Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Have you looked at his Political Economy of Human Rights books? There's a similar pairing of interests.

sologdin wrote: "Have you looked at his Political Economy of Human Rights books? There's a similar pairing of interests."

Ah, I have not, I see you have quite detailed reviews for the 2 volumes. For my reading purposes, these are grueling in detail, history is already a mountain without the layers of propaganda piled over it.

btw, what's your take on the disagreements between Chomsky and Parenti? I have some troubles with the following article (i.e. taking snippets, applying disproportionate rigor, then generalizing to the person's entire political outlook, like what was done with Prashad), but it does bring up some common talking points:

Great review Kevin. One thing that has been nagging me a bit, and I thought I would ask you if you can help. I know one of your favourites is Vijay Prashad, and it seems Noam Chomsky too. Chomsky is very hard on Lenin, and Prashad seems to love the guy. I am wondering how they get along? They have united on many issues. I see you as being somebody able to straddle the line. Any advice on how to deal with that apparent contradiction? I understand that Leninists believed in the transition phase to true communism, while libertarian socialists like Chomsky do not, and actually think that Lenin was a natural precursor to Stalin, In fact Chomksy believes Lenin was anti-democratic. How do you manage this contradiction intellectually? Just a matter of having different tactics to achieve the same end?

Miquixote wrote: "Great review Kevin. One thing that has been nagging me a bit, and I thought I would ask you if you can help. I know one of your favourites is Vijay Prashad, and it seems Noam Chomsky too. Chomsky i..."

Thanks for bringing this up, and your instincts are correct. As someone who got into radical political economy for Western leftists critical of the USSR (strongly: Chomsky/Graeber, strong but perhaps vocally less often: Hedges/Zinn) and later incorporated global anti-imperialist/communist perspectives (Prashad, Parenti), lefists infighting on this topic is forever heated. For example, right now my focus is on understanding real-world capitalism (particular the abstracts of financial flows, debt, IP, etc.), and my favorite scholar on this happens to have strong opinions (Michael Hudson is a Trot on this).

I'm in the midst of writing a review for A People's History of the World, so I'll have a clearer analysis on this topic. I recommend the book. The author Chris Harman supports the Chomskyite worker council revolutions of Hungary/Poland against the USSR, but also makes a compelling analysis of the process of social revolutions that require disciplined vanguard structures to first overwhelm and then survive reactionary onslaughts.
...Thus, he supports the old Bolsheviks including Lenin (once again, support means solidarity instead of dogmatic 100% agreement, which should be impossible; he also supports Luxemburg who debated plenty with Lenin and her own views changed with the times).
...He is more aligned with Trotsky, and thus anti-Stalin but crucially acknowledges the tragedies of siege socialism. Now, I have concerns with Trotsky as well, but I don't see myself excommunicating historical figures with such rich and complex histories anytime soon lol. I don't think he use the term "siege socialism" (Michael Parenti) in this case, describing Stalinism as rapid primitive accumulation industrialization.
...This historical context is key to distinguishing this from the ahistoric "authoritarianism" popular among liberals that groups Stalin with fascism (the concentration of State + capital to stamp down threat of worker revolution during a capitalist crisis, with Nazism in particular using scapegoating). Regardless of what you think of Stalin, his anticipation of further intervention turned out correct as the Western imperialists initially hoped the Nazi war machine would finish the job they failed at during the Russian Civil War. And the horrors and paranoia of surviving this war left Russia with its own military industrial complex, not to mention further NATO threats.
...One of his most interesting points is that Stalinism was not so foreboding that alternatives could not even form (citing Hungarian/Polish revolutions and numerous other protests) thus critiquing the cynicism of the Western Left who resorted to soft-peddling imperialism: "This pessimism had befogged the minds of innumerable intellectuals who had once been on the far left—John Dos Passos, John Steinbeck, Max Shachtman, Stephen Spender, Albert Camus, James T Farrell, John Strachey, George Orwell, Saul Bellow, the list was endless."

