An anarchist does not drive on the opposite side of the road just because what side to drive on has a rule. But they might treat a red light as a stop sign when there's little or no traffic.

Like models, rules are never universally right, but some are useful. Good rules are guidelines, that help keep us safe. Not policies to be policed, regardless of the likely outcome.

Following rules because they're rules is recorded in history as "just following orders". We know where that leads.

(2/2)

A couple of days ago I posted about what being an anarchist means to me. Obviously given the way I defined it, I can't determine what it means for anyone else. A contradiction, yes. But one that holds space for flexible ways of understanding that can better respond to our constantly shifting situations.

One thing my freedoms-based definition didn't address though, was how I apply it to political economy. For example, do I believe that all legitimate anarchist politics is anticapitalist?

(1/?)

So one thing I want to clarify is that although I see "anarcho-capitalism" as just fascism with better branding (Peter Thiel being an archetypal example of where it leads), I do accept that a person can be right-leaning economically, and still be an anarchist.

But there are limits, beyond which this becomes a contradiction in ways that are universalizing, and inflexible (again think of the neoreactionaries defending the freedom to deny others freedom).

(2/?)

When people claim that property is an inalienable right - like freedoms of expression or association are - then "property is theft", as Proudhon famously put it. But as long as they accept that property is a social agreement, subject to negotiation and consensus, then "property is freedom" (a lesser known quote from Proudhon).

Having said that, being open to the idea of a place for markets in a free society does *not* make an anarchist right-leaning. It just makes them not a Stalinist.

(3/?)

There is an entire movement of 'left-libertarians', anarchists who are pro-markets (or at least not anti-markets), but who understand themselves as part of a broader anticapitalist movement on the left. Examples;

https://marketsnotcapitalism.com/

https://c4ss.org/

(4/?)

(1/2)

Kevin might reply when his timezone hits daytime, or when time allows, or he may not. So I'll have a go.

@wxhbxh
> Traditionally left-libertarianism is broader than this and includes the older tradition of libertarian socialism

Intriguing. Got a reference that shows 'left-libertarian' being used as a catch-all as you suggest? The first time I came across 'left-libertarian' was in the context of the links I posted in the thread; 'left' as adjective, modifying 'libertarian' as a noun.

@strypey I usually try to avoid using Wikipedia as a reference, but they have a fair amount of the history and their own references for further reading so I think it's appropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

For specific examples, iirc Bookchin uses the word libertarian in the manner described in the article in The Ecology of Freedom, though I don't have a page reference handy.

(1/?)

@wxhbxh
> Bookchin uses the word libertarian in the manner described in the article

We seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. See the second post of those 2.

I'm aware that 'libertarianism' is a leftist tradition, a philosophical commons that the corporatist right has been trying to enclose since the 1980s (what genuine pro-market libertarians call 'paleo-libertarianism'). This is the core point of "left-libertarian" as an identifier.

(2/?)

The use of 'libertarian' by anarchists is much older than Bookchin. The founding writers of left-libertarianism reference Spooner and Tucker. Who were individualist anarchists, but nevertheless saw themselves as adapting a left-wing anticapitalist tradition to the US of their time.

*Not* as defenders of capitalism, like the corporatists who have appropriated the term 'libertarian'. With plenty of assistance from the authoritarian left, and Useful Idiots on the libertarian end of the left

(3/3)

But AFAIK "left-libertarian", as a construction, starts in about the 1980s. As an attempt to push back against that appropriation by the corporatist right. If you've got references that show this particular phrasing being used before then - not just libertarian as a leftist tradition but *left-libertarian* specifically - I'd very much like to see them.

@strypey
I gave you the link you asked for, demonstrating commonly accepted usage.

I never suggested Bookchin was the first to use either term and your explanatory monologue is unnecessary and insulting.

I find your shifting of goalposts strange.

If we agree that "left-libertarian" reacts to laissez-faire right wing use of the term as you've stated, the rest is semantics.

Excluding what you call "big A" (social anarchism) requires first ceding "libertarian" to the right. We shouldn't.

@wxhbxh we seem to be in heated agreement here. I'm sorry you're bothered by my offering some detailed context, to try and identify where we agree, and if there are actually any important disagreements to explore. No offence was intended.

Can I ask what you wanted to get out of replying in this thread? Did you get it yet? If not, how might I help with that?

