US anarchists - Wake the Fuck Up!

[Jethro Tull]

WAKE THE FUCK UP!

The Dissolution of the Anarchist Milieu

While given no reason not to remain optimistic about the advancement of the anarchist political project in North America, we must conclude that such a task can only be accomplished by the dissolution of the anarchist milieu. To quote our French comrades:


"Far more dreadful are social milieus, with their supple texture, their gossip, and their informal hierarchies. Flee all milieus. Each and every milieu is orientated towards the neutralization of some truth. Literary circles exist to smother the clarity of writing. Anarchist milieus to blunt the directness of direct action. Scientific milieus to withhold the implications of their research from the majority of people today. Sport milieus to contain in their gyms the various forms of life they should create. Particularly to be avoided are the cultural and activist circles. They are the old people’s homes where all revolutionary desires traditionally go to die. The task of cultural circles is to spot nascent intensities and to explain away the sense of whatever it is you’re doing, while the task of activist circles is to sap your energy for doing it. Activist milieus spread their diffuse web throughout the French territory, and are encountered on the path of every revolutionary development. They offer nothing but the story of their many defeats and the bitterness these have produced. Their exhaustion has made them incapable of seizing the possibilities of the present. Besides, to nurture their wretched passivity they talk far too much and this makes them unreliable when it comes to the police. Just as it’s useless to expect anything from them, it’s stupid to be disappointed by their sclerosis. It’s best to just abandon this dead weight."How will such a dissolution occur? We hope to seek an answer to this dilemma.

"Social War"

Those who preach "social war" are seldom the ones who practice it. Their declarations of war, "social" or otherwise, seldom echo outside the cramped quarters of their incestuous social scene. If the concept of social war is to be greeted with anything but ridicule, every social forum must be viewed as terrain, in a quite literal sense. However, even before the battle lines are drawn, our "social warriors" concede virtually all social territory. In doing so, they are social surrenderers. Their flag appears black, yet it is in fact white.

Thus, with contentiousness towards tact and prudence, we must inject our rallying cry into every social encounter...not just punk, hip-hop, and metal shows, but yard sales, barbershops, cervecerías, Civil War reenactments, Black Muslim mosques, Unitarian-Universalist churches, skate parks, county fairs, motorcycle clubs, surf meets, sports leagues, poker and D&D tables, family reunions, town-council meetings, 4th of July barbecues...why not? Decades ago, in the Deep South, the social war was waged on the bus. What ended as a bus boycott, as a campaign by the mediators and professional activists to win this or that legal right, began as a spontaneous urge to halt the gears of daily life, to confront the oppressor immediately and directly, to seize terrain in a genuine social war.

"Food Not Bombs"

The catch-phrase "Food Not Bombs" epitomizes our dysfunction. Neither our dutiful social activists, nor our nihilist-insurrectionist posturers, can conceive of the network of un-centralized, autonomous food programs that we've created in the US as a tactic of war, a strategic advantage, a military campaign, as the Black Panthers and so many others once did. Even the majority of anarchists, who reject the false dichotomy between "food" and "bombs", usually fail to view these two facets of live as one and the same, usually fail to view the division between the two as totally false.

In naming our soup kitchens "food not bombs", (or any other name which, in the future, may become synonymous with our efforts) we announce our presence, declare our positions to the enemy. We've allowed the marketing strategies of chain-restaurants to pollute and colonize our thinking. We dream of a "Food Not Bombs" on every corner instead of a Pizza Hut or Starbucks.

Such dreams must be shattered. Our social fronts must remain anonymous, clandestine. Our food programs must not exist merely to serve the impoverished, to allow them to survive another day of exploitation. We must call upon the tradition of the Witches' Sabbat (which was, at one point, so feared by the European ruling-class, that public feasts were entirely outlawed) in recognizing the ritual of public meals as a ritual of social binding, of weaving together once-isolated strands.

Our signs must simply read "free food" - our discussions of revolt and rebellion reserved for our table conversation.

Leaderless Resistance and Our Labels

In the US, we have a good habit of taking the principles of leaderless resistance to heart. However, we also suffer from anal-retentive attachment to the labels given to our leaderless resistance, even after they are long discredited and worn out past any conceivable practical usefulness. The history of phrases such as "Black Bloc" and "Anti-Racist Action" are a testament to this. Some labels, such as "ELF", still strike fear into our enemies, growing in psychological power with every use like a snowball rolling down a cliff. Others have become a laughing stock, and must be discarded like ballast on a hot-air balloon.

The capitalists know the right moment to adjust their public image - American International Group CEO Edward Liddy remarked quite frankly that "the AIG name is so thoroughly wounded and disgraced that we're probably going to have to change it". (a statement that, in the wake of recent events, applies also to anarchist brandnames such as "APOC" and "Crimethinc".)

Wal-Mart recently gave themselves a face-lift, stocking their shelves with "organics", replacing cheap linoleum and florescent lights with natural lighting and wood panels, painting their once-sterile walls a warm golden color, altering their logo from stark lettering and an impetuous smiley-face to a soft, lower-case font and an ambiguous asterisk, saturating the airwaves with statements regarding their company's compassionate position on outsourcing and universal healthcare. Yet Wal-Mart is still Wal-Mart. And we anarchists would still be anarchists if we recognized the failure of the self-image we have projected onto the public over the last decade.

Activism as Addiction

Recent events have affirmed our long-held perception that much of our well-meaning comrades' actions are governed not by tactical expediency but a desire for emotional gratification. We have felt the pressure to alleviate the constant nag of guilt, to respond in full to the obvious urgency of the global political crisis, to earn status amongst activist circles as one who is "committed to the cause", "dedicated" and "hardcore", to ensure our legacy as class warriors. We know from first-hand experience that this pressure builds up, like unreleased sexual tension.

Robert Crumb once remarked that the male psyche is divided into two phases: pre-orgasm and post-orgasm. So too is the activist psyche divided, between the moments before our poorly-planned poorly-rationalized actions are carried out, and the moments after. The adrenaline rush we experience is the climatic thrill we've sought. But afterward, the same sense of shame and lethargy kicks in as we imagine is felt when Crumb the Catholic finishes ejaculating to pornography.

APOC/Crimethinc and Seinfeld

Our first-hand participation in "activist" thrill-seeking behavior infuriated our parents (partly the response we were seeking, obviously) yet merely amused our grandparents. One grandfather remarked upon accounts of our shenanigans; "it made me laugh, it sounded like an episode of Seinfeld".

These words echoed through our mind as we heard the recent news from Pittsburgh. The event in its totality; the convergence, the disruption, the response...it was all so Seinfeldian. like an episode of Seinfeld, we couldn't help but laugh uncontrollably despite the obvious banality of what's being presented. Like an episode of Seinfeld, we couldn't help, as we looked on and laughed, but feel a jetting sense of anxiety, anxiety over the crippling neurosis prevailing in the social nuances of the modern era. Like an episode of Seinfeld, our laughter was our only way of coping with the stress and trauma. Like an episode of Seinfeld, even the most restrained and sophisticated-sounding analysis of the situation must eschew the pretense of grandiose, poetic, sweeping denunciations of our society's great evils, in favor of a focus on the petty, banal subtleties of our daily interactions in this metropolitan hell.

Like an episode of Seinfeld, we wanted to forget it, but as we struggled at night to calm ourselves into a deep sound sleep, we couldn't stop our mind from playing it over and over in our heads.

The rupture...

What we witnessed in Pittsburgh was the violent rupture, the birth-pangs of a catastrophic disintegration of the anarchist social milieu in the US, the painful realization that our current counterculture is nothing more than a nerdy subculture with little capability of relating to the outside world, the sinking feeling of discovering that our actions up until this point have been under the control of our most dangerous emotional desires.

Yes, after years of being taught to "liberate our desires", we've learned the painful way that many of our desires, when realized, strengthen our enemy's position. Had Frodo Baggins liberated his desire, we the reader would have beheld his mind fully conquered by the sway of Sauron, his body transformed into a diseased husk of its former-self, like Gollum, slobbering and whimpering in a heap of self-pity and unfocused hatred.

Like Frodo, we cannot turn back. We cannot look back even for a second as we toss the ring into the cracks of doom. Bookchinism, White Guilt, and Post-Left Nihilism are no longer viable options for us, we can never return to them, lest we suffer the same fate as Lot's Wife. We've seen the movement manifested as as a historical reenactment, as a workplace diversity-training seminar, as a Halo tournament. We want something else, even if it's not "the movement" anymore...

How to proceed....

The skills we need to survive in the years ahead will not be learned at a 15-minute workshop. Our most meaningful alliances will not be forged with strangers at conferences, strangers who will jet away from our lives once the weekend's done. Our victory over the pervasiveness of patriarchy and imperialism will not be won with p.o.c. caucuses or consent workshops, but with our constant refusal to allow the social foundations of industrial capitalism to operate on any level.

Gelderloosian anti-pacifism, which finds its home in every senseless violent outburst, from al-Qāʿidah attacks to the popularity of violent video games, is a strategic playbook we can no longer cling to. Banging our heads against the walls of our cells has proven only to give us brain damage.

Bookchin's "unbridgeable chasm", cleansed of its industrial, modernist, and anti-individualist bias, can only be interpreted as a generational chasm, a chasm our parents, the Baby Boomers, began digging years ago, and which we continue to dig to this day. However, with the mounds of dirt we have unearthed, we may instead finally bury the gargoyles of the recent past; the "anti-capitalist" apologia for all things capitalist, the stilted, inorganic, patronizing quality of our attempts at inter-ethnic interactions, the naïveté, the unbridled hedonism...

The real tragedy of the 1960s was not what our enemies destroyed, (which can always be rebuilt) but what we allowed to flourish. The hippies dropped acid, whereas we must only "drop" that which truly heals us. The hippies sought to "freak out" the "squares", whereas we must seek to blend in. The hippies studied the Beatles, whereas we must study classical literature. The hippies worshiped Discordia, whereas we must worship Athena, Demeter, and Artemis. The hippies practiced free love. We must practice tough love.

We must forget the "Facebook" model of social organizing - of patting ourselves on the shoulder over the hundreds of loosely-knit social connections we've made, fair weather allies we've won. As a comedian once remarked, those hundreds of Facebook friends are never going to show up to help you move....we must abandon all pretense of compromising with the "local" and "green" capitalists, the NGOs, the social-activist bureaucracies - we know what we need, and it isn't what they want.

Every hour we waste building up their projects is an hour that could be spent creating the conditions of communism, building an adult anarchist resistance in the US. We are already adults, but our society has tricked us into believing we are children. Our adult lives start now.

In Short

In short, we have been lied to all these years about what will happen if we create an immediate functioning alternative to the capitalist mode of life. We've been told by the Leninists and other professional activists that this would lead to the total alienation of our efforts from the masses. However, after careful analysis and self-reflection, we must conclude that "the masses" is a prison that holds the individual members it is comprised of, a prison that we ourselves are no less a part of...the only difference is that we are the prisoners that have chosen to lash out. While this difference is crucial, we must not view it as a position of moral or ethical superiority, but rather a practical consideration. That we wish to separate ourselves from "the masses" is perfectly normal and healthy, it's only a matter of how many of our comrades, our friends and neighbors, our families, those we love, how many we can smuggle with us in our attempt to tunnel out of this utterly psychotic mass-society.

[chimx]

US anarchists forgot to engage in class struggle... for a few decades. That probably hurt them the most.

[ComradeOm]

I would say that this is a joke but then I've read (or tried to read) too many post-left articles to dismiss it so easily. If I was being charitable I might suggest that it was a reaction against 'lifestylism'... but one that arrives at the exact same position that lifestylists typically take. The author wants to tear down the anarchist milieu yet advocates stepping outside capitalism to construct... an anarchist milieu? :confused:

Can someone please translate?

Edit: And is listening to (or "studying") the Beatles a good thing or a bad thing?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Gelderloosian"? Is that even a word?

[Forward Union]

The US anarchist scene is almost as shit as this article

[Jethro Tull]

I If I was being charitable I might suggest that it was a reaction against 'lifestylism'... but one that arrives at the exact same position that lifestylists typically take.

maybe the spectrum of possible positions that can be arrived at is more nuanced than you give credit...?


The author wants to tear down the anarchist milieu yet advocates stepping outside capitalism to construct... an anarchist milieu? :confused:

since the author used the coming insurrection's definition of milieu, perhaps it's worth pointing out that tci makes a clear distinction between a milieu and a commune.


Communes come into being when people find each other, get on with each other, and decide on a common path. The commune is perhaps what gets decided at the very moment when we would normally part ways. It’s the joy of an encounter that survives its expected end. It’s what makes us say “we,” and makes that an event. What’s strange isn’t that people who are attuned to each other form communes, but that they remain separated. Why shouldn’t communes proliferate everywhere? In every factory, every street, every village, every school. At long last, the reign of the base committees! Communes that accept being what they are, where they are. And if possible, a multiplicity of communes that will displace the institutions of society: family, school, union, sports club, etc. Communes that aren’t afraid, beyond their specifically political activities, to organize themselves for the material and moral survival of each of their members and of all those around them who remain adrift. Communes that would not define themselves – as collectives tend to do – by what’s inside and what’s outside them, but by the density of the ties at their core. Not by their membership, but by the spirit that animates them.

