Iivana Lemmetyinen on Nostr: npub15th6y…a6nvx I think I do know where it originated from, in the 1870's ...
npub15th6y0m8c79aq5qg2arvpw955jr4c5cvvvvkrxz70tnh4n282dzq2a6nvx (npub15th…6nvx) I think I do know where it originated from, in the 1870's anarchist movement starting from James Guillaume.
(There were more libertarian strands in French communism already in the 1840's and Dejacque advocated anarchist communism in the 1850's, but they didn't have much influence for the anarchist movement of the 1870's).
It is separate from the ideology and movement of Communism that has been vehemently opposed by anarchists from the beginning, that is linked to the Manifesto and the parties that have taken its task to implement it, and that was the biggest failure of 20th century and that is beyond salvageable.
Anarchist communism developed out of anarchist collectivism and is first of all about free consumption and about how fruits of labor should be distributed in free society.
Collectivism argued that it should happen on the basis of work done, communism that it should happen on the basis of need. This was the big beef in the anarchist movement during the 1880's when it was mostly focused on infighting.
Malatesta was one of the most vocal proponents of synthetism that we should not be fighting about mere hypotheses, and acknowledged - as did Kropotkin - that anarchist communism is dependent on the advancement of both moral qualities in people and the abundance of the results of production, and that in practice collectivism will be a necessary intermediate step in going toward communism.
But this anarchist context of communism is rarely delivered when anarchists talk about communism without the prefix of anarcho-, when the discourse is set to a context where it is hard to see any chances of positive development, just that anarchists paint themselves next to their mortal enemies, or just tries to legitimize them on a conceptual level.
The classless and stateless society as an utopia is better defined as simply anarchy. It has some negative connotations but not nearly as much as communism, attachment to which without prefixes is a sure way to guarantee that anarchists will stay as an obscure leftist sect without any relevance to society whatsoever.
For a while I've had the feeling that for many anarchists the label communist is mostly about identitity and theory, some kind of positing to be the raddest of leftists, but the actual discussion about the material realities of production and consumption is given less attention.
That's a pity, because the global Megamachine is in quite shaky grounds and a way forward needs the rebuilding of production, where we need to pay more attention to empirical reality and take note of the old discussions around collectivism, communism and individualism.
That is a real and concrete material challenge we should be able to take. But we could hardly do worse than by just labeling ourselves communists and advocating communism without prefixes, and it would be better to put the hypotheses and identities to their proper place of lesser importance.
(There were more libertarian strands in French communism already in the 1840's and Dejacque advocated anarchist communism in the 1850's, but they didn't have much influence for the anarchist movement of the 1870's).
It is separate from the ideology and movement of Communism that has been vehemently opposed by anarchists from the beginning, that is linked to the Manifesto and the parties that have taken its task to implement it, and that was the biggest failure of 20th century and that is beyond salvageable.
Anarchist communism developed out of anarchist collectivism and is first of all about free consumption and about how fruits of labor should be distributed in free society.
Collectivism argued that it should happen on the basis of work done, communism that it should happen on the basis of need. This was the big beef in the anarchist movement during the 1880's when it was mostly focused on infighting.
Malatesta was one of the most vocal proponents of synthetism that we should not be fighting about mere hypotheses, and acknowledged - as did Kropotkin - that anarchist communism is dependent on the advancement of both moral qualities in people and the abundance of the results of production, and that in practice collectivism will be a necessary intermediate step in going toward communism.
But this anarchist context of communism is rarely delivered when anarchists talk about communism without the prefix of anarcho-, when the discourse is set to a context where it is hard to see any chances of positive development, just that anarchists paint themselves next to their mortal enemies, or just tries to legitimize them on a conceptual level.
The classless and stateless society as an utopia is better defined as simply anarchy. It has some negative connotations but not nearly as much as communism, attachment to which without prefixes is a sure way to guarantee that anarchists will stay as an obscure leftist sect without any relevance to society whatsoever.
For a while I've had the feeling that for many anarchists the label communist is mostly about identitity and theory, some kind of positing to be the raddest of leftists, but the actual discussion about the material realities of production and consumption is given less attention.
That's a pity, because the global Megamachine is in quite shaky grounds and a way forward needs the rebuilding of production, where we need to pay more attention to empirical reality and take note of the old discussions around collectivism, communism and individualism.
That is a real and concrete material challenge we should be able to take. But we could hardly do worse than by just labeling ourselves communists and advocating communism without prefixes, and it would be better to put the hypotheses and identities to their proper place of lesser importance.