Individualist anarchism

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Sep 1 2014 16:53
augustynww wrote:
But there is another issue here. There is something in collectivism (anarcho-collectivism and marxist "lower stage of communism") which may looks like similar to commodity production, market, etc. I didn't figured this problem myself yet, so I didn't raised this here. I mean there is wage still, there is always an exchange of products in some form or another and if there is exchange, is it commodity production or not? I'm not sure. Usual answer is - no, because it's not sold for profit on market, but I have doubts about it.

Funny. Didn't we have an awfully long shouting match about this very question just the other day? All I remember is you going 'lalala I can't hear you'. You could have had your answer if you hadn't dismissed it as 'just another theory'.

Just go back and read it again - nowhere did we argue that exchange takes place, the opposite in fact.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 1 2014 18:25

yes we did grin You didn't convinced me then. But as you see I still don't know if its only me or there is really some problem with this so I gave here usual (i.e. yours) explanation of collectivism.

I just don't get it. How it is possible to say there's no exchange if worker A producing something exchange his labour (power? or product) for wage and on the other side worker B exchange his labour notes for this product (in some fixed proportions, unlike in communism where people producing and consuming without it)

How do you even describe what is going on without using the word "exchange"?

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Sep 1 2014 19:40
augustynww wrote:
60% of people lived in rural areas so most of this economy was based on agrarian collectivizations and industrial collectivizations in rural areas anyway and it was collectivist.

You are right about cooperatives in cities according to my knowledge but this wasn't intended the situation made them. The state still existed and it was governmental decree which reduced it to cooperatives (decree was to undermine revolution - and so it was undermined). Collectives were paying taxes too (I think) not because they wanted to, but because of situation - it wasn't perfect for many reasons.
Wage inequalities are meant to be in collectivism (to everyone according to his/her work)

(What "it means in practice" when cooperatives are concerned - it means there is no exploitation. This is the difference between capitalism and socialism. Market still exists and inequalities still exists, only smaller.)

If you want to know my opinion here it is: if this mixed economy in cities (mutualism + collectivism + state capitalism) lasted longer it would degenerate in one way or another. The only way to stop degeneration was to complete the revolution of course. This is my opinion in this matter.

But there is another issue here. There is something in collectivism (anarcho-collectivism and marxist "lower stage of communism") which may looks like similar to commodity production, market, etc. I didn't figured this problem myself yet, so I didn't raised this here. I mean there is wage still, there is always an exchange of products in some form or another and if there is exchange, is it commodity production or not? I'm not sure. Usual answer is - no, because it's not sold for profit on market, but I have doubts about it.

How do co-ops eliminate exploitation? At the very least they need to accumulate enough capital to purchase replacements for used up or worn down materials, and accumulating capital requires the extraction of surplus value and thus exploitation--though in this case, that exploitation is self-managed.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 1 2014 20:58
august wrote:
By classical anarchism in First International I meant collectivism (that's why I quoted Bakunin and his views on individuality) not proudhonism. That's true there were many proudhonists in First International at least initially but they weren't anarchists as Proudhon himself wasn't later in his life.

I don’t think that description fits with how Bakunin, at the time of the 1st International and the Paris Commune, describes e.g. the left Proudhonist mutualist Varlin - who had moved towards collectivism - and the influence of Proudhonism. Nor with the anarchist mutualist politics of eg, Vermorel in the 1st International & Paris Commune;

Quote:
"... Anarchist ideas of Joseph Pierre Proudhon which have educated the proletariat of the Latin countries and led them intellectually to the last consequences of Proudhon’s teachings. This latter revolutionary or libertarian socialism has now for the first time, attempted to put its ideas into practice in the Paris Commune". ... The Socialists, led by our friend Varlin, formed in the Commune only a disparagingly small minority ... our friend Varlin-to mention only him whose death was certain--how strong, well considered, and deep-rooted were the convictions of Socialism in him and his friends... "The Commune, The Church and The State" - Bakunin 1871 https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch11.h...

There were several Proudhonist mutualists working with Varlin during the Commune (eg, Courbet & Vermorel; see example of Vermorel’s Proudhonist anarchism at time of 1st Int. & Commune here; http://robertgraham.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/auguste-vermorel-communal-f...) as well as Bakuninist collectivists. So I think your portrayal is a little inaccurate, simplistic and rigidly categorised in its treatment of the inter-relationship of influences and development of theories.

