Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes
The debate between Especifismo and every other strain of anarchism seems to not be based on results. If every anarchist wants the same results then is their preference of methodology based on results or something else?
by (170 points)
One possible answer is that not every anarchist wants the same results.
It is true it may be anachism as an ideology and a goal is not well developed at this point. We don't know what to do. Lots of radical rhetoric but very few ways to apply it.

Anarchists inability to articulate their position in present conditions;the movements inability to develop a strategy for achieving short mid and long term goals IRL IS Especifismo critique of disorganized and synthesis anarchism.
It is a method that is an answer to these questions. Not simply replacing the people in the struggle. Not just making propaganda or cultural groups. Not just being part of social movements and not advancing anarchisms influence.

That is why especifismo exists is to make Anarchism a social vector, an idea with broad influence in struggles against oppression.

1 Answer

+2 votes
Because some of us care about the means as much as, or more than, results.

I would even argue this is part of what makes us anarchists, and not, say, Marxists, who want the same results as most anarchists (a classless and stateless society) but whose methodology includes exercising state power.

Also, because some of us refuse to accept the separation of means from ends.

Also, what Rice Boy said.
by (20.5k points)
If we want anarchy. that is no bosses then we want the same results. We may agree on little else personal life style, music preferences etc.
The difference between anarchism and Marxism is an understanding of political power and humans. Some "Libertarian Marxist"(anarchists inspired by marx) have done quite a bit towards anarchism though that is the horizontalism empowers each person and thus takes power from the political religious and economic elite.

Marxism didn't work. It didn't free the world. So all questions to insurrection-anarchism-platform-Especifismo whatever, a method of organizing and fighting should be chosen by results. Like based on evidence rather than faith.

To be an Anarchist one must want Anarchy that is a world without oppression or at least institutional coercive authority being weakened and everyone being able to rule cooperation and solidarity for freedom. When we say results Anarchism and Marxism are measured by the same stick can it get us free? how and how much?
Anarchism as a strain has done great for fighting for freedom marxism has been co-opted seemlessly into institutional control...
So my question was if we are working towards anarchism shouldn't our preference be for whatever seems to work best, not a matter of personal preference?
For example if a Anarchist movement finds they must defend themselves with arms to survive they can't seriously expect success by choosing their preference of ghandian non-violence. It is not a successful option to ya know achieve the goal.
Wouldn't that still apply to question of how anarchists ought to organize.
Can you please rephrase your comments more coherently? I can't understand what your points are.

For example, libertarian Marxists are certainly NOT "anarchists inspired by Marx"; they are usually anti-Party Marxists and perhaps anti-state Marxists. But by choosing the label "Marxist" they cannot be anarchists.

Marxism wasn't "co-opted." By whom would it have been co-opted? Other Marxists?

" if we are working towards anarchism shouldn't our preference be for whatever seems to work best, not a matter of personal preference?"
This seems to be an argument for utilitarianism rather than what most anarchists these days refer to as "prefiguration," also known as the means used being equal to the ends desired. That sort of integrity is not "personal preference," at least not the kind I find interesting and attractive.
Firstly I use co-opted in the sense that a movement who's aim was freedom from oppression became part of it.

So in this sense Christianity Islam's anti-debt anti-oppression strain as with the  workers movements inspired by Marxism and the vision of doing away with capitalism
Many Many efforts towards freedom from oppression have been co-opted
By so-called friends of movements and their known enemies

 whether it is the Christians in their tiny communes preaching sharing and pacifism and human brotherhood and the end of the empire was co-opted by Emperor Constantine becomes the first use this to the building of empire.
I digress.

When I say results of an anarchist society I mean the type of society that necessarily expresses the aspirations of Our nature towards freedom solidarity and truth freedom from superstition etc. typified by this quote and like the main thrust of the whole document.
 "Anarchism therefore is a part of human nature, communism its logical extension."  -[]   

So like Political Anarchism like with a capital 'A' (rather than anarchism with a little  what everyone does, and so does every rebellion/revolt at least a little to live) makes the realization of the fullest expression of anarchist nature the basis of a new society their political project.

So in my view with that presumption, each method like Anarcho-syndaclist insurrectionist pacifist individualist feminist even primitivist and the right wing libertarians likely and all the rest
Want anarchy a free society where no one rules another.

