• unimportant
    59
    Aha! The proof is in the pudding...

    I just read in The Conquest of Bread some of what has been discussed here where it states that rather than collectivist systems of State Socialists the writer rather espouses small territories but with federation between them.
  • unimportant
    59
    Or, if you'd like, think of it as a team at your workplace -- but rather than having a boss all the workers set the rules for the workplace. This would be a workers collective.Moliere

    What is the difference between this and the trade unions that have been popular for a hundred years or so?

    But, really, I'd emphasize doing some of the readings rather than listening to me. You'll get ideas of your own that way and the theorists explain themselves in better detail than these little maps I'm trying to make :)Moliere

    I am doing both. Reading source material and discussing in tandem.
  • Moliere
    5.8k
    Trade unions organize the workers at a place not owned by the workers, whereas a workers collective owns the place and runs it in accord with whatever decision-making process they set up.

    Though you could also have a union-collective -- a union run in accord with those same principles, rather than the usual method of organization.
  • unimportant
    59
    ↪unimportant
    Trade unions organize the workers at a place not owned by the workers, whereas a workers collective owns the place and runs it in accord with whatever decision-making process they set up.
    Moliere

    Like housing co-operatives then that are quite popular among the hippy folks? I knew some people in one and sounds just like how they explained it; if not outright owning the house, holding shares in it.
  • Moliere
    5.8k
    Yup. That's one way to think on it. Though one can be part of a housing or grocery co-op without being an anarchist, of course, these are some real examples that give an idea of how it works. (for instance, a co-op could be owned by everyone but still run on hierarchical principles of hiring workers that work for the co-op, which would be a hierarchical social relationship and so not really in accord with the whole idea)
  • unimportant
    59
    Sure it is just an example for illustration but most of those issues are because they are still operating in a capitalist system. Not saying that grocery co-ops want to be full anarchist but I think a lot of those who live in housing co-ops would be happy to do so. :)
  • Moliere
    5.8k
    :up: Cool.

    Just wanted to make sure it's a bit of an analogy to the Big Picture -- something like a negotiated middle for people trying to do anarchist things in a world dominated by states.
  • Outlander
    2.4k
    assumptions of human natureNOS4A2

    5,000 years of recorded human history where wars are waged and the stronger or larger force takes and destroys from the weaker or smaller force is an "assumption?"

    Like, it's just something I randomly made up one day? Are you serious? :rofl:

    Bruh. Nah. Just nah. Come on, you're not that dense. :lol:

    because they believe humans require authority and absolutism to keep their wildest impulses in checkNOS4A2

    All you know is the life you've experienced in however many years you've been alive, a life, mind you, given exclusively to you by a strict and ordered society. With all due respect, you are ignorant of anything else as far as first hand experience. And that is a fact.
  • Martijn
    27
    Human progress is a delusion. 10.000+ years of progress and all we have created is pollution, poor health (millions are obese, for example), a system that requires IMMENSE amounts of energy and work to maintain, a loneliness epidemic, a multiculturalism issue, a housing crisis, low trust in governments, nihilism and addiction everywhere, and an erosion of the natural world (my country, the NL, is especially notorious, where ~9% of our landmass is still 'wild').

    Yes, we got a lot of progress. Cars, airplanes, vaccines, computers, the internet, cellphones.... but did they really make our lives better? More convenient and efficient, yes, but better? Where is the true joy in our world? How many people wake up with a sense of bliss and joy when they wake up, and they go to bed with a bittersweet feeling because they can't wait for the next day to start? Despite all this progress, despite all the improvements and high standards of living, the fundamental issues persist and are only growing worse.

    Life doesn't work in terms of 'progress', there is only evolution (adaptability & change), not 'progress'. In reality, life follows cycles, and even death is a part of it. Harmony is the quintessential essence of life, and all natural life follows this principle of balance. Take, for example, someone who is overweight. This person can improve his diet, exercise more, do some fasting, and lose the weight. This person 'progressed' from being overweight to being a regular weight, by adapting his lifestyle and making changes in his life. Yet, there is nothing preventing him from becoming overweight again, by making poor decisions regarding diet. This simple example shows that in our world, life doesn't work in terms of 'progress', where you transfer from an insufficient or broken 'yesterday' (or today), to a better 'tomorrow'. The ideology of technological progress has been our most profound collective delusion, and I fell for it just as easily when I was younger. When you stop viewing life as a 'race' wherein you have to 'progress' from a bad start to an alleged happy end, but instead view it as a journey where you only apply changes within the locus of control, and accept everything outside of it, your quality of life, stillness, and happiness goes up dramatically.

