[Subversive Rob]

Supporting the actions in '68 is not tantamount to becoming an "anarchist". Neither is leaving the PCF, which was by this point a degenerate part of Gaullist hegemony. Hell, Trots and Maoists were all heavily involved in '68.

[Utopian_Anarchist]

I'm sure the anarchy we're talking about it collectivised Anarchism?

[useless]

The workers had taken part in 68. The PCF and the Commies just stand on the side and later resigned.

[Subversive Rob]

Not necessarily true, whilst I agree that the PCF and its main Trade Union (CGT) behaved disgracefully throughout '68 there were communists who engaged with the movement. Including those who broke with the PCF but also considerable amounts of Maoists, "Castroites" and Trots. Now as a whole the movement may well have had a libertarian bent, due to the influence of students and Situationism, but still one cannot deny that communists did play their part.

But on the PCF, let's be serious, these people hardly deserve the title "communists" with the line they took. These are the people who didn't support the FLN and were soon to ditch "the dictatorship of the proletariat", being a commuinist party is not merely a name, it implies certain actions, which the PCF failed to fulfill.

[CCJ]

one cannot deny that communists did play their part.

Of course not. As always, they somehow managed to bring about the demise of an otherwise successful anarchist movement.

[Sans Salvador]

I would disagree that Tolstoy was an anarchist. He was first and foremost a Georgist, and the single tax is, in my view, not consistent with anarchism.

[useless]

Only the Commies who broke with the Stalinist PCF (partie communiste) , had taken part in their. That's true. But most Commies just stand by and later joined. They were sitting in the cafés in the Quartier Latin (the surrounding of the Sorbonne). Others tried to break the strikes and to take influence in the students at the Sorbonne. Both measures were taken to break the movement. In L`humanité they wrote in the beginning to stop building barricades, to stop fighting and to return home.
I prefer voting for Mamère than for any Commie.

So did Sartre broke with the Stalinist. Before he was not really keen on them.
All great philosophers and Marxists in France (Poulantzas, Aglietta, Foucault, Lévy-Strauss, Lacan, Derrida, Braudel and lots of others) broke with these Stalinists not only due to the willingness of PCF to stand by de Gaulle, but too to their claim of 'avantgarde'.

[Subversive Rob]

Of course not. As always, they somehow managed to bring about the demise of an otherwise successful anarchist movement.

"Otherwise successful" is I suppose the code for "one lacking popular support". I'd also point to the anarchists lack of concrete action in this case, as they decided that channeling "revolutionary action" was wrong. It also interesting to note where these anarchists have ended up, why there's Danny "le rouge" Cohn Bendit, in the Green Party.

Anyway the PCF did not merit the name "communist" at this point, it had some good theorists, some good militants but as a whole it had taken the path of revisionism.

Only the Commies who broke with the Stalinist PCF (partie communiste) , had taken part in their. That's true.

OK so we agree that communists were part of the movement, in a productive way too.

But most Commies just stand by and later joined.

This was, I think, because the PCF had a monopoly of far left thought and action, thus many people who would have wished to join the insurrection were following the "party line".

In L`humanité they wrote in the beginning to stop building barricades, to stop fighting and to return home.

Yep. Because as I said the degenerate PCF (as an institution) was an organic part of bourgeois hegemony by this point.

So did Sartre broke with the Stalinist. Before he was not really keen on them.

The PCF was hardly "Stalinist" at this time. They were pro-Khruschev and those that followed.

All great philosophers and Marxists in France (Poulantzas, Aglietta, Foucault, Lévy-Strauss, Lacan, Derrida, Braudel and lots of others) broke with these Stalinists not only due to the willingness of PCF to stand by de Gaulle, but too to their claim of 'avantgarde'.

Althusser and Balibar remained in, if I remember correctly. But yes a lot of Marxists became "Maoists" just before this period or during it, with good reason. I do not support the PCF's stance very much during the post WW2 period. Like I said the FLN and '68 were the icing on the cake.

[AsdkAsd]

Tolstoy was an anarchist full stop. If you wish, present some evidence that he was a "Georgist" and we can discuss it further.

[Sans Salvador]

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org ... lstoy.html

[CCJ]

Ok, some guy decided to write an essay about him. It was probably for his 7th grade Social Studies class or somewhat. How about something from a credible source?

[Sans Salvador]

They are quotes from a book by Tolstoy's daughter.

[AsdkAsd]

Henry George's project of land nationalisation, whereby all would come under the jurisdiction of the state and people would pay a ground rent rather than taxes - an idea that still has currency among some green economists - Tolstoy argues is no solution at all. It still involves slavery and state violence. Thus Tolstoy came to conclude that:

"the slavery of our time was produced by the violence of militarism, by the appropriation of the land and by the exaction of money (property)".

You're right, George's idea of a single tax is not conducive to anarchist principles - it accepts a state, state violence and the continued use of a society based on "owning" land and wealth...all of which Tolstoy is famous for rejecting. I think, George was a great influence on Leo Tolstoy but looking at his writings one can easily say that he was no Georgist.





"Christianity, with its doctrine of humility, of forgiveness, of love, is incompatible with the State, with its haughtiness, its violence, its punishment, its wars."

[Sans Salvador]

What do you think of this quote?

"One thing perplexed me. Although for the accomplishment of that system in life no rude seizure was necessary, of the kind that, like all violence, was repulsive to my father, yet the tax on land will have to be collected by the Government, and government is based on violence.

"I spoke of this to my father. He replied that that was what sometimes perturbed him, but that with the existing order it was, nevertheless, the best solution of the land question. My father imagined to himself a future social order in which the guidance of the people would be different from the present kind of government, and would be voluntary.

So maybe he was a pragmatist?

[JazzRemington]

not to break from the current discussion, but if I remember correctly (and I saw this in a video in my Art class), Camille Pissarro (the father of Impressionism) was an anarchist and a direct follower of Proudhon. As was one of the neo-impressionist founders Félix Fénéon. Lemmy Kilmister, singer/bassit for the band Motorhead, is an anarchist as well.

Below is a wikipedia article that has a list of famous anarchists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchists

[QatzelOk]

The Sex Pistols
JD from Heathers
Tazmanian Devil
Sabrina the Teenage witch

[Batko]

Elisee Reclus (1830-1905)
Geographer

http://academic.reed.edu/formosa/texts/reclusbio.html

[Michel]

Foucault was not an anarchist. And I am quite sure many of the other french thinkers from this period were not anarchists per se. They may have been influenced, in several ways, by it, but they were not actual philosophical proponents of it, nor where they activists themselves.

Two interesting thinkers who, again, were not actual proponents of anarchism per se, but were nonetheless deeply influenced by it, far more so than the french of the 1960's and beyond, were Hannah Arendt and Albert Camus.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... rendt.html
http://www.imagi-nation.com/moonstruck/clsc40.html

[Inderjit Sanghera]

Tolkien was indeed an anarchist.

my political beliefs lean more and more to Anarchy -- philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs

Reading his books, you come to realise that he is against coercion-Gandalf often allows the characters to make their own decisions, irrespective of the consequences, this is, of course, not conducive to anarchism, but never mind. Tolkien's creation, Middle-Earth had it's fair share of "states" (something of a misnomer in this case) and authority figures (usually based on lineage or on how good a warrior you were) and it certainly wasn't an anarchial society.

[ComradeRick-CL]

i still dont fully believe Jrr tolkien was an anarchist, because he was also very religious, and i just dont see it