Classifying Anarchists [Archive]

Devrim

16th November 2009, 17:44

Jurko was saying in another thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/okay-yall-raises-t122507/index.html), correctly in my opinion that you can't compare left communism to anarchism as it is too wide a description:

Well I think that term "anarchist" is to wide to talk about. I think that it's not fair to talk about Left Communism, as one small part of communist tendencies, and to compare it with whole anarchist movement/idea.

There are a lot of moronic people and movements calling themselves anarchists. Especially this "modern" (or better to say post-modern) individualists and lifestylish asses. If we want to have decent discussion about difference between anarchism and left communism we should exclude them and talk about anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalists tradition, which are only two anarchist traditions with revolutionary potential.

So the question is how to classify anarchists. Personally I would break them down into five groups:

First the three main tendencies:

1) Anarcho-Syndicalism (IWA/AIT)

The International Workers' Association (IWA) (Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language): AIT - Asociación Internacional de los Trabajadores, German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language): IAA-Internationale ArbeiterInnen Assoziation) is an international anarcho-syndicalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism) federation of various labour unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) from different countries. It was founded in 1922, at a Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin) congress of anarcho-syndicalist labor unions.

This organisation has 13 sections and three sympathising sections.

2) Platformism (Anarkismo)

The Platformist groups around the 'anarkismo' website. This group has 18 participants.

3) Anarchist Federations (IAF)

The International of Anarchist Federations (IAF/IFA) (French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language): L'international des Federations Anarchistes) was founded during an international Anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist) conference in Carrara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrara) in 1968 by the three existing European federations of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) and Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) as well as the Bulgarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria) federation in French exile. To counter the internationalisation of state and Capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) powers that are developing their influences ever rapidly on a global scale, the IFA has since aimed to build and improve strong and active international anarchist structures. The federations associated with IFA believe that such an organisation is necessary to co-ordinate their international work and efficiently co-operate towards their mutual aims.

This is the group that the UK AF is a member of. It has 9 sections but covers 16 countries. Personally I am not sure how politically homogeneous it is. Actually I have very little idea about it at all.

These main currents have different groups in their orbits. For example with the IWA, there is an ex-US section, the Workers Solidarity Alliance, ex-Australian section, the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation, and a sort of ex-Irish section, Organise! just to mention those in the English speaking world.

4) Non affiliated groups
Aside from these three main currents there are also some groups in existance who don't fit into these catorgories. The English Class War Federation could be one example.

5) Mutualists, liberals, individualists and other people who pass themselves off as anarchists

I think the title speaks for itself, basically worthless.

What do people think?

Devrim

Pogue

16th November 2009, 17:52

Its pretty sound apart from the fact that Class War doesn't define itself as an anarchist orgaanisation and would object to that classification.

Искра

16th November 2009, 18:06

I think that it's very good that you started this thread, because we need to deal with anarchism.

Personally I think that 1) and 3) are only anarchist options with revolutionary potential. Since I declare myself as anarcho-syndicalist it's obvious that I'm more keen on 1) option, because it includes more people etc. We can discuss differences later if some one wants.

I'm not for 2) because they, as far as I know, support national liberation, which is quite reactionary. You can't be anarchist if you support bourgeoisie forces, since only thing they want is to create national state...

Option 4) is quite stupid to me. It don't have any bigger political meaning and it don't have any kind of revolutionary program to change society. It's just bunch of people in their ghetto, which don't have contact with reality.

And option 5) is not even for discuss, because those idiots are not anarchists or, in the case of mutualists, they are extinct like tyrannosauruses. Liberal "anarchism" and individualist "anarchism", especially deviations like "anarcho"-capitalism are 100% reactionary.

So, what I would like is that when we discuss in future and in present about anarchism etc. that we referee only on 1) and 3), because I think that only those 2 tendencies can be compared with communism. They have theory, methods etc. which are revolutionary and which are for class free and anti-authoritarian society.

Pogue

16th November 2009, 18:53

jaffe

16th November 2009, 19:02

we'd call for anarchist strategies in anti-imperialist strategy

And what whould that be?

