A Guide to my Posts

Links to my various articles

Hello there!

I am a communist anarchist, and a very avid reader who likes to write papers or take notes for what I read on socialist theory and history, as well as philosophy more generally. I tend to be quite detailed, favoring a lot of quotations from primary sources, but hope that what I write is easy for people unfamiliar with this theory to understand, or at least makes it more accessible. Some of my posts here are consequently just versions of my own notes taken while reading different papers, rewritten to explain things back to myself in my own words, and then summarized again on top of that. I hope this is useful for whoever finds it. If you would like to support me, you can help buy me a Ko-Fi!

Below I want to provide a short statement on my own worldview that informs my writing. After that, at the bottom of the page, I have provided links and short summaries of the different pieces I have written.

What is Communist Anarchism?

To address my own view more generally, I will take some time here to explain my own position. By ‘communist anarchist,’ also called a free-communist or libertarian communist, I firstly mean that, as an anarchist, I believe that the best and most ethical social system is one that, as a communist, enables the full and free development of every individual, abolishing all guaranteeing the well-being of all. This would be a society that expresses, as best as possible, the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity, all of which are inherently interdependent.

I therefore stands in opposition to all forms of domination and exploitation, whether it is achieve through direct means of brute force, indirect means of monopolizing the resources that are needed by and used by all to force them into submission, as well as the systems of lies and propaganda meant to justify and propagate the ruling ideologies of oppression. This implies an opposition to the all forms of class-rule, all governments, capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy, racism, queerphobia, transphobia, ableism, religious persecution, environmental destruction, and so on. To generalize, it is an opposition to authority, to social relations imposed from the ‘top-down’ manners, where power is centralized and enforced through hierarchical organization, as well as the accompanying prejudices it gives rise to.

Instead, the society I fight for, and hope to one day see, will be organized from the ‘bottom-up,’ where free individuals form their own voluntary associations, which we may expect to be establishing according to location, line of production, or other shared interests, giving all a direct say as far as possible in matters that affect them. Likewise, to truly embrace the free association of all, these communities will coordinate with others around similar issues in their own federations and confederations, developing from the ground up a decentralized system of local councils, autonomous communes, provinces, and so on until all of humanity is embraced. Maintaining this as the express of the community of free individuals, coordination and administration will not be handled by so-called representatives that independently make and impose their decisions on those they claim to represent, but instantly recallable and mandated delegates, ultimate decision making power always remaining in the hands of those who elected them. There will therefore be no government, no classes, and the means of production will be collectively owned by all humanity, controlled primarily by the self-management of those who actually occupy and use the land, raw materials, and means of production on a regular basis. This society I call communist anarchy, free communism, or libertarian communism.

With this end in mind, appropriate means must be chosen. Some socialists have hoped to achieve societies similar to this by workers taking over the existing hierarchical organizational structures, or by organizing in a similar manner. They therefore advocate for workers to form their own political parties to take over the government, either electorally or through a coup, and wield this authority to abolish capitalism. Once this task, abolishing economic classes, they expect the state, as a violent instrument of class rule, to ‘wither away’ into a truly communist society. This strategy contradicts, in my view, the materialist theory of practice.

Humans both shape and are shaped by their society. The processes we consciously engage in are determined by our own particular drives and capacities. These processes in aggregate determine the overall shape of society, which then in turn shapes our own drives and capacities. While not every process will produce the same drive and capacity in every individual, there are some broad tendencies that can be understood. For example, the practice of going on strike will build greater class consciousness among the workers, seeing how they can rely on one another and are opposed by the bosses and police, and builds the bonds of solidarity to enable further action, while the practice of being a cop, placed as someone elevated over others in a position of directly violent authority with the function of enforcing the power of the political and economic ruling classes, turns people into bastards.

To achieve a society of free communism, we therefore not only need to combat the forces of oppression, but also engage in the appropriate forms of practice to produce and reproduce the kind of people with the right drives and capacities so that they both desire and are capable of living in that kind of society. I hold that it is an inherent tendency of authoritarian forms of organization that it does not tend to produce the kinds of individuals capable of exercising self-management in the kinds of free associations of anarchy. Instead, even if we suppose that the people entering into these organizations have the best intentions, it produces for those in power the habit of commanding and for the masses a habit of obedience, and in time will only create or recreate new forms of oppression as these people are shaped by the authoritarian practice they engage in.