    So, no, anarchism is not about violence or made up by a few angsty teenagers. It is our fundamental way of living, it is deep within us, even to this day. Obviously, we are brainwashed by the system from a young age, so actually breaking free is immensely difficult, and it is not random that the 'outcasts' (the poor or the counter culture individuals, for example) pose the biggest threat to it. As unimportant stated, we simply refuse to lick boots, and our world would be a much better place if more people would do the same.
  • Tom Storm
    10k
    Human progress is a delusion.Martijn

    The word progress is obviously a context-dependent, imprecise term, it refers to improvement, but not to some kind of transcendent force driving us toward a Platonic form of perfection. In my own life, I’ve seen a lot of progress, so I can’t really agree with your view. Cars are better, TVs are better, food is better, the status of women is better. Healthcare has improved, communication is faster and more accessible, education is more widespread, and social attitudes toward things like race, gender, and mental health have become more inclusive and informed. I would rather be alive today than 85 years ago or 200 years ago. My dad, who died a few years ago near the age of 100, said that the greatest joy he had experienced was the progress he'd witnessed - despite the wars, pollution, political and corporate corruption.
  • Moliere
    5.8k
    With all due respect, you are ignorant of anything else as far as first hand experience. And that is a fact.Outlander

    So how can you claim:

    5,000 years of recorded human history where wars are waged and the stronger or larger force takes and destroys from the weaker or smaller force is an "assumption?"Outlander

    Unless you have first hand experience of 5000 years? Or is recorded history enough?
  • NOS4A2
    9.9k


    5,000 years of recorded human history where wars are waged and the stronger or larger force takes and destroys from the weaker or smaller force is an "assumption?"

    Like, it's just something I randomly made up one day? Are you serious? :rofl:

    Bruh. Nah. Just nah. Come on, you're not that dense.

    You don’t mention that these forces were more often than not managed, armed, and employed by states. Political scientist Rudolph Rummel estimated that around 300 million people were killed by governments in the last century alone. He coined the term “democide”.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
  • BC
    13.9k
    Anarchism is a great subject! I don't know what, how much, by whom, or when you read about anarchism and communism or socialism. Keep reading! I want to mention a famous Lithuanian - American anarchist, Emma Goldman (1869 – 1940). She never actually said "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution" but she meant it.

    Goldman was an anarchist and feminist. While she never said the exact words, she conveyed the idea that revolutions should be joyous and embrace personal freedom, including the freedom of self-expression. It's a call for a revolution that uplifts and empowers individuals, not one that stifles them or demands absolute conformity.

    I read her autobiography many years ago and found it inspiring. Leftist activists and thinkers can come off as repressive kill-joys, just as their hard line right-wing counterparts can. So find writers who uplift rather than harangue. Emma Goldman is one -- she's not the only good writer, and there are more contemporary ones. (I haven't read in this field for a long time, so I defer from suggesting authors.)

    You might want to look into Anarcho-syndicalism, too. Their thinking involves the role of trade unionism which might be a bit dated now. Other leftist groups (Socialist Labor Party, New Union Party) see a critical role in industrial unionism, which is a broader base than trade unionism. Neither of these groups are anarchist.

    Anarchism, socialism, communism, trade unionism, industrial unionism, and so on are part of the rich history of American labor struggles which were never consistent, simple, or unified.

    One difference between anarchists and socialist/communists: Anarchists tend to think in terms of horizontal leadership and decision making. Deciding by consensus, for example. Communists tend to think in terms of vertical decision making: The leader decides and the rank and file complies). There are deficiencies and advantages in both systems.
  • RogueAI
    3.2k
    How would something like the LHC or Hubble Telescope be built in anarchist land?
  • boethius
    2.5k
    ↪boethius Heh, yeah we don't need to simplify to that point. I think we basically agree -- I was just peeved you'd say that no one would ever say such and such, and so asked you to provide something similar that might be better. But it's no worries now, and it doesn't really matter.Moliere

    We are of one mind.