Pogue

16th November 2009, 19:04

And what whould that be?

Organising the nations working class against home grown and foreign bosses, promoting militant working class action, building up organs of power that can challenge both the imperial powers and homegrown bourgeoisie, building links with the working class in the imperialist country, etc. Basic stuff really, after you pull your head out of the left communist sand.

Stranger Than Paradise

16th November 2009, 19:06

And what whould that be?

Working class politics. Advocating anti-imperialism from a working class perspective.

Madvillainy

16th November 2009, 19:13

I don't know what you mean by Platformists supporting national liberation. All my group, L&S, part of that Anarkismo grouping (its not an international really but it hopes to become one) has siad on national liberation is that we'd call for anarchist strategies in anti-imperialist strategy, not nationalist ones, which clearly isn't the same as 'supporting national liberation' or siding with a bourgeoisie force, unless of course your a left communist puritan that is.

I wasn't aware that L&S had a position on National Liberation (or on anything for that matter) but groups like the WSM and NEFAC have displayed support to national liberation movements, in Lebanon for example, not to mention the WSM basically siding with republicans on the national question here in Ireland.

The modern day platformist movement has shown it is nothing but anti-working class in nature. Their positions on National liberation, unions, feminism, anti-fascism etc are more similar to that of trot groups than anarchist ones.

Pogue

16th November 2009, 19:18

I wasn't aware that L&S had a position on National Liberation (or on anything for that matter) but groups like the WSM and NEFAC have displayed support to national liberation movements, in Lebanon for example, not to mention the WSM basically siding with republicans on the national question here in Ireland.

The modern day platformist movement has shown it is nothing but anti-working class in nature. Their positions on National liberation, unions, feminism, anti-fascism etc are more similar to that of trot groups than anarchist ones.

I think what a left communist would call anti working class is basically anything that doesn't fit into your idealised 'clean hands' idea of what class sturggle is, which is ultimately a cowardly intellectual refusal to engage in any politics which may in any way shape or form potentially attack your ideological purity, hence why you're a self-defeating tendency.

The WSM have published articles criticising republicanism rightfully as dead end nationalism and calling for, as L&S do, for an anarchist solution on the wuestion of imperialism and anti imperialism. I can't speak for NEFAC but if you link me your evidence I'll deal with it.

Although being a left communist you're probably more at home publishing leaflets 'against union x' or whatever it is you lot substitute for meaningful activity I would dispute your claim our view on unions, i.e. promoting base unionism is anti-working class, its clearly pro working class, it promotes militancy, bypassing the buerecracy, etc. But then again for a left communist, as I said, anything other than pure working class revolution is anti-working class so you know, apples and pears.

Basically I'd like to see you substantiate your claims on us being anti-working class and 'closer to trots' on the topics you mentioned, perhaps some enlightening gem from the paper of the ICC will open my eyes to my reactionary politics.

Forward Union

16th November 2009, 19:24

I wasn't aware that L&S had a position on National Liberation (or on anything for that matter) but groups like the WSM and NEFAC have displayed support to national liberation movements, in Lebanon for example, not to mention the WSM basically siding with republicans on the national question here in Ireland.

On what national question? The lisbon treaty? their position was that

"Anarchists believe the problem is not the treaty alone but the EU as an institution. The treaty, no matter what it contained, wouldn’t give us more control of our lives. This can only happen when we have democracy in our communities and workplaces."

They also recognised the empirical fact that a no vote would delay the neoliberalist agenda and provide marginally higher standards for the working class in the meantime.

The modern day platformist movement has shown it is nothing but anti-working class in nature.

Like the ICCs anti-union activities during the miners strikes?

Their positions on National liberation,

Supporting grassroots national liberation?

Unions

To try and fight within Unions for democracy, militancy and class consciousness?

Feminism

Equal rights for women?

Anti-fascism

Build class conciouss Community and workplace organisations?

etc are more similar to that of trot groups than anarchist ones.

