Why is anarchism not known?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One of the more obvious reasons is the fact that historically Marxists have been much better at organizing than anarchists.

[StalinFanboy]

If I remember correctly, there's a rather large group of Anarchists in Africa.

[Shin Honyong]

Anarchism was pretty popular in Korea during the colonial period

[ZeroNowhere]

Anarchists have no real connection to the working class movement, due to being a reactionary petit-bourgeois force, and do not have the appeal to the working class to ever become a powerful revolutionary force. Also, they're a load of sectarian fucks, meaning that they are worthless to the revolutionary socialist movement.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchists have no real connection to the working class movement, due to being a reactionary petit-bourgeois force and do not have the appeal to the working class to ever become a powerful revolutionary force. Also, they're a load of sectarian fucks, meaning that they are worthless to the revolutionary socialist movement.

I stopped listening to what you were saying when the phrase "petit-bourgeois" was uttered in relation to anarchism. You might as well have used the phrase "anarcho-trots" at that point.

Anarchism does have roots in the petite bourgeoisie, this is true; anarchism in its early days found the most resonance amongst artisans. But to say that anarchism throughout history is a "petit-bourgeois" force borders on complete insanity.

[( R )evolution]

One of the more obvious reasons is the fact that historically Marxists have been much better at organizing than anarchists.


^That is without a doubt. And ZeroNowhere, your comment has no base whatsoever.

[Nils T.]

One of the more obvious reasons is the fact that historically Marxists have been much better at organizing than anarchists. And also because the marxist parties are more visible in the capitalist media than anarchist networks and federations.
But anarchism is present everywhere. No need to read proudhon or bakunin to know that authorities are baaad.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Actually I think the whole perimeter of the question is incorrect.

What evidence have you that large parts of the world go without any anarchist influence? This just isn't true, im particually interested for example in the Middle East and in many of these countries there is very much an anarchist current.

I think anarchism, like most strains of Marxism is dependent upon an explicicity post-industrialisation working class; that is to say that capitalism creates the conditions necessary for the modern working class to emerge. In less industrialised nations such class conscousness is harder to fathom, it's understandable then why many countries in South Asia would pursue an idoeolgoy that didn't fetishise the industrialised working class as the revolutionary vehicle, but rather peasents, post-feudal land workers etc (such as Maoism.)

So i'd argue that in many third-world nations anarchism isn't as well known percisely because the workers within don't identify as strongly with the concept of working class, which has come to connote manuel and industrial labourers; as opposed to a more general 'propertyless proletariat' analysis. The same is also true of many strains of Marxism that simliarly place great emphasis on a working class capable of class consciousness.

That isn't to argue that thirs-world workers don't the capacity to become anarchists, but that their exploitation and material conditions, often being worse than that of first world workers, makes more difficult their ability to organise as a stratum in active persuit of their own interests. Even though they may be fully aware of their common relation to the means of production.

[apathy maybe]

Anarchists have no real connection to the working class movement, due to being a reactionary petit-bourgeois force, and do not have the appeal to the working class to ever become a powerful revolutionary force. Also, they're a load of sectarian fucks, meaning that they are worthless to the revolutionary socialist movement.

I tried to give you a negative mod point, but couldn't.

If it was a joke, it is very poor and basically trolling.

If it isn't a joke, it is just trolling.

----

As for the OP, I can't answer your question, but I can point you at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_movements_by_region which has links to different regions (the Cuba article is interesting for example).

Also have a look at http://www.struggle.ws/africa.html

[Devrim]

What evidence have you that large parts of the world go without any anarchist influence? This just isn't true, im particually interested for example in the Middle East and in many of these countries there is very much an anarchist current.

Where? Which groups? Anarchist groups exist/have existed in Turkey, and in Lebanon. I have never heard of them anywhere else.

Devrim

[h0m0revolutionary]

Where? Which groups? Anarchist groups exist/have existed in Turkey, and in Lebanon. I have never heard of them anywhere else.

Devrim

A Spanish comrade of mine tells me that he's in contact with Algerian anarchists, i'll find the site now... (http://struggle.ws/africa/algeria.html)

I am in touch with two Syrian Anarchists (one of whom has a blog here: http://razanghazzawi.com/) the other has contributed to the Anarchist Federation blog.

