Building Alliances between anarchists and socialists

[redstar504]

Building alliances between anarchists and socialists
Joshua DeVries, Austin Texas

Although it would be hard to convince many in anarchist or socialist groups today, the former movement began life as a wing of the latter. Until fairly recently such a suggestion was akin to heresy in either camp, but a century ago when the categories of “anarchist” and “socialist” were much less rigid, it wouldn’t have been controversial. Rebecca Hill’s review of the two-volume anthology of Emma Goldman’s American writings illuminates this point admirably, as well as indicating how and where the “anarchist” path began to diverge.

The Russian Revolution and its ultimate destruction, of course, would produce an apparently unbridgeable chasm. Since then, we’ve seen decades of dominance of “socialism” by Stalinism and related unsavory ideologies. It largely became (mis)understood not as some flavor of workers’ control, but was instead simply identified as state power over the economy plus domination of the state by a single party, and a generally brutal one at that. Gone were the Fabians and single taxers. William Morris’s News from Nowhere fell off the front page and Orwell slipped off Wigan Pier. Large European Socialist parties left the left. The IWW, neither fish nor foul, or perhaps both, lost its last industrial base in the 1950s. Even the 4th International became the 44th, splintering asunder, leaving party oriented revolutionaries in dozens of organizations, decimating the only large outfit that could ideologically challenge the behemoth. The only big game left in town was the CP.

Anarchists, never inclined to respect outside authority anyway, recoiled in horror from socialism in its rabid authoritarian forms that came to overshadow the movement. Naturally, the offspring of Bakunin already had many wings of their own, from the anarchist-communists looking to Kropotkin’s cooperative vision to the platformists to Rocker and the syndicalists; from to the individualist (and arguably right wing) libertarians to the propagandists by the deed to the co-operatives to Tolstoi and the Christian anarchists. They were eventually joined by new branches: anarcha-feminists, eco-anarchists, their cousins the primitivists, and others. But as time went by, many anarchists gravitated to a self-definition more resembling a chimerical combination of the caricatures capitalists and socialists drew of them than the vibrant movements of a century ago. They isolated themselves organizationally, culturally and ideologically, opposing large organization and often fetishizing violence.

There were movements that could have bridged the gap in terms of ideology, like the Italian autonomists and those inspired by them, but even in Italy, old school socialists stayed in their dormitories and anarchists occupied their own factories, and eventually even the don of Autonomia Operaio joined the comfy post-modernists in Paris.

Like socialism in general, anarchist movements are a shadow of their former selves these days, but to many young activists, they still contain incredibly inspiring ideas. In this issue of Against the Current, we take a look at some events and possibilities in anarchism today. Michael Löwy remembers long-time publisher and activist, surrealist and radical, Franklin Rosemont who died, much too soon, in April. Rebecca Hill reviews the above-mentioned collection of the seminal American anarchist, Emma Goldman.

Finally, Ursula McTaggart urges us to consider a bridge to modern anarchists based not on ideology but practical activism. Solidarity works with various organizations and individuals on the left whose politics on paper are different than ours, but who do solid work in labor or others struggles central to Solidarity. McTaggart’s experiences with the anarchists who work in United Students Against Sweatshops lead her to advocate working with labor activists who carry the black flag, not only anarchists in general, but even a wing that seems quite foreign to many in the socialist left – the primitivists.

As McTaggart points out, “many of them have more in common with socialist visions of a just future than a simple look at anarcho-primitivist literature would suggest.” She recognizes that anarchists, like socialists, have flawed ideologies, but calls on us to repair the bridge to anarchists or “risk missing out on the smart, enthusiastic contributions of a whole segment of young radicals.” Perhaps the time is ripe for bridging this gap among others.