To quote the Sonvilier Circular (1871) written by some of the first anarchists in the Jura Federation within the First International:

The society of the future should be nothing other than the universalisation of the organization with which the International will have endowed itself. We must, therefore, be careful to ensure that this organization comes as close as possible to our ideal. How can we expect an egalitarian and free society to emerge from an authoritarian organization? Impossible. The International, as the embryo of the human society of the future, is required in the here and now to faithfully mirror our principles of freedom and federation and shun any principle leaning towards authority and dictatorship.

Rather than seizing state power, the organizations of the working classes should be formed along libertarian lines, standing outside of and opposed to the state and capital. This may include syndicalist labor unions, tenant unions, mutual aid groups, and specific anarchist organizations, organizing in such a way that we may build class consciousness and power within the shell of capitalist society.

Humanity cries out under the pain of authority. All life on the planet does for those of us unfortunate enough to live through the Holocene extinction and the institutions bringing it about. The capitalists and politicians, feeling all too secure in their positions of power, have shown they would rather burn the planet down, whether through global warming or nuclear holocaust, than dismantle their own positions of privilege. But their own madness is spurred on by the fear they feel in just how precarious and uncertain their position truly is, driving them to constantly scapegoat minorities, redirecting our fear and anger against those most vulnerable instead of those with the most power. We who are moved by love do not lose sight of our radical vision. Time is of the essence, but a better world is within our grasp, and immediate improvements can be made by united in solidarity. Life can be made pleasant and humanity can be remade as a blessing upon the universe, living in harmony with the earth. We are pushed, therefore, to be revolutionaries. In the present, we work on building the virtuous circles that, in enough cycles, will bring this transformation about.

I hope that my writings here may contribute to and benefit all of those who fight for life, providing a basis for greater revolutionary action while directing us away from reformist diversions which do not strike at the root of the problem.

My Body of Work

I provide here a list of links and summaries of my various posts, including some original papers by myself as well as notes and guides to various works I have read which can hopefully make more complex theory more easily accessible.

Theory

Anarchist Theory

Socialism as a Realm of Equality - A comparison and analysis of how Proudhon, Engels, Marx, and Bakunin all focused on “equality” as a value. This especially explores how the anarchists defended equality as a basis for liberty, which seems to be a point Marx and Engels actually agree with, despite trying very hard to avoid invoking “French” values, and even sparking some of their intense conflict against Bakunin within the First International.

Why Anti-Capitalism? - An examination of the anarchist understanding of capitalism and why it is fundamentally antithetical to a society free from domination and exploitation. I frame this as a contrast between more “reformist” tendencies of social democracy and liberalism that merely want a more well-regulated capitalism.

Critiques of Marxism

Read On Authority - A critique of Friedrich Engels’ essay “On Authority,” demonstrating not only how he misrepresented anarchism but also how he abandoned basic points of Marxist theory in his polemic. A companion piece on the history of Engels’ relation to the IWA in Italy can be read here.

The Flaws of On Authority - A briefer critique of On Authority compared to the above. There is less line-by-line review of various essays, but this allows me to focus in more directly on the critique itself.

Critiques of Propertarianism

No One Believes in the Non-Aggression “Principle” - A critique of the so-called NAP frequently used by propertarians like Objectivists and “Anarcho”-Capitalists. The history of the argument is explored, and it is revealed as ultimately circular, pretending it establishes propertarianism when it merely presupposes it.

Property is Despotism! - Being unable to establish any historical continuity with the anarchist movement, “anarcho”-capitalists instead try to claim to be legitimate anarchists by a common and intuitive sense of the idea. Countering this, I describe what is perhaps the most authoritarian society imaginable, even by the admission of propertarians themselves, only to then show how their theory forces them to support this. This is because when these propertarians talk about ‘anarchy,’ they do not mean whether people in a given society are meaningfully ‘free,’ but whether they believe the claim authoritarian institutions make to especially the land is ‘just,’ passing their test of legitimate property ownership, which would require them to support even those worst dictatorship imaginable. This demonstrates the more fundamental point, articulated by Proudhon, that property is despotism. Propertarianism cannot be libertarian or anarchist because it supports property.