There is Anarchists Against the Wall, active in Israel and i'll have to get back to you about Iran, im in touch with many anarchists in Iran, but the name of the orginisaiton they used to go under eludes me.

I'm also in touch with several Jewish anarchists in and around Israel who follow the teachings of Yankev-Meyer Zalkind (spelling? - think he's on wiki).

Anarchism.net also speaks of Moroccan and Egyptian comrades but have no links to offer. :)

[Devrim]

I think that there is a bit of a difference between saying that there are a few people who you and your friends write to and 'there being very much an anarchist current'.

Devrim

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think that there is a bit of a difference between saying that there are a few people who you and your friends write to and 'there being very much an anarchist current'.

Devrim

Boring semantics =/

[Pogue]

Anarchists have no real connection to the working class movement, due to being a reactionary petit-bourgeois force, and do not have the appeal to the working class to ever become a powerful revolutionary force. Also, they're a load of sectarian fucks, meaning that they are worthless to the revolutionary socialist movement.

Wow, thats unlike you.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Anarchism is around us everywhere. Everyplace in the world has elements of Anarchism in the way people act. There is little understanding of the political theory in general but as a species there are many examples of Anarchist organisation that we can take from everyday life.

[Jack]

Anarchists have no real connection to the working class movement, due to being a reactionary petit-bourgeois force, and do not have the appeal to the working class to ever become a powerful revolutionary force. Also, they're a load of sectarian fucks, meaning that they are worthless to the revolutionary socialist movement.


Of course your kind are so much more relavent.

Tell me, when are those Socialist Industrial unions coming?

"sectarian fucks" of course, but you adhere to an ideology with maybe 250 adherents. The dead SLP, the irrelavent New Union Party, and 20 old guys in Australia.

[Sasha]

i think the gaston leval quote in my sig says it all; "Our comerades had not read Marx and were scarcely familiar with all of Proudhon's theories, but comon sense was their guide."
we anarchist & autonomist will do okay when the revolution comes

[Jack]

Where? Which groups? Anarchist groups exist/have existed in Turkey, and in Lebanon. I have never heard of them anywhere else.

Devrim

I'll continue on h0m0revolutionary's post.

There is a Sufi anarchist group in Syria.

Alexandria had an anarchist newspaper that started in 1870, but that's long gone.

There is an anarchist zine that runs out of Tehran, it also attacks Islam, which makes it hated by reactionaries.

There was a 20,000 strong union in Pakistan that tried to join the IWA, they got rejected, I don't really know why.

There is a group of Afghan women anarchists who are refugees in Pakistan.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

i think the gaston leval quote in my sig says it all; "Our comerades had not read Marx and were scarcely familiar with all of Proudhon's theories, but comon sense was their guide."
we anarchist & autonomist will do okay when the revolution comes

Exactly that is exactly what I was saying. Plenty examples of working class solidarity which echoes the actions we advocate and which echoes our ideas of how society should function.

[Devrim]

To just go through your details, Jack;


There is a Sufi anarchist group in Syria.

It is a bit like saying there is a Presbyterian anarchist group in Scotland. I don't know what your politics are, but I don't think that the comrade from the AF would consider a religious group to be anarchist-communist, particularly one associated with such a right wing tendency as Sufism.


Alexandria had an anarchist newspaper that started in 1870, but that's long gone.

I believe it was produced by Italian speakers in Italian, not a bad thing but not really much evidence of an anarchist current existing in the Middle East today.


There is an anarchist zine that runs out of Tehran, it also attacks Islam, which makes it hated by reactionaries.

I don't know anything about this so I won't comment upon it.


There was a 20,000 strong union in Pakistan that tried to join the IWA, they got rejected, I don't really know why.

Actually, I believe it was in Bangladesh (which isn't in the Middle East), and that there were some contacts but never any chance of them joining, certainly it was not a case of them being rejected. I don't think they were anarchists.


There is a group of Afghan women anarchists who are refugees in Pakistan.

I have heard some very unanarchist groups called anarchists in relation to Afghanistan.