Against the Current Issue 141 Available now, available by mail and in radical bookstores.
Selected articles (text only) available online
One year subscription (6 issues) is $30
Current issue $5/ back issues $3 postpaid from Center for Changes 7012 Michigan Ave. Detroit MI 48210

Also from Against the Current:
Issue 115
The Wobblies’ Heritage by Paul Buhle
The Power of a Dreamer (Joe Hill) by Michael Lowy

Issue 116
Wobblies on the Southern Home Front by Abra Quinn

Issue 117
Gifts of the IWW- Joseph Grim Feinberg

[khad]

lol, just lol

[n0thing]

I've never seen a divide between anarchists and other socialists.
I think the 100 odd years of despotism and tyranny commited in the name of socialism, has convinced quite a few anarchists that the state can be just as much of an enemy as capitalism. I think most sensible Marxists have realized this too. Hence Luxemburgism.

[swampfox]

I think that first anarchists and socialists have to fight together against the current capitalist systems, then duke it out between each other after.

[Q]

I was recently recently involved in a local demo against furr. The group "Respect for Animals" had a lead in this (they were the only group present really). So I sent them a mail asking nicely to remain updated on future events so as I could help with organising it. I ended my mail with the name of my organisation, as a sign of solidarity.

I was met with sectarian hostility. The person who answered my email explained to me that the group consisted mainly of anarchists, that they were not interested in people "trying to recruit from them", that "anarchists and communists had big differences since Bakunin and Marx", that they "wouldn't be interested in statecommunist propaganda", and so forth and so on. What all this has to do with animal rights remains a mystery to me.

I stopped responding to these mails for obvious reasons.

[swampfox]

That's the basis of the problem for the left. We, as political groups and social factions, are often times hostile to each other. If we are united, at least only temporarily, some good may come out of the situation.

[Omi]

I was recently recently involved in a local demo against furr. The group "Respect for Animals" had a lead in this (they were the only group present really). So I sent them a mail asking nicely to remain updated on future events so as I could help with organising it. I ended my mail with the name of my organisation, as a sign of solidarity.

I was met with sectarian hostility. The person who answered my email explained to me that the group consisted mainly of anarchists, that they were not interested in people "trying to recruit from them", that "anarchists and communists had big differences since Bakunin and Marx", that they "wouldn't be interested in statecommunist propaganda", and so forth and so on. What all this has to do with animal rights remains a mystery to me.

I stopped responding to these mails for obvious reasons.



Though I don't agree they should have attacked you on such sectarian grounds, I do agree that the main activity of the dutch leninist/trotskyist left seems to be handing out party propaganda. From the big anti-wilders demonstration last year to the 1040hour-''riots''. That annoys a lot of activists and alienates a lot of potential symphathisers of our cause. The way we acted together in the anti-voorpost demonstration in Maastricht seemed to go a lot better, until almost everyone in Offensief etc. just left off and let the police arrest people without showing any sign of solidarity.

I agree that the more communist oriented anarchists in Holland should try to build bridges to left-communist and other socialist organizations, but I wouldn't want to work with groups like the Internationale Socialisten too. They have a history of hijacking and halting any movement or front-group they join. And that annoys the f*ck out of hardworking activists of not only anarchists but also of socialists and community activists the like.

[Q]

Though I don't agree they should have attacked you on such sectarian grounds, I do agree that the main activity of the dutch leninist/trotskyist left seems to be handing out party propaganda. From the big anti-wilders demonstration last year to the 1040hour-''riots''. That annoys a lot of activists and alienates a lot of potential symphathisers of our cause.
I think you're generalising the IS and Offensief under one banner. The IS, as you point out further down your post, indeed does hijack any platform or action group they can get a hold on. Individual IS members even stated to me that it was "normal" to do this as "the end (presumably building their own organisation) justify the means". I too am quite annoyed with these tactics, even more so because many people think Offensief and the IS are basically the same thing, pointing their frustration at us too.


The way we acted together in the anti-voorpost demonstration in Maastricht seemed to go a lot better, until almost everyone in Offensief etc. just left off and let the police arrest people without showing any sign of solidarity. Frankly I was taken by surprise by that as it were the Belgian comrades that took the initiative to walk out at that point. They didn't bother to talk to me about this, so I'm past the point of taking responsibility on this one, despite walking too at that point (call it a herd mentality if you wish). I agree that it was hardly a show of solidarity and it destroyed the good atmosphere that was built earlier that day.

[Pogue]

I'm interesting in organising the working class not organising leftists. If there comes a time when it makes sense for two groups to cooperate I welcome it. I'd have no problem working with Trots, I wuold however have an issue with working for them.