Before I complete this book review, I'll leave you with these points:

--The world is a mess of contradictions (Marx was big on this). One major contradiction is between micro (e.g. democracy at work, national) and macro phenomenon (e.g. geopolitics). As Prashad says, he can both support BRICS (geopolitical buffer against direct US imperialism) while being against the Indian Modi government (national).
--From what I've read, I don't see Lenin as a reactionary opportunist. He was an "opportunist" only in the sense that every revolutionary should be, which is adapting to what conditions provide you and adjusting your theories to it. There seems to be plenty of debating during the revolutionary process and worker council experiments allowed early on, and the clamp down on dissent seemed like a clear response to reactionary/imperialist onslaughts.
--Even Chomsky says in his analysis of Vietnam that during direct imperialist onslaughts only the disciplined (i.e. well-organized) survive. There's simply no space for numerous utopian experiments. I would suggest this space in part happens from geopolitical buffers.
--Thus, I don't see Leninism as inherently totalitarian. The Russian Revolution is a key event in the decolonization process (Red Star Over the Third World). To think capitalist imperialism would just let socialist alternatives blossom is the worst kind of armchair anarchism or economized Marxism/reformism.
--Now, the contradictions of the real world suggests that every action will be met with a reaction. So I do agree that radicals have to consider the potential reaction to their actions. Historically, revolutionaries have often been incredibly pragmatic (they tend to be tied to their communities seeking social improvements, not suicidal conflict after all!), and often it is the reaction that radicalizes them! How you engage with imperialism is indeed a complicated question. Post-revolution China, which started off in direct confrontation with imperialism and thus a period of isolation (further exacerbated by the Sino-Soviet split), eventually opened to the US/global capitalism as world socialism was waning. Now, they opened strategically unlike most other countries, by having long-term plans for technological transfers, not obeying one-sided intellectual property regimes, and not opening up their financial markets. How we analyze China is once again another example of real world contradictions:

...in summary, there are several levels of analysis to consider (micro to macro), and many contradictions for us to grapple with. I have my own principles which I am always adapting. And just as I would not excommunicate my previous self for having ideas that I now disagree with, I tend to apply solidarity first unless I sense overwhelming sabotage/insincerity. I would also add that while real-world actions have direct consequences (thus responsibilities), I tend to give these radical actors caught in the storm more leeway compared armchair reflections like myself.

Hmm, alot said here, I'll have a go of it:

Not sure if you are suggesting that one must actually choose between supporting Stalinism, or even Leninism, or automatically be an unknowing supporter of liberal imperialism? Like foreign imperialist interference in Russia and continuance of imperialist colonization worldwide were inevitable under any other Russian regime that was not Leninist? Not sure I am comfortable with the false dilemma: like there weren’t other possibilities of acting in the world and better, more humane ways of dealing with ‘real-world� responsibilities than Leninism and Stalinism?

That brings us to an interesing question: At what point should the left be shaken out of its stupor and reject a so-called leftist leader for his crimes against humanity? Do we we truly need to choose between a totalitarian state and foreign imperialist sabotage? How inhumane would he have to be for us to admit to ourselves that there could be a third (or fourth) choice? How many people have to suffer surveillance, be tortured, imprisoned, killed and have their rights taken away before a loyal leftist must admit crimes against humanity and obviously excommunicate the culprit from the left? But if you denounce those crimes you automatically become a supporter of imperialist liberalism for all intents and purposes? I mean seriously is that what it comes down to? You’re with me or against me? No nuances on the left?

But let’s cut to the chase on Stalin. The left has already excommunicated him. Only very few have the gall to defend him. I am not sure if you are defending him here? He was not a communist anyways by any honest reflection of what true communism entails. He was a state capitalist (as was the Soviet Union a state capitalist state that never achieved any semblance of true communism).

The left is doomed if it tries to justify the actions of these kind of people. Thank God they aren’t anymore.

As far as Lenin goes, I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a reactionary opportunist but he certainly never showed any inkling towards a praxis of real communist action to go with some of his sometimes good communist theory. He had a certain intepretation of Marxism that involved the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transtion to true communism. Marx himself made it crystal clear the dictatorship of the proletariat was a transitory state to capitalism and not communism itself. Therefore true communism was never implemented in the Soviet Union with Lenin. He shut down the direct democracy of the workers councils as soon as he entered into power. Granted he had the excuse that it was in order to bring order. He argued there were too many national emergencies. Meanwhile in the Ukraine, Makhno led a successful revolution under direct democracy there and successfully defeated the right-wing reactionary armies, and never gave up those principles until he was chased away by Lenin and Trotsky (and the Maknovists massacred). The horror, the horror! The reasons why so many anarchists, Chomsky and myself included, harbor resentment towards Leninism is that he smashed the anarchists (and killed thousands of them) in Kronstadt and the Ukraine. Something very similar to what happened in Spain with Stalin against the anarchists.

