Read on Twitter
I think the differences between highly sectarian and nonsectarian anarchists are interesting and fairly easy to analyze and pin down. It essentially comes down to where the anarchism is coming from.
It's easy to say both but everyone has priorities. Is your anarchism rooted in a critique of capitalism and liberal democracy, which leads to the condemnation of unjust power structures, or in a critique of authority per authority?
Those whose road to anarchism starts with a critique of capitalism have key things in common with with the "authoritarian communist" crowd that facilitate struggling together where that's appropriate. Any voice pushing socialism is one that can be, to some extent, a comrade.
On the other hand, any anarchist who comes there through a visceral distaste of authority in general, and they get to a dislike of capitalism through that, will likely be highly "sectarian" per the Twitter ML-ancom wars. Authority, so called "unjust hierarchies",
is, per this view, the same no matter what it comes from. The authority of the capitalist class, the American president, the head of a socialist state, and Adolf Hitler are all fundamentally identical, because they all entail hierarchies and power which could be disagreeable
to some.
So, anarcho-communists who begin from anti-capitalism and then reach anti-authoritarian conclusions have a worldview ordered in such a way that it is possible to work with those who see a place for authority and hierarchy.
So, anarcho-communists who begin from anti-capitalism and then reach anti-authoritarian conclusions have a worldview ordered in such a way that it is possible to work with those who see a place for authority and hierarchy.
Anarcho-communists who begin from anti-authoritarianism and then reach anti-capitalist conclusions have a worldview ordered in such a way that it is not possible to work with "authoritarians" (although many of them will gladly work with anarchists from anti-left tendencies,
provided that they aren't anarcho-capitalist.)
If that analysis contradicts anyone's experience, I'd love to hear a critique.
But it gets messier to me when you look at ML sectarianism.
If that analysis contradicts anyone's experience, I'd love to hear a critique.
But it gets messier to me when you look at ML sectarianism.
I think it can be divided up similarly. MLs whose analysis begins with anti-capitalism can work with fellow anti-capitalists, despite differing opinions on other subjects. But I don't think it's quite as easy to pin down where highly sectarian MLism comes from.
I think there's a combination of factors which could be involved. First of all, the tendency of ancoms of the anti-authoritarian rooted bent to initiate these culture wars and push a very high level of rhetoric. See the highly derisive term "red fascism", which comes from that
critique of power I discussed above. Many MLs (very reasonably) take GREAT exception to being called fascists and this fuels a degree of ML sectarianism. But I really don't think "well, THEY started it" tells the whole story, or is even necessarily always true.
There seems to me to be another tendency other than anti-capitalism that fuels sectarian MLs, much like with the anarchists, and I've gone through a couple ideas of what it could be.
The first thought, based on my own days in extremely sectarian online ancom spaces, is that it comes from a totalitarian impulse. But at least in theory, the goal of all MLs is a classless, stateless society. A totalitarian worldview wouldn't drag people Left, and saying that
it would is tantamount to an accusation of red fascism, which I've already condemned as about as offensive and inaccurate a political label as I can think of.
I think a better approach to take is that sectarian MLs are driven by worldview which begins from a place of venerating analysis. All serious political tendencies have and make use of their various theories and texts, but sectarian MLs really bring that to a different level.
And it's not just a love of their own theory; it's the aesthetic of ML theory that drives that kind of person left to begin with. It's an attitude which begins from the point that "deep analysis is good analysis". ML theory is undeniably deeper, more complicated, and more
detailed, in just about every area, than that of virtually any other political stripe. Marx was nothing if not prolific and Lenin was 100% that bitch. There's really nothing in Bakunin to compete in terms of breadth.
I don't necessarily know if that depth of analysis and theory is, at the end of the day, good bad or indifferent. I'm tempted to call it good, but my current theory is that this is also where highly sectarian and intellectual elitist attitudes creep in.
Anyway, that's my detailed thread to today! I might keep an eye on it and add to it as I have more thoughts on this subject. I'd be thrilled to have some of the more sectarian voices in the ML crowd especially chime in their thoughts.
