Recortes anarquistas

Sékioz de Niafre

Recortes de Wikipedia Issues in anarchism y entradas relacionadas.

1 Sobre la falsa dicotomía del anarquismo individualista vs social

«The individualist current emphasises negative liberty in opposing restraints upon the free individual, while the social current emphasises positive liberty in aiming to achieve the free potential of society through equality and social ownership»

«Max Baginski has argued that property and the free market are just other "spooks", what Stirner called to refer mere illusions, or ghosts in the mind, writing: "Modern Communists are more individualistic than Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the individual is enslaved — and how enslaved! [...] Communism thus creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the individual. I am a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of demand — that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation. Individualism and Communism go hand in hand".[117] Peter Kropotkin argued that "Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty — provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy [...]. Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work". [...]

Although commonly misconcepted, Marxism rejected egalitarianism in the sense of greater equality between classes, clearly distinguishing it from the socialist notion of the abolition of classes based on the division between workers and owners of productive property. [...] However, Marx's view of classlessness was not the subordination of society to a universal interest (such as a universal notion of equality), but it was about the creation of the conditions that would enable individuals to pursue their true interests and desires, making his notion of communist society radically individualistic. [...] "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" [principio que puede encontrarse ya en Code de la Nature 1755...]. Although his position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality, Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic. [...] Marx justified the forms of equality he did advocate such as the communal ownership and control of the economy on the grounds that they led to human freedom and human development rather than simply because they were egalitarian, writing that in such a society there are "[u]niversally developed individuals, whose social relations, as their own communal relations, are hence also subordinated to their own communal control".»

La dicotomía parece haberla reforzado el anarcocapitalismo, sobre el que parece haber bastante polémica respecto a si constituye o no un anarquismo: «As a whole, anarchism is seen part of the socialist tradition, with the main divide being between anti-market anarchists (most social anarchists, including anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists and collectivist anarchists) who support some form of decentralised economic planning and pro-market anarchists (certain individualist anarchists, including free-market anarchists and mutualists) who support free-market socialism. As such, Chartier has argued that anarcho-capitalists should reject capitalism and call themselves free-market advocates,»

«Contra anarcho-capitalists, anarchists argue that capitalism necessarily rest on the state to survive and state capitalism is seen as the inevitable result of both capitalism and state socialism. Furthermore, the free market itself for classical economists such as Adam Smith did not necessarily refer to a market free from government interference as it is now commonly assumed or how anarcho-capitalists see it, but rather free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities, implying that economic rents, i.e. profits generated from a lack of perfect competition, must be reduced or eliminated as much as possible through free competition.[195] While anarcho-capitalists who argue for private property which supports absentee and landlordism ownership rather than occupation and use property norms as well as the homestead principle are considered right-libertarians rather than anarchists (this is due to anarchism generally viewing any absentee ownership and ownership claims on land and natural resources as immoral and illegitimate[196] and seeing the idea of perpetually binding original appropriation as advocated by some anarcho-capitalists as anathema to traditional schools of anarchism as well as to any moral or economic philosophy that takes equal natural rights to land and the Earth's resources as a premise),[197] other anarcho-capitalists are closer to mutualism and are considered part of free-market anarchism which argue that a true free-market or laissez-faire system would be best served under socialism rather than capitalism.[198][199]»

«Left-libertarians "maintain that the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others. Such private appropriation is legitimate only if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if those who appropriate more are taxed to compensate those who are thereby excluded from what was once common property"»

«In particular, Chartier has argued that proponents of a genuinely free market, termed freed market to distinguish them from the common conception which these left-libertarians (referred to as left-wing market anarchists[180] or market-oriented left-libertarians)[177] believe to be riddled with statist and capitalist privileges,[181] should explicitly reject capitalism and identify with the global anti-capitalist movement while emphasizing that the abuses the anti-capitalist movement highlights result from state-tolerated violence and state-secured privilege rather than from voluntary cooperation and exchange. Indeed, proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership

1

«Right-libertarian conceptions of self-ownership extend the concept to include control of private property as part of the self», lo que puede conducir a la wage slavery.

and free markets while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions these ideas support anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical and pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism [neocolonialism and/or cultural imperialism] in foreign policy; and thoroughly radical views regarding such cultural issues as gender, sexuality and race.[182][179]»

«Some supporters argue that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism.[154][155][156] However, most early individualist anarchists considered themselves "fervent anti-capitalists [who see] no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism".[157] Many defined themselves as socialists. These early individualist anarchists defined capitalism in various ways, but it was often discussed in terms of usury: "There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and houses, and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer".[158] Excluding these, they tended to support free trade, free competition and varying levels of private property such as mutualism based on occupation and use property norms.»

«Another major issue and divide within anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is that of property, more specifically the issues of private property. By property, or private property, ever since Proudhon's book What is Property?, published in 1840, anarchists meant possession (or what other socialists, including Marxists and communists, distingue as personal property) which he considered as liberty ("Property is liberty") versus productive property (such as land and infrastructure, or what Marxists terms the means of production and the means of labor) which he considered as theft ("Property is theft"), causing him to also say "Property is impossible".[201]

Individualist anarchists like Tucker started calling possession as property, or private property. Anarcho-capitalists generally make no such distinction. Such distinction is extremely important to anarchists and other socialists because in the capitalist mode of production private and personal property are considered to be exactly equivalent.»

«Anarchists typically discourage the concept of left-wing theories of anarchism on grounds of redundancy and that it lends legitimacy to the notion that anarchism is compatible with capitalism[215][216] or nationalism.»

«In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian[15][18][22][23] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[8][24] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[25] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States,»

Por supuesto, mismamente se ha dicho que el comunismo también es inherentemente autoritario (incluso en su forma anarcocomunista), aunque creo que esa afirmación se ha contraargumentado con más éxito, reconociendo que la relación entre ambos es complicada.