Is Leninism inherently totalitarian? Well, during the state capitalist phase obviously. If they could have ever gotten past that stage maybe not. We’ll never know: no Leninist has ever tried. Not Lenin, not Stalin, not Mao, not Castro.

The Russian Revolution is an inspiration, definitely. Although the actual inspiring part is very short-lived. When I say that I mean explicitly the rising up of the peasants and workers to overthrow the tsar as inspiring. What Lenin did afterwards is nothing to brag about (shutting down direct democracy, murdering anarchists, creating a vanguard party that prioritized party needs over the workers). The fact that this inspired decolonization is truly great, even if it was based on lies about what the Soviet Union became. People didn’t know what really happened there for a long time. And evidently, most people still don’t know what happened with Lenin and Trotsky. I would say this demonstrates the power of the myth of actual communism more than of the reality.

Anyways, I think it is pretty safe to say that Stalin and Mao have already been excommunicated. I would go so far as to say any leftist that defends them does so is obviously insincere, and sabotages the humanity of the left. There should be no solidarity with totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is treason to the humane ideals of the left that is the origin and basis of communism. That of a classless and directly democratic system. Most revolutionary anarchists and activists consider the actions of Lenin and Trotsky also to be treason to the left. And for this reason they have effectively been excommunicated by a large majority of anarchists. And understandably so. When you have been ravaged it is not so easy to forgive and the trauma lingers. Anarchist numbers grow everyday. Leninists dimish daily. History is on the anarchist’s side. The culprits and victims are clear and is anithetical to leftist principles to blame the victim. While Leninism is a minority ahistorical vanguard caste. Anybody familiar with their crimes can’t help but be horrified. Mass murder of the democratic revolutionary left is pretty unforgivable and it will take a very long time, if ever to forgive.

I recommend Reading up on the Unknown Revolution in the Ukraine and Kronstadt. I notice you have read Homage to Catalonia, so are already somewhat aware of Stalinist oppression in Spain during the Civil War.

By the way, yes, I am a teacher and I live in Spain. Where anarchists were betrayed and murdered by Stalinists. May we never forget.

Indeed, Real-world actions have direct consequences (thus responsibilities)... The left is in trouble because they are too slow to face up to its mistakes and be honest about the past.
In chomsky’s 'On the responsibilty of intellectuals' he makes it clear that it is our responsibility to tell the truth. If the left is guilty of crimes against humanity, it needs to admit and certainly excommunicate mass murderers.
The question is for the radical actors caught in the storm: Do we need more leeway or more honesty and humanity? And if we want more leeway and forgiveness for past atrocites, what about admittance and begging pardon of crimes? Something tells me that we should be focussing on giving leeway to the the victims rather than the culprits first.

Miquixote wrote: "Hmm, alot said here, I'll have a go of it:

Not sure if you are suggesting that one must actually choose between supporting Stalinism, or even Leninism, or automatically be an unknowing supporter o..."

I think one problem here is you now seem to be asking me a narrow question of my #1 ideal position for any-and-all contexts, whereas I was talking about different levels of struggle with real-world contradictions to explain Prashad's attitude with Lenin/real-world socialism.

On the narrow question, of course I am a utopian, any communist with some social imagination would have this in their back pocket and in their heart, and of course much of anarchism is appealing here. Yes, anti-authoritarian, and concerned about the imperialist threats legitimizing authoritarianism, and the perversions this creates. And yes, in terms of outreach, the humane approach is the core (paired with understanding of imperialism and thus front-and-center push for ending economic/military imperialist aggression).

On different levels of struggle in the real-world, if anarchism cannot defend itself to form viable forces to defend the masses in larger levels of struggle, then I am forced to also consider what other options are currently out there. If and when anarchism succeeds in this, then great! I promote several anarchist thinkers/works/concepts; I'm not sectarian. But the real world has overwhelming imperialism and the geopolitical/national levels, so while the anarchists amass support from below as you suggest, I'm also engaging with less-than-ideal structures to see what change and buffers can be made.

This includes real-world socialism, which I personally don't have the urge to excommunicate on mass; I do not think decolonization is something ancient or archaic or irrelevant. I do agree that leaders tend to get too much attention; as for public supporters, they come to this from all sorts of different places so we are forever challenged with being principled while being patient/empathetic.