The point is to be honest about the strength of our organisations. Anarchism is not saved or damned by its presence or lack of one in the Middle East. It does not prove or disprove anarchist ideas.

Pretending to be stronger than is really the case doesn't help anybody.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Exactly that is exactly what I was saying. Plenty examples of working class solidarity which echoes the actions we advocate and which echoes our ideas of how society should function.

Is their a class movement is a different question. However, other tendencies such as Trotskyists could equally claim that 'examples of working class solidarity echo the actions we advocate and echo our ideas of how society should function'.

Devrim

[StalinFanboy]

Anarchists have no real connection to the working class movement, due to being a reactionary petit-bourgeois force, and do not have the appeal to the working class to ever become a powerful revolutionary force. Also, they're a load of sectarian fucks, meaning that they are worthless to the revolutionary socialist movement.
Still waiting for ZeroNowhere to justify this post. Especially since he's been so vocal about the "anarchism of Marx."

[Sasha]

Still waiting for ZeroNowhere to justify this post. Especially since he's been so vocal about the "anarchism of Marx."

yeah, espacely the "load of sectarian fucks" (sic) cracked me up, there are almost no strands of anarchism that i cant work with, while if you get more than 2 marxist in a room you'll have 4 splits, 3 purges and 15 party's.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Is their a class movement is a different question. However, other tendencies such as Trotskyists could equally claim that 'examples of working class solidarity echo the actions we advocate and echo our ideas of how society should function'.

Devrim

What I am trying to convey is that Anarchism is the natural tendency of human beings, so despite things not being called Anarchist they are. A class movement was not part of my point, I think the key to this however is to become less dogmatic about things like theory and build united working class organisations under the principles of a libertarian and communist organised society.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Still waiting for ZeroNowhere to justify this post. Especially since he's been so vocal about the "anarchism of Marx."

I am assuming ZeroNowhere was joking until ZeroNowhere posts on the subject.

[Jack]

To just go through your details, Jack;



It is a bit like saying there is a Presbyterian anarchist group in Scotland. I don't know what your politics are, but I don't think that the comrade from the AF would consider a religious group to be anarchist-communist, particularly one associated with such a right wing tendency as Sufism.

They are anarchist communists.



Actually, I believe it was in Bangladesh (which isn't in the Middle East), and that there were some contacts but never any chance of them joining, certainly it was not a case of them being rejected. I don't think they were anarchists.

You're right, my bad



I have heard some very unanarchist groups called anarchists in relation to Afghanistan.

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan



Devrim
nn

[Jack]

Though, RAWA is not an anarchist group, there are active anarchists in it. Same witht he CLA in Libya.

[Devrim]

They are anarchist communists.

Is that the sort of anarchist communists who follow a, generally right wing, religious cult?


Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
Though, RAWA is not an anarchist group, there are active anarchists in it.


RAWA has its roots in Maoism. Apart from a couple of anarchists claiming it is anarchist, I have never seen any evidence of any connection with anarchism at all, and none has ever been provided. Check out the patriotic songs on their website.


Same witht he CLA in Libya.

I have no idea who this group is.

To be honest Jack, your groups are looking more than a little thin on the ground.

Devrim

[Devrim]

What I am trying to convey is that Anarchism is the natural tendency of human beings, so despite things not being called Anarchist they are.

What I was trying to convey is that any leftist group can make a similar claim.
"Socialism is the natural tendency...". It is essentially meaningless.

Devrim

[Jack]

The CLA is the syndicalist Libyan teachers union, it's not anarchist but there are many active anarchosyndicalists in it.

I know Libya isn't in the Middle East, but it is an Arab country.

[Devrim]

The CLA is the syndicalist Libyan teachers union, it's not anarchist but there are many active anarchosyndicalists in it.

I know Libya isn't in the Middle East, but it is an Arab country.

Well, no but Afghanistan/Pakistan wasn't either, so never mind.

The national union federation in Libya is completely integrated into the state, and as I am aware has never organised a strike. I have never heard of an independent teachers' union in Libya.

Quickly checking for a Libyan teachers union ( الجماهيرية نقابة المعلمين ), the only reference I can find is to the state run one.

Devrim

[Jack]

In the US we pretty much consider from Egypt to Pakistan to be the Middle East (don't know why). We also don't acknowledge that Central Asia exists, really.

