, i never said other wise, just not all of it, what i have read includes stuff in blatant contradiction to anarchist ideas

zugzwang

Also, your calling Proudhon 'not an anarchist,' I might say, is also at odds with a lot of - you know - anarchists as well as libertarian socialist literature which describes him and views as such. Proudhon advocated workers' self-management and opposed the so-called 'authoritarian socialists.' He's regarded as one of the fathers of anarchism, along with Stirner, both of whom wrote around the same time period. Incidentally, this is why you see him appearing in anthologies like Guerin's No Gods No Masters - also a highly recommended collection of works if you're wanting to learn about anarchism. (A Chomsky blurb, funny enough considering how he's apparently a liberal, also appears on the back cover. For being such a liberal, Chomsky certainly is inescapble when it comes to reading up about anarchism.)

fuck stirner hes completely fuckin irrelevant

but especially fuck proudhon

proudhon

December 26, 1847: Jews. Write an article against this race that poisons everything by sticking its nose into everything without ever mixing with any other people. Demand its expulsion from France with the exception of those individuals married to French women. Abolish synagogues and not admit them to any employment. Finally, pursue the abolition of this religion. It’s not without cause that the Christians called them deicide. The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated. By steel or by fire or by expulsion the Jew must disappear.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/1847/jews.htm

proudhon

4. Between woman and man there may exist love, passion, ties of custom, and the like; but there is no real society. Man and woman are not companions. The difference of the sexes places a barrier between them, like that placed between animals by a difference of race. Consequently, far from advocating what is now called the emancipation of woman, I should incline, rather, if there were no other alternative, to exclude her from society.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch05.htm

serious fuck this guy and everyone who defends him

this was written in 1857, how is it that even now there are people who who are so far behind this that they feel they must teh hideous bigot that was proudhon, and consider criticism unaceptable
Joseph Déjacque

Be then frankly an entire anarchist and not a quarter anarchist, an eighth anarchist, or one-sixteenth anarchist, as one is a one-fourth, one-eighth or one-sixteenth partner in trade. Go beyond the abolition of contract to the abolition not only of the sword and of capital, but also of property and of authority in all its forms.

...

Listen, Master Proudhon! Before you talk of woman, study her; go to school. Stop calling yourself an anarchist, or be an anarchist clear through.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-the-human-being-male-and-female

[quote=Serge Forward]potrokin

And as RG points out... it's 2 years too late to have any impact on the OP.

Then what I initially posted is irrelevant. Interesting nevertheless, how certain people responded and I really feel that if you guys didn't get how I feel about the OP then I'm in the wrong place.

fuck stirner hes completely fuckin irrelevant

but especially fuck proudhon

...

serious fuck this guy and everyone who defends him

this was written in 1857, how is it that even now there are people who who are so far behind this that they feel they must teh hideous bigot that was proudhon, and consider criticism unaceptable

What bearing does Proudhon's sexism or Bakunin's racism have on their political ideas (- and don't think the Marxist thinkers were free from their shortcomings as well) - if we're going by personal characteristics and traits, we might as well discredit a ton a intellectuals' works as worthless (and that seeps into the arts as well - shall we discard the works of Wilde and maybe Larkin as well because of the objectionable views they had?). I mean, is Makhno now worthless because some historians contend he was an alcoholic?

The Leninists and Trotskyists (or at least the ones I've come across) love pointing stuff out like "Makhno's alcoholism" - despite that being a disputed historical topic - or how "despicable" Bakunin was, and this is all done to discredit their political ideas or to avoid confronting them.

radicalgraffiti

the sort of thing they have probably seen from dozens of atheist dude bros all across the internet, is going to convince them or anyone else that an entirely materialistic approach is a the way to go

Thats a very interesting comment which really does reveal alot about how you think and how you conduct yourself. We can't be hostile to religion- it means we're all 'dude-bros' but lets not lump all religious people together. Basically your a hypercrite who defends religion.

zugzwang

fuck stirner hes completely fuckin irrelevant

but especially fuck proudhon

...

serious fuck this guy and everyone who defends him

this was written in 1857, how is it that even now there are people who who are so far behind this that they feel they must teh hideous bigot that was proudhon, and consider criticism unaceptable

What bearing does Proudhon's sexism or Bakunin's racism have on their political ideas (- and don't think the Marxist thinkers were free from their shortcomings as well) - if we were going by personal characteristics and traits, we might as well discredit a ton a intellectuals' works as worthless (and that seeps into the arts as well - shall we discard the works of Wilde and maybe Larkin as well because of the objectionable views they had?). I mean, is Makhno now worthless because some historians contend he was an alcoholic?

sexism an racism are political, how do you not get this?
and how can you compare this to alcoholism, what the fuck is wrong with you

and there i massive difference between appreciation someone's fiction while recognising any problematic view they may have had and raising them up as a political oracle, which would be bad enough if there politics was perfect, but its fucking not even close

potrokin

radicalgraffiti

the sort of thing they have probably seen from dozens of atheist dude bros all across the internet, is going to convince them or anyone else that an entirely materialistic approach is a the way to go

Thats a very interesting comment which really does reveal alot about how you think and how you conduct yourself. We can't be hostile to religion- it means we're all 'dude-bros' but lets not lump all religious people together. Basically your a hypercrite who defends religion.

lol

sexism an racism are political, how do you not get this?
and how can you compare this to alcoholism, what the fuck is wrong with you

What significance does Proudhon's supposed sexism have on his ideas of Mutualism?