Once again, not ideal. But neither is the bourgeois imperialist US-created United Nations, but I recognize the cracks and spaces opened by the UN in different levels of struggle (UNESCO, UNCTAD, GA, G77, WHO, UNICEF etc), and I "support" these in certain contexts. Neither is socdem sometimes-soft-peddling-imperialism Bernie Sanders, but I recognize his uses in certain contexts. Neither is the bourgeois welfare state, but I support parts of this on surface-level issues and I hope contradictions here can radicalize some (I happen to work in public health, as full-time revolutionary is an elusive occupation).

"But if you denounce those crimes you automatically become a supporter of imperialist liberalism for all intents and purposes? I mean seriously is that what it comes down to? You’re with me or against me?"
...who me? Note that the internet does amplify the most vocal/dogmatic of all types. But those who are willing to discuss with me, I tend to find a lot of common ground regardless of #1 ideology.

"No nuances on the left?"
...I try.

I have no doubt about our admirable intentions to find common ground, Kevin. You are indeed highly vocal online (I not so much), although I wouldn’t accuse us of dogmatism quite yet. But I do wonder if evasion techniques are a type of dogma?

I have noticed, perhaps too sensibly, a not-so indirect accusation of sectarianism towards one side of the room though. Understandably so, it does seem if one looks for common ground where it is an impossibility, sectarianism must abound! But in one sense, I deny the charge, imagined charge or not. Sectarianism can be seen very negatively: as actually just a type of narcissism of small differences, or orthodoxy. So nay I say to that charge! And no claim to small differences between Anarchism and Leninism has occurred here. However, if we mean sectarianism in a more positive sense, as simply acknowledging a more complex reality of two actively competing identities on the left, resulting in a strong sense of dualism which divides the left, well, yes, I guess I would be a sectarian. Far be it for me not to see a class conflict between the totalitarian state bureaucratic elite and the masses. So, dutifully, in the positive sense, I confess to sectarianism. A noble one methinks, but sectarianism indeed. I for one think it is noble to fully reject totalitarian practices.

However, as a counter-reaction, I would be significantly more direct in my own charge against those that believe in the far-fetched possibility of an Anarcho-Leninist union. The dream of such a union would seem to me to be of such fatalistic postmodern broad-mindedness that the search for meaning would utterly disappear, successfully reaching the conservative dream of the end of history.

Or perhaps they are just uncomfortable with a conversation without clear-cut harmonious ‘let’s all hold hands together for the revolution� answers. Surely there must be an Anarcho-Leninist ideology? I mean, it almost rhymes with Anarcho-Feminist so why not!

One has the nagging suspicion that critical thought is sometimes treated as well, like blasphemy to the Great Gods of Getting Along. As much as one would like to sit on the fence here to soothe the Gods, the derriere objects, the fence posts even appear to have broken glass and barbwire. Is that an electrical current I see? Oh wait, a metaphor! Sitting on the Gulag fence could very well be the equivalent of trying to be an Anarcho-Leninist.

Wait, I hear a voice!
It says ‘Faith, remember faith. If you can believe, all things are possible to him that believes.�

I tell the voice: I have found those who believe that! They’re ready to fight for the right to internal contradictions up the yin-yang. Willing to be entirely ahistorical and beat the odds. The long dreamt for ANARCHO-LENINIST UNION.

It replies: Truly, truly, that is the dogma to be celebrated. The unification of the un-unifiable. It’s truly mystical. A miracle. Finally, it is here. The Second Coming. May the angels sing and the trumpets blast. Glory be to humankind!

There it is, we are saved. No more thinking needed. Just get along and have faith:

ANARCHO-LENINISTS ASSEMBLE!!

Miquixote wrote: "I have no doubt about our admirable intentions to find common ground, Kevin. You are indeed highly vocal online (I not so much), although I wouldn’t accuse us of dogmatism quite yet. But I do wonde..."

With your last response, I'm not sure where this is going. Your original question was asking me how I squared Prashad's support of Lenin vs. Chomsky's condemnation (Chomsky is an intellectual inspiration of Prashad, while Chomsky has praised Prashad's works; evidently, they have plenty of common ground as do we, and I would also be curious to hear them debate on this particular issue). I have given you my take, and I agree with many of your specific critiques. I have not intentionally implied that sectarianism primarily comes from one direction (anarchism); indeed, this is the stereotype placed on "tankies". I've found folly everywhere.