    I was more peeved at the suggestions against the need to read a whole lot of books to gain any insight into this particular question. Not that I have issue with neophytes asking whatever question comes to mind, but if actually understanding pretty much anything about the subject is going to require a lot of reading I don't like to see that denigrated.

    What's a better or worse simplification shouldn't be an emotional question, so apologies for my part for that.

    And it could be a good simplification, could apply to different socialist factions and maybe even some people calling themselves anarchist, but the heart of anarchism in the "main cannon", such as Kropotkin (echoed by anarchists as esteemed as Bertrand Russel), is really the rejection of the whole framework of "all we need is power to do this one thing to make the world a better place".

    For us, let's say "mainline anarchists" or I like to say anarcho-anarchists, "the state" is mostly in people's heads. As long as people have in their heads that it's quite normal and proper to have a king, even if they have an issue with the current king and cut his head off they just turn around and ordain the next one.

    Considering the French Revolution also murdered a bunch of anarchists, and not only anarchists but the best kind of anarchists going around hilariously calling themselves the "Without Underwear" faction, anarchists became even more skeptical of state power than they were before.

    So, to this end, anarcho-anarchism are also keenly interested in how these murder all the anarchist episodes transpire and so take close interest into works such as Tocqueville and The Old Regime and the Revolution.

    In this book, Tocqueville basically describes what's in people's heads (what they are used to essentially) as a great river and uses the image that it may suddenly disappear underground, but the river is not gone and will simply spring up somewhere else. French people were quite accustomed to tyranny so that can't be just reconfigured over night, so you cut the kings head off but you end up with the tyranny of The Terror followed by "electing" an emperor to "protect the revolution".

    Same in Russia: get rid of the Tsar, feels good for a time but then society simply coalesces around a new Tsar with a different name.

    So, the conclusion is not that social change is impossible only that it takes time and it's the change in people's heads that is fundamental and determinative. If it no longer makes sense to people to be ruled by a king, then society sorts things out to get rid of monarchal rule (often without violence and even the king agrees and cooperates! ... if you let him keep his toys of course).

    The anarchists role in such social movements is mostly to keep undermining the faith in authority that maintains it.
  • Jamal
    10.6k
    If I can't dance, it's not my revolutionBC

    It's a good line. I hadn't heard it before. And it's good to set against the impression that anarchism is ... kinda boring.
  • boethius
    2.5k
    Ok, I am on board with this. I despise the mega corporations where you not able to get in touch with a human and only get automated responses.unimportant

    Excellent.

    And if you read Proudhon, Kropotkin, Emma Goldstein, Tolstoy (Kingdom of God is Within You), you'll find this school of anarchism mostly human relationship centred.

    And you'll actually be surprised how non-radical anarchy is. 90% or more of "first wave" anarchist ideas were super radical at the time but common sense now, such as not beating children at school, which was though to be an impossible utopian dream, and then some anarchists made a school and demonstrated it was possible.

    Another good example, Tolstoy's Kingdom of God is Within You is almost entirely dedicated to arguing for conscientious objection to forced conscription, something that is totally normal today (but at the time might get you executed, tortured, thrown in a dirty hole for life etc.); Tolstoy was just like ... "well if we just keep doing this eventually the state will give up", which is exactly what happened.

    These themes also highlight the focus in anarchism of individual example. Being willing to be the first one to refuse military service on moral grounds (and so be immediately executed) is just as, if not more, important to the anarchist movement as writing a book or being involved in party politics in one way or another. Likewise being willing to be the first one to not beat your children to see what happens, put the hypotheses that they will literally go insane to the test.

    What you write pretty much is what I had hoped anarchism would be. I am ready to sign up.unimportant

    Then you are warmly welcomed into the movement.

    I am also a big advocate of open source technology which seems along the same lines of decentralization and power to the people.unimportant

    Yes, whole hacker / open source / anonymous movement is super "anarchy" whether people involved call themselves anarchists or not, it's all clearly part of the anarchist school to do.

    It's also a great example of "other things to do" in the anarchist framework compared to most socialist schools. Party politics can stagnate (for decades if not centuries) and there simply isn't must to contribute. By all means stand up socialist and left candidates, but the culture can simply be at a point where there's steep diminishing returns to "try to push harder" with leftist parties, because people simply aren't voting for it (see the "states in people's heads" doctrine in response above to @Moliere).