A commune forms every time a few people, freed of their individual straitjackets, decide to rely only on themselves and measure their strength against reality. Every wildcat strike is a commune; every building occupied collectively and on a clear basis is a commune, the action committees of 1968 were communes, as were the slave maroons in the United States, or Radio Alice in Bologna in 1977. Every commune seeks to be its own base. It seeks to dissolve the question of needs. It seeks to break all economic dependency and all political subjugation; it degenerates into a milieu the moment it loses contact with the truths on which it is founded. There are all kinds of communes that wait neither for the numbers nor the means to get organized, and even less for the “right moment” – which never arrives.



GET ORGANIZED


Get organized in order to no longer have to work


We know that individuals are possessed of so little life that they have to earn a living, to sell their time in exchange for a modicum of social existence. Personal time for social existence: such is work, such is the market. From the outset, the time of the commune eludes work, it doesn’t function according to that scheme – it prefers others. Groups of Argentine piqueteros collectively extort a sort of local welfare conditioned by a few hours of work; they don’t clock their hours, they put their benefits in common and acquire clothing workshops, a bakery, putting in place the gardens that they need.


The commune needs money, but not because we need to earn a living.[...] For communes, the question of work is only posed in relation to other already existing incomes. And we shouldn’t forget all the useful knowledge that can be acquired through certain trades, professions and well-positioned jobs.


The exigency of the commune is to free up the most time for the most people. And we’re not just talking about the number of hours free of any wage-labor exploitation. Liberated time doesn’t mean a vacation. Vacant time, dead time, the time of emptiness and the fear of emptiness – this is the time of work. There will be no more time to fill, but a liberation of energy that no “time” contains [...]

to me the distinction is very important and also rather obvous


Edit: And is listening to (or "studying") the Beatles a good thing or a bad thing?

i read that as more of an attack on having mainstream culture as your only cultural experience. i don't think the author is suggesting there be an anarchist music police, although i could be wrong


The US anarchist scene is almost as shit as this article

that's awesome. are you proposing yourself as an alternative example, someone who's not even willing to contribute constructively to the debate? :rolleyes:

[khad]

Shit article, shit thread. About as much as can be expected from a worthless Zionist defender.

[rebelmouse]

anarchistnews is full of people who consume bob black and, more or less, zerzan. this article is clear shit, one more time followers of bob black are fighting more against anarchists than against authorities. plus they use always dirty tongue when they criticize something, the same as bob black. they copy him not only about theory than about way of speaking too. they consume bob black the same as they consumed american society (products and consumer mentality) before they met themselves with bob black. and for the end: they can't understand that whole world is not like american society. people who grew up in socialism didn't sit and watch TV whole days, than they played games with other children. so, growing up in USA and in Yugoslavia was totally different thing. last 20 years Yugoslavia is capitalism, but before we were totally different.
and one more thing: fuck small communities where every idiot will put his nose in my ass to see what exist there. kleinburgerschaft is extremely big in small communities and I will rather stay in technology-big-cities where I can live without to be disturbed by kleinburgerschaft.

[nuisance]

"Gelderloosian"? Is that even a word?
Y'know, Peter Gelderloos?

[Bright Banana Beard]

No matter how much you does activism, the anarchism in USA will pretty much stay the same (individual lifestylist)

[Eat the Rich]

The anarchists in the US and Canada are completely fucked in the head.
In various anarchist bookfairs I attended, half the crowd was lifestylist punks etc. (most people I talked to from a petit-bourgeois backround).. Call me "conservative" but I don't think that revolutionaries should alienate the rest of the working class by adopting a way of dressing that conforms to the norms of present society.

Then with their politics. They have a campaign that advocates cycling for a green environment. I mean that's something noble, but why not tie the environment with the fight against capitalism and waste your time in such useless campaigns? They consume most of their time on a one theme campaign, which most of the time has nothing to do with class politics.

I don't think that anarchism (as exists most of the time in Canada and the US) can be considered revolutionary.

[berlitz23]

well most anarchists adhere to a fatalist lifestyle, disillusioned and disgruntled by capitalism's metasizing into the intraspheres of family and persona, so they conclude individualism is the only way to feign a "capitalist lifestyle" I agree to environment seems like a paramount issue for most anarchists, and I agree it is a critical issue but if we attend these meetings or get togethers I think we need to make efforts to raise more awareness about the class struggle. I am sure many of you have, but we need to constantly reinforce the importance of class struggle, and our degenerating economy's impact on the lower classes. Everything is dispersed, fragmented, decentered these days, realize technology has been a pivotal instrument of domination too, it has ultimately stultified and sedated everyone where most have switched gears to auto-pilot equation to unnecessary fashionable consumption. So what to do? we need to construct and forge new ways of thinking and critiquing I say we should totally reinvent our politics and praxis, because it is palpable that we are not generating enough interest.

[Jethro Tull]

Shit article, shit thread. About as much as can be expected from a worthless Zionist defender.

the primary reason that the level of discussion on revleft has degenerated to such a low level in comparison to other radical leftist message boards such as anarchist black cat is because useless, non-constructive, hostile one-liners like this are tolerated, and those who write them are not banned but instead allowed to become "senior" members of the message board. i have no issue with hostility, but in your hostility you could at least articulate your specific intellectual opposition to whatever is being printed, otherwise you're participating in nothing self-aggrandizing verbal masturbation

a) i didn't write this article. (even if i did, the fact that you would judge the content of my writing on my thoughts on a completely unrelated matter shows you are an intellectual sophomore)
b) am not a zionist (not having the exact same approach to anti-imperialism as yourself does not make me a zionist) i assume you are referencing that time i mocked you for taking stupid hollywood films such as borat too seriously, when you tried to hijack a thread about anti-roma racism and turn it into a thread about how the comedian who plays borat is an evil jew. it's anti-semitic assholes such as yourself that give the palestinian struggle against israeli imperialism a bad name

the obsessive over-emphasis placed on "zionism" in u.s. leftist circles is just reconstituted anti-semitic conspiracy theorism. the israeli genocide perpetrated against palestinians is no different than the sinhalese genocide perpetrated against tamils, the russian genocide perpetrated against caucasians, the han genocide perpetrated against turks and tibeto-burmans, the limey and ulster scot genocide perpetrated against irish catholics, the turkish genocide perpetrated against kurds and armenians, and so on. yet no one ever uses "sinhalese buddhist", "attaturk" or "han nationalist" as a blanket insult in u.s. left circles, and the reason for this is obvious...

[puke on cops]

They can take their brain-fuckingly impenetrable, holier-than-thao pretenious bucket of shite politics and stick it up their arse, and fuck off back to suburbia.

There's my analysis.

[Asoka89]

All American Anarchists:

read:
http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bookchin/sp001512/
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Action.html

do it. and it'll help cure you. I woulds say you guys should become Marxists of the "socialism from below", "non-authoritarian sort" but I won't be that presumptuous. I am a comrade with any real anarchist who isn't a silly lifestylists or some nihilist punk.

[MarxSchmarx]

Whateverrrrr......Ive read this article at least three times, each time pretty carefully, and I still have no idea what on earth it is advocating.

. this article is clear shit, one more time followers of bob black are fighting more against anarchists than against authorities. plus they use always dirty tongue when they criticize something, the same as bob black. they copy him not only about theory than about way of speaking too. they consume bob black the same as they consumed american society (products and consumer mentality) before they met themselves with bob black. I suppose so, but I still find Bob Black at least somewhat comprehensible if not deadeningly dry. He makes his points explicit, whereas the clowns taht wrote this article seem to find a lot of ways to say nothing.

[Luís Henrique]

a thread about how the comedian who plays borat is an evil jew.

Well, you are inviting the hijack...

I don't know if Sasha Cohen is an evil jew (or, either Jew or evil), but I know his is an imbecile elitist who hates poor people.

I can't care less about his (or his mother's) superstitions about pork.

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Y'know, Peter Gelderloos?

Never heard of him before, but upon Googling the name I know he's written a book called How Nonviolence Protects the State. Sounds quite interesting, actually. Have you read it?

[Enragé]

i started out thanking this thread because his critiques of milieu's and comtemporary anarchism in the US are good, but yes, but his practical conclusions lead him to create a milieu. Just a more sober, realistic one (which is a step ahead though i'd recommend having a laugh with your friends and getting completely plastered once in a while as well).

He basicly continues the subcultural bullshit he critiques, just at the subcultural opposite.

i liked "banging our heads against the walls of our cells has proven only to give us brain damage" though.

And its interesting to see tci popping up.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well I'm not sure his critique is particularly good but the US Anarchist movement definitely needs critiquing. The broad Anarchist tradition of class struggle and involvement with the labour movement seems somewhat lost in America, now whether this is down to conditions of the working class in the country or the lack of true revolutionary viewpoints in the movement I do not know. My impression is that the main ideology of Anarchism prevailing in the American scene is the reformist, Chomsky-esque ideology which is so detached from the class struggle.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The anarchists in the US and Canada are completely fucked in the head.

Half of all humans are fucked in the head. The other half are fucked in the arse.

[bcbm]

yeah, yeah the us anarchist scene is a pile of shit, we're all worthless, braindead fucks who can't accomplish anything, we should all die, etc, etc. thanks for the thoughtful criticism, especially those of you in countries that have equally shit anarchist movements (ive seen (scene?) it). while you so eloquently tell us we're fucked in the head and backwards and everything else, a fair few of us are actually trying to advance the struggle here on a class terrain. sorry we don't release flashy press statements articulating all our activities, but i assure you it doesn't mean we aren't doing the best we can in an extremely hostile and reactionary environment. so unless you have something concrete to say that might help us (we've learned to help ourselves quite a bit, of course, no thanks to you lot), do us all a favor and fuck off.

[berlitz23]

Lately, I am bearing a distrust of any leftist organizations I think they are inherently microfascist. I mean on a molar level we espouse antifascism yet I think we all contain microfascism internally, and this fascism is cultivating, sustaining and nourishing with molecules that are both personal and collective.

[Enragé]

^define this 'micro-fascism'? Microscopic little men running through the meeting of a leftist organization beating everybody up who speaks up against the leadership (whether formal or informal)?

[Oneironaut]

yeah, yeah the us anarchist scene is a pile of shit, we're all worthless, braindead fucks who can't accomplish anything, we should all die, etc, etc. thanks for the thoughtful criticism, especially those of you in countries that have equally shit anarchist movements (ive seen (scene?) it). while you so eloquently tell us we're fucked in the head and backwards and everything else, a fair few of us are actually trying to advance the struggle here on a class terrain. sorry we don't release flashy press statements articulating all our activities, but i assure you it doesn't mean we aren't doing the best we can in an extremely hostile and reactionary environment. so unless you have something concrete to say that might help us (we've learned to help ourselves quite a bit, of course, no thanks to you lot), do us all a favor and fuck off.

Spot on.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Lately, I am bearing a distrust of any leftist organizations I think they are inherently microfascist. I mean on a molar level we espouse antifascism yet I think we all contain microfascism internally, and this fascism is cultivating, sustaining and nourishing with molecules that are both personal and collective.
As NewKindofSoldier says, that's pretty much a meaningless statement. Do you have any experience of libertarian, non-hierarchical groups, btw?

[YSR]

As irritating a critique as this is (Really? Some dudes fucking with some other dudes shit in Pittsburgh was the "violent rupture, the birth-pangs of a catastrophic disintegration of the anarchist social milieu in the US"?) I agree with my U.S. buddies that the response of European anarchists and U.S. Marxists in this thread is equally stupid. The idea that all U.S. anarchists are idiots or lifestylists or activists or insurrectionists or whatever is crap. It's a real diverse movement, with yes, plenty of annoying social milieus, as the article correctly points out, but also with lots of people doing really great work in a variety of levels and in a variety of ways. The "good" part of the movement is really getting its shit together and building all kinds of networks both intramovement and with the working class in general.

[Fietsketting]

"Gelderloosian"? Is that even a word?

Refers to Peter Gelderloos, anarchist writer. Good book of his hand to read: How Non-violance protects the state. :cool:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Just because the US anarchist movement does not necessitate hoodies and bandanas bought at the Gap does not make it 'shit.' The term 'lifestylist" has no formal application to most anarchist groups.

[The Hong Se Sun]

Anarchy is in trouble here in the us because it has become a thing about youth fucking shit up as oppose to a workers movement for equality. But a lot of people here are dicks because I am not an anarchist but you know what, they are the ones physically getting involved.where I live if we (socialist) organize any event we know that some anarchist will show. I think people need to be real because the anarchist are trying just as much as the communist are, look at the DNC and the RNC it was anarchist not socialist smashing up banks and attacking cops. Plus we are all working class liberal brothers so lets act like it comrades. stop fighting each other, fight with each other to bring down capitalism. FUCK!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Smashing up banks and attacking cops does absolutely nothing but stigmatize anarchists and make change even harder.

[revolution inaction]

Smashing up banks and attacking cops does absolutely nothing but stigmatize anarchists and make change even harder.

Not necessarily, it depends on the circumstances, people view smashing banks a lot more favourable since the recession began, and not fighting back when cop attack us would be fucking stupid.
Of cause thinking that its revolutionary to smash banks and fight cop is stupid too, but it not universally a bad idea.

[Oneironaut]

An anarchist friend of mine was telling me sort of an interesting thing. We were talking about this document, and more particularly class struggle, and his comment was that since most anarchists (all of them around here) refuse to work a 'normal' job, they have not been able to interact with the working class nor organize workplaces. I don't know if a necessarily agree with what he said, but it is interesting to think about.