Ayn Rand's Second-Hand Ethics - Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism” was an extremely important precursor to much of modern right-wing propertarian (“libertarian”) reasoning. Here I analyze an essay where Rand tried to lay the ethical foundations of her entire ethical and political outlook, and we explore why it fails on just about every level. To justify her support for “egoism” and selfishness, Rand used very tortured logic to claim that life was the ultimate value, and that people should therefore always value their own life above all else. Even Rand didn’t believe this though as, even in this essay, she praises some people and attitudes who hold some principles so strongly they would be willing to die for them. Mixed in with many bizarre and contradictory arguments, I highlight all the issues unique to her work and how all the best parts of her arguments are just worse versions of arguments that preceed her by decades, if not hundreds or thousands of years.

Philosophy

Puzzles of Akrasia - This is a short paper on the idea of ‘akrasia’, i.e. cases where people know something is wrong but do it anyway. I cover how this is a puzzling phenomenon since it seems like we always choose what seems the most choiceworthy, so if we know one option is better, why do we ever choose against it? I cover answers given by Aristotle and the ways his answer has been challenged and built upon.

History

How Engels Failed Italy - A history of Engels’ relation with the First International in Italy and how he consistently failed, undermines, or lied to the workers there as part of his political machinations. Something of a companion piece to Read On Authority, given that “On Authority” was written in Italian in the aftermath of Engels’ failure in Italy.

Nerd Stuff

The Revolutionary Yearning for the New Calendar - The French Revolution was (in)famous for introducing a new calendar as part of their effort to de-Christianize the country, making some awkward changes like the shift to the ten-day week. I continue this tradition with my own wonky ideas for how the calendar can be fixed in a more practical way, presenting the argument for creating a 13-month year, fixing the names of the months (October should be the 8th month, given its name, not the 10th), and moving the start of the year to the Spring Equinox.

Right-Wing Pseudo-Intellectualism and Basic Logic - After a small rant about right-wing anti-intellectualism and the pseudo-intellectuals it produces as an alternative, I laugh at Stefan Molyneux’s failed attempt at doing logic before launching into a full-blown crash course on formal logic 101, describing the basics of Aristotelian categorical logic and modern symbolic logic.

Notes and Summaries

Frequently my style of note-taking has me reexplain what I’m reading back to myself in my own words, and then if it is particularly complicated summarizing it down yet again into core ideas or adding in commentary as I interject with related points or criticism.

Essay Summaries

Economic Essays

Notes on “The Value Theory of Labour” by Diane Elson - While Marx’s Capital is often read as defending a ‘labor theory of value,’ where the price of commodities may be explained by the amount of labor required to produce them, Elson argues that the actual object of Marx’s theory about how labor is objectified in capitalism as ‘value.’ She goes admirably in-depth into Marx’s method of historical materialism and how he used it to establish the relationship between labor-time, value, and price, as well as drawing out the radical political implications of this theory.

Notes on “Why Labour is the Starting Point of Capital” by Geoffrey Kay - Kay’s paper serves primarily to address Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk’s famous critique of Marx’s Capital, focused around issues like the infamous ‘transformation problem.’ While rather clever, his argument ultimately depends on his own positivist method, failing to grasp Marx’s dialectical approach. Elson’s paper above was partly informed by Kay’s paper.

Book Summaries

Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton

Chapter 1: Introduction - Paxton lays out some of the difficulties in defining fascism and lays out his plan to analyze it in stages as it changes and develops.

Chapter 2: Creating Fascist Movements - Analyzes the first fascist movements as they developed in reaction to World War 1, laying the intellectual/ideological foundation for the future.

Chapter 3: Taking Root - A comparison between different fascist movements that were successful (Italy and Germany) or unsuccessful (France and others) in establishing themselves in the political system.

Chapter 4: Getting Power - An analysis of how fascist parties took power, especially through the active and willing cooperation and promotion of conservatives, and not, as is commonly believed, through electoral success or through any coup d’Etat.

Chapter 5: Exercising Power - Fascism in power is marked by their parallel organizations and internal dysfunction and competition between the leader, the party, the normative state, and conservative elites. Who wins in this tug-of-war determines how things develop.