Maybe on the point of Feminism.

BobKKKindle$

16th November 2009, 19:26

Like the ICCs anti-union activities during the miners strikes?

Do tell.

Devrim

16th November 2009, 19:44

Like the ICCs anti-union activities during the miners strikes? Do tell.

Basically the poster has no idea what he is talking about and probably wasn't born at the time of the miners' strike, let alone remember what a particular small political group did.

I think that our ideas about the role of the NUM in the 1984-85 strike can be seen in two recent articles that we have published on it:

25 years since the Miners’ Strike

It is twenty-five years since the massive year long miners' strike in Britain. Nearly 120,000 workers spent an entire year on strike from March 1984 to March 1985. Today we return to look at this strike not as an abstract academic piece of history, but as an opportunity for workers and communists to draw what lessons we can from the strike itself, and to help us understand the historic period in which we work today.
...

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/07/25-years-since-miners-strike

Scargill’s memoirs of the 1984-85 strike: Hiding the NUM’s role in sabotaging the struggle On the 25th anniversary of the miners' strike in Britain there have been plenty of reminiscences in the media: televised reunions between police and strikers, pictures, news items, all wrapped up in a general message of what a shame it all was, how the miners were led by ‘extremists' or, on the other hand, how the Thatcher government, ‘took on the unions' and defeated them.

...

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/2009/323/scargill

Devrim

The Douche

16th November 2009, 19:57

For some reason I don't think I'm welcome in this thread.

You can't say certain people/organizations/tendencies are "not anarchist" just because you don't like them! You can disagree with them/criticize their politics/actions, but you can't deny their historical tradition within/the part they currently play in the movement.

Madvillainy

16th November 2009, 21:23

On what national question? The lisbon treaty?

Well yeah, they rallied behind a section of the bourgeoisie (the euro-skeptics) and gave legitimacy to capitalist democracy instead of pointing out what a farce the whole thing is. Their line was identical to the trotskyist groups.

Like the ICCs anti-union activities during the miners strikes?

Devrim has addressed this.

Supporting grassroots national liberation?

Yes supporting national liberation.I suppose you are referring to the Zapatistas when you say 'grassroots national liberation', but whether it's in Lebanon, Ireland or Mexico, it's still nationalism and it's still anti-working class.

To try and fight within Unions for democracy, militancy and class consciousness?

You mean by campaigning for left wing union bosses? Yeah sure, that'll work! :rolleyes

Equal rights for women?

Identity politics have nothing to do with communism.

Maybe on the point of Feminism.

It's kind of hard to say which positions L&S share with trots since you have no real positions, but yeah groups like the WSM are identical on most issues with the trotskyist groups here.

Pogue

16th November 2009, 21:37

Well yeah, they rallied behind a section of the bourgeoisie (the euro-skeptics) and gave legitimacy to capitalist democracy instead of pointing out what a farce the whole thing is. Their line was identical to the trotskyist groups.

http://www.wsm.ie/story/3825

This is what their leaflet spoke of. As FU said it offered a pragmatic position whilst outlining the wider anarchist position on society. WSM will focus on what works, not on ideological dogma. They thought calling for a no vote with reasons would work. I appreciate as a left communist dogma takes precedent over what works or the actual experience of the working class.

Yes supporting national liberation.I suppose you are referring to the Zapatistas when you say 'grassroots national liberation', but whether it's in Lebanon, Ireland or Mexico, it's still nationalism and it's still anti-working class.

Yeh man, fuck those uppety natives and their desire to resist imperialist oppression! Let the west rape them, I say!

You mean by campaigning for left wing union bosses? Yeah sure, that'll work! :rolleyes

No, he said what he means, increasing democracy, militancy and class conciousness, the position of our organisation.

Identity politics have nothing to do with communism.

Yeh, fuckin women ey, put them in the same fuckin boat as the uppety natives and let the fuckers sink I say

It's kind of hard to say which positions L&S share with trots since you have no real positions, but yeah groups like the WSM are identical on most issues with the trotskyist groups here.

