Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:29:33 -0600 (CST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?eduardo=20enriquez?= <eduardofenriquez-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: [postanarchism] againts the essentialism of the individual within anarchism


 --- "J.M. Adams" <ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com> escribió: > 
so brown may
> actually be on to *something* here (not sure what
> yet,
> as i said  i am only on the second chapter). she is
> pointing out that anarchism always begins with the
> individual, in that the group never exists prior to
> it
> but only as a result of the voluntary association of
> free individuals (someting along the lines of an
> anarchy magazine approach, she also seems to like
> bob
> black). whereas for marxism, even autonomous
> marxism,
> the individual is never prior to the group but
> rather
> the opposite,  

indeed here again i must come againts this
overemphasis of the individual which tends to be the
trend in anarchism. since we are speaking inside
bourgoise capitalist society and anarchist theorists
tend to be petite bourgoise (bakunin, kropotkin
actually semi-aristocratic)who of course will at times
put "the individual prior to the group" indeed it
makes us marxists suspect it at times to be a little
too bourgoise. lets remember after all anarchism has
strong roots on liberalism as shows godwin and
kropotkin being ex-liberals even but who opted for
communism after seeing private property as a threat to
freedom. it is indeed also rather uneasy for me to see
people like proudhom and max stirner being so
important within anarchism. in the case of both we
find an ideology which could very well serve pettite
bourgoise types who want a defence from state
intervention in the affairs of small to midsize
property. indeed proudhomism was very popular among
artisans and small shop owners. in the case of stirner
we pretty much find an ideology for the overzised
modern bourgoise individualist egoist subject
rebelling againts the state in a way that is found
very much whitin the liberal space of finding refuge
from society in ones property. 

now must this kind of critique imply that he or she
who makes it wouldnt mind totalitarianism and is an
enemyof freedom as such and also of individual
freedom, is something that must be reexamined. in the
case of kropotkinist libertarian communism it found
its strongest support in workers and peasants as could
be seen in the spanish civil war where both stirner
and proudhome where nowere to be seen whereas bakunin
and perhaps kropotkin were influential. kropotkin
aknowledges the insight of prouhom and stirner yet he
rejects them for some reasons and concludes that their
ideologies are not much ideologies that workers and
peasants will go for.

which has potentially totalitarian
> implications as seen in almost every instance in
> which
> marxists have "risen to power". you said if
> postanarchism is anything it is a critique of
> essentialism and metaphysics, but isnt
> existentialism
> a critique of essentialism as well, i.e. "existence
> precedes essence" as is often attributed to the
> tradition? in short i guess i am just saying that
> since i reject both liberalism and marxism for
> essentially the same reason, which is their
> authoritarian solutions to the questions of liberty
> and equality, 

but now it is nice that here we find a discussion
group with an important interest and influence of
post-structuralism. since "essentialism" is very much
an important problematic there lets hear murray
bookchin analize the issue of possible anarchist
essentialism of "the individual":

"Today, if an anarchist theorist like L. Susan Brown
can assert that "a group is a collection of
individuals, no more and no less," rooting anarchism
in the abstract individual, we have reason to be
concerned. Not that this view is entirely new to
anarchism; various anarchist historians have described
it as implicit in the libertarian outlook. Thus the
individual appears ab novo, endowed with natural
rights and bereft of roots in society or historical
development.
 But whence does this "autonomous" individual derive?
What is the basis for its "natural rights," beyond a
priori premises and hazy intuitions? What role does
historical development play in its formation? What
social premises give birth to it, sustain it, indeed
nourish it? How can a "collection of individuals"
institutionalize itself such as to give rise to
something more than an autonomy that consists merely
in refusing to impair the "liberties" of others -- or
"negative liberty," as Isaiah Berlin called it in
contradistinction to "positive liberty," which is
substantive freedom, in our case constructed along
socialistic lines?"
What is Communalism?
The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism

by Murray Bookchin
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/CMMNL2.MCW.html

indeed on this point very likely murray bookchin and
antonio negri will find themselves in accord. why
should we have to chose the individual againt the
group or the group againts the individual.

but lets hear bookchin once again in this case as to
understand the current context in which we are
thinking on anarchism. this is also taken form the
same article:

"During the 1980s and 1990s, as the entire social and
political spectrum has shifted ideologically to the
right, "anarchism" itself has not been immune to
redefinition. In the Anglo-American sphere, anarchism
is being divested of its social ideal by an emphasis
on personal autonomy, an emphasis that is draining it
of its historic vitality. A Stirnerite individualism
-- marked by an advocacy of lifestyle changes, the
cultivation of behavioral idiosyncrasies and even an
embrace of outright mysticism -- has become
increasingly prominent. This personalistic "lifestyle
anarchism" is steadily eroding the socialistic core of
anarchist concepts of freedom."

now for communism:

"Communism," for its part, once referred to a
cooperative society that would be based morally on
mutual respect and on an economy in which each
contributed to the social labor fund according to his
or her ability and received the means of life
according to his or her needs. Today, "communism" is
associated with the Stalinist gulag and wholly
rejected as totalitarian. Its cousin, "socialism" --
which once denoted a politically free society based on
various forms of collectivism and equitable material
returns for labor -- is currently interchangeable with
a somewhat humanistic bourgeois liberalism."

indeed seems to me negri and bookchin are both
libertarian communists. neither community nor
individual but both. why choose one over the other?

anyway it will be interesting to hear people on this
list on what are their thoughts on communism,
communalism, communities and  private property. and
also what will be the "post-anarchist" position on
this. felix guattari was an open communist. he even
participated in a book in the late 1980s called
"communists like us".



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com