Quote:
As for your idea of indirect influence through marxism - well, it's hard to say anything in response as you didn't even explained what influences on Marx you have in mind...

Well as I had indicated earlier;

Quote:
McLellan asserts that Stirner's influence on Marx has been under-estimated and that he "played a very important role in the development of Marx's thought by detaching him from the influence of Feuerbach", his static materialism and his abstract humanism. Stirner's critique of communism (which Marx considered a caricature) also obliged Marx to refine his own definition. Stirner's concept of the "creative ego" is also said to have influenced Marx's concept of "praxis".
http://libcom.org/history/stirner-feurbach-marx-young-hegelians-david-mc...

But my point was not to prove Stirner’s unacknowledged influence via Marx, just to show how inter-related and diverse the influences are that anarchism and Marxism emerged from, as were their influences on each other. As opposed to an idea of a pure ‘unpolluted’ linear development as some would like to have it.

Quote:
I'm not saying that no anarchist in history ever took anything from outside sources like Stirner. This is strawman argument.

Lucky I never made it then.

Quote:
He was obscure figure in the times of "classical anarchism" I'm not sure if you realize it; totally forgotten. French and english translations were made some 30 years after his death, in 1880s and 1890s.

Yeh I know that’s more or less true - apart from his influence on some individualists. But surely we don’t want to discuss history based on ‘Great Individuals & Thinkers’ - and anarcho-individualism itself wasn't obscure at all to other anarchists in that period or absent from the wider @ movement.

Quote:
Stirner influences are different issue and you overrate this in my opinion.

I was talking about the influence of both Stirner and @-individualism, not always quite the same thing. But I don’t think I overrate it, I just show that it existed, and dispute that it was always “too bad”. As I said earlier;

Quote:
I can understand the necessity to make a critique of the limits of @-individualism – but to deny that it’s been any part of working class anarchist movements would have more in common with a Stalinist revisionist air-brushing of history than the real history of anarchism.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 2 2014 06:56
Tyrion wrote:
How do co-ops eliminate exploitation? At the very least they need to accumulate enough capital to purchase replacements for used up or worn down materials, and accumulating capital requires the extraction of surplus value and thus exploitation--though in this case, that exploitation is self-managed.

I've heard this argument before but this theory of self-exploitation looks very similar to "self-possesion" by so called right-libertarians to me. I mean, you cannot be exploited by yourself as you don't own yourself. It sounds very weird to me. It leads in very weird direction.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 2 2014 07:06

Red Marriott,
I'm not saying that mutualism didn't influenced collectivism smile It did of course, in fact I think anarchist collectivism was developed, corrected mutualism. The same goes for particular persons like Varlin who became collectivists.
And you can find people who were somewhere in between too. Maybe even some exceptions. So, yes, it is some simplification about general direction of this development mutualism-collectivism. But again (like in Stirner case), individual exception doesn't change this general development.

About McLellan - did you noticed that he didn't even mention Bakunin when Stirner influences are concerned? In spite of the fact that Bakunin was rather important left-hegelian himself (at the time)

Some of the arguments there are far-fetched for instance similarity between description of labour under capitalism by Marx and by Strirner (pin factory) - well it's taken from Smith but author suggest Marx based this on Stirner...

Marx's "doctrine of surplus value" as McLellan called it, based on Stirner, come on...

Alienation, creativeness - this was taken from Hegel by both of them, not from Stirner by Marx.

p.s. I don't like theories about essence too, but it doesn't mean I was influenced by Stirner.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 2 2014 08:54
greenjuice wrote:
Exactly what I'm talking about. Imposing communism on people, at gunpoint. Very libertarian.

First, I will happily impose communism, at gunpoint, on my boss. Gleefully even.

Second, Greenuice and co, I think you're overplaying the importance of the possibility of choice.

If we, as a global movement, succeed in expropriating the means of production and abolishing private property, it doesn't really matter if some group wants to play at using money. All they'll be is a historical re-enactment society, like going to a Medieval Fair (or joining the IWW wink).

It's a bit like the fact that we don't "choose" to live under capitalism and we can't "choose" not to. As the basic form of social reproduction, you're in whether you want to be or not. The same will apply for communism - except communism will be, ya know, awesome.

