Decolonisation eh. We might not have had colonisation sucessfully inflicted in the first place without the christian input.

Or, we might have. In fact, although early missionaries were undeniably part of the colonisation process, you'd be much better picking on real estate agents. They have unapologetically been pushing colonisation since the first days of the New Zealand company.

Besides which, I believe that I can say very safely that none of those early colonial christians would have been christianarchists.

Christianity is broad, and can be pro or anti revolution and progressive or conservative ie rightwing fundamentalism or liberation theology.

Who wrote your anarchy bible and when was it written?

Do you have the same Saints and holidays as the Christians that you compete against?

Christianity is broad because people enjoy playing mind game.

Like christianity, there are many forms of anarchism as well.

Adolescent anarchism has a hi profile that rarely goes beyond the haircut and the "too cool for school" dress sense before a prolonged adolescence ends with the humiliating crawl back to mummy and daddy's to regroup and get one's trajecotry back on the middle class track. This form of anarchism has the most problem with christian anarchists as it threatens the exclusive subculture that has no interest in counterculture and challenging state power.

There are serious anarchists out there who are agnostic and athieist who don't give a fuck if you believe in Jesus, Buddha or the pixies at the end of the garden as long as you come to mutual conclusions on direct democracy they'll go to your conferences and work in a spirit of solidarity and respect with whatever spirituality or culture you spring from.

Ack. Why ya'll gotta be such angry grumpy-bums. Emma Goldman was racist. Kropotkin was sexist. I imagine a lot of the often quoted anarchists and marxists were homophobic and disagreeable in all sorts of ways.

I think there's a lot less to be afraid of in christianarchy than you might think. I think the major point of difference is about the basic fundamental belief in the existance of god, and whether or not jesus was his son (distinct from the idea of all humans being god's children).

All ideologies are broad because people are amazingly diverse, and have unique experiences of the world that they bring to everything they read and embody.

Tell you what though, since this is just anonymous bullshit talking on the internet, say what you want. I'm just glad no one is holding me to task for anarchist murders or assasinations. Or for contemporary anarchists in aotearoa who have raped or abused people in their communities.

No one is pretending that Brian Tamaki or Pat Robertson are anarchists.

Whats the point of being an Anarchist if you are a christian?
Christianity is based on the dea that ife is short, and the afterlife addresses all injustices that occur durig life.
So whats the point of trying to eradicate injustice in life?
There isnt any. Thats why christianity can never be compatible with any kind of socialism or even any yearning for any kind of human improvement in life.

"Christianity is based on the dea that ife is short, and the afterlife addresses all injustices that occur durig life."

I don't know - sounds an awful lot like 'the revolution' to me. You know, like how there will be no more crime after 'the revolution'.

Some christian theologies see heaven as being a metaphor for the same sort of manifestation of positive humanity on earth that others mean when they talk about the glorious revolution.

The middle eastern god concept is a little bronze age'ish isnt it...but Im all for organised kaos, if thats ur thing. ;)

Why are new zealand politicos on indymedia always so trollish, so cliquey and close minded?!

Give them solidarity or debate, not mindless drivle.

Congratulations on your conference.

Unity in diversity!
Ak Anarchist

Because activism in this country is mostly based on who you hang out with, rather than any serious attempt to understand political philosophy, its basis in history, or what it can usefully tell us about how to live our lives and organize our communities.

More than half the people in this country are not atheists. Seems the atheist socialists (anarcho-communists included) think they will either convert them to socialism or kill them all when their glorious revolution comes. Sounds a bit like the crusades to me. Let's not forget that the likes of Stalin and Mao (and Hitler for that matter) murdered millions in the name of socialism. Does that mean we have to reject the idea that socialism can have radical forms or that
socialists can be part of a genuine revolutionary movement?

As I suggested in another thread here, it seems people are most critical of their own repressed flaws as seen in others. To paraphrse the christians favorite book, get the log our of your own eye before making a fuss about the splinter in someone else's.

Strypey

"Christianity is based on the dea that ife is short, and the afterlife addresses all injustices that occur durig life.
So whats the point of trying to eradicate injustice in life?
There isnt any."

So you want to tell Christian anarchists what they should believe in and how they should run their lives? And you want them to stop working against injustices because you've decided that to do so isn't Christian?

Being really helpful aren't you?

Cheers

Sam Buchanan

"So whats the point of trying to eradicate injustice in life?"
Because it makes life somewhat unpleasant for people, to put it mildly.
Also because eternal life starts in this one.

I spoke to a couple of the non-christian anarchists that went. It sounded like an interesting conference. Wish I could have made it along.

"Also because eternal life starts in this one."

I think this one statement sums of the understanding I have around christianity and
working for a better world in the here and now.

When Jesus uses the terms heaven and hell he was not talking about some future happening as much as a real tangible physical occurrences in his time period.

Hell was "gahena" or the actual town dump in Jerusalem and Jesus said that the people in danger of going there were the ones who had profound contempt or hatred towards another human being (Matthew 5:22). The term for hatred Jesus used was "racha". The sound a person makes when they clear their throat to spit on another person.