[rebelmouse]

Smashing up banks and attacking cops does absolutely nothing but stigmatize anarchists and make change even harder.

let's hear analyze why it could be so?
because of media?
because of pacifism developed by ruling class while ruling class realize repression everyday?
because of people who had good life and now they are not ready to make a risk in their life?
in the end, is it so for whole world or only for western culture? (as I see, violence at demonstrations is hated only in EU/USA, it is totally different in South America and Asia)

for the end, should we adapt us and make demo like ruling class expect from us or we should fight that our methods become accepted in western culture?

[Искра]

What about The Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA - US/Canada)?

[Oneironaut]

What about The Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA - US/Canada)?

I've never came across them. I'll check them out though! Most of the anarchists I know aren't really associated with anything beyond maybe their house.

[Absolut]

An anarchist friend of mine was telling me sort of an interesting thing. We were talking about this document, and more particularly class struggle, and his comment was that since most anarchists (all of them around here) refuse to work a 'normal' job, they have not been able to interact with the working class nor organize workplaces. I don't know if a necessarily agree with what he said, but it is interesting to think about.

I guess, first and foremost, that would depend how you define a normal job. If a normal job is working in a store as a clerk, or working in a warehouse, then Ive never met any anarchist that has actually refused to work in such a place because of their principles, nor have I ever heard of one. If by normal, you mean police officer, security guard, in the military or pretty much any job that involves defending capitalism and the state with violence, then I would pretty much agree with his statement, but I doubt that only applies to anarchists. I would, on the other hand, dont mind working either as a clerk, in a warehouse or as, say, a bus-driver or any other "normal" job. So, from my experience, I wouldnt say that his statement is accurate at all, but I guess it can vary greatly from place to place and from anarchist to anarchist.

[ComradeOm]

let's hear analyze why it could be so?Historically because these are activities that are relatively inefficient at organising/agitating amongst the working class and yet incur an extremely harsh response from the state. This in turn makes it even harder to organise as a mass movement and so on. "Fucking shit up", to quote an above poster, is not a novel tactic, merely an astonishingly unsuccessful one that has been tried many times in the past

[Искра]

I've never came across them. I'll check them out though! Most of the anarchists I know aren't really associated with anything beyond maybe their house.
They are anarcho-syndicalists :wub:, they were part of IWA, but they are not any more (reason is pretty stupid, from my point of view).
Any way, they are "the best" anarchist group/organisation I found in USA. Can anyone say something more about them? Are there any kind of similar groups?

[Jethro Tull]

I don't know if Sasha Cohen is an evil jew (or, either Jew or evil), but I know his is an imbecile elitist who hates poor people.

i agree, but in the original thread i was mocking khad for implying that workers in the u.s. and other "developed" countries that consume the film borat (actually, he said "laugh at" any part of the film borat, which doesn't even requie direct commodity-consumption) are participating in the exploitation of roma workers in eastern europe. i think this mystifies and overemphasizes the power of consumptive economic activity. you'd think a dogmatic self-proclaimed marxist would emphasize the importance of production - if u.s. workers who buy the borat dvd are "exploiting" roma workers exploited by the borat production team, than a boycott of, say, wal-mart, could end capitalist exploitation.


I can't care less about his (or his mother's) superstitions about pork.there's more to being a jew than that and to suggest otherwise is anti-semitic. plenty of jews eat pork.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

An anarchist friend of mine was telling me sort of an interesting thing. We were talking about this document, and more particularly class struggle, and his comment was that since most anarchists (all of them around here) refuse to work a 'normal' job, they have not been able to interact with the working class nor organize workplaces. I don't know if a necessarily agree with what he said, but it is interesting to think about.
Sounds like lifestylists, who're pretty useless anyway. I doubt many anarcho-communists or syndicalists would have that attitude. Actually managing to get a job, on the other hand...

They are anarcho-syndicalists :wub:, they were part of IWA, but they are not any more (reason is pretty stupid, from my point of view).
Any way, they are "the best" anarchist group/organisation I found in USA. Can anyone say something more about them? Are there any kind of similar groups?
I'd not heard much about WSA. I've heard NEFAC (North-Eastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists) are meant to be sound (if platformist), but as the name suggests, they mostly just exist in the north-east.

[Искра]

About NEFAC...
Are they active?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Think so, yeah. Here's their website: http://www.nefac.net/ Obviously, they're not perfect, but they do seem like one of the better North American groups. There's a few other good regional ones, like Common Action in the North-West: http://www.nwcommonaction.org/

[Искра]

Thank you. I hope there are more groups like these in the USA, because that's a proof that there still hope for USA's anarchists :)

[YSR]

WSA are cool, I have some friends starting a chapter and I'm thinking of joining, once I get enough money together to pay dues!

[Black Cross]

Never heard of him before, but upon Googling the name I know he's written a book called How Nonviolence Protects the State. Sounds quite interesting, actually. Have you read it?

Worth reading; not worth the term Gelderoosian :)

[Искра]

WSA are cool, I have some friends starting a chapter and I'm thinking of joining, once I get enough money together to pay dues!
If you know some infos about WSA I'm interested. I would like to know what do they do at the moment.

[Revy]

Don't you love anti-Americanism against the American left, pretending that the American left is somehow special in whatever is wrong with it?

I think there are sections of the anarchist movement in general that don't really represent a revolutionary perspective, you could say that for many "Marxist" groups as well.

Saying that anarchists from the US are "completely fucked in the head" is just a disgusting generalization to make.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Don't you love anti-Americanism against the American left, pretending that the American left is somehow special in whatever is wrong with it?

I think there are sections of the anarchist movement in general that don't really represent a revolutionary perspective, you could say that for many "Marxist" groups as well.

Saying that anarchists from the US are "completely fucked in the head" is just a disgusting generalization to make.
I don't think it's particularly anti-American to acknowledge that the legacy of McCarthyism and Cold War anti-Communism in general has left the organised working class movement a lot weaker in America than in a lot of European countries, which I think is the underlying cause of most of the problems with American anarchism (although there are other contributing factors, like the way American society is so racially divided). Obviously, not all US anarchists are completely fucked in the head, and there are many perfectly sound ones on this board; at the same time, I think it'd be difficult to deny that many American anarchists are completely fucked in the head. That's essentially the argument made by the OP, which is hardly anti-American.

[Revy]

No, you've just given me the "lite" version. You're saying "many" American anarchists are completely fucked in the head.

Have you heard about the G20 protests? Lots of anarchists there. But I suppose they're fucked in the head, because they're American...:rolleyes:

[Искра]

I would say that they are fucked in the head, because in amercian anarchist movement individualism has always been the biggest "stream".
Right now majority of american "anarchists" are or CrimethInc, or primitivists, insurectionists etc. and they live their lifestyles. But, that's all over the World like that, I just think that in America it's to big issue.
Also, we mentioned few organisations which are worth of something and I would like to recomend that our futher discussion go in that way. To talk about actual organisations, what do they do (or not), what are they strategies etc. I believe that this is more constructive to discuss.

[The Douche]

I'm just wondering what makes the anarchist movement in europe so much better than the one here in the states? Seems to me that our movements are both accomplishing the same thing (and that is nothing of great importance).

[Искра]

In Europe movement is more class concious.

[The Douche]

In Europe movement is more class concious.

Are you kidding? You think this is an acceptable reply?

What is the anarchist movement in europe doing, what kind of actual, quantifiable gains are they making, the makes them so much better than the US movement?

More class conscious? Have you ever been to the US?

I am one of the only people on this website from the US who is not a class struggle anarchist, I only know of two anarchists on here that aren't class struggle. And I came out of the red anarchist movement, I was a member of the IWW.

[Искра]

Are you kidding? You think this is an acceptable reply?

What is the anarchist movement in europe doing, what kind of actual, quantifiable gains are they making, the makes them so much better than the US movement?

More class conscious? Have you ever been to the US?

I am one of the only people on this website from the US who is not a class struggle anarchist, I only know of two anarchists on here that aren't class struggle. And I came out of the red anarchist movement, I was a member of the IWW.

Look after the 40's the whole movement is fucked up.
But right now in Europe you have the biggest and the most active sections of IWA and IAF.

I have never been to USA, I can't afford to go to Italy, how can I afford to go to USA?

[Anarchia]

Jurko, if you want to know more about the WSA, you should go post on Anarchist Black Cat forums (anarchistblackcat .org), a couple of their members post there often.

[9]

I'm not sure why people are getting offended by the observation that Americans are generally less class-conscious than Europeans, as if this observation somehow implies some sort of chauvinism or something. Just look at the difference in the prevalence of unionization/strikes between the two regions or the numbers in attendance at protests (compare the G20's, for example). It seems to me quite clear that the American working class is less class conscious than most of the European working class, and observing this trend is certainly not an indication of national chauvinism.

[Revy]

I'm not sure why people are getting offended by the observation that Americans are generally less class-conscious than Europeans, as if this observation somehow implies some sort of chauvinism or something. Just look at the difference in the prevalence of unionization/strikes between the two regions or the numbers in attendance at protests (compare the G20's, for example). It seems to me quite clear that the American working class is less class conscious than most of the European working class, and observing this trend is certainly not an indication of national chauvinism.

I would certainly agree with all that. I just didn't think the tone of the arguments were helpful.

[The Douche]

I'm not sure why people are getting offended by the observation that Americans are generally less class-conscious than Europeans, as if this observation somehow implies some sort of chauvinism or something. Just look at the difference in the prevalence of unionization/strikes between the two regions or the numbers in attendance at protests (compare the G20's, for example). It seems to me quite clear that the American working class is less class conscious than most of the European working class, and observing this trend is certainly not an indication of national chauvinism.

Right, but the assertion made was that US anarchists are shit compared to European anarchists. We were not talking about class consciousness or the broad working class.

I think that assertion is absurd and chauvinist. Because I don't see any big gains coming from the european anarchist movement, none any bigger than those coming from the US movement.


Look after the 40's the whole movement is fucked up.

I agree. But how is the movement in the US worse off than the movement in europe? Specifically?


But right now in Europe you have the biggest and the most active sections of IWA and IAF.

This is probably true, and if it is, then I put it to you, that the european anarchist movement may actually be in worse shape than the US movement! If you have the biggest and most active sections of the red anarchist movement then what specifically are they doing? And how are those specific actions demonstrating that the movement in europe is better than the movement in the US?


I have never been to USA, I can't afford to go to Italy, how can I afford to go to USA?

Then how do you know the nature of the US anarchist movement with such authority?

[Os Cangaceiros]

As an anarchist who happens to live in the United States, I realize that I have a horrible affliction, and am attached to a more-or-less worthless and inept movement (especially when compared to the vibrant, productive and totally non-ghettoized anarchist scene in Europe.) Luckily the comrades at RevLeft are here to set me straight. :rolleyes:

No, but in all seriousness, I'm kind of offended by the characterization of the U.S. anarchist movement by some on this board, especially by those who have never had any kind of first hand contact in real life with it. I mean, I'm not very involved in class struggle or militancy at all...all I've got are my politics and some minor experience in anarchist organization. But there are a lot of great people out there in the US who have just as developed an ideology and are working just as hard in real life as anyone else is...hell, I've met a couple of them from this site.

[redasheville]

I live across the street from an anarchist bookstore. That counts for something, right?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

No, but in all seriousness, I'm kind of offended by the characterization of the U.S. anarchist movement by some on this board, especially by those who have never had any kind of first hand contact in real life with it. I mean, I'm not very involved in class struggle or militancy at all...all I've got are my politics and some minor experience in anarchist organization. But there are a lot of great people out there in the US who have just as developed an ideology and are working just as hard in real life as anyone else is...hell, I've met a couple of them from this site.
I don't deny that, and I hope no-one else here would either. I just have great respect for them because I recognise that they're working in really difficult conditions, including an anarchist milieu with very confused ideas. I think the anti-Deutsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_%28communist_current%29) are an awful development in German radicalism, and I don't think that thinking that makes me somehow anti-German (it'd be ironic if it did ;)).

Also, can we at least agree that Greek anarchism > every other anarchist movement in the world?

[The Douche]

Also, can we at least agree that Greek anarchism > every other anarchist movement in the world?

I think the greek situation illustrates why the anarchist movement needs both, insurrectionists, and red anarchists.

[Искра]

I think the greek situation illustrates why the anarchist movement needs both, insurrectionists, and red anarchists.
I disagree.
Insurrectionism is something which we do not need. I can only learn on mistakes from Greece. You could ask yourself what did they achieved? Nothing. They just make once more anarchists look like "rebels without the cause" or "terrorists".
But, let's put public opinion on the side for a second.
Only good thing that insurrectionism is doing is helping the State to find the reasons to increase their repression on other anarchists organisations for example: anarcho-syndicalists. Are you familiar whit things going on in Serbia? Same stuff is with terrorism and urban guerillas.
Also, insurectionism is advocates organising into small "nucleolus" of people to use direct action by which they only mean on terrorist acts such as throwing the molotovs etc. I personally (or better to say politically) do not have nothing against the violence, but I believe that use of violence is not reserved for small "nucleus" (which is some kind of "battle vanguard"), but that that's matter of whole community. Violence is justified only if majority of community is involved in it as the result of the class war.
So, what I was trying to point is that insurrectionist "tactics" are doing against anarchist movement, they are bringing us repression and jet they do not change a single thing to better.

[9]

I think the anti-Deutsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_%28communist_current%29) are an awful development in German radicalism, and I don't think that thinking that makes me somehow anti-German (it'd be ironic if it did ;)).