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Sep 2 2014 11:32
augustynww wrote:
I mean, you cannot be exploited by yourself as you don't own yourself. It sounds very weird to me. It leads in very weird direction.

Huh? Does capitalist own a worker?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 2 2014 11:55

Owns their labour-time...

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 2 2014 15:42

self-ownership in English sorry

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
I mean, you cannot be exploited by yourself as you don't own yourself. It sounds very weird to me. It leads in very weird direction.

Huh? Does capitalist own a worker?

What capitalist? I'm talking about the fundamental idea for right-libertarians: a person is one's own property
they usually explain everything by this (including slavery - you could sell yourself) for instance
http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/self-ownership-ethics-liberty

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 2 2014 22:26
august wrote:
Some of the arguments there are far-fetched for instance similarity between description of labour under capitalism by Marx and by Strirner (pin factory) - well it's taken from Smith but author suggest Marx based this on Stirner...

No, he explicitly doesn’t but says they were dealing with similar themes at the same time (see McClellan quote below). You just didn’t bother to grasp what was actually written in your eagerness to dismiss it.

Quote:
Marx's "doctrine of surplus value" as McLellan called it, based on Stirner, come on...

Yeh right, come on; what McClellan actually says;

McClellan wrote:
One place where Stirner seems to anticipate Marx is where he briefly mentions a doctrine which Marx will later make into one of the corner-stones of his economic theory - the doctrine of surplus value.

Contrast your false description and dismissal above of the McClellan article with the actual content you apparently didn’t bother to read;

Quote:
It seems doubtful whether any `direct influence' of Stirner on Marx in economic matters is provable.
So what this parallelism will show is that Marx was by no means the only person to be thinking of such things at this time. ...
It is difficult to show any direct influence of Stirner on Marx here, the more so as Stirner's book was to a large extent an amalgam of current cliches. What the above passages show is that the ideas of alienated labour and exploitation were by no means confined to Marx at this time, even among Germans. Both Stirner and Marx were probably much influenced by the ideas of Fourier.

... So pretty much the opposite of how you described what was said.

august wrote:
I'm not saying that mutualism didn't influenced collectivism smile It did of course, in fact I think anarchist collectivism was developed, corrected mutualism. The same goes for particular persons like Varlin who became collectivists.
And you can find people who were somewhere in between too. Maybe even some exceptions. So, yes, it is some simplification about general direction of this development mutualism-collectivism. But again (like in Stirner case), individual exception doesn't change this general development.

Contrast this with your earlier blanket claim;

Quote:
That's true there were many proudhonists in First International at least initially but they weren't anarchists

Where did you get that untruth from – the Black Flame school of revisionism? Yet some of them clearly were anarchists, as I showed earlier. As I said earlier, neat little idealised histories aren’t useful to anyone, they’re dishonest (consciously or deliberately so or not). And those who can't tell the truth about the past probably can’t be trusted to tell the truth about the present.

Quote:
About McLellan - did you noticed that he didn't even mention Bakunin when Stirner influences are concerned? In spite of the fact that Bakunin was rather important left-hegelian himself (at the time)

But so what? Are you just trying to discredit an article you clearly haven’t even properly read cos it doesn't fit your desired idealised history? There’s no evidence either influenced the other and I don’t think Bakunin was at the time one of the most “important” Young Hegelians (eg, unlike some he’d had no books published). But I don’t see how that’s relevant to this discussion as afaik no one has claimed such an influence.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 3 2014 07:10

Well yeah I read this text by MclLellan ,as you interpreted it - as a proof of Stirner's influences on Marx ("anticipation" in this meaning).
If this is not true - what are you talking about then? The text only prove my point, there was no influences at all. They talk about similar things but theories was different (precisely like Stirner critique of the state and anarchist critique of the state - two different critiques of the same thing)

Red Marriott wrote:
But so what? Are you just trying to discredit an article you clearly haven’t even properly read cos it doesn't fit your desired idealised history? There’s no evidence either influenced the other and I don’t think Bakunin was at the time one of the most “important” Young Hegelians (eg, unlike some he’d had no books published). But I don’t see how that’s relevant to this discussion as afaik no one has claimed such an influence.

Discredit in this point? grin On the contrary, I agree with him on this - there was no Stirner influences on Bakunin, that's why he didn't mention him.