Rommon

typically involves: supernatural beliefs; teachings that are claimed to tell about how the world is and how people should live, usually passed down in the form of scriptures although they may also be mesmerised; individuals who claim greater knowledge/connection with spiritual things, and who are accepted as specialists in these matters by ordinary believers, its also common for ideas of the spiritual world to mirror the material world of those who developed the religion

Almost all Pagan religion had nothing to do with how one should live, and basically all religion is is a world view, some of it is based on scripture some isn't, some is more based on practice.

But anyway, I'm not gonna get into theology here, unless you want to. But I suggest, if you're interested, David Bentlt Harts book "the experience of God", it gives a general overview of the classical view of God and its relationship to traditions and scriptures.

there may be exceptions in certain aspects, but i think my out line is basically correct, although i do want to point included scriptures as only one way religious teachings can be passed on.

but i do think that "all religion is is a world view" is inaccurate as not al world view qualify religion

zugzwang

sexism an racism are political, how do you not get this?
and how can you compare this to alcoholism, what the fuck is wrong with you

What significance does Proudhon's supposed sexism have on his ideas of Mutualism?

are you disputing that proudhon was a massive misogynist?

radicalgraffiti

potrokin

radicalgraffiti

the sort of thing they have probably seen from dozens of atheist dude bros all across the internet, is going to convince them or anyone else that an entirely materialistic approach is a the way to go

Thats a very interesting comment which really does reveal alot about how you think and how you conduct yourself. We can't be hostile to religion- it means we're all 'dude-bros' but lets not lump all religious people together. Basically your a hypercrite who defends religion.

lol

And I'm the one who is supposed to be juvenile.

radicalgraffiti

zugzwang

sexism an racism are political, how do you not get this?
and how can you compare this to alcoholism, what the fuck is wrong with you

What significance does Proudhon's supposed sexism have on his ideas of Mutualism?

are you disputing that proudhon was a massive misogynist?

I'm denying the relevance of anyone's personal traits when that's not what is being discussed... Tell me how Proudhon's possible sexism has any bearing on his market socialist ideas, or all the other political contributions he made?

Old discussions on Chomsky and his statism;
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/whats-wrong-chomsky-13112009
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/noam-chomsky-liberal-19112012

I mean he's made comments in support of Chavez, such as this during a recent visit to Venezuela:
Quote:

"I write about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that's easy. What's harder is to create a better world... and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created."

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4748

Noam Chomsky: Well, Cuba has become a symbol of courageous resistance to attack. [...]
let's take Cuba's role in the liberation of Africa. It's an astonishing achievement that has almost been totally suppressed. Now you can read about it in scholarship, but the contribution that Cuba made to the self-liberation of Africa is fantastic.[...]
it's a symbol of successful defiance. One can have arguments about what society is like and what it does, but that's for Cubans to decide."
http://www.counterpunch.org/dwyer11032003.html (From an interview conducted in Cuba in 2003.)

zugzwang

radicalgraffiti

zugzwang

sexism an racism are political, how do you not get this?
and how can you compare this to alcoholism, what the fuck is wrong with you

What significance does Proudhon's supposed sexism have on his ideas of Mutualism?

are you disputing that proudhon was a massive misogynist?

I'm denying the relevance of anyone's personal traits when that's not what is being discussed... Tell me how Proudhon's possible sexism has any bearing on his market socialist ideas, or all the other political contributions he made?

"the personal is political"

radicalgraffiti

zugzwang

radicalgraffiti

zugzwang

sexism an racism are political, how do you not get this?
and how can you compare this to alcoholism, what the fuck is wrong with you

What significance does Proudhon's supposed sexism have on his ideas of Mutualism?

are you disputing that proudhon was a massive misogynist?

I'm denying the relevance of anyone's personal traits when that's not what is being discussed... Tell me how Proudhon's possible sexism has any bearing on his market socialist ideas, or all the other political contributions he made?

"the personal is political"

And ... ? Where is the sexism in Proudhon's Mutualism or advocacy of workers' self-management?

but i do think that "all religion is is a world view" is inaccurate as not al world view qualify religion

I personally disagree, I think that almost any worldview, if you trace it back it to its assumptions and fundamental grounds, you'll find a metaphysical/quasi religious ground and some category of "sacred".