Heaven was referred to the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus commands his followers to go as radical agents of healing and restoration into the world, without money or possessions. Forming and relying on community. And in being this kind of people to announce that the "kingdom of heaven has come near" (matthew 10:7-10:10).

While it may have become the norm for Christians to view heaven and hell as solely future entities this view conflicts with both the practice and teaching of Jesus.

Anyway these are just some thoughts that came to mind. Feel free to find me (in auckland/on facebook/dumpster diving) if you wana have a more indepth discussion.

Duncan Darroch

To those anachists who are whinning about the JesusRadicals.

What have you done lately?

The socialists from Ploughshares are kicking ass while you're sitting on yours.

Both anarco-christianity and anarco-atheistism are laissez-faire. This means that things get out of control and the strong person comes along to get rid of the mess and when this occurs both anarco-christianity and anarco atheistism evolve into a dictatorship.

New Zealanders have not been involved in activism or anarchy long enough for them to learn that laissez-faire becomes a dictatorship.

Hi Sam, given that you are always protesting against anything everything that you disagree, surely this means that people are allowed to protest against your ideas. Or are you trying to say that anarchists are the only people who are allowed to protest?

"Hi Sam, given that you are always protesting against anything everything that you disagree, surely this means that people are allowed to protest against your ideas."

If the former were true, I'd be a busy man.

I don't recall ever saying that anyone wasn't free to protest against my ideas. I said that calling for people, whose ideas I don't fully share, to stop working against injustice was unhelpful. Feel free to disagree.

cheers

Sam

Burn capitalism for Jesus!
Can I get an amyn? How about a helleluyahhh?
For all u antis, you better get ur asses into gear because the kristianarks hold the, 'coolest direct action in 2008 award', so far.

I have not heard how the confernece went and would love to get a report from some of the people there. I was very interested in being with people who had a common thinking to me. I do not believe in religions. I dont beleive i need to be orgainsed by a religion. But I know some of those people at that conference were good people with some good ideas about change. I wouldnt mind standing with them some time. In fact I look forward to it. We have different outlooks and different ways but our goals are some what the same. Please send out a report to those who indicated they supported the conference but could not get there. Look forward to sharing stories with some of you over the coming years.

To all you who choose to throw bricks and stones, guess you will be left on the side of the road as we walk together to build a community that is full of love and caring.

Te aroha me te rangimare o te ao ki a tatou katoa

Michael Bakunin on God:
A jealous lover of human liberty, deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him...

This contradiction lies here: they wish God, and they wish humanity. They persist in connecting two terms which, once separated, can come together again only to destroy each other. They say in a single breath: "God and the liberty of man," "God and the dignity, justice, equality, fraternity, prosperity of men" — regardless of the fatal logic by virtue of which, if God exists, all these things are condemned to non-existence. For, if God is, he is necessarily the eternal, supreme, absolute master, and, if such a master exists, man is a slave; now, if he is a slave, neither justice, nor equality, nor fraternity, nor prosperity are possible for him. In vain, flying in the face of good sense and all the teachings of history, do they represent their God as animated by the tenderest love of human liberty: a master, whoever he may be and however liberal he may desire to show himself, remains none the less always a master. His existence necessarily implies the slavery of all that is beneath him. Therefore, if God existed, only in one way could he serve human liberty — by ceasing to exist...

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth...

A boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished...

Of escape there are but three methods — two chimerical and a third real. The first two are the dram-shop and the church, debauchery of the body or debauchery of the mind; the third is social revolution...

All religions, with their gods, their demigods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the credulous fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties. Consequently, the religious heaven is nothing but a mirage in which man, exalted by ignorance and faith, discovers his own image, but enlarged and reversed — that is, divinized. The history of religion, of the birth, grandeur, and decline of the gods who have succeeded one another in human belief, is nothing, therefore, but the development of the collective intelligence and conscience of mankind...

All religions are cruel, all founded on blood; for all rest principally on the idea of sacrifice-that is, on the perpetual immolation of humanity to the insatiable vengeance of divinity...

Christianity is precisely the religion par excellence, because it exhibits and manifests, to the fullest extent, the very nature and essence of every religious system, which is the impoverishment, enslavement, and annihilation of humanity for the benefit of divinity...

God being everything, the real world and man are nothing. God being truth, justice, goodness, beauty, power, and life, man is falsehood, iniquity, evil, ugliness, impotence, and death. God being master, man is the slave. Incapable of finding justice, truth, and eternal life by his own effort, he can attain them only through a divine revelation. But whoever says revelation says revealers, messiahs, prophets, priests, and legislators inspired by God himself; and these, once recognized as the representatives of divinity on earth, as the holy instructors of humanity, chosen by God himself to direct it in the path of salvation, necessarily exercise absolute power. All men owe them passive and unlimited obedience; for against the divine reason there is no human reason, and against the justice of God no terrestrial justice holds. Slaves of God, men must also be slaves of Church and State, in so far as the State is consecrated by the Church. This truth Christianity, better than all other religions that exist or have existed, understood, not excepting even the old Oriental religions, which included only distinct and privileged nations, while Christianity aspires to embrace entire humanity; and this truth Roman Catholicism, alone among all the Christian sects, has proclaimed and realized with rigorous logic. That is why Christianity is the absolute religion, the final religion; why the Apostolic and Roman Church is the only consistent, legitimate, and divine church.