And Bakunin was important left Hegelian, and he did publish too (lol earlier than Stirner BTW)

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1842/reaction-g...

about hegelians, place of Bakunin and Stirner within this movement:

"In line with Feuerbach's radical humanism, and Bauer's radical criticism, there was yet one factor needed to complete the full formulation of mature Young Hegelianism: political radicalism. This third element was contributed by Ruge, who, in 1841, set forth in the preface to the first issue of his Deutsche Jahrbucher a call for Hegelians to enter into the political struggles of the day. The rejection of doctrinal servility in both theology and philosophy must be followed by a rejection of political servility, which was the pre-condition for all free criticism. His call was heeded by the most radically politicized of the Young Hegelians, such as Michael Bakunin, Karl Nauwerk, and Edgar Bauer -- the brother of Bruno. But because of the expanding inner divisions within the frustrated group, and the constant pressure of governmental censorship and academic rejection, Ruge's efforts to form a political.party about the banner of Young Hegelianism soon ailed. In 1843, the Deutsche Jahrbucher was prohibited to be published even in liberal Saxony, and the ill-fated Deutsch-franzosische Jahrbucher, co edited with Marx in the Spring of 1844, was the last sad act in Ruge's political drama.

Given the three declarations of 1841, from Feuerbach, Bauer, and Ruge, the Young Hegelian movement had set itself against the total spectrum of orthodoxy, religious, philosophical, and political. The insurrection failed on all counts, and after the abortive revolution of 1848, Germany entered into a period of reaction whose marks are yet in evidence.

In the Fall of 1844, Max Stirner's singular masterpiece, Die Einzige und sein Eigentum -- The Ego and Its Own, made its appearance. With this, Young Hegelianism reached a final and angry impasse. As "le dernier maillon de la chaine hegelien,"[48] Stirner left nothing standing except the pole of naked self-assertion. With Stirner, Hegelianism, as a system, had reached a dialectical limit and had been transformed into its opposite.[49] The optimistic drive to rationalize the whole of reality which had motivated the earliest of the Young Hegelians had finally withered into an irrational egoism."
http://i-studies.com/library/reviews/larry_first_hegels.shtml

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 3 2014 07:17
Red Marriott wrote:
august wrote:
I'm not saying that mutualism didn't influenced collectivism smile It did of course, in fact I think anarchist collectivism was developed, corrected mutualism. The same goes for particular persons like Varlin who became collectivists.
And you can find people who were somewhere in between too. Maybe even some exceptions. So, yes, it is some simplification about general direction of this development mutualism-collectivism. But again (like in Stirner case), individual exception doesn't change this general development.

Contrast this with your earlier blanket claim;

Quote:
That's true there were many proudhonists in First International at least initially but they weren't anarchists

Where did you get that untruth from – the Black Flame school of revisionism? Yet some of them clearly were anarchists, as I showed earlier. As I said earlier, neat little idealised histories aren’t useful to anyone, they’re dishonest (consciously or deliberately so or not). And those who can't tell the truth about the past probably can’t be trusted to tell the truth about the present.

First of all this is not "idealised history" but simple fact - First International in 1868 adopted collectivism.
Even proudhonists agree with this (this guy is proudhonist I think):
"There are identifiable stages in the process by which Proudhon's anarchism changed. The first of these was the rejection of mutualism in favor of collectivism. "
(I don't agree with his other views though)
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/proudanar.html

Secondly, was Henri Tolain an anarchist? But he was proudhonist.
Was Proudhon still an anarchist when he argue about "necessity" of federal government?
"The third, finally, tells us that the freest and most moral government is that in which powers are best divided, administrative functions best separated, the independence of groups most respected, provincial, cantonal, and municipal authorities best served by the central authority -- in a word, federal government. Thus the principle of monarchy or authority has as its first corollary the assimilation or absorption of groups, or administrative centralization; it is what one may call the regime of the political household; its second corollary is undivided power, otherwise called absolutism; its third, feudalism in landowning and industry. Inversely, the federal principle, liberal par excellence, has as its first corollary the administrative independence of the localities composing the federation; as its second, the separation of powers within each of the sovereign states; as its third, the agro-industrial federation. "

This is still anarchism in your opinion?
(and he was reformist all along, so add to this reformist socialism and you will have federalist social-democracy with strong support for private property)

Proudhonism changed as I said earlier. It went in another direction than anarchism. Not all proudhonists were anarchists nor Proudhon was an anarchist all his life. Which means not all forms of it are anarchist (and anarchist collectivism developed and changed this anarchist part, but was based not only on mutualism but also on conclusions from discussions in First International)

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 3 2014 14:25
august wrote:
Well yeah I read this text by MclLellan ,as you interpreted it - as a proof of Stirner's influences on Marx ("anticipation" in this meaning).
If this is not true - what are you talking about then? The text only prove my point, there was no influences at all.