Of course this is a controversial viewpoint and I understand that's my people disagree with it. But, I basically follow the philosopher/theologian John Milbank in saying that "religion" is inescapable since every human system of meaning ultimately has at its base a sacred category of some absolute truth or metaphysical foundation.

But of course that's just my opinion.

Red Marriott

Old discussions on Chomsky and his statism ...

[/quote]

I really don't get it; Chomsky has been writing and talking about anarchism for decades as well as collaborating with others like Guerin. He's not a liberal; he's not an authoritarian socialist or "statist," especially when he's written essays condemning the Bolsheviks for crushing the Makhno movement and destroying all the socialist institutions like soviets and factory committees. He's also called states fundamentally violent institutions... So what do we make of that then? Perhaps you could make an argument of him being an "inconsistent anarchist" - but even that - him "making comments in support of Chavez" or kind remarks about others should not be misconstrued as some kind of endorsement of Marxism-Leninism... (Similar with Sanders: him calling Sanders a "breath of fresh air" should not be misconstrued as a full-blown endorsement of social democracy - especially when his career has been spent attacking the hierarchical nature of capitalism and the problems of markets, etc.)

https://libcom.org/library/soviet-union-versus-socialism-noam-chomsky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GEbg7RhqII

Are we going to wheel out Chomsky defending that holocaust denier as well (the Faurisson Affair), portray him as an anti-Semite?

zugwang

I really don't get it;

Evidently. That Chomsky could be contradictory seems impossible for you to believe. That supporting state regimes may be contradictory to being a professed anti-statist appears equally hard for you to grasp.

Red Marriott

zugwang

I really don't get it;

Evidently. That Chomsky could be contradictory seems impossible for you to believe. That supporting state regimes may be contradictory to being a professed anti-statist appears equally hard for you to grasp.

I'm sorry, but did you just not read anything I said?

zugzwang

radicalgraffiti

zugzwang

radicalgraffiti

zugzwang

sexism an racism are political, how do you not get this?
and how can you compare this to alcoholism, what the fuck is wrong with you

What significance does Proudhon's supposed sexism have on his ideas of Mutualism?

are you disputing that proudhon was a massive misogynist?

I'm denying the relevance of anyone's personal traits when that's not what is being discussed... Tell me how Proudhon's possible sexism has any bearing on his market socialist ideas, or all the other political contributions he made?

"the personal is political"

And ... ? Where is the sexism in Proudhon's Mutualism or advocacy of workers' self-management?

anti sexism and anti racism isn't an optional extra for anarchists you know

and this which i quoted earlier come from his most famous text "what is property"

Between woman and man there may exist love, passion, ties of custom, and the like; but there is no real society. Man and woman are not companions. The difference of the sexes places a barrier between them, like that placed between animals by a difference of race. Consequently, far from advocating what is now called the emancipation of woman, I should incline, rather, if there were no other alternative, to exclude her from society

you absolutely cant separate his sexism from his political activity

Red Marriott

That Chomsky could be contradictory seems impossible for you to believe.

He's also called states fundamentally violent institutions... So what do we make of that then? Perhaps you could make an argument of him being an "inconsistent anarchist" - but even that - him "making comments in support of Chavez" or kind remarks about others should not be misconstrued as some kind of endorsement of Marxism-Leninism... (Similar with Sanders: him calling Sanders a "breath of fresh air" should not be misconstrued as a full-blown endorsement of social democracy - especially when his career has been spent attacking the hierarchical nature of capitalism and the problems of markets, etc.)

radicalgraffiti

you absolutely cant separate his sexism from his political activity

Could anyone else please back me up here. This is ridiculous. Proudhon's sexism has nothing to do with his political contributions or advocacy of workers' self-management, or the modern-day versions of market socialism that draw from the works of Proudhon, or how Marx was influenced by Proudhon, etc. etc. (Stirner and Marx were also part of the Die Freien circle by the way.) Please just stop it.

Rommon

but i do think that "all religion is is a world view" is inaccurate as not al world view qualify religion

I personally disagree, I think that almost any worldview, if you trace it back it to its assumptions and fundamental grounds, you'll find a metaphysical/quasi religious ground and some category of "sacred".

Of course this is a controversial viewpoint and I understand that's my people disagree with it. But, I basically follow the philosopher/theologian John Milbank in saying that "religion" is inescapable since every human system of meaning ultimately has at its base a sacred category of some absolute truth or metaphysical foundation.

But of course that's just my opinion.

well you can define it like that if you want, i personally think that even if this is true

every human system of meaning ultimately has at its base a sacred category of some absolute truth or metaphysical foundation.

that would be something about humans that made them capable of religion, rather than being religion in it self

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/proudhon-sexism-and-racism

So, as with his racism, his sexism should be no reason not to read Proudhon, discuss (and critique) his ideas and indicate their key part in the evolution of anarchism and the wider socialist movement.

Chomsky has a long career of speaking supportive "kind remarks" while on visits to stalinist state regimes. He doesn't see that as contradictory but as compatible with his anti-imperialist politics. His anarchism seems more a philosophical position quite distinct from his realpolitik.