With all due respect, then, to the metaphysicians and religious idealists, philosophers, politicians, or poets: The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice.

Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and degradation of mankind, as the Jesuits desire it, as the mômiers, pietists, or Protestant Methodists desire it, we may not, must not make the slightest concession either to the God of theology or to the God of metaphysics. He who, in this mystical alphabet, begins with A will inevitably end with Z; he who desires to worship God must harbor no childish illusions about the matter, but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.

If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist.

from God and the State (1876) flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/gas.html

If god has created everything including sin then that means that god wants people to sin and that means sinning is good.

Therefore, abuse of human rights does not exist.

Humans create sin by sinning. It can't exist apart from them, as you are suggesting.

Anarchist xstians - Classic!
Next will we have announcements about the Vegan meatworkers collective AGM ?!

When did anarchism become soley athiestic? Considering the basic tenet of anarchism is anti central Government. Perhaps those anarchists that do need to take another look at their ism before you by default negate many of the historical anarchists, e.g. Much of the Mexican and Jewish anarchists still maintained their faith in a god yet their accomplishments stand alone as the driving forces behind many of modern anarchism ideas.

I am not saying that those beliefs should not be challenged, I am merely pointing out that a belief in a god has not inhibitted the ability of many that have gone before to be effective activists and revolutionaries against centralised oppressive governments.

"When did anarchism become soley athiestic?"

Anarchism did begin as an atheistic movement. Anarchism as a historical movement originated in Europe in the 1870s. It was formed by a group of people who were expelled/left the First Workingmen's International. Those people included Bakunin. as far as i know, all of them were atheists. As noted above, in Bakunin's magnificent tirade, they thought you could not be anti-authoritarian and believe in an all-powerful god.

Since then, the vast majority of anarchists have been atheists or agnostics.

Most Jewish anarchists were atheists or agnostics, such as Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman, Murray Bookchin, Sam Dolgoff, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Volin, Erich Muehsam, Bernard Lazare, Mollie Steimer, Senya Fleshin, and pretty much all Jewish anarchist groups and newspapers (eg. the free voice of labour and freie arbeiter stimme).
Not forgetting Noam Chomsky, if you regard him as an anarchist.

I don't know about Mexican anarchism, but the Flores Magon brothers were anarchist communists, and the anarchist communist tradition is definitely secular.

Certainly, "christian anarchism", which is a contradiction in terms, appeals to a few anarchists today. I think this is because they are attracted to the radical christian's moralistic politics of self-sacrifice, their practice of individualistic acts of ineffective symbolic yet militant direct action, their belief in being humble and giving charity, and their belief in a pure lifestyle etc etc. This nicely ties in with lifestyle anarchism, which, lets face it, is quite religious anyway.

Following a strict moral code will not bring down capitalism and the state. In fact, such narrowmindedness invariably leads to an elitist politics whereby the enlightened few (ie. the believers) see themselves as some sort of vanguard of radical social change, and hope that people will follow their "exemplary acts".

Seeking to change capitalism on an ethical, idealist level through the “force of example” is doomed to fail. This is because to overthrow capitalism, workers will need to change the material conditions where they work and where they live. And they need to do this themselves. Part of this collective self-liberation involves mutual aid/solidarity, not ugly acts of patronising charity.

"Since then, the vast majority of anarchists have been atheists or agnostics"

From your list, it sounds like you mean "the vast majority of anarchists from European cultures". In any case, I don't know of anybody taking a survey of anarchists to base this statement on. However, if you are talking about "people who follow a particular political tradition which employs the term 'anarchism' (ie. excluding people who follow parallel philosophies in other cultures, rather than the European anarchist political current) you might be right.

"Part of this collective self-liberation involves mutual aid/solidarity, not ugly acts of patronising charity."

Mutual aid seems to be exactly what the Christian anarchists are best at. What is your critique of their practice based on?

Cheers

Sam Buchanan

"From your list, it sounds like you mean "the vast majority of anarchists from European cultures". In any case, I don't know of anybody taking a survey of anarchists to base this statement on. However, if you are talking about "people who follow a particular political tradition which employs the term 'anarchism' (ie. excluding people who follow parallel philosophies in other cultures, rather than the European anarchist political current) you might be right."

I'm talking about anarchism as a political movement, which originated in a very specific historical and economic context. I reject the liberal idea of Peter Marshall etc that anarchism is this sort of free floating, platonic 'nice' idea that has existed throughout history. Certainly, some tribes (like the Guarani in Paraguay) and philosophies have been anarchistic.
But anarchism is a movement that originated as a specific reaction to the twin rise of capital and the state in europe in the late 19th century. It arose not as a nice idea invented by a few philosophers, but arose from the working class and peasants movements of the day.

it then has spread to many other continents, reacting to the material conditions and cultures therein. in latin america, anarchism is also majority atheist and agnostic. i think japanese and chinese anarchism was also atheistic and agnostic. south african anarchism, eg zabalaza, are atheists or agnostics.

i'm not saying anarchism isn't incompatible with some aspects of religion. i'm only arguing that a belief in an all-powerful god is incompatible with anarchism.