The WSM are not identical because what they call for is different to what Trots call for, i.e. they don't call for a vanguard party, a workers state, etc. L&S are in the process of writing our position papers on a number of issues, we don't see it as a priority though, as we're not a party building organisation. I'm actually on board some of the position writing tasks though, I'll let you know how they go and you can crticise us for advocating identity politics ebcause we think women should be allowed abortions or whatever shit your going to come out with.

Madvillainy

16th November 2009, 21:52

http://www.wsm.ie/story/3825

This is what their leaflet spoke of.

And here is a nice little reply to that statement:

The Workers Solidarity Movement: anarchists in the circus
One of several groups to support the ‘no’ campaign in the Referendum is the anarchist Workers Solidarity Movement Their leaflet (http://www.wsm.ie/voteno) called for workers to “Vote No – Organise For Real Social Change”. The leaflet states “this treaty asks us to support changes in the EU to make money transfers and trade relations between them easier. Why should we give them the thumbs up when they couldn’t care less about us? Vote ‘No’ to their restructuring. But a vote ‘No’ is worth little on its own if things are not changed at home. The EU must change but so too must Irish society”. The leaflet goes on to say “through its commitment to liberalisation, this treaty is endorsing the passing of more of our public services in to private hands. This is robbery. It is maintaining, reinforcing, and expanding the undemocratic structures of Ireland today on to a European level”.

Why, indeed, should workers endorse the policies of the Irish bourgeoisie or the wider EU? The WSM’s endorsement of the ‘no’ campaign effectively means they are “giving the thumbs up” to another faction of the bourgeoisie, the Euro-sceptics. What does the working class have in common with the nationalist Sinn Fein or the arms dealers of Libertas, apparently backed by the US military? Nothing! They are enemies of the working class and the proletariat has no more interest in supporting them than it does the majority of the bourgeoisie who favour the treaty. And because workers have no interest in supporting either side there is nothing to be gained by voting in this or any other referendum or election.

As for public services, they may currently be part of the state, but that state is a capitalist state: the executive committee of the ruling class. Transferring them to private hands (i.e. another capitalist) certainly isn’t equivalent to ‘robbery’ against the working class. This is because the working class does not own these so-called ‘public services’. To paraphrase Marx, you cannot take from the proletariat what it does not have! This is simply a transfer of ownership from one part of the bourgeoisie to another. Now, undoubtedly, privatisation is usually accompanied with attacks on working conditions – as is the case with a transfer from private to state hands. Workers should certainly fight these attacks but not by getting involved in arguments about which capitalist should own what company or service!
Lastly, the talk about changing ‘Irish society’ reveals the incipient nationalism behind the WSM’s vision. The workers’ struggle does not aim to change the society of any one nation. Workers have no country – their struggle will abolish ‘Irish society’ along with all national societies as part of the creation of a global, integrated human society.

The WSM makes the same fundamental arguments as the Trotskyists on these questions: state capitalism is nicer than private capitalism, ‘national’ capitalism better than ‘global’ capitalism, etc. They also perpetuate the myth that workers have some sort of say in capitalist society either through state ownership or the democratic circus.

Certainly, workers should “organise for real social change”. But they must organise themselves in struggle, not through the ballot box, and defend their real interests against the whole bourgeoisie, not lining up with this or that faction of it.

Yeh man, fuck those uppety natives and their desire to resist imperialist oppression! Let the west rape them, I say!

Yea your right dude, we should call on workers to die for the interests of their native bourgeoisie. I mean I have soo much in common with my Irish bosses :rolleyes: up tha ra innit.

No, he said what he means, increasing democracy, militancy and class conciousness, the position of our organisation.

Forward Union believes electing leftist union bosses is a part of this, do you share his beliefs on the issue?

Yeh, fuckin women ey, put them in the same fuckin boat as the uppety natives and let the fuckers sink I say

:rolleyes:

I'm actually on board some of the position writing tasks though,

You must feel very important, But I'm not the least bit interested, I think L&S have made their positions on most issues very clear.