2 Otros

«many anarchists reject pacifism as an ideology, instead supporting a diversity of tactics [like tactical frivolity, black bloc, radical flank effect, squatting in Temporary Autonomous Zone, affinity group,

2

«Affinity groups engaged in political activism date to 19th century Spain. It was a favourite way of organization by Spanish anarchists (grupos de afinidad), and had their base in the tertulias or in the local groups»

counterpower,

3

«Mutualism – building alternative economies through co-operatives, credit unions and local purchasing.

Municipalism – building popular assemblies to make decisions at the community level.

Syndicalism – building revolutionary trade unions to confront management in the workplace.»

market socialism,

4

«profits generated by socially owned firms (i.e., net revenue not reinvested into expanding the firm) may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance, or be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend». Otra alternativa a esto (logísticamente bastante más complicada) es la máxima de Josiah Warren "cost the limit of price", i.e., la reducción del beneficio a cero de cara al consumidor (lo que es más fácil de decir que de hacer, dadas las fluctuaciones del mercado). Sea como fuere, aunque la idea me parece curiosa, insisto en que aquí lo estoy enmarcando como medio/táctica y no como meta (citaría a McNally Against the Market 1993, pero creo que el auge de la economía de la atención en la era de internet pone las limitaciones del mercado de manera mucho más patente).

workplace democracy...]. Authors Ward Churchill (Pacifism as Pathology, 1986) and Peter Gelderloos (How Nonviolence Protects the State, 2005; "The Failure of Nonviolence",[81] 2013) have published influential books critical of pacifist doctrine which they view as ineffectual and hypocritical.», «They also asserted that the established left, by advocating violence against certain protesters in order to protect corporate property, was fostering "an uncritical acceptance of the dominant value system of American consumer society: private property has a higher value than life."» (WTO Protester Organizers: Don’t Throw the Radicals Overboard 1999)

5

Complemento: Innuendo Studios CO-VIDs: the gandhi trap

«Late 20th century and contemporary anarchist writers (Paul Goodman, Herbert Read, and Colin Ward) intensified and expanded the anarchist critique of state education, largely focusing on the need for a system that focuses on children's creativity rather than on their ability to attain a career or participate in consumerism as part of a consumer society.[156] Contemporary anarchists such as Ward claim that state education serves to perpetuate socioeconomic inequality»

Igualmente interesante es el intento de renovación de la post-left anarchy, o la afirmación de Carson de que nos dirigimos hacia una panarchy.

3 Cierre personal

Si bien el tema me ha interesado desde hace tiempo,

6

Guardé la entrada en favoritos a 25/1/2013, aunque posiblemente no la leyese en su día. La de Anarquismo individualista es del 22/10/2012, y Pedagogía en el anarquismo y Movimiento okupa son de 11/2012.

creo que no fue hasta el 1/2021 (conversando con MBC) que me empecé a dar cuenta de que mi defensa de la democracia directa (Matemos al Estado...VOTANDO 25/11/2010) tenía un trasfondo o marco natural en el anarquismo (a pesar de que por la época, ¿a raíz del 15M?, leí Thoreau Desobediencia civil con gran interés, referencia anarquista donde las haya). También me ayudó a atar cabos la defensa de Roxana Kreimer al modelo del parecon, que descubrí en relación a sus respuestas a Rallo (8/2021). Sin embargo, no ha sido hasta leer sobre anarquismo en Wikipedia estos últimos días (escribo esto a 26/10/2021) que he visto clara la extensión de mi afinidad por el movimiento (que incluso alcanza cotas epistémicas con Feyerabend, así como estéticas,

7

No he leído la referencia clásica, Leo Tolstoy What is Art?, aunque las siguientes tesis me cautivaron en su día:

«El arte es una actividad humana consciente capaz de reproducir cosas, construir formas, o expresar una experiencia, si el producto de esta reproducción, construcción, o expresión puede deleitar, emocionar o producir un choque.» Władysław Tatarkiewicz Historia de seis ideas 1976.

«Las obras de arte se dividen en dos categorías: las que me gustan y las que no me gustan. No conozco ningún otro criterio.» Atribuido a Chéjov en Arturo Ortega Blake El gran libro de las frases célebres 2013.

aunque eso ya es otra historia).

8

Por el camino hubieron otros deslumbramientos, como el progresivo despertar anarquista de Renegade Cut a partir de Disco Elysium 4/2020, una conversa con MMM a ¿5/2021? o Sisyphus 55 Episode 9: What is Anarcho-Communism? Pero recordando una charla con ABP a 12/2019 sobre el fracaso histórico del comunismo de estado (en la que, en lugar de sospechar de que el problema podía estar en el adjetivo «de estado», implícito e inadvertido en la conversación, me fui a exponer la perspectiva troskista), creo que es obvio que me faltaba la pieza anarquista. De hecho, me parece recordar que mi desencanto político tras las elecciones catalanas del 10/2010 y las nacionales del 10/2011 fue tan grande, que realmente no volví a interesarme en serio por el tema político desde entonces, y de ahí que Philosophy Tube Intro to Anarchy: Power & Violence 1/2017 no me inspirase nada más que un me gusta.

Huelga decir, teniendo en cuenta mi historial (MI PARADIGMA DE UTOPIA c. 7/2009 es marcadamente comunista), que, además del parecon, me gusta el anarcocomunismo (mejor que el colectivismo y el mutualismo). El anarcosindicalismo y el anarquismo federalista, al menos a simple vista, también me parecen consistentes con el modelo de democracia directa de abajo a arriba. La ecología social de Bookchin y los anarquismos identitarios me llaman mismamente la atención, dado mi interés por la alteridad, la interseccionalidad y la agnotología.