I guess I don't see judging by results as utilitarian at all. Just M.aterialist, like what actually are the results not what is believed about the results.
Utilitarian I thought was a moral precept that what is best for the most is always best which is ironically anti-democratic because each person takes their turn being of the minority position--but I digress again
Like anyway no one could call a genocidal war a anarchist one without being completely incoherent and ridiculous
Anarchist as in being apposed to coercive authority--being arbitrarily murderous and tyrannical is a contradiction in terms.


So libertarian advocating freedom of thought and action
means Anarchist in every country except the USA and maybe Canada
So when I see what Libertarian Marxists do and say they look like anarcho-marxists to me
after all Marx was a philosopher of how capitalist society acts and set down some systematic framework to study things that surely works for some revolutionaries and some Apolitical academics.

Ok, Ok taking too long. just here me out.

If people aren't materialists ( then it would be harder to judge anything by much except by personal preference.

What I mean is work is sometimes unpleasant and uncomfortable but that isn't really a good barometer of whether it is a good idea.
In fact most politics are the pits. the struggle can kill you and you may lose much of what you hold dear.

So I think it may be tempting to choose methods that are more comfortable and traditional and frankly for that reason easier regaurdless of the fact that in terms of political content and even like possibility that the method will help bring about social revolution may turn out to be minimal based on evidence.

Prefiguration doesn't literaly mean the exact same thing now as later.
Otherwise we're talking about doing food not bombs from here to eternity. We can't want that. We should make it so such protest and method would become irrelevant replaced by better ways of getting everyone to have healthy food in their bellies.   

You can judge the impact by numbers by looking at the world. Isn't it then that we have to consider how best should we organize? So of course we have to make revolution and insurrection...
but we don't want to be breaking windows and getting into staged Napoleonic warfare with the cops forever

we need to think how can we organize in a way that the police state may one day be overpowered by the people and  abolished---that will take a whole lot of very organized people.

I guess the better question is, why don't anarchists just be honest about why they choose their tactics and then choose the best method they think will be most likely to result in anarchy, based on evidence?

sometimes throwing bricks is less scary than organizing at your job or sitting in a tree...
Read2much?, I have to point out two assumptions in your comment that I totally reject:

> "Anarchism therefore is a part of human nature, communism its logical extension."

> "we need to think how can we organize in a way that the police state may one day be overpowered by the people and  abolished---that will take a whole lot of very organized people."

I don't believe human nature can be genuinely identified and said to exist, period. Whether that nature is anarchist or not. If it so happens that a lot of people are inclined to reject authority/hierarchy and find affinity with others who struggle with the same, then the explanation I'd come to is that that is simply the most desirable thing to do.

As for the abolition of policing, I don't understand how you make the leap from "we need to judge the impact [of our actions] ... by looking at the world" to "that will take a whole lot of very organized people". Are you implying that it will take a massive number of strategically organized anarchists to destroy the police? Or just a massive number of strategically organized people in general, whether they are anarchists or not? Or do you mean something different when you say "organized", like "possessing tactical ability and the means to act on it"? Because when I think of organized people, I think of massive, formal organizations.

I also believe that you're implying that anarchists should be materialists? If so, I can't really imagine why. Easy access to food, water, health, and shelter is something that is necessary, but it's also something that has been provided to certain degrees by various socialist and social democratic nations. It doesn't say much about the domination of cops and bosses, hierarchical relationships, existential void, commodification of everything under the sun, non-existent "communities" that nonetheless watch over atomized individuals...

Why is it that you assume anarchists are not already basing their methods on what they believe will most likely result in anarchy?

I just noticed this, but again I completely and totally reject this statement:

> "In fact most politics are the pits. the struggle can kill you and you may lose much of what you hold dear."

I'm invested in anarchism as a personally satisfying means of existing in (joyful) conflict with the social order, and spreading that conflict to whatever extent I can. I have absolutely zero interest in politics that require self-sacrifice as a general rule, because I am what I'm fighting for, first and foremost.
Read2much, you have only compounded my confusion about what you're trying to communicate.

Human nature is a chimera.

"Co-opt" means something different from how you're using it. It means putting something to a use different from what it was designed to do, yes, but by people who profess -- and possess -- irrefutable credentials to uphold those designs. It doesn't just mean contradictory.

If you're a materialist, then you must know of some method by which "an anarchist future" is measured by the anarchist actions of past and contemporary anarchists. Please clue us in to this metric.

You do not understand libertarian Marxism.