    So, if people aren't "getting it" the anarchist response is to lead by example. If knowledge should be open and free, the foundation of the liberation of humanity, then maybe easiest to just go and show how that's possible. A sort of "if the door of governance is bolted shut with a thousand spikes ... maybe go try and open a window, let a bit of fresh air in at least" approach to things.

    Of course, there maybe times when the door can be moved and it's important to realize that "the shits happening now", so it's not one thing is better than another but rather there's lot's to do and what's best for each person to do in any given time is for them to figure out.

    I myself have dedicated 20 years to the development of open source solar thermal technology in poor countries. Back in the late 90s, early 2000s, seemed pretty clear people in the West weren't simply going to vote for not-destroying-the-environment, and that attitudes would change when we start feeling the consequences, so I my conclusion was best I could do is prepare tools that would be useful in such a realization / collapse of the industrial system.

    Grass roots projects that work a million times better than the 'too big to fail' bloat of most capitalist garbage.unimportant

    That is the anarchist way.

    Though one thing to note is my contrast with socialism / Marxism above is centred about Soviet-Marxism because that's the most famous and historically consequential Marxist school, and in my view when historical movements are contrasted it's best to start with the most famous formulations; for example a historical contrast of Christianity with Islam makes sense in my view to start with Catholicism and Orthodoxy and Sunni and Shia; and once there's some clarity on that get into smaller groups in terms of historical numbers (of course such a historical analysis does not resolve "who's right" about different theological topics).

    So, important to note that since the Soviet Union collapsed that school of marxism isn't important to day.

    Contemporary Marxists and socialists are pretty close to anarcho-anarchism in theoretical outlook. The difference maybe essentially none, just labelling difference, or fairly obscure aspects of theory, or merely tactical, or historical outlook, and the difference likely as big as between Marxists and their typical fellow Marxists.

    For example, a self described socialist and Marxist like Yanis Varoufakis doesn't say anything I disagree with, and I'm a member of his party Diem25 as it's "radical enough" for me.

    Difference today is more one of temperament and personality. One may vibe more with self-described anarchists or socialists or Marxists or communists or unionists or eco-villagers or development-aid workers or open source education or anonymous or soup kitchen staff or conservationists or scientists of one discipline or another, UN staff and special reporters, and so on, while recognizing there's this general leftist-humanitst-ecological movement going on with a lot of people involved. Not to say no one's counter productive or a complete douche bag doing whatever they're doing, just that there's clearly a lot to do. Likewise, not to say there isn't important differences; indeed, the lack of internal debate and criticism in the movement at large in my view is the main obstacle (too much virtue signalling, not enough rolling around in the mud and hashing it out).

    Where anarchism is a bit special is that anarchy is really not that good a brand, and we anarchists put a lot of effort into keeping it that way.
  • Martijn
    27


    And i'd rather be alive 60 years ago than today, because then atleast I'd be able to afford a good home and raise a family on an average income, and before our lives were bombarded with noise and before social media took over our relationships, and when the future atleast had the illusion of being prosperous.

    None of your points refer to 'progress' in any sense. Who cares that cars are better when all cars do is make us slower, tired, and ravage nature? Who cares that phones and TVs are better when they numb and disconnect us? Food is DEFINITELY not better, I don't know how you can think that. Look up the statistics on how many people struggle with their weight or metabolic health issues like diabetes. It's staggering yet unsurprising. Most food you can purchase at your local grocery store is genuine garbage.

    The more equitable view towards race and gender is a positive for sure, but who says it will last? What is stopping society & its corrupt leaders from falling into facism or another evil ideology, rapidly stripping away the rights of minorities? In theory, there is nothing stopping us from stripping away women's rights again, or discriminating against ethnic minorities and enforcing it by law, except for us. The attitudes have shifted for the better - which is a positive - but there is no guarantee it will last, or further improve. That's why 'progress', of any kind, is a delusion.

    The world we live in is a reflection of our minds. You need a high level of consciousness to see beyond it all, which can be difficult. But when you experience the world beyond the self, you can also see the truth and recognise the horrible dystopia WE have built. Just like how World War 1 & 2, the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Palestine, the horrible decisions made by China and the USA, and so on, are all self-made consequences of our own decisions. This is something very few people dare to accept, as it is simply much easier to point fingers (the government, fate, karma, minorities, aliens) instead of pointing at ourselves and the world we have built. Something like money itself is only real because we keep the story alive. We don't actually need money to live, but the system demands it, so we must adhere to it (or radically reject it).