Did you not read this?

That supporting state regimes may be contradictory to being a professed anti-statist appears equally hard for you to grasp.

Red Marriott

Chomsky has a long career of speaking supportive "kind remarks" while on visits to stalinist state regimes. He doesn't see that as contradictory but as compatible with his anti-imperialist politics. His anarchism seems more a philosophical position quite distinct from his realpolitik.

Did you not read this?

That supporting state regimes may be contradictory to being a professed anti-statist appears equally hard for you to grasp.

I read it; I just don't think you've grasped what I've said, nor do I think you understand Chomsky's position if you think he's a Stalinist or some other variety of authoritarian socialist.

I think it's kind of like worker cooperatives. He's made some "kind remarks" about Mondragon, but then also pointed out all the bad stuff, it existing in a market system, etc.

Could anyone else please back me up here. This is ridiculous. Proudhon's sexism has nothing to do with his political contributions or advocacy of workers' self-management

Proudhon's sexism has everything to do with his political contributions, if 50% of workers are women. He was called out on his sexism by his contemporaries, so you can't get away with the prevailing attitudes of the times old chestnut. His sexism was extreme even by the the standards of his period, as was his anti-semitism, what with his opinions that Jewish people should be sent to Asia or killed.

To be honest, even though Proudhon was the first person to call themselves an anarchist, I would probably describe him as a proto-anarchist, rather than an anarchist as such.

I don't think it's a particularly good idea to lionize the great thinkers, founding fathers, philosophers of the movement etc. They're only flawed human beings.

Fleur

Could anyone else please back me up here. This is ridiculous. Proudhon's sexism has nothing to do with his political contributions or advocacy of workers' self-management

Proudhon's sexism has everything to do with his political contributions, if 50% of workers are women. He was called out on his sexism by his contemporaries, so you can't get away with the prevailing attitudes of the times old chestnut. His sexism was extreme even by the the standards of his period, as was his anti-semitism, what with his opinions that Jewish people should be sent to Asia or killed.

To be honest, even though Proudhon was the first person to call themselves an anarchist, I would probably describe him as a proto-anarchist, rather than an anarchist as such.

I don't think it's a particularly good idea to lionize the great thinkers, founding fathers, philosophers of the movement etc. They're only flawed human beings.

We all know Proudhon said some sexist and some other horrible and objectionable things, but where is that in his writings about workers' self-management? You can't possibly be denying Proudhon's contribution to anarchist political thought, can you? I've read Proudhon, and I wouldn't have read him if he were banging on about sexism or misogyny all the time; that's not what his political writings are about... Is there's something objectionable in Proudhon's famous phrase "property is theft," a quote which all consistent anarchists should agree with? It conveys how property excludes other people who don't possess it and creates the conditions where others may be exploited, having to sell their labor. Where's the objectionable content there? That's what I'm talking about. That's part of Proudhon's legacy and his political contribution. Not the sexist and misogynist nonsense he wrote (which he was not alone in writing about).

Proudhon's sexism has everything to do with his political contributions, if 50% of workers are women.

This is simply not true, or if it is, then please substantiate it with examples of where his shortcomings played any role in his political writings/contributions, like his market socialism or support of workers' self-management.

To be fair, he wouldn't have mentioned women much in his writings about workers self-management because he didn't consider women to be workers. He thought women were subordinate to men and were to be kept in their place, by violence if necessary, so obviously in his political theories on workers self-management they wouldn't get a mention.

His political writings were about what he wanted to make them about.

I don't know why you are getting so upset about people critiquing him? Certainly he was influential on anarchism but so what? That's no good reason to put him on a pedestal. All property is theft, fair enough but I don't think someone who fully supported patriarchy and was vehemently racist can be really called an anarchist, especially when he had contemporaries who did not - see Joseph Déjacque.

I find the creation of heroes a bit weird in all it's forms. That's just a personal opinion.

To be fair, he wouldn't have mentioned women much in his writings about workers self-management because he didn't consider women to be workers. He thought women were subordinate to men and were to be kept in their place, by violence if necessary, so obviously in his political theories on workers self-management they wouldn't get a mention.

His political writings were about what he wanted to make them about.

I don't know why you are getting so upset about people critiquing him? Certainly he was influential on anarchism but so what? That's no good reason to put him on a pedestal. All property is theft, fair enough but I don't think someone who fully supported patriarchy and was vehemently racist can be really called an anarchist, especially when he had contemporaries who did not - see Joseph Déjacque.

I find the creation of heroes a bit weird in all it's forms. That's just a personal opinion.

I'm not putting anyone up on a pedestal... I'm simply saying that Proudhon contributed to libertarian socialist thought, is an important figure, and that his political contributions have nothing to do with sexism or misogyny, as pointed out in the link I posted a couple posts up. I'm glad at least someone finally recognizes that. To say that Proudhon is "not an anarchist" is at odds with basically all anarchist literature and is really just blatant falsehood, considering how extensively he's quoted and relied upon in the Anarchist FAQ, among other books.