Wouldn't that make you anti-anti-German?

[The Douche]

Insurrectionism is something which we do not need. I can only learn on mistakes from Greece. You could ask yourself what did they achieved? Nothing. They just make once more anarchists look like "rebels without the cause" or "terrorists".

I think insurrectionists make anarchists look like angry workers, unemployed, and kids who understand their relationship to state and capital but aren't afraid to fight back.


Only good thing that insurrectionism is doing is helping the State to find the reasons to increase their repression on other anarchists organisations for example: anarcho-syndicalists.

The state will always repress us, especially if we pose a real threat to them.


Also, insurectionism is advocates organising into small "nucleolus" of people to use direct action by which they only mean on terrorist acts such as throwing the molotovs etc. I personally (or better to say politically) do not have nothing against the violence, but I believe that use of violence is not reserved for small "nucleus" (which is some kind of "battle vanguard"), but that that's matter of whole community. Violence is justified only if majority of community is involved in it as the result of the class war.

The formation of affinity groups for specific actions is just a tactical necessity. And there is much more to insurrectionary anarchism than just affinity groups and violent direct action. You should not ignore the critique of post-industrial capitalism that social war anarchists talk about.


So, what I was trying to point is that insurrectionist "tactics" are doing against anarchist movement, they are bringing us repression and jet they do not change a single thing to better.

I think attacking the state is making things better. I think we should breed a culture of resistence. I respect what you part of the movement is doing, but I don't think it will answer our problems. And I don't think my side of the movement can do it alone either, honestly.

[ComradeOm]

The formation of affinity groups for specific actions is just a tactical necessitySurely the fact that insurrectionism requires, out of "tactical necessity", the formation of these 'affinity groups' (personally I prefer the old-school 'Combat Organisation' tag) is a major ideological hurdle that has not yet been overcome?

Personally I think that Jurko is perfectly correct in pointing out that such emphasis on direct action necessitates against the formation of a mass revolutionary movement. And surely, after almost two centuries, everyone accepts the necessity of the latter?


The state will always repress us, especially if we pose a real threat to themThis just isn't true though. Or rather, its true on the most general level that completely ignores all nuance. The reality is that there are different levels of active repression and that in the past anarcho-syndicalist activities (to say nothing of other socialists) have been severely affected/curtailed by the activities of a few unrelated anarchist terrorists

[Искра]

I think insurrectionists make anarchists look like angry workers, unemployed, and kids who understand their relationship to state and capital but aren't afraid to fight back.
Hm, punx, with dreads or kids in black throwing molotovs do not make that impression on me, nor on my community.


The state will always repress us, especially if we pose a real threat to them.
I agree. But that's when revolution comes or community using violence to fight back. 10 people throwing molotovs do not scare the State. They send 2 cops and kids run away.
But big anarchist syndicate or organisation makes a threat. So you repress them because of those 10 kids.


The formation of affinity groups for specific actions is just a tactical necessity. And there is much more to insurrectionary anarchism than just affinity groups and violent direct action. You should not ignore the critique of post-industrial capitalism that social war anarchists talk about.
I'm anarchist, not liberal. I agree with Marx, not post-modernism.


I think attacking the state is making things better. I think we should breed a culture of resistence.
Tell that to my comrades in jail.

[The Douche]

Surely the fact that insurrectionism requires, out of "tactical necessity", the formation of these 'affinity groups' (personally I prefer the old-school 'Combat Organisation' tag) is a major ideological hurdle that has not yet been overcome?


No, mass organizations can still exist in the context of insurrectionary anarchism. Ala RAAN.


This just isn't true though. Or rather, its true on the most general level that completely ignores all nuance. The reality is that there are different levels of active repression and that in the past anarcho-syndicalist activities (to say nothing of other socialists) have been severely affected/curtailed by the activities of a few unrelated anarchist terrorists

Well, I just don't have any faith in syndicalism or unionism in general. I think that the insurrectionary model, or at the very least the malatestaesque anarchism of associations of individuals based around common goals has done more for the anarchist movement than syndicalism. The old organs of the working class were to vehicle for revolution in 1920, not now.

[Искра]

No, mass organizations can still exist in the context of insurrectionary anarchism. Ala RAAN.
That's not mass organisation. That's big affinity group. Mass organisation is working class organisation like anarchist syndicates.



Well, I just don't have any faith in syndicalism or unionism in general. I think that the insurrectionary model, or at the very least the malatestaesque anarchism of associations of individuals based around common goals has done more for the anarchist movement than syndicalism. The old organs of the working class were to vehicle for revolution in 1920, not now.
So you are claiming that Marxs division on 2 classes do not exist now? That's idiotism, or liberalism.
The end result of anarchism is revolution and then communism (anarchy). Are you trying to pressure me that that goal will be achieved with small affinity groups full of kids who throw molotovs all around rather with organised struggle of working class?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Personally, I believe that both anarcho-syndicalism and "Galleanism" have considerable flaws, but that's just me...

[Искра]

Personally, I believe that both anarcho-syndicalism and "Galleanism" have considerable flaws, but that's just me...
Me too, but I consider the anarcho-syndicalism the method which can make the revolution, because it includes bigger number of various people.
There will always be critiques, which is good thing, because if you don't upgrade something it will die.

[SubVersion]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I'm a new person to the Forum and through this I am learning who you all are. I thought the original article was incredible well done. He got straight to the weak points. Now those elements can accept or reject his comments, but my feeling is that all of us who read it are changed for the better. (which is not obvious from reading this thread).

[Absolut]

Me too, but I consider the anarcho-syndicalism the method which can make the revolution, because it includes bigger number of various people.

If I interpret you right, when you say "various people", you mean people with different ideological affiliations, and if so, couldnt that also be a problem, when organizing the workers?

The reasoning behind this, at least in the SAC, is that all workers have an objective interest in the destruction of capitalism, and I can definately see the logic in this, but at the same time, I can see how the organization can get slowed down and stuck in discussions and what not, which wouldnt really have to exist, if you structured the organization differently and applied a different method when recruiting members. Im not sure what to think though, joining the SAC has made me doubt the possibilites of a revolutionary union.


So you are claiming that Marxs division on 2 classes do not exist now? That's idiotism, or liberalism.
The end result of anarchism is revolution and then communism (anarchy). Are you trying to pressure me that that goal will be achieved with small affinity groups full of kids who throw molotovs all around rather with organised struggle of working class?

Im not very familiar with insurrectionary anarchism, but I doubt that they deny the existance of the working class and the bourgoisie, and Im very sure that anarcho-communists doesnt. I hope Im wrong, and that Ive interepreted you incorrectly, but it seems as if youre suggesting that those who do not adhere to the syndicalist approach arent interested in class struggle or even admit the existance of classes.

With that being said, Im not trying to defend cmoneys positions.

[the last donut of the night]

I'm sorry if I seem ignorant, but is 'scene' really the word used to describe a political movement? I mean, you guys aren't an avant-garde, neo-punk indie genre.

[Искра]

If I interpret you right, when you say "various people", you mean people with different ideological affiliations, and if so, couldnt that also be a problem, when organizing the workers?
That is also problematic, off course, because you are dealing with different people, which have different political affiliations. But then its up to syndicate to "work on them" in the way that syndicate organises workshops, debates, classes for new (and old) members so that they get familiar with ideology.
Anarcho-syndicalism is trying to reach more and more people. If we want revolution we have to reach as much as people we can. To me it dosen't matter if some worker who is in anarchist syndicate claims that he's not an anarchist. That's not important at all. What is important is that he/she acepts goals, methods, struggle, that he/she don't work against the Statute and organisation... etc. In the end if you support the fight and methods and alternative it's all what matters.


The reasoning behind this, at least in the SAC, is that all workers have an objective interest in the destruction of capitalism, and I can definately see the logic in this, but at the same time, I can see how the organization can get slowed down and stuck in discussions and what not, which wouldnt really have to exist, if you structured the organization differently and applied a different method when recruiting members. Im not sure what to think though, joining the SAC has made me doubt the possibilites of a revolutionary union.
I know a lot about SAC. As I said in Anarchist group I'm in contact with comrades from Stockholm LS, and I was on their conference.
I think that SAC's not a good example of revolutionary union, and it's even worst example of anarchist union. I don't want to offend somebody, but SAC is reformist, and in IWA's standards it's reactionary. The problem with SAC are, offcourse, ombudsmans, which is function which one anarchist syndicate do not have. Aslo, they are radical version of LO (that's the name of biggest union in Sweden, right?) in the way that they become just economical organisation, while anarcho-syndicalist syndicate is political-economical organisation, because it accepts principles of revolutionary syndicalism. But, I'm really happy that SAC is slowly turning back to roots and I hope that it will become anarcho-syndicalist again.
I think that problem you showed is because of the way things are in SAC now. About the lack of communication between LS and drifts, etc.


Im not very familiar with insurrectionary anarchism, but I doubt that they deny the existance of the working class and the bourgoisie, and Im very sure that anarcho-communists doesnt. I hope Im wrong, and that Ive interepreted you incorrectly, but it seems as if youre suggesting that those who do not adhere to the syndicalist approach arent interested in class struggle or even admit the existance of classes.
I never said that anarcho-communist deny classes. Maybe I sounded like that, I'm sorry for that. My structures are sometimes "clumsy".
Insurections doesn't care about classes, some of them say that "Marx's class division doesn't apply to modern society", which is clearly liberal statement aka. bullshit.
One of problems with insurrectionism is that they don't have "strong" theory. They clearly have a lack of theory. Many of them read that lunatic Bonanno, and similar idiots, whos books really don't make any sense and their class and anarcho-syndicialism "analysis" (its a shame to use this word in this context) are nothing more that crap.
Also, anarchists (in general) have huge problem with insurrectionsim, because it's popular and it makes really bad picture of us in media in society (because it's actually anti-social) and therefore it undermines affords of anarchists organisations around IWA or IAF etc. It's also really dangerous, because of using "terrorist" methods increses state repression. Off course, that State will use anything to repress big and influential anarchist organisations and to try to change public view about them, which is really bad for movement. This doesn't mean that I'm some kind of pacifist prick, but, as I said in few posts before, I think that violence is good method only when whole community or whole class is involved in that.


With that being said, Im not trying to defend cmoneys positions.
Don't worry comrade, I know ;)

[Искра]

I'm sorry if I seem ignorant, but is 'scene' really the word used to describe a political movement? I mean, you guys aren't an avant-garde, neo-punk indie genre.
There's difference between "anarchist scene" and "anarchist movement".
We use "scene" to describe lifestyle "anarchism", which is actually nothing more than liberalism on punk rock scene. :rolleyes:
We use "movement" to describe anarchist organisations which are consisted of class struggle anarchists who are fighting for anarchy :lol:

[Absolut]

I know a lot about SAC. As I said in Anarchist group I'm in contact with comrades from Stockholm LS, and I was on their conference.
I think that SAC's not a good example of revolutionary union, and it's even worst example of anarchist union. I don't want to offend somebody, but SAC is reformist, and in IWA's standards it's reactionary. The problem with SAC are, offcourse, ombudsmans, which is function which one anarchist syndicate do not have. Aslo, they are radical version of LO (that's the name of biggest union in Sweden, right?) in the way that they become just economical organisation, while anarcho-syndicalist syndicate is political-economical organisation, because it accepts principles of revolutionary syndicalism. But, I'm really happy that SAC is slowly turning back to roots and I hope that it will become anarcho-syndicalist again.
I think that problem you showed is because of the way things are in SAC now. About the lack of communication between LS and drifts, etc.

Yes, LO is the biggest union.

I pretty much agree with your analysis of whats wrong in the SAC (I wouldnt go as far as calling it reactionary, but reformist, yes), but Im not sure what you mean by "ombudsman", do you mean its a good or bad thing that they dont exist within a syndicalist union?


Don't worry comrade, I know ;)

:thumbup1:

Dont have time to answer the rest, have to get to work. :(

[Искра]

Yes, LO is the biggest union.

I pretty much agree with your analysis of whats wrong in the SAC (I wouldnt go as far as calling it reactionary, but reformist, yes), but Im not sure what you mean by "ombudsman", do you mean its a good or bad thing that they dont exist within a syndicalist union?
Well IWA call them reactionary not me :)

Ombudsman (for people from the rest of the world: bureaucrats) shouldn't be kept it's not the way that anarchist syndicate functions, but totally opposite. Anarcho-syndicalism is against bureaucrats and it's for direct democracy and direct action of working class :)


Dont have time to answer the rest, have to get to work. :(

And and I have to go to collage to deal with bureaucrats :) You can't live without them... :p

[Absolut]

That is also problematic, off course, because you are dealing with different people, which have different political affiliations. But then its up to syndicate to "work on them" in the way that syndicate organises workshops, debates, classes for new (and old) members so that they get familiar with ideology.

But what if the organisation (both on a local, regional and national level) doesnt have adequate means of doing this?

We both agree that the SAC (Im using them as an example because you seem to know whats going on) is reformist, albeit more radical than any other reformist organisation, and that theyve lost their revolutionary spirit. How will a non-revolutionary organisation foster revolutionaries? This kind of approach also requires a certain amount of ambitious people, who are willing (and able) to take from their free time and actually hold these workshops, debates, classes or whatever. This isnt always the case, at least not where I live.

My point is, that theres a lot of variables that this kind of approach relies on, and while not openly against the idea, I have my doubts. If I had to choose from a strictly ideological organisation, where only convinced anarchists/syndicalists/libertarian socialists were let in, and this, Id definately choose this.