My bad, honestly, with all these things. The CLA is in Algeria.

They don't teach us Geography over here :blushing:

[Hoxhaist]

it is hard to "organize" anarchists because it seems counter-intuitive to the movement and in most people's minds the word "anarchy" brings to mind chaos, disorder, and death

[Jack]

Still sounds alot better than bread lines and oppression.

[Devrim]

So, I think that we have established that there aren't anarchist organisations in the Middle East let alone 'very much an anarchist current'. Yes, there may be a few anarcho-syndicalist militants in Algeria, but not enough for them to have an organisation, and some of the IWA sections are only a couple of handfuls of people.

There are anarchist organisations in Turkey. There used to be an organisation in Lebanon, Libertarian Alternative. I don't know if it still exists.

However, Anarchism has such little resonance in Arabic speaking countries that there isn't even a word for it in Arabic.

I just don't understand why people are trying to delude themselves.

It is necessary to start from a realistic appraisal of where you are.

As regards to Left Communists in the Middle East. There is a small ICC section in Turkey, and a few different left communist groups in Iran. Historically there were also Bordigist groups in Lebanon, Algeria, and possibly Turkey* until the problems in the ICP in the 1980s.

That's it.

But assessing where you are is vital if you are to move forward.

Devrim

*I have copies of their paper, but it gives me the impression that it was produced in Germany not in Turkey.

[Devrim]

It is a shame really that the anarchists didn't really try to deal with this discussion. Only HR even attempted it;



I think anarchism, like most strains of Marxism is dependent upon an explicicity post-industrialisation working class; that is to say that capitalism creates the conditions necessary for the modern working class to emerge. In less industrialised nations such class conscousness is harder to fathom, it's understandable then why many countries in South Asia would pursue an idoeolgoy that didn't fetishise the industrialised working class as the revolutionary vehicle, but rather peasents, post-feudal land workers etc (such as Maoism.)

So i'd argue that in many third-world nations anarchism isn't as well known percisely because the workers within don't identify as strongly with the concept of working class, which has come to connote manuel and industrial labourers; as opposed to a more general 'propertyless proletariat' analysis. The same is also true of many strains of Marxism that simliarly place great emphasis on a working class capable of class consciousness.

That isn't to argue that thirs-world workers don't the capacity to become anarchists, but that their exploitation and material conditions, often being worse than that of first world workers, makes more difficult their ability to organise as a stratum in active persuit of their own interests. Even though they may be fully aware of their common relation to the means of production.

I think that what he has to say is of historical relevance, but doesn't really apply to today when a country like Iran for example has a higher percentage of workers employed in industry than a country like Britain.

There are other reasons that we could discuss, which include the prestige that the official CPs drew from the success of the Bolshevik revolution. The completely opportunist orientation of the People's Congress of the East, and the evolution of this opportunism into a bourgeois political line.

More compelling a discussion to me though is how to assist in the development of revolutionary currents in countries where they don't exist today.

For us international work is crucial. It is vitally important for us to play a role in the development of isolated militants coming towards revolutionary politics in countries where this tradition doesn't exist or is very weak. How to best do that is one of the really important questions facing revolutionaries today.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

If I remember correctly, there's a rather large group of Anarchists in Africa.

Theres a 2000 strong Anarcho-Syndicalist Union in Nigeria, and a Platformist group in South Africa.

http://www.zabalaza.net/ (http://www.zablaza.net)

As for Anarchism in the middle east. There has been some. Like Al-Badil al-Chouii al-Taharruri in Lebanon. But overwhelmingly I have never heard of it, and I don't thik that should be at all surprising. The history and development of radical politics has been quite different to that of Europe. For many reasons, these places didnt industrialise at the same time for example. That is not to say that there are no people in the middle east who would consider themselves Anarchists if they knew fully what the ideology was about. Im sure there are many.

http://www.albadilaltaharrouri.com/images/top-title-ar.gifhttp://www.albadilaltaharrouri.com/

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

It is a shame really that the anarchists didn't really try to deal with this discussion. Only HR even attempted it

Here's my twopence then:



There are other reasons that we could discuss, which include the prestige that the official CPs drew from the success of the Bolshevik revolution. The completely opportunist orientation of the People's Congress of the East, and the evolution of this opportunism into a bourgeois political line.