Just yesterday, I was debating with some organizer for Marxist University (Canada) about Varoufakis; she was writing him off as "basically a Keynesian" in response to my post promoting a Varoufakis book as a modern update to Marx. I replied trying to unpack Varoufakis' actions in official politics (which he would be the first to admit where Keynesian) with his overall activism and contributions to political economy (I was promoting his book, which clearly was built on Marx's takes on class struggle with focus on exploitation of surplus value, commodity fetishism, labor alienation, crisis theory, etc.) while incorporating many components that Marx never got around to rigorously analyzing (state, trade, world market). I was saying how Luxemburg/Lenin and later Dependency Theory/World-Systems Analysis added to trade/world market with imperialism, along with Kaleki/Minsky/Keynes advancing finance/surplus recycling. My point was that while the latter Keynes may have been a capitalist reformist, radicals (in this case Marxists) should engage with his work, if not just to unpack it. After all, Marx built his political economy by breaking down classical liberal political economy.

Anarchism is an important ideology. You might have many of your questions answered through its lens. I have not yet been able to. I have encountered opinions esp. geopolitical from anarchists that I have found contentious, but I try not to make this cloud my assessment of anarchism's wide breath of analysis. If you see a ground-swell in anarchism rendering Leninism archaic, then godspeed on the anarchist revolution. I don't find the comparison to make much sense besides a few specific contexts. I treat "anarchism" as a huge concept with numerous overlapping and contradicting sects (from primitivists to futurists, escapists to accelerationists). Leninism in its sharpest form is an engagement with a particular historical context, while Lenin has done a wide array of theories on imperialism, state, etc. where there are as always plenty of contradictions. If as a committed anarchist you cannot treat your definition of Leninism as anything beyond the enemy, then I can respect that since you have now provided your definition, whereas I have more uses of Lenin's works beyond your definition.

Absolutely right about several things Kevin!

Anarchism is amazingly broad: some of it is indeed infantile but most of it admirable. And broad-stroking it is hard. One thing we can say is being anti-authoritarian and directly democratic in practice are keys to be called anarchist.

I will also admit that Lenin has written some important theoretical works (eg. Imperalism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, The State and Revolution) but his actual practice, was quite simply, scary totalitarian anti-socialist. And that applies to his followers that achieved power as well. Obviously Stalin being the worst. With the excuse of it being temporary of course. It was and has been permanent. I think Leninism and Anarchism are fundamentally incompatible in practice and if you read up on Lenin's scary works: Left-wing communism: an infantile disorder, and What is to be undone?, it is pretty shocking. So not even his theory was consistently what I would call truly socialist or good. But yeah, of course, take the good.

Chomsky perhaps says it best in this short article on the differences between the Soviet Union and actual socialism:



I am quite sure Prashad wouldn't be in agreement with Chomsky here, so he is probably as tactical as I imagine Chomsky is.
When Chomsky aligns with Leninists like Prashad, only he knows his reasons. I am not against tactics, or completely anti-pragmatic, so don't generally have anything against it, as long as we're careful not to betray our ideals. Chomsky has however made mistakes with alliances before. Ironically, usualy with Leninst sympathizers.

As far as Varoufakis' attempts at combatting capitalism within the system and state help/ buffers against savage neoliberalism, neither am I against. Anything that helps us cope with or manage the current reality is ok for me. Many anarchists are too puritanical here. Although I wouldn't suggest the Keynesian style help solves anything profound, or is revolutionary, it does help somewhat. And as you say, Yanis himself agrees it is management not solution.

My main point is Leninism and Anarchism will likely always differ widely in actual practice, but may coincide somewhat in theory. The main point of contention being the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and state control over workers being necessary or not. Anarchists will not agree with that lengthy transition stage and blame that stage on the Leninist tendency towards totalitarianism. If Leninists could somehow admit their mistakes and veer away from their vanguard control obsession then maybe we could reach a union of sorts. It just seems to me the very identity and theory of Leninism is tied to the dictatorship of the proletariat stage and being loyal to their actual historical results (or lack of) too.

For all those reasons I don't see reasons for optimism here. Neither have I ever met an anarcho-leninist or leninist-anarchist....I don't see Anarcho-marxism as being impossible though and there have been several impressive philosophers and activists trying that still difficult, yet perhaps possible, route.