"Mutual aid seems to be exactly what the Christian anarchists are best at. What is your critique of their practice based on?"

what is your belief based on? i suspect you are attracted to 'christian anarchism' because it fits in well with the liberal anarchism you have been pushing for years.

mutual aid means giving and taking according to need. mutual aid is not a liberal cross-class ideal, it is a collective practice born of material necessity ie. it's a product of the class struggle.

catholic worker in chch (now there is a delicious contradiction! catholic anarchism!) practice charity. its riven throughout their paper 'common good'. that is, an elite bunch of believers give to others without expecting anything in return in the hope of saving a few homeless lumpens from their 'sins' while in the process feeling good and righteous and virtuous and all that other purist christian crap that they are on the road to salvation and the fantasy of heaven. that is, i suspect they are a radical version of salvation army who parade as anarchists.

a great example of this patronising charity is how catholic workers live 'precariously' on the edge so as to identify with the really poor. ie. for them it's a luxury, a voluntary choice of poverty and self-sacrifice, that i can't help feel is used to show those 'sinners' the shining path of righteousness. (the voluntary poverty bit kind of reminds of middle class hippies except at least hippies celebrate life, rather than flagellate themselves).

yet today for many workers and lumpens precarity isn't a choice. it's bloody forced upon us by capitalism! not to mentions the billions of slum dwellers in the world living in extremely precarious conditions. we don't need no bloody righteous christians trying to stoop to our level to show us 'the way, the truth and the life'. uuurrrgh.

"Anarchism as a historical movement originated in Europe in the 1870s."

Awww crap, I guess I got bumped off the anarchist list then since I was born a few hundred years before, and of course, Im a catholic.

Feel free to still use my poster though.

G Fawkes

Cross these ones off the list too please.
- Emiliano Zapata
- Pancho Villa
- Subcomandante Marcos...add the Zapatista Army in there while ur at it.

Why: They used hierachial leadership styles and promoted the farming of animals for meat eating via slaughter.

When Noam Chomsky was in Dublin recently he decribed anarchism as "common sense" and stated that "most people pracitse it". This is in contrast to those who see anarchism as some elite insight held be a few.


The comment above about Marshall's book, in which I am quoted "Demanding the Impossible - A History of Anarchism" (I mention this as I bought the book at one London Anarchist Book Fair (2000 from memory) in which I am quoted as a Catholic/christian anarchist and was banned from presenting at the next one (2001) because identified as a Catholic....this has now been sorted after many contributions from secular anarchists and the CW have a stall at the fair etc)

....the comment above points to a debate in the understanding of anarchism.Ironically chritisan anarchists run on the evolutionary strand (acknowledging anarchism present in some indigeneous culture, spiritual movements, other place in history and the world other than europe 1800's) against the creationist concept above (that anarchism was created in a room in Europe by whiteboys in the 1800's)

There are some misunderstandings above about the Catholic Woker movement I recomend mp3's on this link with CW movement people and academics discussing the phenomenon of one of the oldest anarchist movements (with brand name continuity) in north america

indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/75732/index.php

"....the comment above points to a debate in the understanding of anarchism.Ironically chritisan anarchists run on the evolutionary strand (acknowledging anarchism present in some indigeneous culture, spiritual movements, other place in history and the world other than europe 1800's) against the creationist concept above (that anarchism was created in a room in Europe by whiteboys in the 1800's)"

old cheap trick of setting up straw man argument. above, i acknowledge that there have been many forerunners to anarchism that can be seen as anarchistic. or put it another way, little a anarchism rather than big A anarchism.

i never claimed anarchism originated in a room by whiteboys in Europe. i did say anarchism originated in the struggles of the peasants and workers against the rise of capital and its state bureaucracy. specifically, the european revolutions of 1789, 1848 and most especially that of the 1871 (the communes in Paris, Barcelona etc). often in those struggles workers and peasants formed their own committees run by sort of direct democracy, were anti-state, and sort of anti-capital. Then people like Louise Michel etc who participated in the Paris Commune helped to work out the theory of anarchism in a more concrete and refined form.

I'll set out my argument more clearly. Kropotkin stressed that the origin of anarchism was in the “creative, constructive activity of the masses”. He wrote “Anarchism originated among the people, and it will preserve its vitality and creative force so long only as it remains a movement of the people”.

In a similar vein, the Dielo Truda group (Workers’ Cause group; they were kicked out of Russia by the Leninists after the 1917 workers and peasants revolution and included Nestor Makhno) wrote in their Organisational Platform:
"The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free non-statist society of workers under self-management.

So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle of the working masses.

The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and knowledge to specify and spread it."

Kropotkin saw anarchism as the evolutionary and revolutionary product of a long series of struggles of “the masses” against capitalism and the state from the French revolution of 1789 onwards. I think he was right.

In contrast, the liberal and idealist strands of anarchism reject or overlook the contribution of ordinary working class people and peasants to the theory of anarchism. They see anarchism as a beautiful, changeless, dogmatic ideal that has existed for all history, a perfect form that floats above people, which has existed for all ages and times. (much like Plato's world of forms).