Anarcho-syndicalism is trying to reach more and more people. If we want revolution we have to reach as much as people we can. To me it dosen't matter if some worker who is in anarchist syndicate claims that he's not an anarchist. That's not important at all. What is important is that he/she acepts goals, methods, struggle, that he/she don't work against the Statute and organisation... etc. In the end if you support the fight and methods and alternative it's all what matters.

I understand your position, and I can definately see the logic behind it, but as I said above, I think it has its flaws, and Im not sure how to deal with these, at least not within the context of a union, especially a (supposedly) revolutionary one.


I never said that anarcho-communist deny classes. Maybe I sounded like that, I'm sorry for that. My structures are sometimes "clumsy".
Insurections doesn't care about classes, some of them say that "Marx's class division doesn't apply to modern society", which is clearly liberal statement aka. bullshit.

Sorry for the misunderstanding then. :)

I have to believe that, at some point, insurrectionalists do care about classes, since their goal (I hope), are the same as ours, the abolition of the classes.

Im not sure what you mean by your second sentance either, but I really dont think its automatically a liberal and bullshit statement to say that what Marx saw in the 19th century cant be unquestionably applied today. The compositions of the class structures have changed, and obviously, the structures that was applied by revolutionary socialists back then, need to change and adapt to the new conditions. Theres no denying that a class society exists, and that it needs to be crushed, but it doesnt look the same as when Marx was alive.

[Искра]

But what if the organisation (both on a local, regional and national level) doesnt have adequate means of doing this?
What kind of means material or "human"?


We both agree that the SAC (Im using them as an example because you seem to know whats going on) is reformist, albeit more radical than any other reformist organisation, and that theyve lost their revolutionary spirit. How will a non-revolutionary organisation foster revolutionaries? This kind of approach also requires a certain amount of ambitious people, who are willing (and able) to take from their free time and actually hold these workshops, debates, classes or whatever. This isnt always the case, at least not where I live.
Well, revolutionary path is never easy, right? Especially anarcho-syndicalist since it involves larger groups of people, whole community etc. Also, many people in anarchist syndicates are not anarchists which can be problem.
But as I said, organisation must work on it's organising... it must have some programs how to assimilate people in organisation. Since we talk about SAC, Stockholm LS has "introduction committee". We in MASA didn't have that and now me made one. I think that this is very good idea and that its very important. Our "introcom" does very important job and that's assimilating people in organisation. Members od "introcom" meet new member and later they go through all the documents with new member so that they ask if they do not understand something. Also "introcom" teaches new members about principles, debates with them etc. and people slowly accept ideology, but the ideology stays...

Also, in huge organisations there will always be more people which are passive. It's on organisation to try to make them active.


My point is, that theres a lot of variables that this kind of approach relies on, and while not openly against the idea, I have my doubts. If I had to choose from a strictly ideological organisation, where only convinced anarchists/syndicalists/libertarian socialists were let in, and this, Id definately choose this.

Yeah, we know that this is difficult, but your approach here is wrong.
That's what KRAS (Russia) and FORA (Argentina) do, they only allow anarcho-syndicalist to enter their organisations. What's difference between them and Anarchist Federation? AFed is not anarcho-syndicalist and that's all.
To me that approach is really wrong, especially under the name of anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-syndicalism want to include as much people it can, and then to work with them to "make them" (with no force, off coruse) think like anarchists, not necessary to declare like that.
Arn't ideals much more important than the name?
Also, how can we work on revolution if we work only with few people we know, only with people who declare themselves as anarchists (which will always be minority). How will we have contact with the working class? I don't like that kind of approach and I believe that it will never work.
Anarcho-syndicalist methods are difficult, no doubt, but why should we reject them? Because they are difficult? I don't think so :)


I have to believe that, at some point, insurrectionalists do care about classes, since their goal (I hope), are the same as ours, the abolition of the classes.
I recommend you to read Bonanno if you want to get close with their "ideas". You'll find that book pretty idiotic. I think that your center for anarchist studies translated Bonanno in Swedish.
I think that insurrectionists do not know what do they want. They just wanna "burn" :) Like Bonanno said: Only conflict is important...


Im not sure what you mean by your second sentance either, but I really dont think its automatically a liberal and bullshit statement to say that what Marx saw in the 19th century cant be unquestionably applied today. The compositions of the class structures have changed, and obviously, the structures that was applied by revolutionary socialists back then, need to change and adapt to the new conditions. Theres no denying that a class society exists, and that it needs to be crushed, but it doesnt look the same as when Marx was alive.
Off course time has changed, but Marx's analysis still is here, it's still right (and it will be always) :)
Also, Marx never claimed that proletariat is only "industrial proletariat" (workers in factories). Every wedge worker is proletarian.

[Absolut]

Yeah, we know that this is difficult, but your approach here is wrong.
That's what KRAS (Russia) and FORA (Argentina) do, they only allow anarcho-syndicalist to enter their organisations. What's difference between them and Anarchist Federation? AFed is not anarcho-syndicalist and that's all.
To me that approach is really wrong, especially under the name of anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-syndicalism want to include as much people it can, and then to work with them to "make them" (with no force, off coruse) think like anarchists, not necessary to declare like that.
Arn't ideals much more important than the name?
Also, how can we work on revolution if we work only with few people we know, only with people who declare themselves as anarchists (which will always be minority). How will we have contact with the working class? I don't like that kind of approach and I believe that it will never work.
Anarcho-syndicalist methods are difficult, no doubt, but why should we reject them? Because they are difficult? I don't think so :)

Poorly articulated on my side, what I meant was that I would support the method which SAC currently works after, not that we only accept those of the right political affiliation. :p



I recommend you to read Bonanno if you want to get close with their "ideas". You'll find that book pretty idiotic. I think that your center for anarchist studies translated Bonanno in Swedish.
I think that insurrectionists do not know what do they want. They just wanna "burn" :) Like Bonanno said: Only conflict is important...


Found two texts in Swedish, Ill check them out and come back to you. :)


Off course time has changed, but Marx's analysis still is here, it's still right (and it will be always) :)
Also, Marx never claimed that proletariat is only "industrial proletariat" (workers in factories). Every wedge worker is proletarian.

Of course its still right, Im not denying that. Wether or not Marx claimed that the proletariat is every worker may be true (I dont know, to be honest, I havent read that much Marx), but we still have to "update" his theories so that they can be applied to us, without losing the basic theories of Marx. The same of course applies to every revolutionary theorist.

Ill check out the rest tomorrow. :)

[Искра]

Poorly articulated on my side, what I meant was that I would support the method which SAC currently works after, not that we only accept those of the right political affiliation. :p
Hm, you would accept working with State and ombudsmans? To me that's unacceptable. I think that SAC should go back to roots as quickly as possible. You have so much good activists, why should you waste them on being just more radical LO?

btw. are you in SUF?

[Joohoo]

First off sorry if this turns the thread OT but I did not find any G20 threads about it and I was gonna say that I seen some videos from youtube about the G-20 summit, there were some anarchists going in the peaceful demonstrations and that made me feel warm and fuzzy inside, of course the cameraman was in the demonstation march so it was one of their own, not the "free" media. Anyway it seemed that some of the anarchists at least were woken up those days during the summit, where somebody of you there and what happened?

[Absolut]

Hm, you would accept working with State and ombudsmans? To me that's unacceptable. I think that SAC should go back to roots as quickly as possible. You have so much good activists, why should you waste them on being just more radical LO?

btw. are you in SUF?

How did you come to that conclusion? Ive just critizised SAC for being reformist, and that they are nothing more than just a radical alternative to LO. I hate that they work with the state and that they recieve money from it. I would rather see that they worked as an independent organisation, free from any connetion to the state. I hate that they try to form a new syndicalist international together with the CGT in Spain and I really hate that they supported the creation of a political party. I hate all of those things, and I think its really sad that a once revolutionary union has degenerated in to what it is today. SAC not only should, but needs, to go back to its roots as quickly as possible, and they need to focus on the revolutionary aspect of their struggle, not only what is achievable today.

That should have straightened things out. Im not a reformist. Im just as revolutionary as you.

I was in SUF. Im not active anymore, but I still pay my membership fee because they could use the money.

[The Douche]

How did you come to that conclusion? Ive just critizised SAC for being reformist, and that they are nothing more than just a radical alternative to LO. I hate that they work with the state and that they recieve money from it. I would rather see that they worked as an independent organisation, free from any connetion to the state. I hate that they try to form a new syndicalist international together with the CGT in Spain and I really hate that they supported the creation of a political party. I hate all of those things, and I think its really sad that a once revolutionary union has degenerated in to what it is today. SAC not only should, but needs, to go back to its roots as quickly as possible, and they need to focus on the revolutionary aspect of their struggle, not only what is achievable today.

That should have straightened things out. Im not a reformist. Im just as revolutionary as you.

I was in SUF. Im not active anymore, but I still pay my membership fee because they could use the money.

Your issues with the SAC are the criticisms that have always been levelled at syndicalism/anarchist involvement in the labor movement. The labor movement is not a vehicle for revolution. I think, that if I was alive back in the early twentieth century, I might think otherwise. But I think that the state of the labor movement and the left today have absolved those who made comments like the link below.

I assume you have read this? (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/malatesta_synd.html)

[Искра]

That should have straightened things out. Im not a reformist. Im just as revolutionary as you.
I never meant to accuse you for being reformist, I was just wondering what do you support from they was that SAC functions now.


I was in SUF. Im not active anymore, but I still pay my membership fee because they could use the money.
I saw you papers :) they real spend a lot of money for that hihi
Can you tell me something more about SUF? I'm interested.

[Искра]

Your issues with the SAC are the criticisms that have always been levelled at syndicalism/anarchist involvement in the labor movement. The labor movement is not a vehicle for revolution. I think, that if I was alive back in the early twentieth century, I might think otherwise. But I think that the state of the labor movement and the left today have absolved those who made comments like the link below.
1st SAC is not anarcho-syndicalist.
2nd you should read more about the reasons why SAC is no longer anarchist or why it's not in IWA.
3rd The labor movement is not a vehicle for revolution Who's then? Lenin? Some small insurrectionis "vanguard" nucleuss throwing molotovs on cops? Communist (therefor anarchists) revolution is act of violence where working class owerhtovs capitalist class. Who's vehicle if not working class itself?
4th Anarchist syndicates do not coloborate with State.

Things you talk about are tipical for late 20th and 21st century liberalism. To denay the classes, to denay power of working class itself.
You have to reliase that your small insurrectionist groups wont bring the revolution nor they will make thing better.


I assume you have read this? (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/malatesta_synd.html)
Cant you find something better? Anarcho-snydicalism has all ready answered on this one.

[Absolut]

Your issues with the SAC are the criticisms that have always been levelled at syndicalism/anarchist involvement in the labor movement. The labor movement is not a vehicle for revolution. I think, that if I was alive back in the early twentieth century, I might think otherwise. But I think that the state of the labor movement and the left today have absolved those who made comments like the link below.

Partly, I think youre right. Anarcho-syndicalism has been critizised both by anarchists and communists, and I certainly understand their point of view so to speak, but Im on the other hand not sure I completely agree with it. What Im trying to say, is that Im very disappointed with the SAC and the route theyve taken and the "reformisation" theyve undergone. Before I joined, I was certain that a revolutionary union was the way to go, and I couldnt see how it would be harder for a syndicalist union to stay revolutionary than a communist party or an anarchist organisation.

Also, Im fully convinced that it has to be the organized labour movement that overthrows the current society, it cannot be anything else. There has to be an organisation that is able to take over the necessary societial functions when capitalism is overthrown, be it a syndicalist union or an anarchist organisation. The role of these organisations after the "new order" has been established is another question though.

That being said, I have nothing but respect and admiration for Malatesta and other revolutionary anarcho-communist.


I never meant to accuse you for being reformist, I was just wondering what do you support from they was that SAC functions now.

Never mind then. I had just gotten out of bed and realised I had to go to work, so I was a bit cranky. :lol:Lets just, for now, assume that I support the same things you do, because thatll be easier, and I probably do as well. :)


I saw you papers they real spend a lot of money for that hihi
Can you tell me something more about SUF? I'm interested.

Not sure about the paper, never took an interest in it. I picked up one or two copies and they were pretty boring.

About SUF, not really sure where to begin. I wouldnt say that its explicitly syndicalist, theres people in it that call themselves both communist and anarchist. I think part of the reason behind this, is that its pretty much the only viable revolutionary youth organisation with a continuos activity over pretty much Sweden. Compared to RKU (Revolutionary Communist Youth), which, until a couple of years ago, had around 2-3 members where I live (pretty big town by Swedish standards, 200.000 inhabitants), were more than twice as big. Part of the reason its called SUF, is because another SUF existed during the beginning of the century. Its organized pretty much along anarchist lines, and I dont think I have to explain that closer. They publish the paper Direkt Aktion (Direct Action, just in case someone didnt understand:p).

Their activity is, as you would assume, mostly concentrated on education and other "youth-questions", but at every SAC action, youll see at least a few people from SUF. SUF is not officially connected to the SAC, but at most (if not all, not sure about this), they use the LS as their meeting place.

SUF-Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Anarcho-syndicalist_Youth_Federation)

Heres some additional information.

Im not really updated on whats going on, havent been to a SUF-meeting for a while, mostly gone to the LS meetings, but if you have any more questions, Ill gladly try and answer them. :)


you should read more about the reasons why SAC is no longer anarchist or why it's not in IWA.