To me this cannot be understated. The supposed success of the Russian Revolution meant a complete hegemony of Bolshevism over the Western workers movement. That is not even to mention the extra funding, resources and credentials you could gain through allegiance with Moscow and towing the party line. It transformed "Leninism", an obscure variant of Marxism routed in Russian political history, into an ideology that was apparently relevant to the world over. Of course then you have the appeal to the third world of rapid industrialisation in the form of Stalinism and its hold over the world communist movement is solidified.

This is alongside an international anarchist movement that has historically been subjected to a great deal more state suppression than other socialist groups (who could always play the reformist card when they were threatened). Although it is important to emphasise that although in the UK anarchism may seem remote to most people there are parts of the world where they have sustained a strong anarchist tradition.

I would also second the sentiments of other posters here though. We can point fingers but I do think it is true to say that anarchists have been historically badly organised.

[Devrim]

This is alongside an international anarchist movement that has historically been subjected to a great deal more state suppression than other socialist groups (who could always play the parliamentary card when they were threatened).

I am not sure if this is really true.


Although it is important to emphasise that although in the UK anarchism may seem remote to most people there are parts of the world where they have sustained a strong anarchist tradition.

Yes, I would agree with this, but the main areas where it was strong was the 'Latin'* speaking world. There are also lots of parts of the world where it never penetrated.


We can point fingers but I do think it is true to say that anarchists have been historically badly organised.

Do you think that it is still true today?

Devrim

*French/Italian/Spanish

[Pogue]

Do you think that it is still true today?



Not particularly, I'd say our only problem is how small we are. We have different groups but we're not at each others necks. The AF and SolFed have a joint meeting coming up, alot of AF members are also in IWW, we have L&S with extensive IWW links, and alot of us have international connections. I have gone out on activism and socialising with a group of anarchists made up of AFed members, SolFed members, IWW members and L&S members and there was no problem doing political work or just chilling out.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

I am not sure if this is really true.

Ok, one example then. The International in Italy had an anarchist leadership from its inception, largely as a result of the work of Russian immigrants like Bakunin. It could claim around 30,000 members by 1874. The organization was criminalized in 1877 with anarchists thrown in jail, newspapers banned and generally any "anarchoid" behaviour was subject to severe state supression. This was while social democratic parties, although subject to suppression as well, were allowed to continue to exist. The Revolutionary Socialist Party even won seats in the elections of 1882.


Do you think that it is still true today?

I think the situation is improving in many areas and the movement does appear to be more ambitious. I think this will take a while but certainly I can see positive things on the horizon.

[Devrim]

Not particularly, I'd say our only problem is how small we are. We have different groups but we're not at each others necks. The AF and SolFed have a joint meeting coming up, alot of AF members are also in IWW, we have L&S with extensive IWW links, and alot of us have international connections. I have gone out on activism and socialising with a group of anarchists made up of AFed members, SolFed members, IWW members and L&S members and there was no problem doing political work or just chilling out.

I think that you missed the point, H. I wasn't talking about how well you got on with other groups, but about international organisation.

I don't think that the question is really aimed at you as you are not actually in an anarchist organisation, but how would an anarchist organisation react if it was contacted by a small group from, let's say, Syria for example?

Devrim

[Andropov]

My only experience with Anarchists is in Ireland.
From my own experience with Anarchists they have true intentions but often that is not enough to gain credibility in working class areas.
The Anarchists I know dress in black, with "fuck the man" t-shirts and big boots and stooded jackets and punk hair etc.
Now in Ireland such fashion statements generally do not give credibility to the political tendency you are advocating.
Alot of the time it alienates working class people from Anarchism.
That coupled with their social background I feel leads to their isolation.
This is just from my own experiences and is completely subjective so dont bite my head off.

[Devrim]

Ok, one example then. The International in Italy had an anarchist leadership from its inception, largely as a result of the work of Russian immigrants like Bakunin. It could claim around 30,000 members by 1874. The organization was criminalized in 1877 with anarchists thrown in jail, newspapers banned and generally any "anarchoid" behaviour was subject to severe state supression. This was while social democratic parties, although subject to suppression as well, were allowed to continue to exist. The Revolutionary Socialist Party even won seats in the elections of 1882.