In contrast to this idealism, the class-based versions of anarchism (in theory anyway) ought to constantly evolve their praxis in accordance with the struggles of the workers and other oppressed people. (of course, many class based anarchist groups are and have been pretty dogmatic...)

The author of the comments above made it very clear he was talking about the anarchist movement, which clearly was the result of the conscious efforts of certain people in certain places and didn't just evolve.

"In contrast to this idealism, the class-based versions of anarchism (in theory anyway) ought to constantly evolve their praxis in accordance with the struggles of the workers and other oppressed people. (of course, many class based anarchist groups are and have been pretty dogmatic...)"

Anarchists? Dogmatic? Never! ;)

The main point anti-christian anarchist seem to miss in their reference to class analysis is that christians are not a class, the class heirarchy of the wider society interpenetrates christianity itself. The majority of christians, like the majority of the general public, are working class. Therefore their self-activity is part of the praxis that is supposed to be synthesized into anarchist theory.

It is not (non-Christian but relatively undogmatic) anarchists like Sam who separate anarchist theory from the practice of working class people. It is those who fetishize European anarchists like Bakunin, and try to freeze the shape of contemporary anarchism according to philisophical writings of a certain historical place and time.

If Bakunin was alive today, having seen the separation of church and state, and the merging of market and state, he may well define his priorities of resistance very differently. Even if he dogmatically pursued his absolute rejection of spirituality, as Bakuninists do today, one could disagree with him and still be an anarchist (christian or non-christian).

Strypey

"anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism"

Yup, which is why I'd see it as having a history that goes back before the wave of 19th century intellectuals. To some extent it's a matter of definitions, but then you can get ridiculous with purist definitions, especially if you ignore the historical context (like the character in this thread who wants Zapata off the list for promoting meat-eating... Bakunin ate meat, therefore he was not an anarchist etc.). I'd see people like the Levellers and the Ranters as part of the anarchist tradition, for example, with a theory derived from economic conditions and forms of struggle as much as from ideals. Though I must say I'm no expert on anarchist history and don't see it as hugely important.

""Mutual aid seems to be exactly what the Christian anarchists are best at. What is your critique of their practice based on?"

what is your belief based on?"

I was mostly thinking about the work the people I've met from the SPCA are doing. Don't know much about Catholic Worker in Christchurch specifically.

The charity thing you mention is a bit of a trap, but hardly unique to the Christians. I think ideas of a 'gift economy' that permeate things like Food Not Bombs and Really Free Markets are quite useful as a critique of capitalism and as 'propaganda by deed', but I'm not so sure about their value as mutual aid, as it doesn't seem very mutual and can easily become the charity model you describe. I'm more into things like community gardens were there is direct economic benefit within a formal collective, which is where I've been doing a lot of work in the last few years.

"i suspect you are attracted to 'christian anarchism' because it fits in well with the liberal anarchism you have been pushing for years."

Dunno, don't know what 'liberal anarchism' is. I'm not all that attracted to Christian anarchism because I'm an atheist - and because my anarchism tends to have a class basis. I advocate a pluralistic anarchism which includes many different currents - which I see as the only way to move towards a free and anti-authoritarian future and I'd admit that I spent a long time being weak on economics (like most anarchists), so didn't say much about it. But I think I've been banging away about class, economic injustice and working class mutual aid projects quite a bit in the last few years.

Cheers

Sam Buchanan

If folks are serious pacifists (whether that springs from christianity, buddhism, humanism) they will be anarchists as the state (especially the imperial state) is based on violence.

Both anarchy and pacifism are negative definitions so they are better questions than tight rote party line answers. How do you live without violence? How do we live with domination?

There is a pluralism and accompanying debates within anarchist athiests (syndacilists, communists, individualists) as their are within christiananarchism (I think some of the community development strands at the christian anarchist conference i attended need to do some more work on their understanding of anarchism) and within the Catholic Worker movement for that matter.

You would think the anarchists movement could do pluralism.
Ciaron

'The main point anti-christian anarchist seem to miss in their reference to class analysis is that christians are not a class, the class heirarchy of the wider society interpenetrates christianity itself. The majority of christians, like the majority of the general public, are working class. Therefore their self-activity is part of the praxis that is supposed to be synthesized into anarchist theory."

i never said christians were a class! of course, a hell of a lot of working class people are christians, and a hell of a lot of them engage in class struggle everyday regardless of their ideology, and a hell of lot of them will be far more radical and militant than your average anarchist during intense periods of class struggle.

and of course, class struggle occurs in the church as well. all power to the struggle against the priests, popes, patriarchs, preachers, ministers, informal leaders, etc

that is not what is being argued here. what is being argued here is whether anarchism as a theory is compatible with a belief in god (to me it's a logical contradiction), and whether anarchism originated out of the struggles of the oppressed or is just some nice otherwordly ideal (ie faith) which is not grounded in material reality. -- ie. its materialism vs idealism

"It is not (non-Christian but relatively undogmatic) anarchists like Sam who separate anarchist theory from the practice of working class people. It is those who fetishize European anarchists like Bakunin, and try to freeze the shape of contemporary anarchism according to philisophical writings of a certain historical place and time."