I've met some sound Trots with politics which are not abhorent to me and certainly there are few differences. This is not the same with the Stalinists (or Marxist Leninists as they like to masquerade). If we're on a campaign the main issue is how we have divergent tactics which simply can't be reconciled, and certain attitudes. You cant build much unity here.

If I found out for example that the SWP were getting hassled by the pigs or fash then I'd certainly help, without a doubt. And on demos I'd work with them to make sure the demos goes off well, in so far as its possible. But theres too many disagreemnts even on practicla activism. For example anti-fascism. The anti-fascism of the SWP led group UAF is far removed from my own view of anti-fascism and so there is no way we could ever cooperate on that unless one of us was one over to the views of others.

Quite simply, I don't believe in not working with each other if it could work or if it makes sense, and if a Trot approached me wanting to get involved I'd be fine with it. The rank and file arne't the issue really anyway its the central committee. But I think there are serious issues.

If anyone was at Marxism 2009 and they went to or heard the recording of the Anarchism & Marxism you'd see the SWP, the largest left wing organisation in the UK, denouncing anarchism as some sort of unworkable, pathetic mess which could honest Trots wouldn't touch with a bargepole. Such attitudes comes from their paper's editor and a member of their central committee hardly created fraternal feeling between us, especially when you see two of them consecutively making pathetic strawmen arguments about anarchism based on hysteria, lies, trivialities and subjective examples. One brilliant one was 'A copper twatted an pacifist on a demo in Italy and it was the anarchists fault cos they had a stupid black bloc'. Thats one subjective example, and most anarchists especially serious ones on this board dont even agree with blac blocking, we thinks its ridiculous. The lies I heard about anarchism on that weekend were numerous and ridiciulous and we were given little chance to defend ourselves, and even other Trots achknowledged how bad it was. This does not inspire mutual solidarity between us - I know many anarchists would view Trots the same way as they view us, but that doesn't mean we all do, and we shouldn't spread lies about each other.

If I am going to express how and why I disagree with Trots I'll do it coherently and honestly which is far from what they did at Marxism, but as I said, I don't think that means we can't work with any of them ever.

[Rebel_Serigan]

I think in the end it is obvious. We all see we just don't quite have a grasp on how to DO it. If this world we live in is ever going to be a world for the workers then we will have to work together. Internal conflicts in the left only slow our goals down. As if it needed to be said some leaders of certain organizations tend to be a bit controling and hindering. Leadership is the one true problem that blocks the raod to cooperation, for obvious reasons.

[Dervish]

I was recently recently involved in a local demo against furr. The group "Respect for Animals" had a lead in this (they were the only group present really). So I sent them a mail asking nicely to remain updated on future events so as I could help with organising it. I ended my mail with the name of my organisation, as a sign of solidarity.

I was met with sectarian hostility. The person who answered my email explained to me that the group consisted mainly of anarchists, that they were not interested in people "trying to recruit from them", that "anarchists and communists had big differences since Bakunin and Marx", that they "wouldn't be interested in statecommunist propaganda", and so forth and so on. What all this has to do with animal rights remains a mystery to me.

I stopped responding to these mails for obvious reasons.

There are extremely meaningful differences between anarchist and marxists, but there is absolutely no reason why anarchists and marxists shouldn't be able to co-operate when it comes to something which is relevant to both.

Unfortunately, it seems like usually the differences between anarchist theory and marxist theory are irreconcilable :-\

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I was recently recently involved in a local demo against furr.

Why?

[Dervish]

Why?

Because furr is murderr

[Q]

Why?
This is not the arctic circle here, actually having a fur mode show in July is ironic by itself. Fur clothing is broadly seen here as despicable bourgeois decadence. Especially in this crisis where everyone is asked to tighten their belt. Besides, these animals get murdered in the most horrendous way, all in the sake for profit making. As such it is a fine theme to organise on.


There are extremely meaningful differences between anarchist and marxists, but there is absolutely no reason why anarchists and marxists shouldn't be able to co-operate when it comes to something which is relevant to both.

