[Scartol]

I first heard this track when I was doing my earliest reading of Proudhon, Chomsky, Goldman, and others. I still like it as a "just folks" approach to explaining what anarchism is and can be.. Cf. Ammon Hennacy

[youtube]6t6nzLX9gF4[/youtube]

I quote that Twain line to my students every day.

[SecretSquirrel]

emma goldman is not an anarchist, she was a red and an advocate of violence and terrorism. Anarchism completely rejects initiatory violence.

[Wolfman]

Emma Goldman is an old school Anarchist, like Proudhon. They definitely advocate violence.

[Lightman]

emma goldman is not an anarchist, she was a red and an advocate of violence and terrorism. Anarchism completely rejects initiatory violence.

No it doesn't. American libertarian attempts to co-opt the term "anarchism" from the original anarchists are stupid. Whether you like it or not (and really, all of you anarchists are out of your minds in regards to politics), anarcho-capitalism is only one form of anarchism, if it even qualifies given that historically almost all anarchists have been collectivists. Anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, whatever, all predate anarcho-capitalism and all are about as opposed to anarcho-capitalism as can be.

Further, the term libertarian is itself co-opted from early anarchist groups, who coined the term when (left) anarchist political agitating was banned in some European countries.

[Wolfman]

Further, the term libertarian is itself co-opted from early anarchist groups, who coined the term when (left) anarchist political agitating was banned in some European countries.

It was a French Anarchist named Joseph Dejacque who used the word to get around his countries ban on Anarchist publications. And Proudhon was the first person to actually call himself an Anarchist. And he was for violence (supporting the violence of the French Revolution) and was a collectivist, who had close ties for many years with Karl Marx.

[SecretSquirrel]

for what it's worth i'm what is known as a "christian anarchist." The root of this is that authority and human rights in this world come from god, not from other men, and that using violence on others to achieve your goals is a sin. This school of anarchist thought is neutral on the individual-collective spectrum and thus happens to be compatible with individualist anarchist schools such as anarcho capitalism and extreme libertarianism. It is compatible with collectivist schemes as well, but it is NOT compatible with forced collectivism.

Christian Anarchism is one of the oldest form of organised anarchism and like most legitimate schools of the philosophy is generally opposed to violence and especially terrorist violence. Those "anarchists" like Emma Goldman were just iron-fist socialists in disguise.

Contrary to your mindbogglingly ignorant assertion, Proudhon actually strongly opposed violence.

Note that christian anarchism does not require one to be christian, but merely a believer in god. I for one am a Deist Jew.

[Lightman]

Whether or not your own special brand of anarchism allows violence or not is not grounds for dismissing Emma Goldman as not an anarchist. Just because she is incompatible with your anarchism does not mean she is incompatible with anarchism.

[SecretSquirrel]

Emma Goldman is only labeled an anarchist so that the masses would believe that anarchism was actually a violent, evil movement rather than one of peace and cooperation. This was to serve the interests of the monarchies of her day.

[Scartol]

Contrary to your mindbogglingly ignorant assertion, Proudhon actually strongly opposed violence.

Any chance you could leave out this kind of haughty, pejorative, and condescending nonsense? ("minbogglingly ignorant") It appears to me that Wolfman was trying to offer his understanding of several people, along with a link to one of them. If you disagree, then post some corroborating info of your own. (I'd like to see Wolfman provide a source too, but he didn't call anyone names here.)

Surely we can help each other reach a higher level of enlightenment and understanding without the need for vitriol and condescension, yes?

[SecretSquirrel]

vitriol is what PoFo is all about

And trolling libertarians, on Wolfie's part

[Wolfman]

The fact that he supported the violence of the French Revolution should say something about how peaceful he was.

[SecretSquirrel]

again wolfie directly contravenes history

[SecretSquirrel]

Here is a useful link. It is a recent piece written by an Iraq War resister

http://www.simpleliberty.org/tootoa/anarchy_abused.htm

[Lightman]

Wolfman, you are wrong. For one, Proudhon was born after the first French revolution and while he supported the cause of the revolution of 1848 he opposed violent insurrection.

[SecretSquirrel]

dont bother feeding the troll, lightman

[CatoLives]

Revolutions are not initiatory violence, and I would imagine anarchists would universally support revolution, if only to learn how a state can fall.

[Scartol]

Well, for the record, the Wikipedia article says: "Proudhon opposed insurrection by preaching peaceful conciliation, a stance that was in accord with his lifelong stance against violence." But there's no citation.

A nearly identical wording appears on marxists.org.

[DubiousDan]

Well, for the record, the Wikipedia article says: "Proudhon opposed insurrection by preaching peaceful conciliation, a stance that was in accord with his lifelong stance against violence." But there's no citation.

A nearly identical wording appears on marxists.org.

Non-violence is not part of the definition of Anarchism. Anarchists can be violent or they can be non-violent.
Proudhon gave Anarchism its name, but he didn’t create the practice. The Tao Teh Ching was Anarchistic, that predated Proudhon by more than two millennia.

Both the Tao Teh Ching and Proudhon sought to avoid violence, and condemned it’s use in most cases. However, neither did this in the context of a world without violence.

Most of the hunter gatherer social orders that we know about meet the requirements of the definitions of Anarchism even if anthropologists won’t use the A word. Hunter gatherer social orders could be quite violent.

By the way, Proudhon and Marx parted ways quite clearly. Proudhon felt that the craftsman was entitled to his bench, his tools, and his shop. Marx didn’t. It’s rather ironic, but the author of “Property is Theft” parted with Marx over the issue of property. Of course, the dictatorship of the proletariat had a bit to do with it as well. Marx saw Anarchism as the ends, but the means were a bit messy.