I quoted earlier McClellan stating exactly the kind of influence that he sees of Stirner on Marx - but you’re misunderstanding again (or not bothering to grasp it) even though it’s clearly stated if you read the article or my quotes from it. The influence he sees is mainly on Marx’s changed assessment of Feurbach’s philosophy – he explicitly states there’s no evidence for an economic influence. Your eagerness to dismiss without understanding is at work again.

Quote:
Discredit in this point? grin On the contrary, I agree with him on this - there was no Stirner influences on Bakunin, that's why he didn't mention him.

? This strawman again – who ever claimed there was?

Quote:
And Bakunin was important left Hegelian, and he did publish too (lol earlier than Stirner BTW)
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1842/reaction-g...

Yeh I know, like many of them he’d had an article published, but I clearly stated he’d had no books published. And your quote on the Young Hegelians doesn’t prove at all that Bakunin was more important than the other YH’s mentioned.

Quote:
First of all this is not "idealised history" but simple fact - First International in 1868 adopted collectivism.
Even proudhonists agree with this (this guy is proudhonist I think):
"There are identifiable stages in the process by which Proudhon's anarchism changed. The first of these was the rejection of mutualism in favor of collectivism. "

So you’re agreeing then that there were Proudhonist anarchists in the 1st Int. – which flatly contradicts your earlier claim that “they weren’t anarchists”. The revisionist magic wand at work again.

So basically, like on the LTV thread, you’re talking very ‘knowledgeably’ a load of poorly digested Google-fed uninformed bollox and you're never wrong about anything even though you often blatantly contradict yourself.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 4 2014 06:11

smile You obviously forgetting that I initially agreed with you that Stirner could influenced Marx as I didn't know anything about that:

augustynww wrote:
Red Marriott wrote:

Stirner also influenced the development of Marx’s thought;

but not Bakunin's nor anarchists' in First International. They weren't interested in Strirner individualist ideas at all. They didn't even bother to criticize them like Marx did.

and I asked you to explain those influences. When you did I just changed my mind, there are no substantial influences on Marx in my opinion., some minor things because they were in the same ideological environment, some similarities.

Red Marriott wrote:
Quote:
Discredit in this point? grin On the contrary, I agree with him on this - there was no Stirner influences on Bakunin, that's why he didn't mention him.

? This strawman again – who ever claimed there was?

Greenjuice did, I think. Or implied at least. I was answering to greenjuice and I thought you're continuing his argument about "individualist core" of anarchism of Bakunin and others.
Influences an "classical anarchism" were the issue - this was my point (not later influences on some anarchists, as I said many times I'm aware there was some stirnerite influences on particular anarchists but not so important in my opinion).

Red Marriott wrote:
Yeh I know, like many of them he’d had an article published, but I clearly stated he’d had no books published. And your quote on the Young Hegelians doesn’t prove at all that Bakunin was more important than the other YH’s mentioned.

Which I didn't said. What I said he was important.

Red Marriott wrote:
So you’re agreeing then that there were Proudhonist anarchists in the 1st Int. – which flatly contradicts your earlier claim that “they weren’t anarchists”. The revisionist magic wand at work again.
So basically, like on the LTV thread, you’re talking very ‘knowledgeably’ a load of poorly digested Google-fed uninformed bollox and you're never wrong about anything even though you often blatantly contradict yourself.

What I also said was:

augustynww wrote:
I'm not saying that mutualism didn't influenced collectivism smile It did of course, in fact I think anarchist collectivism was developed, corrected mutualism. The same goes for particular persons like Varlin who became collectivists.
And you can find people who were somewhere in between too. Maybe even some exceptions. So, yes, it is some simplification about general direction of this development mutualism-collectivism. But again (like in Stirner case), individual exception doesn't change this general development.