Unfortunately, it seems like usually the differences between anarchist theory and marxist theory are irreconcilable :-\
I repeat myself: why is this at all important in fighting for animal rights? Such an attitude is highly sectarian. This was reflected in the demonstration itself by the way: only about 20 demonstrators showed up, almost none of them lived in the area. They simply didn't bother to knock some doors and organise local resistance, this despite the fact that the location was in the middle of a militant urban area! They simply didn't care.

[9]

Frankly, I find this thread confusing. Anarchists are socialists. Which isn't to say that socialists are necessarily anarchists, there are many kinds of socialists - Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, the list goes on forever. The term "anarchist" just denotes a specific style or tendency within socialism, not some separate current outside of socialism. When I first got into politics, I identified myself as a socialist. After some time, I came to identify as an anarchist, but I still considered myself a socialist... eventually I came to identify most with revolutionary syndicalism, though I am still an anarchist and a socialist, and generally I avoid labeling myself at all, as it seems counterproductive and unnecessarily divisive. I think one of the errors we make on the left quite frequently is to assume, once a label has been created and accepted to distinguish a specific "tendency", that this tendency is 'absolute' and must stand alone and is not compatible with other "tendencies". Many, if not most, tendencies are compatible with one another and there is often an enormous degree of overlap amongst the various currents and tendencies. Sectarianism is for children who like to "play politics" but have no real interest, energy, or passion invested in the real struggle to unite the working class and lay the foundation for revolution.

[Colonello Buendia]

In Australia, the left is much more united due to the quasi-fascist government. I can think of no reason that Britain's left shouldn't be united in the face of quasi fascism, we can have a revolution now having built working class resistance to the capitalist system and then we can argue the finer points of our separate tendencies later on.
Every tendency can bring something to the table IE, syndicalists could unionise the work places and bring the system to it's knees. Troskyists could infiltrate mainstream parties and shift them to the left etc. Everyone has a role to play in workers liberation or a fight against fascism (Like in Spain) in which case we just have to bite the bullet, buy the Socialist worker out of friendliness and get on with it.

[Dervish]

I repeat myself: why is this at all important in fighting for animal rights? Such an attitude is highly sectarian. This was reflected in the demonstration itself by the way: only about 20 demonstrators showed up, almost none of them lived in the area. They simply didn't bother to knock some doors and organise local resistance, this despite the fact that the location was in the middle of a militant urban area! They simply didn't care.

Like I said, it is not important at all when fighting for some common goal -- but such goals will always be secondary and (very sadly) I seriously doubt that Marxists and anarchists can co-operate in order to achieve some mutual primary goal -- the differences between anarchism and Marxism seem to be too fundamental to allow such co-operation.

[Pogue]

In Australia, the left is much more united due to the quasi-fascist government. I can think of no reason that Britain's left shouldn't be united in the face of quasi fascism, we can have a revolution now having built working class resistance to the capitalist system and then we can argue the finer points of our separate tendencies later on.
Every tendency can bring something to the table IE, syndicalists could unionise the work places and bring the system to it's knees. Troskyists could infiltrate mainstream parties and shift them to the left etc. Everyone has a role to play in workers liberation or a fight against fascism (Like in Spain) in which case we just have to bite the bullet, buy the Socialist worker out of friendliness and get on with it.

But if we had anarcho syndicalists going strong why would we need Trotskyists? This is the point, we can't cooperate across tendencies if we have completely different tactics.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is not the arctic circle here, actually having a fur mode show in July is ironic by itself.So, you were protesting because at the time and location fur was not vital for human existence?

Neither is red meat. Do you eat it?

How about chicken?

Eggs?

Do you wear leather shoes, coats, gloves?


Fur clothing is broadly seen here as despicable bourgeois decadence. By who? Petty-bourgeois moralists?

A lot of workers wear fur.

My mom's worked all of her life, since she was a teen. She wears fur. My dad too, and he wears fur. I wear a fur hat, a fur lined jacket and fur lined gloves.

Many of the poorest people in the world also wear fur. Indigenous people for example.

Lenin and Trotsky wore fur too!


Especially in this crisis where everyone is asked to tighten their belt.What do bourgeois calls for "collective sacrifice" and "national unity" have to do with wearing fur?