Fucking incredible. Hooray for ignorance - yeah?

This is simply not true, or if it is, then please substantiate it with examples of where his shortcomings played any role in his political writings/contributions, like his market socialism or support of workers' self-management.

It's pretty simple really, if someone thinks all women and other races are inferior then by extrapolation his politics excluded these people. An anarchism which is only for white european dudes is not an anarchism worth a dime. To separate someone's deeply held personal convictions from their political convictions is not possible.

But I don't see your problem with people critiquing him? He's been dead since 1865, anarchism have moved on since his time, (not far enough imo,) I'm not sure what the relevance of his "legacy" is. He was just a guy who wrote something, he has influenced people, as he was influenced himself. I see no reasons to treat his writings, or those of anyone else, as something immutable and quasi-sacred. He influenced anarchism. So what? It's 2017 and I'm sure if people want to dive down a rabbit hole of the history of anarchist thought then hooray for them but getting in a huff because people point out that your heroes have feet of clay is a bit silly. Same goes for Chomsky. The adulation he receives is ridiculous.

To be fair though, a more important critique of Proudhon's political writings would be that he based them on the contemporary economy of France, which were pretty much unique, still being an economy of journeymen, artisans and peasants, which no longer existed in more industrialised European countries, such as Germany and England. It could be argued that the conditions were uniquely French and therefore his mutualism and market socialism, which was at best utopian, would not have been able to have been reproduced elsewhere, in what were more globalised and industrialised markets elsewhere in 19th century Europe and America.

DP

So what? It's 2017 and I'm sure if people want to dive down a rabbit hole of the history of anarchist thought then hooray for them but getting in a huff because people point out that your heroes have feet of clay is a bit silly. Same goes for Chomsky. The adulation he receives is ridiculous.

Proudhon is not my hero (so please stop inventing stuff up), and I was only defending Chomsky against these asinine "liberalism" claims made by people who haven't even read him, and comparing him to a Stalinist - the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I only recognize the contributions Proudhon has made to libertarian socialist thought. That's all.

It's pretty simple really, if someone thinks all women and other races are inferior then by extrapolation his politics excluded these people. An anarchism which is only for white european dudes is not an anarchism worth a dime. To separate someone's deeply held personal convictions from their political convictions is not possible.

His sexism has absolutely nothing to do with his support of workers' self-management or the socialization of the means of production, or all the other ideas he wrote about and that people invoke today when talking about anarchism and that mix with the other schools like Collectivism and Communism and other modern-day forms of market socialism - Proudhon IS anarchism. That's why the Anarchist FAQ and other anarchism-related books spend so much time quoting him. That's why I'm so taken aback and frustrated by you people calling Proudhon "not an anarchist" and saying that his ideas are worthless. You can't talk about anarchism without talking about the ideas and contributions made by people like Proudhon and Bakunin. You can't talk about 'authoritarian socialism' without talking about people like Proudhon and Bakunin who opposed the socialists affiliated with Marx - all in spite of their personal failings, which are not part of their political ideas and are therefore of no consequence.

I'm not sure what the relevance of his "legacy" is.

I already told you what his contribution/legacy was: his support of workers' self-management, his market socialism, and other political ideas. Since you clearly haven't read him and have only heard about him being a sexist and misogynist, you wouldn't know. Like I said before, this is a common line I hear from the Leninists and Trotskyists I've come across who just love focusing on the personal failings of people like Proudhon, Bakunin, or Makhno in order to discredit them and not confront their political ideas.

To help you understand Proudhon (taken from Accumulation of Freedom):

As we mentioned before Proudhon was an advocate of a form of market socialism called mutualism. Mutualism was an anti-capitalist model that saw mutual banks and credit associations as a way to socialize productive property and allow for a form of dual power for workers, particularly through the use of low-interest loans, charging only the necessary interest to pay for administration. ... While mutualism is not typically advocated by anarchists anymore, we still owe much of our development of economics to Proudhon (ironically enough, Marxists also owe this debt to Proudhon). Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged there are still some advocates of mutualism.

To be fair though, a more important critique of Proudhon's political writings would be that he based them on the contemporary economy of Fra ...

That's not the anarchist critique of Proudhon, and I think we can deduce by now that you're not an anarchist because you're not even talking about anarchism. The anarchist (libertarian communist) critique of Proudhon and Mutualism is that he advocated a market system, which most anarchists today now reject in favor of socializing the means of production (workers' self-management) as well as the products of labor (so free access to the products of labor), and distributing according to need rather than according to purchasing power in a market system.

Proudhon had many failings, personal and political. Yet he was the first to call himself an anarchist, reclaiming what was essentially a political abuse word. He made a valuable but flawed contribution to the development of anarchist thought - though his "market anarchism" was eclipsed by the likes of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and basically... anarchist communism!