So I agreed with you in part, only earlier. Besides, part of mutualists became collectivists like Varlin, De Paepe etc It would be hard to be collectivist (which I called "classical anarchist") when this kind of collectivism didn't existed yet... It goes without saying.

I also said:

augustynww wrote:
there is a point beyond which individualist anarchists (like American ones in 19th century, "individualist socialists") are not anarchists anymore

What you are ignoring is the fact Proudhon wasn't anarchist all his life, he crossed this point and the same goes for some of his followers (not the ones who became collectivists - should I add this in every sentence?).
And this means that proudhonism as such can't be regarded as anarchist from this point.
Paths of anarchism and proudhonism diverged at some point - this is what I'm saying.

That's true I'm googling english authors I know nothing about smile - I don't know their other views etc. I don't know them, I just showing views in English which are similar to mine in particular matter (and in this particular matter only)
I don't know if what I'm saying is "knowledgable" or not, I'm just expressing my opinions based on what I know.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 4 2014 05:58

One more thing, I didn't read Black Flame only some reviews of it. Looks interesting, but as I understand authors argue that mutualists weren't anarchists at all, as Proudhon wasn't. If this is what they say I agree with them partially - there was no anarchist movement as it's understood today. It was socialism, workers movement, Proudhon was socialist author in it - I agree with it.
But I don't agree there was no anarchists at all. Proudhon was anarchist earlier in his life in my opinion, when he criticized property as theft an the state; there were particular anarchists. But it didn't constitute any "anarchist movement" as a distinct current in socialism in general.

simiangene
Offline
Joined: 11-05-12
Sep 4 2014 16:59
greenjuice wrote:
..... And free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the possibility to live in a different regime - collectivist, mutualist, individualist - as one wishes, always on condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others."

I sort of agree, but voluntary is not free, its a social obligation. Freedom is only possible if one is the solitary hermit, a total individualist-anarchist having no responsibilities to others, no social relationships to ponder over, or the morals and ethics which nag at the collectivist anarchist's consciousness. There is no actual irony because duty IS oppression. Stirner was a frustrated hermit.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 4 2014 22:38
august wrote:
Red Marriott wrote:
Yeh I know, like many of them he’d had an article published, but I clearly stated he’d had no books published. And your quote on the Young Hegelians doesn’t prove at all that Bakunin was more important than the other YH’s mentioned.

Which I didn't said. What I said he was important.

You actually said he "was rather important left-hegelian" which suggests more important than some. Either that or they were all equally important and so any claim of who was important is irrelevant/meaningless.

Quote:
I'm not saying that mutualism didn't influenced collectivism smile It did of course, in fact I think anarchist collectivism was developed, corrected mutualism. The same goes for particular persons like Varlin who became collectivists.
And you can find people who were somewhere in between too. Maybe even some exceptions. So, yes, it is some simplification about general direction of this development mutualism-collectivism. But again (like in Stirner case), individual exception doesn't change this general development.

So I agreed with you in part, only earlier.

Yeh, I agree the picture is more complex than you originally claimed - and by agreeing you were contradicting your earlier blanket statement that "they weren't anarchists".

Quote:
What you are ignoring is the fact Proudhon wasn't anarchist all his life

Nah I’m not and anyway that doesn't contradict anything I said nor correct your contradictions.

Earlier you were yourself saying that McClellan was wrong to claim any influence of Stirner on Marx and to point out what you (wrongly) thought are his errors;

august-#97 wrote:
Some of the arguments there are far-fetched for instance similarity between description of labour under capitalism by Marx and by Strirner (pin factory) - well it's taken from Smith but author suggest Marx based this on Stirner...

Marx's "doctrine of surplus value" as McLellan called it, based on Stirner, come on...

Alienation, creativeness - this was taken from Hegel by both of them, not from Stirner by Marx.

Then, cos I pointed out various misunderstandings/errors in what you said, you then say the opposite - that McClellan is right to say there's no influence! Which isn't actually what he's saying either;

august-#103 wrote:
The text only prove my point, there was no influences at all.

This was then later ‘adjusted’ from “at all” to;

Quote:
there are no substantial influences on Marx in my opinion., some minor things because they were in the same ideological environment, some similarities.