Do you actually read what I write? I said class based anarchism ought to constantly evolve itself according to new developments in the class struggle. The class struggle is a two-way dialectical process. It is always changing. capital tries to find new ways to exploit workers, and co-opt struggles from below. and workers (which includes christians, jews, muslims, atheists, pantheists etc) try to find new ways to fight back. The working class -- which is a not a monolithic monoculture, but instead is pluralistic, composed of many different types of people from many different cultures thrown together by the material reality of the imposition of capital on our everyday lives -- makes and remakes itself. For me, if I don't constantly learn from this continual remaking, and remain in small inward looking isolated little groups, then I will become dogmatic and purist.

I think a lot of what Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman etc said is very useful, and worth reading (its far more challenging than those who fetishise the lifestylist parasitism of Crimethinc) but much of it is now out of date and irrelevant for this place and time. There is a need for some decent anarchist theory that is relevant for our time. For this, I non-dogmatically turn to unorthodox Marxism, including autonomist Marxism, autonomist feminism, council communism, left communism and the situationists.

In short, the anarchist scene has become dogmatic because it has become isolated from the lives and struggles of ordinary people. it has become obsessed with find the correct, pure lifestyle (hint: i don't think there is one), which is an idealist rather than materialist politics.

in my view, Bookchin represents the best attempt to update and integrate into anarchism the more recent struggles of women, ethnic groups, and ecology, but in the process he saw these struggles as a rejecting class struggle rather than a deepening and extension of it. (i non-dogmatically include the vast majority of ecological, feminist and anti-racist struggles as part of the rich, diverse fabric of working class struggle). certain post-structuralists do the same as bookchin. i find this sad during our time of an intense ongoing 25 year old counter-attack by capital against the working class struggles of the 1970s.

"anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism"

Sam: "Yup, which is why I'd see it as having a history that goes back before the wave of 19th century intellectuals."

Oh shit, here we go again. I never said 19th century intellectuals invented anarchism. I said workers and peasants did in their great uprisings against the new development of the twin rise of capital and the state. and anyway, Bakunin an d his cohorts were more mindless activist than intellectual.

"I'd see people like the Levellers and the Ranters as part of the anarchist tradition, for example, with a theory derived from economic conditions and forms of struggle as much as from ideals."

certainly, there were lots of very anarchistic christian peasant movements around in the middle ages. not just the english ones. a good read is Q by luther blisset for these communist christians peasants. a funny read is norman cohn's pursuit of the millenium. also christopher hill on the english lot.

and i agree, they werent just millenarian heaven on earth idealists, but were based on fighting against the enclosures of their commonly owned land by the toffs/aristocracy.

but your lack of knowledge of history has stumped you somewhat. capitalism has not not been around since the beginning of time. it is a very specific and relatively recent phenomenon. class society has been around for a long time, but the specific form it has taken (ie capital vs labour) has only been quite recent. that is what i am trying to get at with saying anarchism is a historically specific reaction against the rise of capital. for a theory to be relevant, i reckon it needs to take this specific form into account, rather than seeing some sort of vague a-historical anarchistic impulse in the oppressed from the beginning of time (that is an idealistic approach to history). same with the state, the state in its recent form is a very historically specific thing, and is completely interlinked with the rise of capital. the state is not some a-historical evil as some anarchists like kropotkin would have it

"The charity thing you mention is a bit of a trap, but hardly unique to the Christians. I think ideas of a 'gift economy' that permeate things like Food Not Bombs and Really Free Markets are quite useful as a critique of capitalism and as 'propaganda by deed', but I'm not so sure about their value as mutual aid, as it doesn't seem very mutual and can easily become the charity model you describe."

i would agree with you here. i don't think the really free market and food not bombs are concrete examples of a gift economy anyway. at worst, sort of a radical salvation army type stuff. all give and no take. pre-contact maori had a real gift economy based on reciprocity.

"Dunno, don't know what 'liberal anarchism' is. I'm not all that attracted to Christian anarchism because I'm an atheist - and because my anarchism tends to have a class basis."

OK, i apologise for making that comment, it was a silly remark by me, i take it back. tho i think TSA was quite liberal but anyway i'm just a Marxist anyway

"I advocate a pluralistic anarchism which includes many different currents - which I see as the only way to move towards a free and anti-authoritarian future"

i do too, that's why i think anarchism can be enriched by learning from other traditions like marxism, feminism etc

"and I'd admit that I spent a long time being weak on economics (like most anarchists), so didn't say much about it. But I think I've been banging away about class, economic injustice and working class mutual aid projects quite a bit in the last few years."

good to hear. i have lots of reservations about wildcat mk2 (esp the leaflets and zines you put out). i think marxists still have by far the most rigorous analysis of economics out there.

if anyone out there is actually reading this thread, and who is into anarchism but finds it weak on economics and is bored by jargonistic marxist stuff, i recommend a good vibrant historical intro in peter linebaugh and marcus rediker's book 'the many headed hydra.' it's about pirates, the atlantic commons, and the formation of capital to break those struggles up.

another good introductory non-boring read is cyber-marx by nick dyer-witheford. its marxism for the current computer age.

altho autonomist marxism has its weaknesses, just like any theory...

editors
i think you should make this a feature and continue the discussion on your coverr page etc
before it drops offffff........