    If progress and money are our Gods, then I am an atheist. I will be hated for it, but I don't care. Most simply refuse to accept that we are all addicted to our prison, and we will cling to it until it collapses.
  • Tom Storm
    10k
    People become so overwhelmed by problems and the fashionable "everything's fucked' thinking that they are oblivious to what's actually better. But I understand that people see things differently. That's part of the fun of being a human being.

    Who cares that cars are better when all cars do is make us slower, tired, and ravage nature?Martijn

    Well, I do care, they are safer, more reliable and less polluting. But I don't own a car. I have access to good public transport now, whereas 60 years ago there was none in many areas I can now travel in comfort. Another improvement.
  • Martijn
    27


    I appreciate the sentiment and remember that it's never personal. I simply disagree at a fundamental level. Cars have definitely become safer, faster, smarter, and so on. I do not own a car but have driven for hundreds of thousands of kilometers in my younger days, so I have my fair share of experience. I still stand by what I said: driving a car is boring, it has tons of fundamental issues like a constant demand of a supply of FUEL (the primary concern), maintenance, endless roads and similar infrastructure, endless laws to regulate how people drive, not to mention all the accidents and loss of life that occurs due to traffic, and so on.

    It is crucial to understand that the entire infrastructure we have only serves the system. People need cars to go to work, and we need an endless supply chain of trucks, ships, and planes, to transport goods all across the world, just so we can endlessly trade, consume, and pollute.

    Personally, I haven't driven a car in like five years, and my life has only become better. I notice this trend in many other similar fields: the more I slow down and just appreciate life itself, and focus on doing more meaningful things like going for long walks, journaling, sketching, playing music, etc, rather than staying on the treadmill like the system demands, the more I heal. And this insight made me realize that I don't need a car to live well.

    Just think about this: what would happen if all cars were to vanish overnight? Obviously it would cause major issues: supply chains would be disrupted, to say the least. But go back in time further, before there were cars, and ask yourself: was life worse? Did people not experience life? The endless expansion and growth only serves the system, not us. We must put up with it. There is no going back.
  • unimportant
    59
    Good :)

    I was able to digest a lot more of that.

    Btw it reminded me of another thought I had been having. How did anarchy get related to the destroy everything rebellion for rebellion's sake punk style that most of society thinks of when they think of anarchy?

    It has become synonymous with rioting and ransacking and general disorder as a way of life.

    I see perhaps, maybe, that is a part of it to get rid of the current state, but marxism talks about revolution of that kind equally/even more doesn't it so why has that not become the 'poster boy' for destruction but anarchy has? It seems that anarchy has as much post-state toppling discourse on how to manage society thereafter as marxism.

    Anarchy is generally thought of like mad max. Also the word itself is used for general wild behavior if someone says "It was anarchy!"
  • unimportant
    59
    too much virtue signallingboethius

    I was just looking up local anarchist forums and the front page of the first one I click is full of trans and queer activism stuff. Certainly nothing, apart from having anachist in the name, would indicate it had anything to do with the kinds of topics which have been discussing in this thread.

    Identity politics appears to have polluted all these so called far left movements.

    Is it not a product of capitalist thinking? I am reminded of the old term of spiritual materialism for religious epithets. This could be called identity materialism and a by product of the rot of capitalism.

    The far left member on the contrary should not have an identity and subvert themselves and their energies to the greater cause of the Party. Maybe I am swinging back to communist. :)
  • Martijn
    27


    Anarchy is one of the biggest threats to the current system, that's why there's endless propaganda in circulation to diminish what it actually is, how it works, and how the supermachine we are running on top of the world actually works (defined by greed, nepotism, slavery, etc). The more people embrace their roots and the more people understand what is going on, the more in trouble they will be. Hence the relentless propaganda and brainwashing.

    Tbh, it's not worth fighting against. It's like trying to convince a Christian that his God is dead and that Jesus won't come back to the Earth. You will be hated and villified for speaking the truth, and at some point it just takes its toll. Best to just live your life to the best of your abilities.
  • Jamal
    10.6k
    Identity politics appears to have polluted all these so called far left movements.

