QuoteFascism (partnership between government and private business) at its finest.
Not to get off point but (from wiki) interestingly the original Italian fascists were made up of "people who were previously socialists, syndicalists, military men and
anarchists but had become angered at the international left's opposition to patriotism and decided to form a new movement. The two biggest difference between the socialist and fascist movements is that fascism rejects the idea of class war in favor of class collaboration, while also rejecting socialist internationalism in favor of statist nationalism".
Quote from: BillKauffman on July 30, 2008, 04:17 PM NHFT
QuoteFascism (partnership between government and private business) at its finest.
Not to get off point but (from wiki) interestingly the original Italian fascists were made up of "people who were previously socialists, syndicalists, military men and anarchists but had become angered at the international left's opposition to patriotism and decided to form a new movement. The two biggest difference between the socialist and fascist movements is that fascism rejects the idea of class war in favor of class collaboration, while also rejecting socialist internationalism in favor of statist nationalism".
In that time period, anarchism was a much more socialist-leaning philosophy*: What separated fascism and socialism was the internationalism/nationalism divide, and what separated socialism and anarchism was the statist/anti-statist divide. And, even though fascism is a statist philosophy, it was very opposed to the politics and ideologies of the States that actually existed at the time. So it's no surprise that some anarchists could easily become outright socialists or fascists.
* Prior to Marx, anarchism, socialism, and communism were nearly the same thing. Marx split the movement, leading the communists off in an authoritarian direction, while Bakunin lead the anti-statist anarchist faction—and over time, anarchism has become a lot less focused on voluntary collectivism and more on individualistic voluntaryism. This is why there are myriad "variants" of anarchism nowadays, e.g., anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, &c..
Quoteover time, anarchism has become a lot less focused on voluntary collectivism and more on individualistic voluntaryism. This is why there are myriad "variants" of anarchism nowadays, e.g., anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, &c..
Do you think that is simply a function of us being here in the US vs. European anarchism which seems to be much more collectivist in nature?
Quote from: BillKauffman on July 31, 2008, 01:18 PM NHFT
Quoteover time, anarchism has become a lot less focused on voluntary collectivism and more on individualistic voluntaryism. This is why there are myriad "variants" of anarchism nowadays, e.g., anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, &c..
Do you think that is simply a function of us being here in the US vs. European anarchism which seems to be much more collectivist in nature?
Probably. The overall ethos of individualism in the United States is probably what pushed anarchism in that direction. Additionally, people like von Mises, Rand, and others were all in the United States when they made most of their contributions.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on July 31, 2008, 10:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on July 31, 2008, 01:18 PM NHFT
Quoteover time, anarchism has become a lot less focused on voluntary collectivism and more on individualistic voluntaryism. This is why there are myriad "variants" of anarchism nowadays, e.g., anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, &c..
Do you think that is simply a function of us being here in the US vs. European anarchism which seems to be much more collectivist in nature?
Probably. The overall ethos of individualism in the United States is probably what pushed anarchism in that direction. Additionally, people like von Mises, Rand, and others were all in the United States when they made most of their contributions.
Josiah Warren came to individualism circa 1825 in the US quite independently as the result of having participated in a failed communal experiment in New Harmony, Ind. based on the British socialist Robert Owen's philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Warren)
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 01, 2008, 06:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on July 31, 2008, 10:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on July 31, 2008, 01:18 PM NHFT
Quoteover time, anarchism has become a lot less focused on voluntary collectivism and more on individualistic voluntaryism. This is why there are myriad "variants" of anarchism nowadays, e.g., anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, &c..
Do you think that is simply a function of us being here in the US vs. European anarchism which seems to be much more collectivist in nature?
Probably. The overall ethos of individualism in the United States is probably what pushed anarchism in that direction. Additionally, people like von Mises, Rand, and others were all in the United States when they made most of their contributions.
Josiah Warren came to individualism circa 1825 in the US quite independently as the result of having participated in a failed communal experiment in New Harmony, Ind. based on the British socialist Robert Owen's philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Warren)
And in the nineteenth century, don't forget Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner).
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on August 01, 2008, 07:35 AM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 01, 2008, 06:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on July 31, 2008, 10:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on July 31, 2008, 01:18 PM NHFT
Quoteover time, anarchism has become a lot less focused on voluntary collectivism and more on individualistic voluntaryism. This is why there are myriad "variants" of anarchism nowadays, e.g., anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, &c..
Do you think that is simply a function of us being here in the US vs. European anarchism which seems to be much more collectivist in nature?
Probably. The overall ethos of individualism in the United States is probably what pushed anarchism in that direction. Additionally, people like von Mises, Rand, and others were all in the United States when they made most of their contributions.
Josiah Warren came to individualism circa 1825 in the US quite independently as the result of having participated in a failed communal experiment in New Harmony, Ind. based on the British socialist Robert Owen's philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Warren)
And in the nineteenth century, don't forget Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner).
Warren is the US version of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon)
"The publication of "What is Property?" attracted the attention of the French authorities, and also of Karl Marx who started a correspondence with Proudhon. The two men influenced each other; they met in Paris while Marx was exiled there. Their friendship ended completely when Marx responded to Proudhon's The System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Poverty in The Poverty of Philosophy. Their dispute was one of the sources of the split between the anarchists and the Marxists in the International Working Men's Association. Some writers such as Edmund Wilson have contended that Marx's attack on Proudhon arose from the latter's defense of Karl Grun, whom Marx bitterly disliked, but who had been preparing translations of Proudhon's work. There was also a disagreement between the followers of Mikhail Bakunin and Proudhon. Proudhon favored workers' associations (or co-operatives) as well as individual worker/peasant ownership over socialisation of land and workplaces and thought that social revolution could be achieved in a peaceful manner."
For good cause. Voluntary collectivism is unstable by mere definition. Though it is likely that all the individuals within a group would consent to an action at times, it is also likely that those times would be few... especially as the group size grew.
Divorce rates of over 50% give credence to this fact.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 01, 2008, 09:31 AM NHFT
For good cause. Voluntary collectivism is unstable by mere definition. Though it is likely that all the individuals within a group would consent to an action at times, it is also likely that those times would be few... especially as the group size grew.
Divorce rates of over 50% give credence to this fact.
I think "governance" via either consensus or contract present unique challenges that haven't exactly proven the test of time.