It is a long time ago though, and it is only one example. I could give you another, a few years ago a Maoist party in Turkey had their conference attacked by helicopter gunships along with ground troops and their leadership was wiped out. I have never heard of that happening to anarchists here. It doesn't really prove anything though.

I don't think that there is much ground in the 'which currents have been more oppressed' discussion.

Devrim

[Devrim]

My only experience with Anarchists is in Ireland.
From my own experience with Anarchists they have true intentions but often that is not enough to gain credibility in working class areas.
The Anarchists I know dress in black, with "fuck the man" t-shirts and big boots and stooded jackets and punk hair etc.
Now in Ireland such fashion statements generally do not give credibility to the political tendency you are advocating.
Alot of the time it alienates working class people from Anarchism.
That coupled with their social background I feel leads to their isolation.
This is just from my own experiences and is completely subjective so dont bite my head off.

I have met more than a few Irish anarchists, and I have never met one like that. I think it probably says more about your social circles than members of the actually anarchist groups in Ireland like Organise! or WSM.

But then your post doesn't really have anything to do with this thread whatsoever. You are just trolling the anarchists really, aren't you?

Devrim

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

My only experience with Anarchists is in Ireland.
From my own experience with Anarchists they have true intentions but often that is not enough to gain credibility in working class areas.
The Anarchists I know dress in black, with "fuck the man" t-shirts and big boots and stooded jackets and punk hair etc.
Now in Ireland such fashion statements generally do not give credibility to the political tendency you are advocating.
Alot of the time it alienates working class people from Anarchism.
That coupled with their social background I feel leads to their isolation.
This is just from my own experiences and is completely subjective so dont bite my head off.

I think that is a small minority of the movement though, most of which probably wont be in organisations. There is an anarcho-punk scene in my home city that we have nothing to do with. Their politics are crap and the music is shit :). I agree with what you are saying about how certain looks can be alienating, but ultimately I think this wouldn't matter if anarchists were more heavily and more pro-actively engaged in intervening (and instigating) class struggle. This is something that certain aspects of the movement have been lacking, largely due to our size to be fair to ourselves, but is changing.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

It is a long time ago though, and it is only one example. I could give you another, a few years ago a Maoist party in Turkey had their conference attacked by helicopter gunships along with ground troops and their leadership was wiped out. I have never heard of that happening to anarchists here. It doesn't really prove anything though.

I don't think that there is much ground in the 'which currents have been more oppressed' discussion.


Yeah fair enough.

[Madvillainy]

My only experience with Anarchists is in Ireland.
From my own experience with Anarchists they have true intentions but often that is not enough to gain credibility in working class areas.
The Anarchists I know dress in black, with "fuck the man" t-shirts and big boots and stooded jackets and punk hair etc.
Now in Ireland such fashion statements generally do not give credibility to the political tendency you are advocating.
Alot of the time it alienates working class people from Anarchism.
That coupled with their social background I feel leads to their isolation.


What was the point in this post? I think it's very doubtful that you have had any experience with anarchists in Ireland. None of the members of the WSM or Organise that I have met fit your description and are all extremely active and hard working individuals. Fuckin' reject.

I didn't know their was an anarchist movement in sligo anyway.

[Andropov]

But then your post doesn't really have anything to do with this thread whatsoever. You are just trolling the anarchists really, aren't you?

I was just giving my two cents on why I thought Anarchists were not large in Ireland.
Feel free to disregaurd my own experiences, I never once claimed they were indicitive of the whole Irish Anarchist movement.
Hence why I added the bottom bit because of posters like you Devrim.

This is just from my own experiences and is completely subjective so dont bite my head off.

[Andropov]

Fuckin' reject.
A bit rich coming from someone who was thrown off another forum for pedaphilic tendancies.

[Madvillainy]

A bit rich coming from someone who was thrown off another forum for pedaphilic tendancies.

I was thrown off for discussing the age of consent. But that has nothing do with the thread, so what anarchist movement have you been in contact with living in Sligo?

