9 ms·

Orwell was obsessively critical of Authoritarian Socialism - namely big [S] State Socialism as represented by the Soviet Union. I don't think George Orwell wou

Orwell was obsessively critical of Authoritarian Socialism - namely big [S] State Socialism as represented by the Soviet Union. I don't think George Orwell would necessarily be cotton to variations of Authoritarian Socialism implemented in very large corporations. That is in stark contrast with Goldman's Democratic Anarcho-Socialism which shares little relation - philosophically or sentimentally - with the State Socialism that Orwell was writing about. I have friends who claim to be "anarcho-" something, who at the same time espouse state socialist politics. Their action in aggregate is often authoritarian, and I don't see how any anarchic politics can prevent the oppressive rule of a majority. As such mechanisms play out in my private life, it seems that anarchy results in less diversity of thought and virulent oppression of minority viewpoints. EDIT: My corollary -- Oppressive tribalism is just a later stage development of anarchy.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
My post was a historical contextualization about the thrust and focus of Orwell's criticism of Socialism, as the parent seemed to be trying to object to the premise with an anecdote from a "socialist" with whimsical predilections. The implicit point there, being that there was a categorical error being made. I do not claim to say anything about possible or theoretical corollaries that Orwell may or may not have drawn around hierarchical structures more broadly. To your last point, conflicts around self-organizing groups and spontaneous formation of oppressive hierarchies is an ongoing debate within Anarchistic philosophy itself, so no new ground tread there simply by stating it. See: Proudhoun, Bakunin, Kropotkin etc...
- stcredzero 8y ago
  In that case, you really need to do something about self styled "anarchists" on social media declaring that they can do any evil to fight evil, so long as they use just a little less evil. From what I can see, thought leadership doesn't reach the "anarchist" on the street, leaving them to wallow in a toxic tribalism which is welcoming of nihilistic violence. Have all the erudite debates you want. Others are presenting a far different face to the public. The fact that the media will then dissemble and cover for such actions and attitudes then makes it all much worse. Or is it ok to use evil to fight evil, so long as you use a little less?
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a lifestyle as much as it is a philosophy. I also don't think it's how people naturally behave. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism Plenty of people demonize capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. So you're admitting that it's a losing proposition for getting anything done? The banner of anarchy seems to be good at organizing people into building weapons, collecting fireworks as munitions, and organizing tactics to be able to get away with assault and vandalism. You can see the violence online in videos, and I've personally been to places where those weapons are made and stored. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom. AFAICT, this is generally how people are put together.
      - JetSpiegel 8y ago
        If they are organized they are not Anarchists, right? That's the point.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Also, if they are violent identitarians, then they aren't for justice and equality. People fly false flags all the time. That doesn't make the toxic ones any less toxic or harmful.
        acomar 8y ago
PinkMilkshake 8y ago
> I have friends who claim to be "anarcho-" something, who at the same time espouse state socialist politics. I think we have the same friends. I've never met a true anarchist. I've found that when pushed enough, they tend to be authoritarians in disguise, and they are only shout "Down with the system!" as a generalization of "Down with the system I don't like!".

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

My post was a historical contextualization about the thrust and focus of Orwell's criticism of Socialism, as the parent seemed to be trying to object to the premise with an anecdote from a "socialist" with whimsical predilections. The implicit point there, being that there was a categorical error being made. I do not claim to say anything about possible or theoretical corollaries that Orwell may or may not have drawn around hierarchical structures more broadly. To your last point, conflicts around self-organizing groups and spontaneous formation of oppressive hierarchies is an ongoing debate within Anarchistic philosophy itself, so no new ground tread there simply by stating it. See: Proudhoun, Bakunin, Kropotkin etc...

stcredzero 8y ago
In that case, you really need to do something about self styled "anarchists" on social media declaring that they can do any evil to fight evil, so long as they use just a little less evil. From what I can see, thought leadership doesn't reach the "anarchist" on the street, leaving them to wallow in a toxic tribalism which is welcoming of nihilistic violence. Have all the erudite debates you want. Others are presenting a far different face to the public. The fact that the media will then dissemble and cover for such actions and attitudes then makes it all much worse. Or is it ok to use evil to fight evil, so long as you use a little less?
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a lifestyle as much as it is a philosophy. I also don't think it's how people naturally behave. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism Plenty of people demonize capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. So you're admitting that it's a losing proposition for getting anything done? The banner of anarchy seems to be good at organizing people into building weapons, collecting fireworks as munitions, and organizing tactics to be able to get away with assault and vandalism. You can see the violence online in videos, and I've personally been to places where those weapons are made and stored. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom. AFAICT, this is generally how people are put together.
    - JetSpiegel 8y ago
      If they are organized they are not Anarchists, right? That's the point.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Also, if they are violent identitarians, then they aren't for justice and equality. People fly false flags all the time. That doesn't make the toxic ones any less toxic or harmful.
      - acomar 8y ago

PinkMilkshake 8y ago

> I have friends who claim to be "anarcho-" something, who at the same time espouse state socialist politics. I think we have the same friends. I've never met a true anarchist. I've found that when pushed enough, they tend to be authoritarians in disguise, and they are only shout "Down with the system!" as a generalization of "Down with the system I don't like!".