Miquixote wrote: "Absolutely right about several things Kevin!

Anarchism is amazingly broad: some of it is indeed infantile but most of it admirable. And broad-stroking it is hard. One thing we can say is being an..."

Just a reminder that I am aware of the critiques of USSR not being "actual socialism". As I said, I was brought up on Chomsky/Graeber/Hedges/Zinn, i.e. the American anti-communist Left. As a stated, I consider the USSR to be siege socialism, with a good chunk of its history being rapid industrialization with certain tendencies that are far from utopic (Harman compares it with capitalist primitive accumulation). But then, I also don't think socialism is the collectivization of poverty, or annihilation by reactionaries. No, these cannot be crutches to keep alive needless oppression, and the line has to be drawn somewhere.

I think we ended this discussion on a brighter note. I am in no way trying to convince you to be a Leninist. I would not condemn Prashad to your definition of "Leninst" either. If you look at his context, primarily India, the Communist CPIM party is an important leftist component to resisting the terrible tide of reactionary violence stirring up further religious/caste/gender violence, along with liberal incompetence. The party is pragmatic with Parliamentary participation, union/student/women/peasant movements, etc. That is his context, his struggle. Prashad himself supports many anarchist and anarcho-syndicalism ventures, from Occupy and anti-globalization movements back when he was a professor in the US to worker co-ops in India. He supports what is on the ground, not just abstract theorizing.

Meanwhile, I already agreed that Marxist-Leninism was a historical application in the context of the decolonization process of the global south/periphery. In the global north, I do indeed see a prominent, practical role for anarcho-syndicalism (although it needs to be combined with strong internationalism), with a recent example from Yanis here: /review/show...

Finally, what anarchist texts would you recommend as the most compelling for an anti-imperialist systems-thinking comrade? As I've said, I've gone through Chomsky/Graeber/Zinn. Plenty of Marxists have strong anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist tendencies, like Autonomism and Wolff's Democracy At Work. I'm on Bakunin right now. Bookchin? Kropotkin? Global south thinkers?

aa Hello, anarchist here. I usually look elswhere for world-systems analysis, but the best contemporary anarchist who dabbles in those ideas is probably Peter Gelderloos. He's also active in social struggles, having spent time in prison resisting the School of the Americas. He recently wrote an essay about reactionary periods using world systems-theory concepts: ... . He also writes about state formation, which is always a tricky and thus important subject for struggles against imperialism.

aa wrote: "aa Hello, anarchist here. I usually look elswhere for world-systems analysis, but the best contemporary anarchist who dabbles in those ideas is probably Peter Gelderloos. He's also active in social..."

Much appreciated, I'll look into Gelderloos. What would you say are the reasons why you tend to look elsewhere regarding world-systems (which seems like a crucial area of analysis), when you identify yourself as an anarchist?

For myself, I see anarchism as an important tool, with several key applications:
1) I see Chomsky apply it with his optimism on the public being able to mostly identify their public interest if not for propaganda etc. Now, the "public" is a wide arena who deal with many contradictions/prejudices on many levels like sexism/racism/xenophobia/ableism/speciesism etc., it's not that easy to neatly separate individuals from social constructs. But I appreciate Chomsky's main point regarding propaganda deterring the public interest with the "national interest".
2) Graeber's anthropology provides useful comparisons between "human economies" and "market economies". He also gets into various forms of social organizations that promote anarchist collective decision-making (consensus-building cooperation rather than competitive voting with direct winners/losers; sortition rather than elections which build charismatic leaders, etc.). I find all this compelling.

...however, there are other topics where I have not yet found much depth of analysis broadly labelled as "anarchist", so I currently do not see the need to label myself with an "ism", in particular anarchism.

I just realized the link doesn't click to that Peter Gelderloos essay. It's called "The Reaction This Time" if you want to look it up.

Anarchists usually don't write about world-systems analysis. I think the reason being that anarchy is more concerned with the micro and the day-to-day, rather than macro-level analysis. It tends to focus on how to live one's ideas in a way that carries the form-of-life we want to blossom in the world. That usually means struggling in one's immediate context while rejecting hierarchical structures in the process. The kind of anarchy I find most inspiration in concerns itself with what we do and how we relate to our immediate lives. Bob Black's "The Abolition of Work" and anything by Wolfi Landstreicher or the Situationists (not anarchist, I know) are good examples.