'You would think the anarchists movement could do pluralism.'

It has been for yonks. Anarchist divisions of the spanish civil war...and black blok are two recent examples.

"what is being argued here is whether anarchism as a theory is compatible with a belief in god... and whether anarchism originated out of the struggles of the oppressed or is just some nice otherwordly ideal (ie faith) which is not grounded in material reality"

I don't much care about the first question, I suppose you could argue that a belief in god impedes the full development of an anarchist consciousness, but to be frank, even if that is so, it seems like the least of our problems right now.

I don't think anyone is arguing the latter side of the second question. I'm not a great theologist, but plenty of religious types have argued that faith is something that needs to be figured out as part of one's life and work, rather than something handed down from above.

"I never said 19th century intellectuals invented anarchism."

Somebody did - don't know who:

"Anarchism as a historical movement originated in Europe in the 1870s. It was formed by a group of people who were expelled/left the First Workingmen's International."

I'm not sure what you are arguing - you say anarchism is a movement that evolved in a specific historical context (in nineteenth century worker's struggles), but then refer to christian peasant movement's as anarchistic. If you are saying that anarchism evolves different methods of struggle at different times and that the 19th C. European struggle was a watershed in its development, I'd agree. If you are saying that only the 19thC. movement is deserving of the title 'anarchism' then I'd disagree.

"OK, i apologise for making that comment, it was a silly remark by me, i take it back. tho i think TSA was quite liberal"

Thanks, I should point out that I didn't write the whole of TSA, it was published by a collective, which I was sometimes part of, and we published plenty of things I disagreed with (same goes with the Wildcat 'zines). I often have to point this out, it seems freedom-loving anarchists have a hard time with the idea of a publication reflecting a wide variety of viewpoints!

I still don't know what you mean by 'liberal', to me a liberal is an advocate of a capitalist free-market, with or without advocacy of socal freedoms, but it also gets used to mean a social democrat leftist, so I avoid the term as too confusing.

Cheers

Sam

"I'm not sure what you are arguing - you say anarchism is a movement that evolved in a specific historical context (in nineteenth century worker's struggles), but then refer to christian peasant movement's as anarchistic. If you are saying that anarchism evolves different methods of struggle at different times and that the 19th C. European struggle was a watershed in its development, I'd agree."

that's what i am saying

"Thanks, I should point out that I didn't write the whole of TSA, it was published by a collective, which I was sometimes part of, and we published plenty of things I disagreed with (same goes with the Wildcat 'zines)."

well, to be honest, i think a lot of your writing at times is what i would call liberal anarchist (eg, transmog, yr recent pamphlet on samoa, the recent wildcat leaflet on china FTA), and i have had some conversations with you where you have passionately defended what i would call small business capitalism and money.

"I still don't know what you mean by 'liberal', to me a liberal is an advocate of a capitalist free-market, with or without advocacy of socal freedoms, but it also gets used to mean a social democrat leftist, so I avoid the term as too confusing."

sure, there is some confusion, but i mean liberal-leftist

liberal anarchism is a term to me that stresses anarchism is an anti-govt or anti-state ideal. also an anti-authority ideal. but normally, i reckon it claims the key tenet of anarchism is that it is anti-state. it also tends to be reformist, rejecting revolution as a 'myth'.

IMHO, in terms of practice, this tendency tends to concentrate on building up small scale community-based improvements within capital (hoping that change will come about throught he force of example) or involvement in multi-class protest movements, esp. the peace movement.

to me, it arose during a time of working class quietude (the 1950s) and hence it tends to view the working class as a conservative, if not sometimes reactionary force. i reckon it generally sees the multifarious protest movements that began in the 1950s (eg anti-nuke protest) as the real progressive force in society today. so its understandable, given this historical context, to see how liberal anarchists generally reject, downplay or overlook class struggle and don't have much to say about economics or the workplace. i reckon it rejects the socalist strand of anarchism. in recent years, some liberal anarchists do talk about economics, they IMHO confuse big business corporations with capital as a whole ie. it doesn't see capital as a social relation based upon the everyday exploitation of workers.

i think liberal anarchism generally claims class based anarchism is dogmatic, narrow, out of date, violent and hierarchical, etc. examples are books by george woodcock, peter marshall, paul goodman, alex comfort, herbert read, l. susan brown, colin ward, the sydney libertarians, the UK anarchy journal in the 1960s. in recent times, i thinks a lot of liberal anarchism has become entrenched in academia, and fused with postmodernism (which is a very similar philosophy).

i reckon a funny, harsh critique of the liberal anarchists in the UK in the 1960s came from Albert Meltzer in his autobiography -- he regarded it as a middle-class quietist academic tendency.

of course, my explanation of liberal anarchism is completely biased and riven with generalisations, but then i just plain disagree with most of it. but i do think some liberal anarchists have had some cool things to say sometimes, eg. Colin Ward occassionally, and Paul Goodman on education and urban stuff, and the liberal anarchist anthropologists like Ken Maddock.