It's over thirty years ago since I read anything by him and I didn't read loads. My understanding of politics was poorer then and my memory now is hazy but I had (and still have) abeolutely no problem with seeing him as an anarchist, although one that I strongly disagreed with.

Hmm... anarchist or proto-anarchist? I think that depends on how broad one's definition of anarchism is. The fact that he was also a massively vile sexist and racist shitbag makes him, certainly on the personal level, not only a very poor anarchist but a dreadful human being. But excluding him from the "community" of historic anarchist thinkers is as stupid as Top of the Pops re-runs or appreciations of 70s glam rock in which all mention of Gary Glitter/the Glitter Band have been completely erased.

But then political embarrassment can be a powerful thing.

On the issue of mocking religion.

As a devout Christian I personally don't really care if people mock Christianity. Generally the "mocking" ends up being from someone who is profoundly ignorant about theology, exegesis, history and religion in general, and it usually takes the form of idiotic quips like "your big daddy in the sky" or "Christianity is anti science" or "why don't you not eat pork, it's in the bible"; usually when I hear stuff like that I just ignore it and frankly, lose respect for the person; to some one who understands theology and Christian thought those "mocks" just reveal a persons ignorance, it sounds like when fundamentalists mock evolution by saying "my grandpa wasn't a monkey" or "if evolution was true, how come there are still apes" a person who mocks evolution like that just reveals himself as ignorant of the science. The same is often true with those who mock religion.

That being said this is mocking from self righteous and usually quite stupid atheists who don't know anything about theology and don't want to know anything, those one can ignore. There are however, some who specifically (especially in the U.S. And Europe) target Islam, those who do so often do so out of ignorance, but it often comes from a place of thinly veiled ethno-centrism, and is more dangerous, not to say there are not things to criticize about Islam, I have problems with it theologically (obviously otherwise I would be a Muslim), but I've notice a lot of mocking agaisnt Islam differs from mocking of other faiths in that it is motivated to incite ethnic hatred.

zugwang

I read it; I just don't think you've grasped what I've said, nor do I think you understand Chomsky's position if you think he's a Stalinist or some other variety of authoritarian socialist.

No one has said he's a Stalinist or authoritarian, only that he's happy to mix with such anti-working class states due to anti-imperialist sentiments. I understand your remarks - and Chomsky's. Lesser-evilism, supporting smaller regimes against bigger regimes, perhaps basking in flattering invitations from Presidents etc. Nothing remotely consistent or anti-statist to see there. One can try to excuse it as "inconsistent" but if one bothers to call oneself an "anarchist" it does require some consistency and if it's not on the core premise of anti-statism it only devalues any credible meaning. He's comfortable to be an "anarchist" and lend credibility by uncritical visits to states where all native anarchists and other dissidents were long ago swept into jail or chased into exile. Meanwhile he'll give lectures about the need for 'solidarity with the oppressed'.

And just on Chomsky there is also this critical text relating to some other of his contradictory past practice:
http://libcom.org/history/chomsky-war-research-mit

Serge

I'm not excluding Proudhon from the community of anarchist thinkers (although I don't think he was a very good anarchist), I just think that no-one, no matter how prominent in a school of thought, is exempt from criticism. Given that this is a clusterfuck of a thread about religion, treating anarchist theories as scripture is a little ironic.

This thread is pretty wild. Firstly I get called a liberal because I take issue with someone comparing a queer youth group to a nazi extermination camp, then I'm told that I'm definitely not an anarchist because I've not sufficiently genuflected to Proudhon.

Firstly, pretty sure Chomsky can defend himself. He's not short of any platforms.

Secondly, yes I have read Proudhon, back in the day when I thought reading nineteenth century political philosophy was relevant to my life. Experience has told me that it really isn't. There's always going to be people who throw themselves into the history of theory, I am not one of those people, mostly because I find it stupefyingly boring.

I don't really give a fuck about "legacies" actually. It seems to be a concept which Americans absolutely adore, the place is stuffed with statues, pictures, museums, all sorts of reverential iconography of Great Men, extolling their legacies. To be fair, I cut American historians a lot of slack for this, given that American history is largely perceived as starting with the Mayflower but I see history and philosophy as a continuum and just because one man came up with a good idea going on two centuries ago doesn't mean I have to feel especially reverential, grateful or in awe of him. His theories have been expanded upon, improved upon and surpassed. You can argue that to understand anarchism you have to be fully proficient in the theories of Proudhon. You could also argue that to understand Capital you have to be fully proficient in understanding Ricardo and Mill. To understand Ricardo, you have to understand Bentham. You could probably go back to Aristotle but who's got time for that shit? Not me.

I generally think that the No Leaders clause in anarchism means that I don't have to lionize nineteenth century philosophers either.