You wouldnt happen to have any good articles on the IWAs opinions on the SAC, why they were expelled and so on? Anything that you think might be interesting. :)

[Joohoo]

The labor movement is not a vehicle for revolution. I think, that if I was alive back in the early twentieth century, I might think otherwise. But I think that the state of the labor movement and the left today have absolved those who made comments like the link below.

Who do you propose would do it instead? I mean if there is one group that is potential big and would have the need to do it, it is still the workers. But as I have understood, todays working class are divided in so many sub-categories from factory workers, service jobs to self-employment. I guess it is kind of hard to get all of them together as they might have different goals and needs.

The only other option I can make is the students.

[The Douche]

1st SAC is not anarcho-syndicalist.

Neither is the IWW. But they are still related movements. You're right though, revolutionary unions are not automatically anarcho-syndicalist, the same criticsims apply though.


2nd you should read more about the reasons why SAC is no longer anarchist or why it's not in IWA.

Probably so. Maybe you could give a brief description?


3rd The labor movement is not a vehicle for revolution Who's then? Lenin? Some small insurrectionis "vanguard" nucleuss throwing molotovs on cops? Communist (therefor anarchists) revolution is act of violence where working class owerhtovs capitalist class. Who's vehicle if not working class itself?


Where is your revolution then? Revolution exists in the autonomous and direct organizations of the working class that they form around the struggles that they immediately face. The labor movement is not longer the vehicle of the working class, it is a tool of the ruling class.


4th Anarchist syndicates do not coloborate with State.

But they do colaborate with the bosses.


Things you talk about are tipical for late 20th and 21st century liberalism. To denay the classes, to denay power of working class itself.
You have to reliase that your small insurrectionist groups wont bring the revolution nor they will make thing better.

First of all, why is the talk of a typical early 20th century communist better than anything else? Second, I have never denied classes, you made that accusation earlier, tottally unfounded. Unions don't exist for revolution, they exist for settling contracts...period. Thats all they have ever done, and I don't see that changing, your ideas must evolve to stay relevant. The difference between insurrectionists and social anarchists is that you are dogmatic and were just crying to try something new.


Cant you find something better? Anarcho-snydicalism has all ready answered on this one.

You are just plain wrong. Malatesta has been proven correct by history in this regard.

[Искра]

Neither is the IWW. But they are still related movements. You're right though, revolutionary unions are not automatically anarcho-syndicalist, the same criticsims apply though.
IWW is not revolutionary union, it's just more radical union. They are still strictly economical organisation. They would be revolutionary if they had an ideology standing behind it.


Probably so. Maybe you could give a brief description?

Originally posted by Wikipedia: came into conflict with the IWA in the 1950s when SAC entered into a state-supported unemployment fund, which the IWA regarded as state collaboration and reformist. In 1956, the SAC withdrew from the IWA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Organisation_of_the_Workers_of_Sweden

About relationship between IWA and SAC, read this:
http://iwa-ait.org/defence.html
http://libcom.org/library/an-open-letter-to-the-iwa-from-sac-1998
http://libcom.org/library/sac-sweden-interview-1998-freedom


Where is your revolution then? Revolution exists in the autonomous and direct organizations of the working class that they form around the struggles that they immediately face. The labor movement is not longer the vehicle of the working class, it is a tool of the ruling class.
There's no my revolution, there should be only revolution of working class.

Also, you should stop conecting anarcho-syndicalism with labor movement by which you mean on reformist unions. Anarcho-syndicalism is against reformist unions, but still we want to create labor movement but with different principles.

I suggest you to read Methods of Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker-chapter-5


But they do colaborate with the bosses.
This are hard accusations so please argument them.
Anarcho-syndicalist do not collaborate with bosses! To collaborate with some one means that you make compromise and/or that you make something which benefits both sides. Anarcho-syndicalism cares only about one side and that's proletariat. So, anarcho-syndicalists use direct action against bosses and they stop their actions (I'm talking here about reformist part of workers struggle) only when boss makes everything that wokrers involved in struggle demanted!
Where's here collaboration?


First of all, why is the talk of a typical early 20th century communist better than anything else? Second, I have never denied classes, you made that accusation earlier, tottally unfounded. Unions don't exist for revolution, they exist for settling contracts...period. Thats all they have ever done, and I don't see that changing, your ideas must evolve to stay relevant. The difference between insurrectionists and social anarchists is that you are dogmatic and were just crying to try something new.

Because Marx was right and we can still see that he's right, society is still capitalist, and it still functions as he said, and also we are still divided into 2 classes.
I never said that you do, but your "theoretics" of insurrectionary anarchism did.
Difference between social anarchist and insurrectionists is that social anarchists are anarchists and insurrectionists are bunch of idiots throwing molotovs and breaking McDonalds which thing that they are doing something. Yes, you do - you are increasing repression.
Also, what's new about insurrectionism? Seattle, Geneva, Greece? Where's YOUR change?!

[The Douche]

IWW is not revolutionary union, it's just more radical union. They are still strictly economical organisation. They would be revolutionary if they had an ideology standing behind it.

Have you read the preamble to the IWW constitution? Allow me to quote some of it to you:


Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the eart.

That is clearly an ideology. And by the way, I read that off of the membership (expired) card which I have in my wallet, because I used to be a member, and I used to be an anarcho syndicalist.


There's no my revolution, there should be only revolution of working class.

Don't play semantics, you know what I mean.


Also, you should stop conecting anarcho-syndicalism with labor movement by which you mean on reformist unions. Anarcho-syndicalism is against reformist unions, but still we want to create labor movement but with different principles.

You sound like somebody who has read about syndicalism but has no actual experience with it, nor seen it applied. Syndicalist unions, radical unions, revolutionary unions, they all still fight for reforms and settle contracts...that is, assuming they even organize any workers.:laugh:


I suggest you to read Methods of Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-sy...cker-chapter-5 (http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker-chapter-5)


I have, and i suggest you look at what these revolutionary unions actually do.


This are hard accusations so please argument them.
Anarcho-syndicalist do not collaborate with bosses! To collaborate with some one means that you make compromise and/or that you make something which benefits both sides. Anarcho-syndicalism cares only about one side and that's proletariat. So, anarcho-syndicalists use direct action against bosses and they stop their actions (I'm talking here about reformist part of workers struggle) only when boss makes everything that wokrers involved in struggle demanted!
Where's here collaboration?

Unions settle contracts with the bosses. That is a compromise, they fight for reforms. That is what they do, some of them say other things, and some of them really try and be revolutionary, but in the end they always degenerate into either a) insignificant social/history clubs or b) regular unions who have virtually no more radical character.


I never said that you do, but your "theoretics" of insurrectionary anarchism did.

I have never met an insurrectionary anarchist who "didn't think classes exist".


Also, what's new about insurrectionism? Seattle, Geneva, Greece? Where's YOUR change?!

I don't think you can deny that the insurrectionary school of anarchist thought is bigger and more active, and more widely seen than the social anarchist school. So I guess we are doing something right.

[Искра]

You sound like somebody who has read about syndicalism but has no actual experience with it, nor seen it applied. Syndicalist unions, radical unions, revolutionary unions, they all still fight for reforms and settle contracts...that is, assuming they even organize any workers.:laugh:
I do have experience, since I'm active member of The Network of Anarcho-Syndicalists in Croatia. I can't be member of anarcho-sydncialist sydnicate since my comrades and me have to create one first.

Your experience with IWW, can't count as experience of "anarcho-syndicialism" since IWW arn't anarcho-syndicalists.

Yes, they fight for reforms, but more after this...


Unions settle contracts with the bosses. That is a compromise, they fight for reforms. That is what they do, some of them say other things, and some of them really try and be revolutionary, but in the end they always degenerate into either a) insignificant social/history clubs or b) regular unions who have virtually no more radical character.
... ok, now here.

Yes, they fight for reforms. Yes, they fight that working class has better conditions NOW. We can't expect to have a revolution today, but we must work each day towards it. I don't see problem in fighting for better conditions on work place, we all want that people live "in better Word". So, if we win battle on work place, and that helps working class in their struggle I don't see problems with that. Still, anarchist syndicates fight for anarchism, as you can see in this document:

http://www.iwa-ait.org/?q=statutes

II THE PRINCIPLES OF REVOLUTIONARY UNIONISM

Revolutionary unionism, basing itself on the class struggle, aims to unite all workers in combative economic organizations, that fight to free themselves from the double yoke of capital and the State. Its goal is the reorganization of social life on the basis of Libertarian Communism via the revolutionary action of the working class. Since only the economic organizations of the proletariat are capable of achieving this objective, revolutionary unionism addresses itself to workers in their capacity as producers, creators of social wealth, to take root and develop amongst them, in opposition to the modern workers’ parties, which it declares are incapable of the economic reorganization of society.
Revolutionary unionism is the staunch enemy of all social and economic monopoly, and aims at its abolition by the establishment of economic communities and administrative organs run by the workers in the field and factories, forming a system of free councils without subordination to any authority or political party, bar none. As an alternative to the politics of State and parties, revolutionary unionism posits the economic reorganization of production, replacing the rule of man over man with the administrative management of things. Consequently, the goal of revolutionary unionism is not the conquest of political power, but the abolition of all state functions in the life of society. Revolutionary unionism considers that along with the disappearance of the monopoly of property, must come the disappearance of the monopoly of domination; and that no form of State, however camouflaged, can ever be an instrument for human liberation, but that on the contrary, it will always be the creator of new monopolies and new privileges.
Revolutionary unionism has a two-fold function: to carry on the day-to-day revolutionary struggle for the economic, social and intellectual advancement of the working class within the limits of present-day society, and to educate the masses so that they will be ready to independently manage the processes of production and distribution when the time comes to take possession of all the elements of social life. Revolutionary unionism does not accept the idea that the organization of a social system based exclusively on the producing class can be ordered by simple governmental decrees and maintains that it can only be obtained through the common action of all manual and intellectual workers, in every lianch of industry, by self-management of the workers, such that every group, factory or lianch of industry is an autonomous member of the greater economic organism and sistematically runs the production and distribution processes according to the interests of the comunity, on an agreed upon plan and on the basis of mutual accord.
Revolutionary unionism is opposed to all organizational tendenciesinspired by the centralism of State and Church, because these can only serve to prolong the survival of the State and authority and to sistematically stifle the spirit of initiative and the independence of thought. Centralism is and artificial organization that subjects the so-called lower classes to those who claim to be superior, and that leaves in the hands of the few the affairs of the whole comunity -the individual being turned into a robot with controlled gestures and movements. In the centralized organization, society’s good is subordinated to the interests of the few, variety is replaced by uniformity and personal responsability is replaced by rigid discipline. Consequently, revolutionary unionism bases its social vision on a lioad federalist organization; i.e., an organization organised from the botttom up, the uniting of all forces in the defense of common ideas and interests.
Revolutionary unionism rejects all parliamentary activity and all collaboration with legislative bodies; because it knows that even the freest voting system cannot liing about the disappearance of the clear contradictions at the core of present-day society and because the parliamentary system has only one goal: to lend a pretense of legitimacy to the reign of falsehood and social injustice.
Revolutionary Unionism rejects all political and national frontiers, which are arbitrarily created, and declares that so-called nationalism is just the religion of the modern state, behind which is concealed the material interests of the propertied classes. Revolutionary unionism recognizes only economic differences, whether regional or national, that produce hierarchies, privileges and every kind of oppressions (because of race, sex and any false or real difference), and in the spirit of solidarity claims the right to self-determination for all economic groups.
For the identical reason, revolutionary unionism fights against militarism and war. Revolutionary unionism advocates anti-war propaganda and the replacement of standing armies, which are only the instruments of counter-revolution at the service of the capitalism, by workers’ militias, which, during the revolution, will be controlled by the workers’ unions; it demands, as well, the boycott and embargo of all raw materials and products necessary to war, with the exception of a country where the workers are in the midst of social revolution, in which case we should help them defend the revolution. Finally, revolutionary unionism advocates the preventive and revolutionary general strike as a means of opposing war and militarism.
Revolutionary unionism recognizes the need of a production that does not damage the environment, and that tries to minimize the use of non-renewable resources and uses, whenever possible, renewable alternatives. It does not admit the ignorance as the origin of the present-day environmental crisis, but the thirst for earnings. Capitalist production always seeks to minimize the costs in order to get more earnings to survive, and it is unable to protect the environment. To sum up, the world debt crisis has speeded up the tendency to commercial harvest to the detriment of the subsistence agriculture. This fact has produced the destruction of the tropical forest, starvation and disease. The fight for saving our planet and the fight for destroying capitalism must be joint or both of them will fail.
Revolutionary unionism asserts itself to be a supporter of the method of direct action, and aids and encourages all struggles that are not in contradiction to its own goals. Its methods of struggle are: strikes, boycotts, sabotage, etc. Direct action reaches its deepest expression in the general strike, which should also be, from the point of view of revolutionary unionism, the prelude to the social revolution.
While revolutionary unionism is opposed to all organised violence regardless of the kind of government, it realizes that there will be extremely violence clashes during the decisive struggles between the capitalism of today and the free communism of tomorrow. Consequently, it recognizes as valid that violence that may be used as a means of defense against the violent methods used by the ruling classes during the struggles that lead up to the revolutionary populace expropiating the lands and means of production. As this expropiation can only be carried out and liought to a successful conclusion by the direct intervention of the workers’ revolutionary economic organizations, defense of the revolution must also be the task of these economic organizations and not of a military or quasi-military body developing independently of them.
Only in the economic and revolutionary organizations of the working class are there forces capable of liinging about its liberation and the necessary creative energy for the reorganization of society on the basis of libertarian communism.