(btw, i hope this isn't taken as a personal attack. it's not meant that way. just my personal opinion. and i'm not saying you're a liberal, i realise you've changed, and become more class oriented, which is cool. i'm just interested in sparking decent debate, which i don't think the anarchist scene is very good at (me included, cos i do get too blunt at times...but, hey, i'm from the far south.)
t

"i'm not saying you're a liberal, i realise you've changed, and become more class oriented"

It's not so much that my views have changed, so much as I've become more confident about speaking on certain issues, which I previously left alone because I wasn't articulate when speaking about them. This is still the case at times - for example the pamphlet on Samoa was never intended to be more than a brief historical overview, which I thought would be useful. I was quite aware when I published it that it tended to cover 'political' events and ignore economic underpinnings of NZ colonialism, and I'd love to read a deeper analysis of the Mau movement which addresses the class issues, but that's way beyond my (limited) understanding of Samoan society.

Can't recall ever feeling passionate about money - I just think it's something we may be stuck with like it or not. Happy to be proved wrong on this. I see small business as problematic, but don't think it can be put in the same box as multi-nationals simply because of the difference in political power held, certainly don't see it as something that fits in with anarchism.

I think reformism is something aarchists loudly reject, then quietly practice, and ought to be honest about it (for example Asher's recent piece in imminent rebellion which began by calling for 'revolution' as opposed to 'activism' and ended with a call to take part in struggles for higher wages). I think the Wildcat piece on the China FTA was reformist, in that it defended worker's against an attack on their pay and conditions, and I don't have a problem with that. If it makes me a 'liberal anarchist' so be it (though my views wouldn't fit your description of the term at all, nor would I line up with many of those mentioned (I liked Herbert Read's weird novel though)).

Cheers
Sam

I'm about to go to bed, so won't make a long post, 'cept to say I broadly agree with t's points in this thread (and think it's been interesting to follow), but seeing as I was mentioned:

Sam said "for example Asher's recent piece in imminent rebellion which began by calling for 'revolution' as opposed to 'activism' and ended with a call to take part in struggles for higher wages"

To make it clear - the article was a call for revolutionary struggle, not revolution - to call for the latter without the former ends up in insurrectionist bollocks. I see nothing wrong with fighting for reforms - anarchists have a proud history of this (eg - the 8 hour day). There is a huge difference between fighting for reforms and reformism.

Woops, the above was by Asher, in case it wasn't obvious.

"the article was a call for revolutionary struggle, not revolution... I see nothing wrong with fighting for reforms... There is a huge difference between fighting for reforms and reformism."

OK, I'm lost, what is it that makes something "revolutionary struggle" and why isn't fighting for reforms reformist?

Cheers

Sam

There's a whole article in the reforms/reformism one, I'll try to bang something up sometime in the not too distant future because I definately think it's an interesting discussion.

As for what is revolutionary struggle - simple, it is struggle that builds towards making revolution possible. It's recognising that we (the broader working class) obviously (if you're not an insurrectionist) don't have the capacity to have a successful revolution today. Revolutionary struggle works towards making revolution a possibility by (if successful) opening up spaces (frequently not literal) for discussion, increasing consciousness etc etc

Asher

"Revolutionary struggle works towards making revolution a possibility by (if successful) opening up spaces (frequently not literal) for discussion, increasing consciousness etc etc"

Fine with that - I just don't see how that differs what you describe as 'activism'.

Cheers

Sam

Simple - what I described as activism in my piece (which could equally be given other names) does not do this, in my opinion.

Asher

Rolex Sports Modelswrist watches rolex watches replica watchesfine watches casio watches watches online quartz watch. nike shoes ladies watch men's watch nike shoes running shoes Tiffany Bracelet basketball shoesjorand shoes .replica rolex watches rolex watch replica watches- fine watches- rolex datejust rolex mens watch repair oyster rolex watch.air flight ladies watch men's watch rolex submarinerrunning shoes Tiffany Bracelet rolex replica jorand shoes .rolex replica watches rolex replicanike shoes rolex replicarolex replicafake rolex replicarolex replica watchesrolex replicarolex replicarolex replica watchesrolex replicabest replica watches watches diamond watches replica watches rolex watches casio watches watches online tag watches.nike jordan shoes ladies watch luxury rolex watchnike shoes running shoes cleveland cavaliers basketball shoesjorand shoes .oyster rolex dive watches replica watches- watches for men- rolex datejust buy watch rolex mens watch repair oyster rolex watch.byron velvick ladies watch seagull watches rolex submarinerespace pub phoenix suns rolex replica jorand shoes .rolex replicawatches rolex replicanike shoes rolex replica Madsenrolex replicafake rolex replicarolex replica watchesrolex replicarolex replicashoe store nike shoesbest replica watchesnike shoes mens health mlb jerseyswomen's shoesshoe storenike shoesbest replica watchesnike shoeswomen shoesfashion shoeswomen's watches UGG shoes saleWholesale UGG shoeswomen UGG shoes saleonline UGG shoes saleWholesale UGG shoes onlineLatest UGG shoes online saleWholesale Latest UGG shoes onlineair jordan shoesreplica watchesReplica HandbagsRolex Sports Models