Anarchists trying to bring forth revolutionary social change might dismiss world-systems theory and other radical theory as being abstract and irrelevant to peoples' lives. They might point to the George Floyd uprising igniting among marginalized people who likely had never read world-systems theory, and ask what role world-systems theory would have in bringing forth insurrection and radical social change.

There's probably a little bit of anti-intellectualism among anarchists. Sometimes it's understandable. I know in U.S. radical scenes there are well-read, theory-oriented people who try taking control of social struggles and milieus, intolerant of people who don't do what their theories say are best.

That said, most theory-readers are not like that, and I think anarchists could benefit from a wider analysis. I think we sometimes fail to see how macro-level analysis shapes our micro-politics.

aa wrote: "I just realized the link doesn't click to that Peter Gelderloos essay. It's called "The Reaction This Time" if you want to look it up.

Anarchists usually don't write about world-systems analysis. ..."

I appreciate the thoughtful replies, and I share many of your views (I'll follow up on your recommendations). While I have a strong disdain for siloed, classist academia of the intelligentsia, I do not believe Marxism or World Systems Analysis have this ingrained as a strong tendency (here I will say there are failings in presentation, such as Marx being too absolute at times despite his own personal evolution and his seeming failure to grasp how his profound analyses will impact others who may use his guidance as doctrine for other means).

Regarding anarchists dismissing macro theory as overly intellectual and classist, I tend to think crude/infantile anarchists misuse "spontaneity". Rosa Parks wasn't some random old lady who was just fed up one day and decided to protest bus segregation after a long day at work. She was a young activist who was trained with the NAACP and also attended Communist Party meetings. The civil rights and black power movement had many internationalist theories, from Paul Robeson to the Black Panther Party, Malcolm X to MLK (esp. last years), Angela Davis to Claudia Jones, Walter Rodney to du Bois. The West frequently infantilizes this, as if the marginalized can only come up with guerilla manuals while all macro theory comes from Western ivory towers.

One of the Ironies I have noticed is maybe the Soviet System was or was not bad for Russians but it was great for social democracy in the west simply because it scared the shit out of the ruling class as an alternative model.

Peter (Pete) wrote: "One of the Ironies I have noticed is maybe the Soviet System was or was not bad for Russians but it was great for social democracy in the west simply because it scared the shit out of the ruling cl..."

For sure, after the endless Great Depression in global capitalism, it was quite the shock to see the rapid industrialization under the red hammer & sickle flag, and their pioneering experiments with the 8-hr work day, nationalize banking, divorce rights for women, public health, etc.

I watched a Novara Media video on Youtube about the book coming out by Grace Blakeley. She is a fairly young marxian economist and she had some interesting things to say about the Corona situation and basically how it is an accelerant to Capital concentration and Monopoly and the glaring fact that due to the current crisis major firms in the economy are now pretty much state sponsored (though easy credit from central banks or quantitative easing) and any free market illusions people have are becoming untenable. It is pretty much centered in the British context but the same things are happening on a larger scale in the US. Here is a link.

Peter (Pete) wrote: "I watched a Novara Media video on Youtube about the book coming out by Grace Blakeley. She is a fairly young marxian economist and she had some interesting things to say about the Corona situation ..."

Nice, she wrote Stolen: How Finance Destroyed the Economy and Corrupted our Politics which I was literally just having a second glance at yesterday! The thing is, free market (and free trade) illusions have been untenable since Robert Walpole's Britain gained dominance of textiles by protectionism and crushing Indian textiles later by force, and Alexander Hamilton era US industrialization using infant industry protectionism, popularized by Ha-Joon Chang (which you are familiar with).

But I agree, it is now dizzying how removed market mechanisms are from real-world capitalism. The financial bubble of 2008 has been allowed to re-inflate and infect the corporate real-economy sector, as liquidity pumped into corporations are merely used to inflate stock prices instead of investing in good jobs and a green transition.

Since you are familiar with Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises (btw, how is this holding up these days?), may I recommend to you Varoufakis's latest and greatest diagnosis of capitalism and map of postcapitalism! Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present, with a preview here:

I have it on my to-read list. I may pick it up next week when I have some cash. I am watching the video I am familiar with Varoufakis. I read his "explaining the economy to my daughter". All of this is unfamiliar terrain for an American who has had long years of indoctrination since 1970s and the cold war. I haven't a fully formed take on Marxian ideas quite yet. It is a work in progress.