Besides, these animals get murdered in the most horrendous way, Is there an "un-horrendous" way to be murdered?

Are there different degrees of acceptability of murder?

Do you eat meat? Eggs? Fish? Have anything made of leather? Kill mice, flies or spiders? Drive in a car or ride in a plane or train that does?


all in the sake for profit making.Capitalism is organized for "the sake for profit making" [sic].

Everything in this system is organized around that.

The system needs to be abolished. Not fur.


As such it is a fine theme to organise on.Organize who, and for what?

It certainly has nothing to do with organizing fellow workers for revolution or advancing the class struggle.

[Manzil]

When it was required - organising a demonstration or protest, a conference or public meeting etc - I have never experienced any difficulties in working with anarchists and I hope the same is true of their memories. When working-class interests demand it, partisans of the left will work for the realisation of that interest or find themselves isolated from their class.

[bricolage]

If anyone was at Marxism 2009 and they went to or heard the recording of the Anarchism & Marxism you'd see the SWP, the largest left wing organisation in the UK, denouncing anarchism as some sort of unworkable, pathetic mess which could honest Trots wouldn't touch with a bargepole.

Is there a recording of this somewhere then?

[bellyscratch]

Is there a recording of this somewhere then?

you can buy one for £3 from bookmarks

[bricolage]

you can buy one for £3 from bookmarks

Do you have a link for this? I can't seem to find it anywhere, it's online right?

[bellyscratch]

Do you have a link for this? I can't seem to find it anywhere, it's online right?

Looks like you can only get Marxism 2008 CDs at the moment from here http://www.bookmarksbookshop.co.uk/cgi/store/bookmark.cgi?page=marxism/marxism.html&cart_id=471171.13130

And up to 2008 online for free from here
http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/

Keep on checking these for the next few weeks and see if it comes available. I'm really not sure when this years audio will become available though...

[redarmyfaction38]

Two of my closest friends are anarchists. I never realized that there was a divide until I came to these boards.
there isn't really a divide, it's the purists that create division where there really isn't one, they argue about what so and so said, they argue about political definitions, they argue about what a dead man might have thought or done, they constantly argue theory whilst ignoring the actual need for common interest and action, they serve the bourgeouisie not the proletariat.

[Agrippa]

So, you were protesting because at the time and location fur was night vital for human existence?

Neither is red meat. Do you eat it?

How about chicken?

Eggs?

Do you wear leather shoes, coats, gloves?



By who? Petty-bourgeois moralists?

A lot of workers wear fur.

My mom's worked all of her life, since she was a teen. She wears fur. My dad too, and he wears fur. I wear a fur hat, a fur lined jacket and fur lined gloves.

Many of the poorest people in the world also wear fur. Indigenous people for example.

Lenin and Trotsky wore fur too!



What do bourgeois calls for "collective sacrifice" and "national unity" have to do with wearing fur?



Is there an "un-horrendous" way to be murdered?

Are there different degrees of acceptability of murder?

Do you eat meat? Eggs? Fish? Have anything made of leather? Kill mice, flies or spiders? Drive in a car or ride in a plane or train that does?



Capitalism is organized for "the sake for profit making" [sic].

Everything in this system is organized around that.

The system needs to be abolished. Not fur.



Organize who, and for what?

It certainly has nothing to do with organizing fellow workers for revolution or advancing the class struggle.

Judging by your comments on this and the Pittsburgh G-20 threads, you seem like the type of person who has nothing better to do than verbally demolish anyone and everyone who is actually working to advance their cause on a practical, material level, over entirely irrelevant and usually imagined ideological differences. So the poultry industry also absues animals, therefore it's wrong to campaign against the fur industry? "Indigenous people" wear fur, therefore it's OK for a bourgeoisie to spend hundreds of dollars on a fur coat he doesn't need?

Are you honestly comparing swatting a fly to skinning a mink alive in order to accumulate capital, or eating factory-farmed eggs or meat in rder to survive to wasting hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a pointless luxury?

As for the original point of discussion, anarchists and bureaucratic socialists can ally, once the socialists renounce revolutionary bureaucracies once and for all