Hacker News Reader

Comment by false-mirror | Hacker News Reader

This was a really well written piece. I was expecting a typical caricature of anarchism, but was pleasantly surprised. It is interesting how much history is forgotten in the US left

View on HN

The article is fair in describing anarchists are 1910-20 as a multifaceted group. The article is unfair in implying that anarchists of today are not this (certainly not all anarchists focus on fighting neo-Nazis and not all who fight neo-Nazis are anarchists). I think you can find just about anything visible in 1910 today as well (for good and ill). The emphases are different and scale is different but that's about it.

To be fair, anyone claiming to be an anarchist and not strongly opposed to neo-nazis would be in a weird ideological spot.

Historically, anarchists have always fought authoritarianism. Anarchism often seems vague as an ideology because its foundation is not an ideal, but the rejection of the values that are at the core of the fascist ethos.

I'm an Anarchist. I hate neo-nazis (or any kind of Nazis really), though that doesn't mean that I hate the left any less than I hate a neo-/Nazi. In fact I despise (hate is a strong word, feeling sorry is more accurate) anyone, stupid enough to align themselves with any form of organized politics and power structures. Depending on how hard core you are you probably be forced to run against the law in most places (or in the more fucked up places you might even be labeled a terrorist). These labels (Anarchist, Atheist) aren't helpful. They are designed usually to demonize an outside group. Also if I were to gather with other Anarchists even it's just to play chess it's probably no longer Anarchism but some form of grass-roots political movement. The point of anarchism is not taking part like the Jawari or Andaman people, or the hill tribes in South East Asia.

see also James C. Scott: "The Art of Not Being Governed, An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia" https://libcom.org/files/Art.pdf

Or the family-clans in somalia?

yes those too, basically anyone refusing to integrate and having to resort to what civilized places call "crimes". The Burmese/Laos/Vietnamese hill tribes were in fact refuges from the encroaching power of their original homeland China. Highly recommend the book that I've linked. To reduce the hyperbole every discussion on Anarchism should start with heaving read JC Scott.

YN Harari also makes that point by the way in his book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO__r8Q0bmU

why snipe the left when your statement broadly applies?

I didn't take OPs comment as a 'snipe' -- America has a relatively weak left wing political base / history. Most of the canonical left wing thinkers, events, and successes have occurred outside of America, so it's always nice (and a little surprising) to hear about little tidbits of history like this.

This isn't true at all. The USA has a strong left-wing history and events. These are forgotten in America but remembered by the rest of the world. It's just that nowhere has this history been more "erased" than in the USA. The rest of the world remembers.

- An example is May 1st, international workers day which was inspired by the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago.

- Another example is the Republican party! which was started by Socialists in Wisconsin.

- Or the fact that Abraham Lincoln corresponded with Marx (most Americans read Marx at the time) and one of his army generals distributed the communist manifesto to the public during the civil war.

- The writings of Thomas Paine were incredibly popular in the USA and abroad.

- Russian Anarchists like Tolstoy was inspired by American Quackers, who later inspired Gandhi.

- Influential thinkers like Chomsky and David Graeber are alive and American.

The connections are deep!

While there were a few midwestern socialists that joined on the newly formed (past tense, at this point) Republican Party, it was very much committed to limited governmental intervention. The idea that there are socialist ideas at the bedrock of the Republican Party is misleading. Those are a much later development.

Read Tolstoy. He was chiefly inspired by the Quakers' nonviolence. In reality, the Quakers themselves were a heavily Republican group (insofar as they identified with government force at all).

While there are left-wing inspired (and somewhat developmental) incidents throughout US history, I wouldn't characterize the situation as either "strong" or "erased." On the contrary, the U.S. has accepted many people fleeing from failed or failing socialist states, which may affect the local popular understanding of true left-wing ideology.

There are still American Quakers. Though there have been many schisms, they are not now a heavily Republican group by any stretch. They were when Lincoln was in office, of course, but party identification underwent a well-known realignment over the past 150 years, so if 19th century Quakers are who you have in mind, this is more a misleading than an enlightening observation.

Full disclosure: I grew up Quaker. The Quakers I knew were more like this fellow than Herbert Hoover or Nixon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Morrison

Maybe your understanding of socialist ideas is a little bit simple. Limited government (and even no government, like anarchism) is at the bedrock many strains of socialism. There is no "one socialism" just as there isn't "one capitalism". To attribute a big government to socialism is simply ignorant.

Yes, that's a completely fair point, especially given the time period being discussed. What I was getting at, though was that the Republican Party was simply not formed by "socialists from Wisconsin."

I would interpret left here in opposition to liberals, which have been much stronger since Clinton came to power. See: Century of the Self.

It's a mistake to conflate leftism and liberalism. The parent poster should have made themselves clearer and avoided cheap shots.

My point stands. The case that history has been forgotten by the left, in particular, is not made by false-mirror nor the article in question. It is implied that the left has some unique amnesia.

For what purpose, we are left to speculate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com