You're just chopping and changing constantly to try to give the impression that you're always right, despite your inconsistencies and lack of coherent understanding of the subject. This is the same story as the LVT thread – a jumble of hastily assembled disconnected googled snippets of info without any overall conception or attempt to grasp the topic. Your ‘facts’ don’t stay facts very long, they soon turn into their opposites. Tangling yourself up with another disconnected google-‘fact’ to supposedly refute the latest correction of copied & pasted pieces of your crazy jigsaw puzzle, all the while shaving the edges of the individual pieces when they don’t fit where you want them to.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 5 2014 06:34
Red Marriott wrote:
august wrote:
Red Marriott wrote:
Yeh I know, like many of them he’d had an article published, but I clearly stated he’d had no books published. And your quote on the Young Hegelians doesn’t prove at all that Bakunin was more important than the other YH’s mentioned.

Which I didn't said. What I said he was important.

You actually said he "was rather important left-hegelian" which suggests more important than some. Either that or they were all equally important and so any claim of who was important is irrelevant/meaningless.

And he was more important than some, especially when political meaning of left hegelianism is concerned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I GOOGLED (I know I'm bad man) a book for you smile
Del Giudice, Martine N. (Martine Nathalie) The young Bakunin and left Hegelianism : origins of Russian radicalism and theory of praxis, 1814-1842

"...Bakunin's 1842 article, "The Reaction in Germany," published in the organ of the Dresden Left Hegelians, Deutsche Jahrbucher, is generally held to be the most radical and eloquent manifesto of Left Hegelianism," http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=77157...

(I've read similar things in Polish, this is not exactly my discovery how important Bakunin was for left-hegelianism from this point of view)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were more of them not only Feuerbach, Marx, Stirner Ruge. This is equally relevant as if "publishing" means publishing articles or publishing a book two years later ). This Bakunin's article I linked is important for left-hegelianism because of political meaning of it, it also shows something about "creativeness" which supposedly was based on Stirner and was not etc

Quote:
I'm not saying that mutualism didn't influenced collectivism smile It did of course, in fact I think anarchist collectivism was developed, corrected mutualism. The same goes for particular persons like Varlin who became collectivists.
And you can find people who were somewhere in between too. Maybe even some exceptions. So, yes, it is some simplification about general direction of this development mutualism-collectivism. But again (like in Stirner case), individual exception doesn't change this general development.

So I agreed with you in part, only earlier.

Red Marriott wrote:
Yeh, I agree the picture is more complex than you originally claimed - and by agreeing you were contradicting your earlier blanket statement that "they weren't anarchists".

No, this is not what I originally claimed. I originally claimed that "individualist socialists" were anarchists to some point, including quotes from Kropotkin about proudhonists who in time "abandoned ranks of anarchsts" etc. I simplified it later when issue of development mutualism-collectivism in First International was concerned.

Red Marriott wrote:
Quote:
What you are ignoring is the fact Proudhon wasn't anarchist all his life

Nah I’m not and anyway that doesn't contradict anything I said nor correct your contradictions.

Yes it does if your claim is mutalism (or proudhonism) as such was equal (equated?) to anarchism in some point in history. It intersected with anarchism (understood as view not as a movement which doesn't existed yet). Some of them weren't anarchists, including Proudhon from some point forward
(and it also show that Black Flame claims - if I understand it correctly not reading this book - have some merit and it's not exactly revisionism even if authors exaggerate or see it in too schematic way - which could be true as with my simplification mentioned above)

Red Marriott wrote:
Earlier you were yourself saying that McClellan was wrong to claim any influence of Stirner on Marx and to point out what you (wrongly) thought are his errors;

No, it was not "earlier" than this comment. My first comment on McLellan was comment #57:

augustynww wrote:
Red Marriott wrote:
Stirner also influenced the development of Marx’s thought;

but not Bakunin's nor anarchists' in First International. They weren't interested in Strirner individualist ideas at all. They didn't even bother to criticize them like Marx did.
"Classical anarchism" was based on opposition society vs the state, not individual vs the state. Too bad some anarchists forgot about it.

and again in comment #80 :

augustynww wrote:
I don't really know what influence Stirner had on Marx in his youth except negative one. This is still something you should explain. But I said he had no influence on Bakunin and other anarcho-collectivists ("classical anarchists") and this is true.