Now, you said that they cooperate with bosses by singing contracts. That's not cooperation, that's reformist part of anarcho-sydncialist activities.
Cooperation will be if the negotiate with bosses, or bargain etc. That's what "regular" reformist unions do. Anarcho-syndicalists do not care about bosses demands they use direct action until workers demands are fulfiled and then they sign contracts with bosses so that bosses can't do like the used to. What's wrong with that?
Does that makes them less revolutionary? No, because they still try to get more an more members, they still educate people about anarchist theory and practice, they still fight for their (our!) communities etc.


I have never met an insurrectionary anarchist who "didn't think classes exist".Well I read insurrectionist book which said that classes don't exist. Also, if you have ever read Bonanno: Armed joy, you would stop being insurrectionist. :D


I don't think you can deny that the insurrectionary school of anarchist thought is bigger and more active, and more widely seen than the social anarchist school. So I guess we are doing something right.
Again you are talking nonsenses. How many insurrectionists are in the World? How many class anarchists are in the World? How did you conclude that there are more insurrectionists in the World? Do you know how many IWA or IAF have members? What about other class anarchist groups/organisations etc. which are not part of internationales?

The fact that insurrectionists are more on TV or in other medias is just because they destroy and medias what to present that as anarchism. "So fuck of that ASI from Serbia which is fighting for workers who have been beaten up by some neonazis which were hired by boss, so that he don't have to pay his workers, look at those 'evil' anarchists throwing molotovs on embassies!"

No, you are not right. The point of revolution is that working class emancipate itself from State and capitalism. How do you expect working class to follow insurrectionism?! Can you tell me one argument how did insurrectionism helped working class in their struggle?

[The Douche]

Your experience with IWW, can't count as experience of "anarcho-syndicialism" since IWW arn't anarcho-syndicalists.

I think that you will find that most revolutionaries will say they are "close enough". They are syndicalists, they are revolutionary, and they refuse to participate in traditional politics (they don't support any political parties and no organizer in the union can hold a government position)


Yes, they fight for reforms. Yes, they fight that working class has better conditions NOW. We can't expect to have a revolution today, but we must work each day towards it. I don't see problem in fighting for better conditions on work place, we all want that people live "in better Word". So, if we win battle on work place, and that helps working class in their struggle I don't see problems with that. Still, anarchist syndicates fight for anarchism, as you can see in this document:


Man, I'm not saying that you aren't an anarchist. I'm not saying that syndicalists aren't anarchists. I'm not saying that syndicalist unions don't have revolutionary goals and revolutionary politics. I'm saying that the tactic of syndicalism is washed up and no longer effective. All they actually DO is fight for reform, and that fight eventually transforms the nature of the organization, even if they maintain the revolutionary aims.


Cooperation will be if the negotiate with bosses, or bargain etc. That's what "regular" reformist unions do. Anarcho-syndicalists do not care about bosses demands they use direct action until workers demands are fulfiled and then they sign contracts with bosses so that bosses can't do like the used to. What's wrong with that?
Does that makes them less revolutionary? No, because they still try to get more an more members, they still educate people about anarchist theory and practice, they still fight for their (our!) communities etc.

Again, in the rare situations where syndicalist unions actualy organize a shop, they have negotiated with the bosses. Man, you are ignoring what has actually happend and just keep talking about theory. Its really annoying. I know what syndicalist theory is, but the actions of the syndicalist movement have shown that it is really just like the rest of the labor movement, but with better goals and better language.


Well I read insurrectionist book which said that classes don't exist. Also, if you have ever read Bonanno: Armed joy, you would stop being insurrectionist. :D

And Prodhoun hated jews, does that mean anarchists hate jews? I think the nature of class society is fundamentally different from what it was when marx was writting. But it is obvious that there is still a working class and a ruling class. I happen to be a fan of Bonanno for the most part, but, just like most other anarchists I don't find myself 100% in agreement with anybody but myself.

First of all, I am not an "insurrectionary anarchist" and I know very few people who would actually consider themselves such. I am heavily influenced by insurrectionary anarchism though. I think that it has important things to bring to the table. I consider myself an anarcho-communist, and I think that syndicalist organizing will become very popular as the revolution breaks out, but I don't think we will see revolution because of syndicalism.

I also think your flawed idea of insurrectionary anarchism causes you to ignore how many people are actually under that banner. If we had been discussing something else, you would probably think I was a social anarchist.

[Искра]

I think that you will find that most revolutionaries will say they are "close enough". They are syndicalists, they are revolutionary, and they refuse to participate in traditional politics (they don't support any political parties and no organizer in the union can hold a government position)
Yet, they were one of the most centralized syndicates few years ago ;)


Man, I'm not saying that you aren't an anarchist. I'm not saying that syndicalists aren't anarchists. I'm not saying that syndicalist unions don't have revolutionary goals and revolutionary politics. I'm saying that the tactic of syndicalism is washed up and no longer effective. All they actually DO is fight for reform, and that fight eventually transforms the nature of the organization, even if they maintain the revolutionary aims.I don't agree on that.
Could you give me example of anarchist organisation which do only revolutionary activity?


Again, in the rare situations where syndicalist unions actualy organize a shop, they have negotiated with the bosses. Man, you are ignoring what has actually happend and just keep talking about theory. Its really annoying. I know what syndicalist theory is, but the actions of the syndicalist movement have shown that it is really just like the rest of the labor movement, but with better goals and better language.I'm talking about practice from experience of IWA's members, and few other anarchist-syndicalist organisations such as Polish ZSP, which which I'm in contact. Also, I'm talking from my personal experience.
Anarcho-syndicalism has nothing to do with what you call labor movement.


And Prodhoun hated jews, does that mean anarchists hate jews? I think the nature of class society is fundamentally different from what it was when marx was writting. But it is obvious that there is still a working class and a ruling class. I happen to be a fan of Bonanno for the most part, but, just like most other anarchists I don't find myself 100% in agreement with anybody but myself.
I figured out that you are fan of Bonanno. I bet you pretty much like his critics of anarho-syndicalism? :) I never read such bullshits in my life. I found punk fanzines more theoretical than him ;)
Prodhoun is an idiot ;)


First of all, I am not an "insurrectionary anarchist" and I know very few people who would actually consider themselves such. I am heavily influenced by insurrectionary anarchism though. I think that it has important things to bring to the table. I consider myself an anarcho-communist, and I think that syndicalist organizing will become very popular as the revolution breaks out, but I don't think we will see revolution because of syndicalism.What does insurrectionism bring to table?
Are you admitting with this that you see insurrectionism as that Che Guevara armed struggle bullshit? You have to make "troubles" so that people join you and make a revolution?


I also think your flawed idea of insurrectionary anarchism causes you to ignore how many people are actually under that banner. If we had been discussing something else, you would probably think I was a social anarchist.
Maybe. But I can't agree with you, about insurrectionism. I find that, as I said harmful for movement, and also harmful for anarchist ideas, and possible revolution. I don't see that much people are under that banner, especially if they are older that 30.

[Jethro Tull]

I disagree.
Insurrectionism is something which we do not need. I can only learn on mistakes from Greece. You could ask yourself what did they achieved? Nothing. They just make once more anarchists look like "rebels without the cause" or "terrorists".

what the greek anarchists have achieved is debatable.
the mainstream media will always paint all enemies of the state as "terrorists". it's one of the few things we can be certain of, end of story.

if you actually researched the situation in greece you would know it was more than random violence committed by a few punks. the majority of the educational infrastructure was occupied. over half the prison population was released in an attempt at appeasement by the greek state. ultimately that uprising partly failed, but your total ignorance of the subject gives you little qualification to weigh in on the explaination.


Only good thing that insurrectionism is doing is helping the State to find the reasons to increase their repression on other anarchists

the state doesn't need a reason. anarchism means effective opposition to the state, the state will supress all opposition. any anarchist who doesn't give the state a reason to repress is being an ineffective anarchist. mao tsetung wrote "to be attacked by the enemy is not a bad thing but a good thing". if you don't want to encur the wrath of the state, don't be an anarchist


Also, insurectionism is advocates organising into small "nucleolus" of people to use direct action by which they only mean on terrorist acts such as throwing the molotovs etc.

wrong. the coming insurrection, a primary text of insurrectionary anarchism, calls upon affinity groups to study microbiology, set up pirate radio stations, etc. throwing insidiary devices at enemy forces is not the only thing an affinity group can achieve, if it was i would share your skepticism.


I believe that use of violence is not reserved for small "nucleus" (which is some kind of "battle vanguard"), but that that's matter of whole community.

yes and so-called "affinity groups" are an expression of organic, authentic community. that's the whole point.


Violence is justified only if majority of community is involved in it

"the majority", to one degree or another, is involved in the violence perpetuated by the system against the world. does that justify the violence of capitalist normalcy?


Hm, punx, with dreads

reminds me of when jesse jackson justified his lack of support for MOVE by referring to its membership as "dreadlocked niggers". dressing a certain way does not alter your economic class. the majority of "punx with dreads" are proletarian...in greece the uprising was not monopolized by an individual subculture but spread across all facets of society. (eg: there were preppy kids rioting in addition to punks)


But big anarchist syndicate or organisation

those groups were large, unwieldy, easily infultrated, easily crushed. they failed us.


I'm anarchist, not liberal. I agree with Marx, not post-modernism.

foucault was a better marxist than you are. :cool:


Tell that to my comrades in jail.

boo hoo save the emotional manipulation. the state would imprison people, especially dissidents regardless of what we do. stop blaming the victims, especially those victims who choose to lash back.


So you are claiming that Marxs division on 2 classes do not exist now?

just because we don't believe the majority of the proletariat is going to have a religious awakening and engage in a simultanious global siezure of power does not mean that we fail to acknowlege the material existence of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. living in reality is not the same thing as rejecting marx.

[nuisance]

Maybe. But I can't agree with you, about insurrectionism. I find that, as I said harmful for movement, and also harmful for anarchist ideas, and possible revolution. I don't see that much people are under that banner, especially if they are older that 30.
OK, the caricatures of insurrectionists are insane. I mean, do you truly think that the basis of this strain of anarchism is solely based on the preference to lob molotovs? I would type something up here myself but can't be arsed when there's this article which is somes it up alright-
http://www.geocities.com/seainsur/pages/writings/notes.htm

Here's an article by Peter Gelderloos on how a diversity of tactics should be used to positive effect opposed to creating conflict within the anarchist movement-
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20070408112944402

[Искра]

what the greek anarchists have achieved is debatable.
the mainstream media will always paint all enemies of the state as "terrorists". it's one of the few things we can be certain of, end of story.

if you actually researched the situation in greece you would know it was more than random violence committed by a few punks. the majority of the educational infrastructure was occupied. over half the prison population was released in an attempt at appeasement by the greek state. ultimately that uprising partly failed, but your total ignorance of the subject gives you little qualification to weigh in on the explaination.
I quite researched situation in Greece since Greece is almost next to my country. I know that it was larger scale movement, but I also know that it didn't evolved into anything bigger which means that they had lack of organising. There was a lack of greater support from the rest of the working class (yeah, there were syndicalist demonstration, but nothing more). Also, I know that Greek anarchists (?) are divided into many small groups which don't cooperate because of some ridiculous personal reasons, and they go that far that they throw bombs on each other.


the state doesn't need a reason. anarchism means effective opposition to the state, the state will supress all opposition. any anarchist who doesn't give the state a reason to repress is being an ineffective anarchist. mao tsetung wrote "to be attacked by the enemy is not a bad thing but a good thing". if you don't want to encur the wrath of the state, don't be an anarchist
Don't twist my point.
I wasn't defending here State, nor I was advocating anarchist inactivity. I just pointed the fact (which can easily be proved with things happened in Serbia recently.) that insurrectionist "tactics" are harmful because they give the reason for State to oppress other anarchists groups, like syndicates, which State would really like to destroy but they can't because it will louse on court. You can't arrest somebody for organising workers, and if you do you are risking "piece".
For example is support action for that Greek guy necessary needed to be throwing the molotovs on embassy? Yeah, it made a lot of noise, damage was symbolic etc. but because of that State arrested 6 anarchists, which were pretty active (one was IWA's Secretary). Off course, State would arrest them some other time if not now, but accusation will be different. There's big difference if you are convicted for "international terrorism" or for "threatening the boss that you'll beat him up".


yes and so-called "affinity groups" are an expression of organic, authentic community. that's the whole point.
No they are not. Community is not based around "affinity groups".


"the majority", to one degree or another, is involved in the violence perpetuated by the system against the world. does that justify the violence of capitalist normalcy?
Are you idiot or what?
"The majority" = working class + other oppressed classes.


reminds me of when jesse jackson justified his lack of support for MOVE by referring to its membership as "dreadlocked niggers". dressing a certain way does not alter your economic class. the majority of "punx with dreads" are proletarian...in greece the uprising was not monopolized by an individual subculture but spread across all facets of society. (eg: there were preppy kids rioting in addition to punks)
I never said that dressing makes you fit in the certain "social class". I just said how does majority of those black blockers look like to ordinary people.


those groups were large, unwieldy, easily infultrated, easily crushed. they failed us.
Arguments?


foucault was a better marxist than you are. :cool:
Foucault was philosophical shithead :p


boo hoo save the emotional manipulation. the state would imprison people, especially dissidents regardless of what we do. stop blaming the victims, especially those victims who choose to lash back.
And you stop twisting my words and putting them here out of context.
I'm not blaming victims and protecting State! I'm just saying that stupid stuff and mistakes make big shits.