[Andropov]

I didn't know their was an anarchist movement in sligo anyway.
They are actually from Galway not that it matters.
BTW this wasnt an attack on Anarchists by me, or a wind up, was just my own personel experiences with Anarchists and why I think that Anarchism is not big in Ireland.

[Devrim]

Can we have a split for 'RR trolls the anarchists' please?

I would really like to see an answer to this question;

"[H]ow would an anarchist organisation react if it was contacted by a small group from, let's say, Syria for example?"

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

To me this cannot be understated. The supposed success of the Russian Revolution meant a complete hegemony of Bolshevism over the Western workers movementI don't think its that simple. The success in Russia and subsequent wave of 'Bolshevikisation' cannot be divorced from the contemporary failures of anarchism and syndicalism. The latter in particular was extremely popular during the Belle Époque yet, along with other currents of that era, almost completely collapsed with the arrival of WWI. The failure of the mass strike was particularly devastating

[Andropov]

I think that is a small minority of the movement though, most of which probably wont be in organisations.
The Anarchists I mentioned are not even members of a movement.

There is an anarcho-punk scene in my home city that we have nothing to do with. Their politics are crap and the music is shit :).
I agree again.

I agree with what you are saying about how certain looks can be alienating, but ultimately I think this wouldn't matter if anarchists were more heavily and more pro-actively engaged in intervening (and instigating) class struggle.
Absolutely, but to gain the trust of your communtiy you must have some grounding within the society they inhabit themselves and often superficial things like fashion can instantly alienate you from that community.

This is something that certain aspects of the movement have been lacking, largely due to our size to be fair to ourselves, but is changing.
Good stuff. :)

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Thats a good question. I'm also curious as to how the South African Zabalaza formed. Did they do it with the help of US/UK/Latin anarchists? I believe anarchists need to organize on a more international level rather than forming restrictive local groups that are relevant to a small area of the planet. The Anarkismo website was set up with similar goals I believe.

I'm failing to see why this is such a big issue (?). If a Syrian group contacted my organisation I'd encourage them to join IFA ( www.iaf-ifa.org (http://www.iaf-ifa.org) ). They'd hopefully then participate in the international and we'd offer our solidarity and aid and share our experiences just like we would any other group of comrades. Is the premise of this question that anarchists don't have an international? Because if that's the case then we have two - IAF and IWA - plus anarkismo so ...

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

I don't think its that simple. The success in Russia and subsequent wave of 'Bolshevikisation' cannot be divorced from the contemporary failures of anarchism and syndicalism. The latter in particular was extremely popular during the Belle Époque yet, along with other currents of that era, almost completely collapsed with the arrival of WWI. The failure of the mass strike was particularly devastating

You have to delineate your anarchisms there. I'd agree that some of the historical setbacks of anarcho-syndicalism has been due to weaknesses in syndicalist practice (although recent developments from SolFed show an awareness of these). But there are also various other factors that have contributed to that. Also Bolshevikisation pre-dated arguably anarcho-syndicalisms greatest achievement - the Spanish revolution (along with contributing to its decline).

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Thats a good question. I'm also curious as to how the South African Zabalaza formed. Did they do it with the help of US/UK/Latin anarchists?

There's an interview on their website titled "Anarchism in South Africa" which explains their origins - http://www.zabalaza.net/index02.htm

[Devrim]

I'm failing to see why this is such a big issue (?). If a Syrian group contacted my organisation I'd encourage them to join IFA ( www.iaf-ifa.org (http://www.iaf-ifa.org) ). They'd hopefully then participate in the international and we'd offer our solidarity and aid and share our experiences just like we would any other group of comrades. Is the premise of this question that anarchists don't have an international? Because if that's the case then we have two - IAF and IWA - plus anarkismo so ...

I think that it is a massive issue. It is really important how we relate to people coming to revolutionary politics in countries which previously didn't have any revolutionary organisations.

I am quite aware that there are international anarchist organisations, and I think the IWA has the ability to respond to these sort of things. I don't know about how the groups around Anarkismo would handle it, but I suspect that they would do it reasonably well, and I doubt that the IAF would handle it well at all.