I criticized McLellan statements only in comment #90

Red Marriott wrote:
Then, cos I pointed out various misunderstandings/errors in what you said, you then say the opposite - that McClellan is right to say there's no influence! Which isn't actually what he's saying either;

He is saying there's no evidence of actual influence, it's "not provable" etc and in general "It is difficult to show any direct influence of Stirner on Marx here, the more so as Stirner's book was to a large extent an amalgam of current cliches." smile
So, it's not proven = there was no inluences for me. Only "parallels" as McLellan states (which I called similarities).

Red Marriott wrote:
You're just chopping and changing constantly to try to give the impression that you're always right, despite your inconsistencies and lack of coherent understanding of the subject.

Nope, you're only twisting or ignoring what I'm actually saying (as with this comments above) and in the same time avoiding clear statements - I mean you're fiercely arguing about some supposed Stirner's influences on Marx battling me on this only to quote in the end there is no evidence of it.

Red Marriott wrote:
Your ‘facts’ don’t stay facts very long, they soon turn into their opposites.

I think they stay where they were. And you still didn't explained what your actual position on historical mutualism and his relation to anarchism is, especially in the context of Proudhon (and part of his followers) not being anarchists when First International was created. And I think it will be the same as with Stirner "influences on Marx", much fuss only to admit in the end you actually don't know... there's no evidence... etc

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 5 2014 16:27

You still say that McClellan wasn't claiming there was any influence - even though I spelled it out for you more than once;

Red#53&95 wrote:
McLellan asserts that Stirner's influence on Marx has been under-estimated and that he "played a very important role in the development of Marx's thought by detaching him from the influence of Feuerbach", his static materialism and his abstract humanism. Stirner's critique of communism (which Marx considered a caricature) also obliged Marx to refine his own definition. Stirner's concept of the "creative ego" is also said to have influenced Marx's concept of "praxis".
http://libcom.org/history/stirner-feurbach-marx-young-hegelians-david-mc...

So it seems you must either be really clueless, or more likely are being dishonest just to try to save face, when you still ridiculously claim;

august wrote:
He is saying there's no evidence of actual influence, it's "not provable" etc and in general "It is difficult to show any direct influence of Stirner on Marx here, the more so as Stirner's book was to a large extent an amalgam of current cliches." smile
So, it's not proven = there was no inluences for me. Only "parallels" as McLellan states (which I called similarities).

The "here" is to show McCellan is discussing in that part of the text if there was any economic influence - while I had already corrected you;

Red#105 wrote:
I quoted earlier McClellan stating exactly the kind of influence that he sees of Stirner on Marx - but you’re misunderstanding again (or not bothering to grasp it) even though it’s clearly stated if you read the article or my quotes from it. The influence he sees is mainly on Marx’s changed assessment of Feurbach’s philosophy – he explicitly states there’s no evidence for an economic influence. Your eagerness to dismiss without understanding is at work again.

Yet you keep playing dumb.

august wrote:
I think they stay where they were. And you still didn't explained what your actual position on historical mutualism and his relation to anarchism is, especially in the context of Proudhon (and part of his followers) not being anarchists when First International was created. And I think it will be the same as with Stirner "influences on Marx", much fuss only to admit in the end you actually don't know... there's no evidence... etc

And that paragraph confirms that you either still fail to comprehend, or conveniently pretend not to, what has been said by either me or McClellan. Ironically, the way you engage with people on these forums has been pure egoism.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 5 2014 19:06

His name is McLellan not McClellan and you mispells it on constant basis. Second, its rather you who is playing dumb because I asked you about positive influence twice

augustynww wrote:
I don't really know what influence Stirner had on Marx in his youth except negative one. This is still something you should explain.

and you repeating yourself over and over on text which states explicitly: "Unlike Bruno Bauer, Feuerbach and Hess, Stirner had no positive doctrine to offer Marx".

Which means there was no positive influence at all and there is no evidence of it, which he also said.

Red Marriott wrote:
Ironically, the way you engage with people on these forums has been pure egoism.

I don't see any egoism in proving that "Stirner was an anarchist" or "anarchism is individualism" is bullshit.
BTW your second try to make this personal prove again that you run out of arguments (even feeble ones) completely.

edit: besides, you wanted to prove some "indirect influences" on anarchists through Marx, so where those your claims disappeared?

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Sep 5 2014 20:07

It started as

but now thread's dead baby, thread's dead

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Sep 7 2014 05:33

stirnerism is dead end itself, so it fits perfectly wink

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Sep 7 2014 09:33

erm..let me see now...you win