Chapter 6: The Long Term: Radicalization or Entropy? - Fascism is too unstable to remain in the long-term, and tends to either settle into more traditional forms of dictatorial authoritarianism, or the radical elements lead to reckless expansion and mass murder.

Chapter 7: Other Times, Other Places - Examines governments often but questionably labeled as fascist, as well as the fascist movement after World War 2 up to 2004, including the rise of “crytpofascism” as far-right politicians no longer openly identify as fascists.

Chapter 8: What is Fascism? - Having analyzed the full history of fascism and compared it at different stages of development and power, Paxton brings everything together to see what definitions of fascism people have attempted, explain their weaknesses, and propose his own as an alternative.

What is Property by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Chapter 1: Method Pursued in This Work - The Idea of a Revolution - Proudhon aims to defend his surprising conclusion that “property is theft!” To set up this argument, he gives a narrative of history built around this contrasting idea of progress and revolution, and how man needs to advance past these errors at the core of our worldview. This is true, he claims, of property itself, which must ultimately bring along despotism and inequality with it. He lays out his plan for combating the arguments given in favor of property, his intention to show it as an ultimately contradictory idea, and intention to lay out the principles of a better system.

Chapter 2: Property Considered as a Natural Right. Occupation and Civil Law as Efficient Bases of Property. Definitions. - Proudhon moves into his actual argument, beginning with a brief overview of legal definitions for property. Importantly, he distinguishes property from possession, with property giving people a kind of “absolute domain” over something other people actually may use and possess, turning it into a method of domination and exploitation. Various arguments are considered in favor of natural rights, but Proudhon shows they all fail. Property cannot be a natural right since it is neither absolute, nor is it inherent to all (which would make it equal). It cannot be based on occupation either because, among other reasons, it does not take us beyond possession. It also cannot be defended as a practical matter of civil law, since the law is constantly undermining it. It should instead, at best, be seen as a well-intentioned flaw of the old system that must be revolutionized.

Chapter 3: Labor as the Efficient Cause of the Domain of Property - Having debunked justifications based on occupancy, Proudhon moves on to arguments justifying property as the “fruit of our labor.” These arguments have an even worse time because workers are the ones who do all labor, yet are excluded from property. Proudhon takes this a bit further though to not only argue against property, but also start to hint at something like a better system based on some form of equal distribution.

Chapter 4: That Property is Impossible - Proudhon moves on the offensive against property, showing the ways in which it is inherently destructive, incoherent, and undermines itself. This especially focuses on the “right of increase” taking different forms of exploitation. Because the proprietor demands something for nothing, all kinds of economic chaos is unleashed with deadly consequences. Ultimately, because property violates equality, it cannot be united with society.

Chapter 5: Psychological Exposition of the Idea of Justice, and a Determination of the Principle of Government and of Right - We conclude with a developed theory of justice rooted in a basic social instinct which we expand upon with various levels of intellect and complexity. This is paralleled in the development of humanity from a primitive community into systems of property. As we develop our scientific thinking, we naturally begin to question authority and only accept what can be proven to us. We are moving towards a system of anarchy then, where no such sovereigns are needed or wanted. This forms a part of a more developed system of Liberty built on equality.

Meditations on First Philosophy - René Descartes

First and Second Meditations - Descartes begins his project of examining all his beliefs to determine what he knows with absolute certainty. He eliminates any belief he can raise even the slightest possibility of doubt. But when he considers the possibility of an evil demon having been tricking him with illusions his whole life, he seems to need to throw away all of his beliefs. He believes he has found a way out of this problem though by realizing that he knows that he exists with absolute certainty. Even if a demon existed to trick him, it still remains true that he exists!

Third Meditation - Having confidence in his own existence, Descartes finds he can trust those things he sees clearly and distinctly as true. As a ‘thinking thing,’ he categorizes his thoughts as ideas and judgments. These thoughts must come from somewhere, so it seems like to firmly establish the existence of anything else Descartes must find some idea that he could not have invented. He notes that, as something cannot arise from nothing, whatever causes an idea must have at least as much reality as is being represented in the idea itself. Physical bodies don’t seem to have anything so great about them that they might not be invented, but the idea of God stands apart as an infinite being which clearly exceeds Descartes himself. The existence of God is therefore certain.