My argument is pretty simple. It doesn't require citations from political writings to elucidate it. It is not possible to separate a persons strongly held personal convictions from their political convictions. In this case, Proudhon's deep seated support for patriarchy and white supremacy are also political opinions. It's not like they are his opinions on whether or not he liked asparagus.* Just because it's not overt in a particular set of writings, which it wouldn't be, doesn't mean he should be exempt from criticism for it. Nor do I feel I should be overly respectful of a man I would have probably booted out of my house for being a complete shitbag, just because he had some sound ideas about workers self organization because quite frankly people have come up with better ideas since. I don't care about the opinions of strangers on this website or any other part of the internet about me but if your standards of who is an anarchist includes holding especially reverential opinions of the Founding Fathers of anarchism, then that's a pretty elitist view of what anarchism is.

Also, I think the Anarchist FAQ is a really useful tool but that's all it is, a tool. I don't refer to it as a blueprint for how I should formulate my opinions, but there again I'm not a theory nerd. To each their own, I suppose but I really don't pore over the works of great thinkers to justify or consolidate my own opinions.

*Personally, I'm ambivalent about asparagus too.

Proudhon was a currency crank opposed to strikes and insurrections. He was an anarchist for sure, but I don't see how he's relevant to present-day class struggle anarchism (rather than mutualism).

Aspargus is awesome and when you think about it, so is this thread. All thanks to yours truly ofcourse.

Asparagus is awesome in more ways than one.

More asparagus is grown in Worcestershire than anywhere else in the UK, and the asparagus from the Vale of Evesham has been considered the best in the world for many years.

The pungent properties of asparagus has been know for a long time. Back in 1731 the Scottish mathematician and doctor, John Arbuthnot wrote that asparagus gives urine “a foetid smell”. Not everyone dislikes the smell, though: Marcel Proust said it had the effect of transforming his “humble chamber pot into a bower of aromatic perfume”.

EDIT
This is a derail - though I do believe in asparagus.

Is asparagus anarchist though?

Serge Forward

Is asparagus anarchist though?

I think you'll find, as I already pointed out, aspargus is just as anarchist as christianity. Infact asparagus is more anarchist because it doesn't have a list of ten commandments that tell us what to do. Pretty obvious really.

Asparagus is far too labour intensive to grow, is therefore the pampered brat of the vegetable kingdom. Under the revolutionary vegetable republic spuds and cabbage will rule.

You try telling that to the militant horticulturalist wing of the movement.

Red Marriott

Asparagus is far too labour intensive to grow, is therefore the pampered brat of the vegetable kingdom. Under the revolutionary vegetable republic spuds and cabbage will rule.

Don't forget your Turnip brothers and sisters. I suspect you might be a capitalist spy.

See what I mean? Asparagus is something that unjustifiably produces such strong feelings. I can't be bothered to wait 2-3 years to crop a plant which is going to need babying along the way. Give me some nice, reliable brassicas any day.

How very bourgeois! Remember the old saying, "where there's muck, there's brassicas."

Fleur

Given that this is a clusterfuck of a thread about religion, treating anarchist theories as scripture is a little ironic.

Secondly, yes I have read Proudhon, back in the day when I thought reading nineteenth century political philosophy was relevant to my life. Experience has told me that it really isn't.

I'm not treating them like scripture. Some of Proudhon's political ideas were stupid (e.g. like his support of markets and opposition to social revolution in favor of "gradually growing out" of government). These are where our ideas come from (presuming you're an anarchist - you know - on this website called "libertarian communism" - i.e. "anarchism"). Berkman, Proudhon, the Anarchist FAQ and other sources of libertarian socialist theory are where I'm getting my ideas from. Where are you getting yours, if we're just throwing people like Proudhon (and Bakunin?) out the window, just because they made some objectionable remarks that had nothing to do with their political writings?

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/proudhon-sexism-and-racism

I don't really give a fuck about "legacies" actually.

It’s about his contributions to anarchist political thought; legacy is just a synonym the way I was using it.

I generally think that the No Leaders clause in anarchism means that I don't have to lionize nineteenth century philosophers either.

Secondly, yes I have read Proudhon, back in the day when I thought reading nineteenth century political philosophy was relevant to my life.

His theories have been expanded upon, improved upon and surpassed.

What? Are we talking about libertarian communism, now? That goes back to 19th and early 20th century theorists as well (with people like Kropotkin, Goldman and Berkman, Malatesta, etc.)... Really, where are you getting your politics from if you don't like reading people from centuries ago, or people who had some disgraceful views that had no relation to their political writings? What is the foundation of your ideas?

It is not possible to separate a persons strongly held personal convictions from their political convictions.

In this case, Proudhon's deep seated support for patriarchy and white supremacy are also political opinions.

You have yet to explain what bearing Proudhon's more objectionable views had on his political ideas. If you're going to say that his sexism or misogyny bleeds into his political writings (like, say, his writings about workers' self-management), then substantiate that claim with examples, please.

jura

Proudhon was a currency crank opposed to strikes and insurrections. He was an anarchist for sure, but I don't see how he's relevant to present-day class struggle anarchism (rather than mutualism).