I don't think its a matter of encouraging them to join an organisation. I think that it is about playing an active role in helping what are probably very isolated militants in building an organisation.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

You have to delineate your anarchisms thereTrue, pre-war socialism was a very muddy stream. Generally I date anarcho-syndicalism, as the distinguishable tendency we know today, to the same post-war revolutionary period that sundered the socialist parties. Prior to that most anarcho-syndicalist elements would have been part of the broader syndicalist movement. In this context 'anarchism' refers to the relatively 'pure' non-syndicalist strain


Also Bolshevikisation pre-dated arguably anarcho-syndicalisms greatest achievement - the Spanish revolution (along with contributing to its decline).Very true but this alone throws the decline of both anarchism and syndicalism elsewhere into very sharp relief. It was in Spain and Spain alone that anarcho-syndicalism (or any other current of anarchist thought) displaced Marxism as the largest revolutionary tendency amongst the working class. 'Pure' anarchism was of course never a mass movement but the sharp decline of syndicalism throughout Europe during the post-war years is still remarkable. This has to be due to more than the emergence of a new revolutionary alternative in Russia

[ComradeOm]

The significant presence of movements like Gandhism, Fabian socialism and modern liberalism, not to mention right-wing ideologies, among working classes of various countries can be brought up too if you likeOf the three only Fabianism was a real influence amongst the European working classes, and even then only through Labour in the UK. during the interbellum period, and the immediate post-1945 decades, working class politics throughout the continent was a fairly straight split between social democrats and communists, both legacies of the old Social Democratic movement. The exceptions that spring to mind are Spain, already noted, and the German Centre Party, and later iterations of Christian Democracy. But in the context of this discussion the remarkable thing is the rather glaring absence, again outside of Spain, of major syndicalist movements

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

I doubt that the IAF would handle it well at all.


Why do you believe that?

[Forward Union]

Thats a good question. I'm also curious as to how the South African Zabalaza formed. Did they do it with the help of US/UK/Latin anarchists? I believe anarchists need to organize on a more international level rather than forming restrictive local groups that are relevant to a small area of the planet. The Anarkismo website was set up with similar goals I believe.

Yea Anarkismo was set up with an eye to creating greater international coordination between Platformist organisations. It's not however an international.

As for the point on Syria, it is interesting. The closest I can compare that to is the now defunct Lebanese Anarkismo affiliate, which I referenced earlier. Before the folded their organization was exiled in France. And Alternative libertaire hosted their materials online.

[Devrim]

I doubt that the IAF would handle it well at all. Why do you believe that?

I don't think that the IAF really exists as an organisation in the way that it would have to play a positive role in the development of a new organisation.

I don't think that it is just a matter of saying to people 'oh, join us if you want to'. I think that there is much more to it than that.

People who hold revolutionary ideas in isolation unsurprisingly often feel very isolated. I think that one of the first important things that a new organisation needs is to break out of this isolation. This means political visits to the organisation on a regular basis. The most important part of this, in my opinion, is the political discussion, and development.

In addition to this is assisting the groups ability to work effectively. This may be helping them to establish a publication, or may involving other things. With us for example the ICC helped us to pay for our office. We had a regular monthly (illegal) magazine at the time which was running successfully, but needed to have an office to allow us to publish a legal magazine as well, which was important in that it allowed us to sell in bookshops and thus have a voice in new cities.

Of course, all of these things cost money, and need organisation. Do you think that the IAF is up to it?

Devrim

[Devrim]

As for the point on Syria, it is interesting. The closest I can compare that to is the now defunct Lebanese Anarkismo affiliate, which I referenced earlier. Before the folded their organization was exiled in France. And Alternative libertaire hosted their materials online.

Syria was only an example, it could have been anywhere.

I think that revolutionaries should be very wary about things like 'exile organisations'.

Devrim

[Jack]

Thats a good question. I'm also curious as to how the South African Zabalaza formed. Did they do it with the help of US/UK/Latin anarchists? I believe anarchists need to organize on a more international level rather than forming restrictive local groups that are relevant to a small area of the planet. The Anarkismo website was set up with similar goals I believe.

They basically formed from punk rock, it was started from the ashes of the Workers Solidarity Federation which was founded in 1994 I beleive.