An interesting article here about systems theory and anarchism:



And some anarchist books on systems theory, evolutionary theory and a Global South perspective :

Posthuman International Relations: Complexity, Ecologism and Global PoliticsPosthuman International Relations: Complexity, Ecologism and Global Politics

Kropotkin Mutual Aid.

James C. Scott Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.

Miquixote wrote: "An interesting article here about systems theory and anarchism:



And some anarchist books on systems ..."

Cheers, thanks for the feedback. Yes, Mutual Aid and Seeing Like a State are on my list, I'll bump them up for sure. Not heard of the other one on IR, I'm wondering how that falls into anarchism. tbh, anarchism is still very vague given the range I previously mentioned ("from primitivists to futurists, escapists to accelerationists"), I see several perspectives (ex. democracy at work) that do not use the "anarchist" label but basically follow its guidance in dealing with certain issues (i.e. workplace structure)

The one on IR was a result of a search I did on systems theory and anarchism. The authors are promoters of posthumanist anarchism. I am no postmodernist myself, so i did not send this on as a personal recommendation, merely as a note of interest for someone into complex system theories. Suffice it to say, this is not a classical anarchist take on things. It seems it is about the fact that 'it is essential we develop a much more nuanced and sophisticated analysis of global political systems, taking into account broader environmental circumstances, as well as social relations, economic practices and formations of political power'. Namely the environment and animals, not just humans. I merely sent this to show the tremendous variety in anarchism. Something I consider positive. Sometimes agreeable or not.

Despite its intense variety, Anarchism doesn't have to be seen negatively as vague or incoherent. Anarchism (aka. participatory democracy) can also be seen as a complex and adaptable system. As far as using or not the anarchist label goes, I don't mind. If it's honestly participatory democracy i consider it anarchist, labelled so or not.

Taking directly from the article I sent on systems theory: 'as we move through history to early capitalism we start seeing a move towards more “hybrid� models of control, where many more lateral links exist and the system takes on the possibility of evolving more decentralised, more complex behaviours'. One could see anarchism's variety, that way. Instead of being seen as 'vague' that is. 'In addition, it becomes less brittle. One might conjecture that (the hierarchical left) is in some sense doomed (as feudalism was when capitalism arose) because the environment of interaction became too complex. Anarchism, on the other hand, being deeply participatory and complex is actually more likely to survive and compete in the modern world, which has moved to a highly interconnected network-model of capitalism.

And what about anarchist as escapists? That's an oxymoron.... Anarchists are directly involved by definition. While escapists are well...another breed entirely. Just calling yourself something doesn't make it that way.

One could explore a broad history of anarchism, and all its dynamic range of ideas, instead of cherry-picking all self-proclaimed anarchists like 'escapists, primitivists, futurists, accelerationists' and concluding anarchism must be 'vague'. An idea that embraces variety must suffer a few oddballs, but there are clear impostors if anarchism's basic tenets are understood at all. Coherence is of couse necessary, but not simplicity. A complex system can never be too simple if it means to survive in the modern world. And a complex system will NECESSARILY be misunderstood by any that think everything must be simple.

I wouldn't think that people should judge Marx by Marxist-Leninist interpretations anymore than one should judge anarchism by it's strangest interpretations. Or more broadly, if we judge communism as a whole by the so-called communist governments that have taken power, communism would be doomed to incoherent contradictions.

When one delves into the anarchist range and its foundations are better understood, the impostors are too clear. At the same time, the embracing of difference and variety are an essential characteristic of anything participatory. Some of anarchisms foundations are decentralization, complexity, lateral lines, anti-authoritarian, participatory, democratic, dynamic, action-oriented. When an anarchism demarcates clearly away from these, it can't be anarchist. There is a fine line between incoherence and variety. i think convincing examples of anarchism walk it. But one can say the same between coherence and simplicity. Caricatures of anarchism don't walk it.

The Anarchist FAQs are by far the most extensive works on the history and ideas of anarchism, but there are many more easily digested. Daniel Guerin's 'No Gods, No Masters' comes highly recommended. As does his shorter work 'Anarchism: from Theory to Practice'. But like I said, they abound. Nevertheless, a broad and coherent understanding on anarchism should be a starting point to avoid vague, impossibilist generalizations when attracted by the simplistic combinination of every 'anarchist' that claims to be so into an unintelligible whole.