[Искра]

OK, the caricatures of insurrectionists are insane. I mean, do you truly think that the basis of this strain of anarchism is solely based on the preference to lob molotovs? I would type something up here myself but can't be arsed when there's this article which is somes it up alright-
http://www.geocities.com/seainsur/pages/writings/notes.htm

Here's an article by Peter Gelderloos on how a diversity of tactics should be used to positive effect opposed to creating conflict within the anarchist movement-
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20070408112944402
And that's what they are - caricatures.
I know that insurrectionism is not just throwing molotovs, but that's just because I read that their idiotic books.
But, the most people (at least here), which are identifying themselves with insurrectionism only know that part: throw molotovs, small groups, organisation is repressive, viva la Black Bolc, we don't have ideology we are anarchists, Bonanno is God etc. :)
I don't have to "draw caricatures" I can just take few photos.

So, my point here was that I do find them pretty harmful, and that's the case for whole Balkans (if not larger). If you want to change public opinion about anarchists as terrorists and spoiled brats aka. rebels without the cause with which people have been poisoned form Hapsburg's to Tito you have to work on something more, but you can't. If you try to make some organisation, if you try to interact with working class, if you brake prejudices on few individuals and make one step ahead they throw for just a fun few molotovs in Bosnia, and here you are again 10 steps backwards.
That's frustrating.

I'll read texts now.

[nuisance]

And that's what they are - caricatures.
Viewing your posts in this thread thus far, I don't believe you have the authority to make such accusations- i.e. you have made it profoundly clear that you miscomprehend the rationalisation, analysis and ultimately the activities behind insurrectionism. Afterall, Malatesta was a insurrectionist and I have seen very little critique of his politics on this board, other than from platformists, preferring to go for some of the more less respected writers such as Alfredo Bonanno- as you have also done within the context of this thread.


I know that insurrectionism is not just throwing molotovs, but that's just because I read that their idiotic books.
Then why generalise the tradition as such?


But, the most people (at least here), which are identifying themselves with insurrectionism only know that part: throw molotovs, small groups, organisation is repressive, viva la Black Bolc, we don't have ideology we are anarchists, Bonanno is God etc. :)
I don't have to "draw caricatures" I can just take few photos.
Surely what you have here then is a critique of the individuals political maturity and not that of the insurrectionary tradition which has been laid out. Insurrectionists (though not all because to be an insurrectionist you merely have to believe that there shall be/needs to be a period of insurrection/s to create the necessary demeanour for social revolution- hence meaning that anyone for an anarchist-communist to a primivitist can self-define as a insurrectionist, in the looser sense of the term) are, and have been involved in class politics and see the working class (personally,I believe class war and social war to be one in the same) as being the agents of social change- the same as 'social'-anarchists do. What the problem is here, it looks like, is that you have a problem with a diversity of tactics- participating in black blocs doesn't negate attending pickets and organising your workplace. Each have their pros and should be mobilised when it is consider useful.


So, my point here was that I do find them pretty harmful, and that's the case for whole Balkans (if not larger). If you want to change public opinion about anarchists as terrorists and spoiled brats aka. rebels without the cause with which people have been poisoned form Hapsburg's to Tito you have to work on something more, but you can't. If you try to make some organisation, if you try to interact with working class, if you brake prejudices on few individuals and make one step ahead they throw for just a fun few molotovs in Bosnia, and here you are again 10 steps backwards.
That's frustrating.
Insurrectionism is about taking a strong role within your communities, as the text 'The Coming Insurrection' speaks about, to breed resistance and to finally escalate- fight back- social struggle- this confrontation with the State and capital will breed new organisational structures (as happened in Greece with the neighbourhood and university councils) through neccesity and show that confrontation is needed to expel class society. It is not, despite a seemingly manys inclination to parachute in and atleast try to fuck shit up and then flying back out. If this is your sole participation within the context of anarchism then you are not participating in insurrectionist activity as property destruction and targetted attacks are only one piece of the pie.


I'll read texts now.
Something you should have done before carrying on your rant. :p


Here's a thread I started on how insurrectionism and 'organisationalist' methods do not, rather should not, negate one another. As you may note, I am a member of the Anarchist Federation/IAF.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2348

[Искра]

I didn't make that as accusation. You asked my why do I make caricatures, and I said that caricatures are what they are - caricatures. I used them as style method. I don't generalise (maybe a little, but for style sake :))

My mistake is that I haven't never emphasize that on Balkans this is only thing which we call insurectionism - Bonanno stuff. And we have a lot of problems with that.

Also, since you mentioned Malatesa, I realised that I made big mistake, because I haven't explained that I'm against that "modern insurrectionism", lifestyle stuff, which I described in my posts.

I personally read only few of his works, only his critique of anarcho-syndicalism and article (?) called Anarchist program, which I published.

I don't have problem in admit that I have been wrong, or that I don't know something, since the reason why I'm on this forum is to collect good articles, books and stuff and to read what people have to say about something. So, since you claim that I'm wrong I would like to ask you to give me some articles etc. where can I get your point of view. That 2 were good and interesting, but they haven't changed my view towards insurrectionism.


What the problem is here, it looks like, is that you have a problem with a diversity of tactics- participating in black blocs doesn't negate attending pickets and organising your workplace. Each have their pros and should be mobilised when it is consider useful.
Ok, 1st I'm looking only in context of my country and my region, since I don't know how are things elsewhere (but I believe that everywhere things are the same). Here, we don't have any kind of anarchist tradition, as I mentioned before.
I never claimed that participating in black blocs negate attending pickets and workplace organising. I have few comrades who were in Greece, and still they are active in wokrplace organising and picketing.
Also, I don't have nothing against using of violence, or against violent actions, and throwing molotovs on police etc. I have problem with the fact that small affinity groups do that, that this is not part of larger social/class struggle, but that this is isolated action made by few "punks" etc. which don't have any connections with working class or class struggle, but their action is just part of their lifestyle: "let's do it because it's so anarcho and cool". Since they are using violence which working class do not approve, and which is easily tagged as "anarchist terrorism" in medias, and since they use "anarchy" as their "ideology"I have huge problems with that, because every time that my comrades and I are trying to do something we have to fight against that "anarchist terrorism" prejudice.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

OK, the caricatures of insurrectionists are insane. I mean, do you truly think that the basis of this strain of anarchism is solely based on the preference to lob molotovs? I would type something up here myself but can't be arsed when there's this article which is somes it up alright-
http://www.geocities.com/seainsur/pages/writings/notes.htm

Here's an article by Peter Gelderloos on how a diversity of tactics should be used to positive effect opposed to creating conflict within the anarchist movement-
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20070408112944402

I don't think any Anarcho-Syndicalists believe Insurrectionary Anarchism is based on lobbing molotovs. Certain tactics in the past however have lead to the stereotypical 'terrorist' view of Anarchists, surely you don't dispute this? I don't personally see such tactics as helpful to our struggle. I assume you don't either. Personally I don't have a dispute with Insurrectionary Anarchism, I do not see Anarcho-Syndicalism being in conflict with it.

[Jethro Tull]

it didn't evolved into anything bigger which means that they had lack of organising.

perhaps we can agree on this statement. what we disagree on, is what forms of organization are the most effective.

regardless, what occurred in greece was more than small gangs of dreadlocked punk-rock youths throwing molotovs at cop cars. that's the caricature of the recent events in greece painted by the capitalist media in the u.s. and northern europe, it's slightly shameful and treacherous for a self-proclaimed anarchist in southeast europe to be spouting the same line.

the revolution is not a chain of decisive victories. there will be set-backs and defeats during a revolution. the fact that recent events in greece were not entirely sucessful does not mean that the greeks are insurrectionist bastards who should be discounted totally, that what did happen wasn't important.


There was a lack of greater support from the rest of the working class

this has been universally true of the anarchist movement since its birth. when have anarchists been supported by the majority of the working-class? we need to accept that we, who support anarchism, will always be a small vanguard minority within the oppressed class. the majority of the oppressed will consent to their oppression, will enable it. sad but true.


(yeah, there were syndicalist demonstration, but nothing more).

"syndicalist demonstrations" = working-class support? do you think the working-class gives a shit about syndicalism? they'd rather drink cheap beer and watch tv.


Also, I know that Greek anarchists (?) are divided into many small groups which don't cooperate because of some ridiculous personal reasons, and they go that far that they throw bombs on each other.

it's frustrating, but not necissarily a product of insurrectionist tactics, which is the subject at hand.


I wasn't defending here State, nor I was advocating anarchist inactivity. I just pointed the fact (which can easily be proved with things happened in Serbia recently.) that insurrectionist "tactics" are harmful because they give the reason for State to oppress other anarchists groups, like syndicates, which State would really like to destroy but they can't because it will louse on court.

if the "other anarchists" are being effective anarchists, the state is going to use every weapon in its legal arsenol to attack them. the state always comes up with stupid excuses to persecute people. and the state also goes after totally non-violent groups. (the kennedy administration wire-tapped christian pacifists during the civil rights era in the u.s.) not going on the offense because we don't want our enemies to retaliate is cowardly and complacent, regardless of how you rationalize it.


You can't arrest somebody for organising workers

stop being naive. "organising workers" isn't worth a damn if it isn't for the explicit purpose of organizing against capitalist hegemony, which makes you a threat in the eyes of the capitalist state, which puts you at risk of capitalist repression. workplace organization is as much an act of war against capitalism as throwing an incindiary device at a police station.

rosa parks and dozens of other women were arrested in the u.s. for refusing to sit at the back of a fucking bus. do you think we'll be treated any differently if we limit ourselves tactically in hopes of avoiding the wrath of the state? it's pathetic, if that's your attitude, you might as well give up on anarchism.


and if you do you are risking "piece".

there is no peace under capitalism, only the illusion of peace. anarchists cannot decide to make our situation peaceful - that's not an option. either the violence goes both ways, or it goes one way. us being less violent will not make our enemy less violent towards us, to suggest otherwise is suicidal.


For example is support action for that Greek guy necessary needed to be throwing the molotovs on embassy? Yeah, it made a lot of noise, damage was symbolic etc. but because of that State arrested 6 anarchists, which were pretty active (one was IWA's Secretary).

no, not "because of that". the state arrested them because they were anarchists. if they didn't want to be arrested in connection with a crime allegedly perpetrated by anarchists, they shouldn't be anarchists, they shouldn't identify themselves as anarchists within their community, they shouldn't become known anarchist organizers. this isn't a game. anarchism is not some 9-to-5 job. there's no time-out.


There's big difference if you are convicted for "international terrorism" or for "threatening the boss that you'll beat him up".

in the u.s., blocking traffic is considered terrorism. posting information about a peaceful demonstration on a blog is terrorism. threatening a boss would definitely be considered terrorism. the state can declare anything it wants to be terrorism. it will certainly classify any tactic that's in any way useful or effective as terrorism.

and strictly speaking, threatening someone with the fear of violence is terrorism. it's just a form of terrorism you've chosen to romanticize rather than demonize.


No they are not. Community is not based around "affinity groups".

yes, they are. an affinity group is a group of friends and family. in other words, a community.


Are you idiot or what?

hey, be civil.


"The majority" = working class + other oppressed classes.

you can be oppressed and still perpetuate oppression. take for example the brutal colonization of palestine committed by the children of auschwitz. or a woman holding up a sign that says "abortion hurts women". or a woman who traps herself in a marriage with an abusive spouse. or the impoverished european settlers who scalped indians and lynched blacks. etc.


I never said that dressing makes you fit in the certain "social class". I just said how does majority of those black blockers look like to ordinary people.

so what? people should be allowed to dress however they want. do you have to be an "ordinary person" to be working-class, or to resist capitalism? why don't we all just model our lives after the song "okie from miscogee" in a patronizing attempt to be more "ordinary" and therefore palatable to the brainwashed masses.


Arguments?

where to begin? just look at any period of recent history...


Foucault was philosophical shithead :p

sort of like the anarchists who are too lazy to read das kapital and justify it by claiming marx was an "authoritarian"....obviously foucault was a pretentious academic who wrote his books for a pretentious academic audience. that doesn't mean anyone who is interested in his ideas is a "liberal".


I'm just saying that stupid stuff and mistakes make big shits.

i agree that certian tactical decisions are stupid. this is an important part of insurrectionist theory. i suggest you read the coming insurrection. it talks about how the capitalists are constantly trying to "militarize" the social struggle, and about how full-fledged, iraq war-style civil war is not always desirable.

[HEAD ICE]

I don't think any Anarcho-Syndicalists believe Insurrectionary Anarchism is based on lobbing molotovs. Certain tactics in the past however have lead to the stereotypical 'terrorist' view of Anarchists, surely you don't dispute this? I don't personally see such tactics as helpful to our struggle. I assume you don't either. Personally I don't have a dispute with Insurrectionary Anarchism, I do not see Anarcho-Syndicalism being in conflict with it.

I know... insurrectionary syndicalism!

[The Douche]

I don't think you'll find many insurrectionists who have a problem with syndicalist post-revolutionary theory, I am quite fond of it. I just don't think syndicalism is the revolutionary vehicle.