But please save the flamethrower for fascists. We're all allies here, and we don't have the numbers to lose people to friendly fire.

@strypey thanks, I appreciate it.

My point was merely to remark that the exclusion of anti-market social anarchism seemed strange.

Didn't come in seeking to debate or to deny the legitimacy of your approach, apologies if I gave that impression.

I think diversity in tactics and theories of change is great to have, and FWIW I agree that we could use more diversity of thought on the left in Aotearoa.

Sectarian squabbles OTOH we could do with less of, I'm sorry that's been your experience.

(1/?)

@wxhbxh
> Sectarian squabbles OTOH we could do with less of, I'm sorry that's been your experience

Thanks. On that note, the post I just made Quote Posting your somewhat heated post (I guess expressing frustration?) was just using it as an example of a style of discourse, it was *not* intended as an attack on you personally.

> My point was merely to remark that the exclusion of anti-market social anarchism seemed strange

Sorry I'm confused. What did you think was I excluding it from?

@strypey thanks for the clarification
Was confused at the notification. 😅

Stressing I was only ever seeking to broaden tents, not police borders (I expect neither of us a fan of those) :)

I read your post as seeking to define the term in question more narrowly than I understood it. 🤷🏻‍♀️
Is a fine difference of opinion to have.

I was only upset by the manner of argument, not the (minor and inconsequential) disagreement.

And consider the issue resolved tbc

P.s. I much prefer Kropotkin to Marx

(1/?)

@wxhbxh
> I was only ever seeking to broaden tents, not police borders (I expect neither of us a fan of those)

From your lips to my ears ; )

> I was only upset by the manner of argument

Sorry about that. I'm autistic and tend to react to confusing social interactions with infodumps, which are often interpreted as patronising lectures : { But that's absolutely the opposite of the intention, it's discursive bridge-building all the way.

(2/?)
@wxhbxh
> I much prefer Kropotkin to Marx

The Prince is cool, but Proudhon is probably more capable of going toe-to-toe with old Karl IMHO. If I had to classify myself using the Economist-Implementer format, and old bearded white anarchists, I'd probably go with Proudonist-Gaeberist (not a great fan of Bakunin TBH).

I do respect Kropotkin's writing greatly though, as a forefunner of libertarian ecology, and even a lot of the network theory we use in analysing the fediverse, etc.

(3/3)

@wxhbxh
> Would be remiss not to acknowledge the irony of my referencing Bookchin in a discussion of pointless sectarianism

Away with your social anarchism! We're all lifestyle anarchists in here. Go away or we'll hurl bagels at you from our side of the unbridgeable chasm : P

FWIW reading Anarchy After Leftism (Bob Black's rebuttal of Bookchin the Elder's pamphlet) was a huge influence on my thinking, as was Hakim Bey's TAZ etc.

@strypey I do respect Bookchin's theoretical work and agree with a good deal of his thought, but it's a shame that he never seemed to quite shake off the suspicion that fellow leftists were in league with the fascists he spent his youth fighting.

Re Kropotkin: if we're picking beyond the horizon of white-bearded philosophers of the Victorian era, then people like Fanon, Davis, Butler, Agamben more influential on my day-to-day political thinking.

(1/2)

@wxhbxh
> I do respect Bookchin's theoretical work and agree with a good deal of his thought

So does Black! The fun thing about Anarchy After Leftism is not that he tears poor old Murray a new arsehole (he doesn't really), but that he structures the book as a debate between Bookchin the Elder and Bookchin the Younger. Citing his own early work - at length - as the best rebuttal for the sectarian "unbridgeable chasm" nonsense.

(2/2)

@wxhbxh
> then people like Fanon, Davis, Butler, Agamben more influential on my day-to-day political thinking

Ooh! I'm not sure I'm familiar with any of these *rubs hands gleefully*, reading recommendations for each please?

@strypey tbf is a list of critical theorists moreso than thinkers proposing any particular shared political program.

For Butler, Gender Trouble is foundational and likely the usual entry point, but if not already familiar with French post-structuralism/psychoanalysis, Who's Afraid of Gender may be easier.

My intro to Fanon and Agamben was actually through Eric A. Stanley's work building on theirs - highly recommend Atmospheres of Violence.

For Davis "Are Prisons Obsolete?" is so foundational.