    Is it not a product of capitalist thinking? I am reminded of the old term of spiritual materialism for religious epithets. This could be called identity materialism and a by product of the rot of capitalism.
    unimportant

    Indeed, there are leftist critiques of identity politics that make similar points, tying it to neoliberalism. One example:

    Remember when we were supposed to celebrate the first black president, even though he disappointed the hopes of every progressive who campaigned for him? Remember when supporters of Bernie Sanders were relentlessly tarred as sexist (and racist, somehow) for opposing Hillary Clinton?

    This style of politics continued to define liberalism during the Donald Trump administration. While women lost abortion rights and right-wing men gained power, liberals cheered the spectacle of prominent liberal men — mostly in media and cultural institutions — losing their jobs for sexual harassment. Land acknowledgments became prevalent in corporate and academic settings, even as the construction of pipelines on indigenous lands continued apace. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder by the police, many were disappointed by how little changed for poor and working-class black Americans: the most tangible outcome of the widespread street protests of 2020 was that corporate America put more black people on its boards.

    This was neoliberal identity politics, an elite discourse that centered identities as a way of undermining a robust, effective class politics. Of course, race, gender, and sexuality matter and are salient political concepts in the fight for human freedom. But elites used neoliberal identity politics to undermine broad human solidarities, divide the Left, and advance policies that benefited only the 1 percent. Because bigotry is still a real problem, many good progressives would fall for it every time.
    Liza Featherstone

    If that’s too shallow, I found some good stuff listed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CriticalTheory/comments/1h7l2qk/good_leftist_critiques_of_identity_politicswokeism/

    EDIT: Come to think of it, your mention of religion reminds me of Hans-Georg Moeller's view that "wokeism" is a "civil religion". His YouTube channel is pretty good. (He definitely comes out of the tradition of left-wing philosophy, btw)
  • unimportant
    59
    Interesting to read that some that are not the usual righties have also critiqued it. I know that Sam Harris has also done so.

    With the way any kind of critique of wokeism is immediately lambasted by the contemporary left as fascist or similar it does make one wonder if is a manufactured 'controlled opposition' ploy by the capitalists.

    The endless cancel culture have made the Left impotent. Having lost its teeth it is no longer a threat to the establishment.

    I feel such views would be very unpopular if voiced in public Left circles. Are there any bulwarks on the contemporary Left that are seeing through this?
  • Jamal
    10.6k
    Are there any bulwarks on the contemporary Left that are seeing through this?unimportant

    Well, that list on Reddit is made up mostly of leftist thinkers, so there's a fairly strong contingent. Zizek is another prominent leftist critic of wokeism.

    But if you're asking if any left-wing groups, movements, parties etc., take a stand against identity politics, I don't know off the top of my head. I'm completely out of the loop. I guess the Communist Party of the Russian Federation doesn't count :grin:
  • Moliere
    5.8k
    It's a good line. I hadn't heard it before. And it's good to set against the impression that anarchism is ... kinda boring.Jamal

    :rofl:

    Hey, I don't know what's wrong with the rest of the world but reading old translations of 150 year old political theory is :fire: -- keeps me up all night.
  • Jamal
    10.6k


    No, theory is great! It's the practical stuff that's boring.

    While an exciting idea, anarchism in practice is, well, boring. Far from what window-smashing insurrectionists are doing, it mostly takes the form of an extremely slow-moving and highly rule-bound process of collective deliberation. Anarchy, paradoxically, means more rules, not fewer, and more collective responsibility, not less.David Flood

    :yawn: :wink:

    I think Zizek once (probably more than once) complained about people who advocate direct democracy, saying he would rather write books and watch movies than discuss who's going to collect the bins next week.
  • NOS4A2
    9.9k


    Hey, I don't know what's wrong with the rest of the world but reading old translations of 150 year old political theory is :fire: -- keeps me up all night.

    There are some good writers who tend towards anarchism. Less philosophical, systematic, more poetic, but enjoyable to read at least. Oscar Wilde, Percy Shelly, Leo Tolstoy, Henry David Thoreau, and Albert Jay Nock come to mind.

    In fact, Tolstoy’s “On Anarchy” fits nicely into this thread topic. He is more of an individualist anarchist, where the revolution occurs within the individual, offering a different path for the aspiring anarchist than the Marxist and the violent anarchists of his own day.

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-on-anarchy
123458
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.