I precisely pointed that out, in my post that got down-voted twice for some reason, why most anarchists today (of the libertarian communist persuasion) oppose Mutualism, but he also made contributions to anarchist political thought with his support of workers' self-management, his writings about private property, etc. And that should not be ignored, and it isn't if you read through the Anarchist FAQ, which is talking about workers' self-management all over the place.

Just to repeat myself:

The anarchist (libertarian communist) critique of Proudhon and Mutualism is that he advocated a market system, which most anarchists today now reject in favor of socializing the means of production (workers' self-management) as well as the products of labor (so free access to the products of labor), and distributing according to need rather than according to purchasing power in a market system.

zugzwang

I precisely pointed that out, in my post that got down-voted twice for some reason, why most anarchists today (of the libertarian communist persuasion) oppose Mutualism, but he also made contributions to anarchist political thought with his support of workers' self-management, his writings about private property, etc. And that should not be ignored, and it isn't if you read through the Anarchist FAQ, which is talking about workers' self-management all over the place.

Well, sure, but many other thinkers also made contributions on self-management and private property without being opposed to collective working-class militancy. But if this is a question of including Proudhon in an anthology or not, then sure, do include him (and many others). I just don't see how he is relevant in any other way than a historical curiosity or a distant predecessor to class struggle anarchism.

My first instinct is to say OK, yeah, whatever dude, because this is a pretty futile use of my time but...

I used to get my political opinions from books, or at least I started formulating my own ideas and found an ideology which most suited those opinions. Believe it or not, I have actually read a fuck ton of theory from the founding fathers of our politics, however at this point of my life, now that I’m pushing 50, I no longer feel the need to refer to these people to formulate my own opinions. I realize that some people find the history of anarchist theory fascinating, however I don’t personally find it as useful in my own life as the ability to make up my own mind about things. In fact, I find it as irritating as hell when having a conversation with other anarchists, other people’s need to pop in a quote by Kropotkin, or whoever, to elucidate their opinion on something relevant to today. I generally think that if Kropotkin was actually in the room then he could have his say but given that he’s not here, I would rather hear the opinion of the person I am talking to.

I expect most people who argue here in these forums are aware of the first principles of anarchism. The foundation of my ideas came from my own experiences and observations of the world. I’m pretty sure where most anarchists get their foundations from, including the people you named. If you’re getting your political foundations solely from the writings of these men, as well as the FAQ which you keep referring to, then your anarchism is a very impoverished one. Reading a book is no substitute for experiencing a life. Anarchy is everywhere, put the book down, go out and find some. It’s very useful that these people have written these theories down but it doesn’t make anyone less of an anarchist because they don’t treat them like the fucking holy trinity. No-one is above criticism, including famous anarchists. It is also an incredibly patronizing and elitist attitude you have, that you can’t be an anarchist unless you’re intimately familiar with the theoretical writings of these people. It’s lamentable that anarchism has become such a small, fringe ideology, often dominated by people with a strong theoretical background but that’s not always been the case and it’s unlikely that when it was a much larger, mass movement that all anarchists were experts on the theories of Proudhon. If you have to pass an extensive and academic theory test to get into the anarcho club then it’s a shit club to be in.

I am not going to cite Proudhon because that will involve me reading the tedious old fuck, I’ve been there, done that and have no intention of doing it again. If you can’t see that is impossible to disentangle someone’s political opinions and their (highly political) opinions on such things as patriarchy and race, I see no point in this discussion anyway. You can’t compartmentalize these things, they all interact.

You can’t compartmentalize these things, they all interact.

... Where is it in regards to his political ideas?

Yeah if you want to just stop these exchanges, I'd be fine with that, too. I've been asking this same quesiton which you seem to be evading for eight or so posts now, going nowhere.

Yeah, OK, whatever dude.

I really disagree with the idea that a few famous individuals are the origin of anarchist politics, i think that actual their texts should be seen as a sample of political ideas that where around at the time, yes they represent the ideas of the authors, but those authors did not from there views in a vacuum, the socialist movement was vast and we are presented with only a small sample of that, disproportionately from its more privileged members, the vast majority of thought and discussion that lead to the development of anarchism/communism is lost with only a small fraction from those individuals who had the time energy and opportunity to publish there ideas remaining, and of what remains who we hear about is limited by how famous people where, who was appealing to translates and historians etc

Ideas like workers self management where most likely developed by anonymous workers well before anyone wrote about them in a book. if you look at history you can find people who had anarchist like ideas but who are less famous than the "founding fathers" some are mentioned here https://libcom.org/history/prehistory-idea-part-one eg The Enragés

I personally think that the attempt to construct and anarchist pantheon comes from imitation of ideologies like marxism, whether consciously or not, and tends to hinder theoretical development in anarchism, which as Fleur says best comes from engage with real people and issues