Work by definition is unpleasant and coercive, unless you're using the definition from physics (the transfer of energy). But (anti)political ideas are not based on physics. Try this:

Prefiguration is relevant to Food Not Bombs only in terms of how they organize each chapter. If the organizational form and decision-making and implementation process is horizontal, then it's prefigurative. Cooking and distributing free food is not prefigurative.

Evidence, as you're using it, is completely subjective. Unless you show your work and put in the units of measurement, whatever numbers you come up with are useless.   

God and the State

   by Mikhail Bakunin
I know you all have read God and the state right?

Chapter I
"Who is right, the idealists or the materialists? The question, once stated in this way, hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence. Yes, the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a reflection of its economic history.
    All branches of modem science, of true and disinterested science, concur in proclaiming this grand truth, fundamental and decisive: The social world, properly speaking, the human world--in short, humanity--is nothing other than the last and supreme development--at least on our planet and as far as we know--the highest manifestation of animality. But as every development necessarily implies a negation, that of its base or point of departure, humanity is at the same time and essentially the deliberate and gradual negation of the animal element in man; and it is precisely this negation, as rational as it is natural, and rational only because natural--at once historical and logical, as inevitable as the development and realization of all the natural laws in the world--that constitutes and creates the ideal, the world of intellectual and moral convictions, ideas."
This is what I'm saying reality of material conditions first then ideas second.

So sure. The struggle can be joyful, but it is a war. In war people are tortured imprisoned and killed in many horrible ways.
Glorifying any war as an end in its self is bad idea. I think, the struggle or Social war is an inconvenience and a tragedy for human freedom but it must be fought to ever expand freedom and solidarity.

Just Look at occupy or any struggle look at the brain damaged the terrorized and beaten that is what happens when you are a small threat.

Yes there is joy in resistance and joy in freedom but that is not all...
If Victor Jara's ghost could talk for example he would tell of what it means to be an artist a spirit who threatens the system. War any war is terrible it is important that revolutionaries not set people up to fail by preaching ideas that have been shown to necessarily end with the resistance being massacred and the people being enslaved.

That is why results matter. There is no magic bullet, no formula to ensure victory. However when we move forward we should look to what has worked to expand the oppressed capacity to fight and what are the necessary components to actually winning in the struggle.

I know many anarchists do this we spend a lot of time doing this. I have noticed though that some times ideas of how the world should be come first and how the world is come second. It should be the other way round.

Ok as many times as I use the word organized in my previous post this response will be anything but.

Sure a metric by wich how anarchist something is i believe is quite simple.

ok if 10 anarchists being horizontal in a collectiveis one prefigured unit

then we can clearly say a whole selfmanaged city where people provide for the needs and aspirations of each is quantifyably more anarchist or free and egalitarian.

in fact whole area of study sociology and anthropology habe ways to gagehow libertarian or autthoritarian a society is.

in specific aspects.

society is subjective. relative access to housing healthcare education power to makr decicions that impact you.

these are examples of non subjective things. in other words real no matter how you think about it.

this is in fact the rational basis for anarchist critique of capitalism and the state. we evaluate what they say look at numbers of people vs government their relative power look at priaons education environment poverty rape and child abuse statistivs etc.

all recorded with verifiable data.

so if these indicators in addition to measurable indicators of popular power go in an anarchist direction that means less oppression means more power to the people more freedom.

it is very simplistic but i believe it is essentialy true. You can measure how free you are and the relative oppression or freedom that exists in a society. Also social equality and solidarity are measurable.

So is support for a particular cause or movement.

People and what they think and do that is your unit of measurement when it comes to social movements or society in general. Also their relation to the world can be analyzed and in fact are.

things are far more knowable than post modern thought and absolute individual subjectivity would have it.

Oh yeah organized people organized horizontally meaning that a police apparatus as we know it really couldn't be well supported because the solidarity among the people making all decisions that effect them and voluntarily providing the effort necessary to live that would errode as people were victimized and alienated by such an attempt at a specialized and inhuman apparatus as the institution of police.

All I'm saying is

Maletesta said anarchy is organization organization and more organization. I think he was right.
Sadly, you have only increased the level of incoherence.
Wow. Yes individualism is a weak motivation for social struggle. Because an opportunity for an individual to be bought off or scared away is always there. If you are fighting only for yourself then you may notice you will not see the goal.

Most anarchists. Those founding fathers and mother's saw prison and comrades imprisoned and murdered.

The class war is no cake walk. Any war can kill you.

So Fight To Win.