Pogue

16th November 2009, 22:03

And here is a nice little reply to that statement:

The Workers Solidarity Movement: anarchists in the circus
One of several groups to support the ‘no’ campaign in the Referendum is the anarchist Workers Solidarity Movement Their leaflet (http://www.wsm.ie/voteno (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.wsm.ie/voteno)) called for workers to “Vote No – Organise For Real Social Change”. The leaflet states “this treaty asks us to support changes in the EU to make money transfers and trade relations between them easier. Why should we give them the thumbs up when they couldn’t care less about us? Vote ‘No’ to their restructuring. But a vote ‘No’ is worth little on its own if things are not changed at home. The EU must change but so too must Irish society”. The leaflet goes on to say “through its commitment to liberalisation, this treaty is endorsing the passing of more of our public services in to private hands. This is robbery. It is maintaining, reinforcing, and expanding the undemocratic structures of Ireland today on to a European level”.

Why, indeed, should workers endorse the policies of the Irish bourgeoisie or the wider EU? The WSM’s endorsement of the ‘no’ campaign effectively means they are “giving the thumbs up” to another faction of the bourgeoisie, the Euro-sceptics. What does the working class have in common with the nationalist Sinn Fein or the arms dealers of Libertas, apparently backed by the US military? Nothing! They are enemies of the working class and the proletariat has no more interest in supporting them than it does the majority of the bourgeoisie who favour the treaty. And because workers have no interest in supporting either side there is nothing to be gained by voting in this or any other referendum or election.

As for public services, they may currently be part of the state, but that state is a capitalist state: the executive committee of the ruling class. Transferring them to private hands (i.e. another capitalist) certainly isn’t equivalent to ‘robbery’ against the working class. This is because the working class does not own these so-called ‘public services’. To paraphrase Marx, you cannot take from the proletariat what it does not have! This is simply a transfer of ownership from one part of the bourgeoisie to another. Now, undoubtedly, privatisation is usually accompanied with attacks on working conditions – as is the case with a transfer from private to state hands. Workers should certainly fight these attacks but not by getting involved in arguments about which capitalist should own what company or service!
Lastly, the talk about changing ‘Irish society’ reveals the incipient nationalism behind the WSM’s vision. The workers’ struggle does not aim to change the society of any one nation. Workers have no country – their struggle will abolish ‘Irish society’ along with all national societies as part of the creation of a global, integrated human society.

The WSM makes the same fundamental arguments as the Trotskyists on these questions: state capitalism is nicer than private capitalism, ‘national’ capitalism better than ‘global’ capitalism, etc. They also perpetuate the myth that workers have some sort of say in capitalist society either through state ownership or the democratic circus.

Certainly, workers should “organise for real social change”. But they must organise themselves in struggle, not through the ballot box, and defend their real interests against the whole bourgeoisie, not lining up with this or that faction of it.

I'd be interested to know who wrote that, could you tell me please?

Again I don't think I need to reiterate. I think its pretty obvious that the working class would have been better off without the treaty and see nothing controversial in the WSM's statement. It doesn't, contrary to the sort of word wrangling and out right lies we see on the left all the time ('So and so didnt outright condemn so and so, so they wholeheartedly accept all of so and sos ideology' etc) demonstrated in that article, at any stage claim that public capitalism is betetr than private capitalism. They just demonstrated a pro-working class position - public services are better than private services. I for one am very pleased I have an NHS and would fight to defend it. Its a sign of the weakness and lack of any real substance in your politics that you reject this idea, but as I said, you have a weak ideology that supports baseless principles over what actually works for working class people and revolution, hence why you are thankfully so insignificant.

Yea your right dude, we should call on workers to die for the interests of their native bourgeoisie. I mean I have soo much in common with my Irish bosses http://www.revleft.com/vb/classifying-anarchists-t122553/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif up tha ra innit.

Sorry, maybe I missed the part of my argument where I said workers should die for the interests of their native bourgeoisie. Or maybe I didn't miss it, you just utterly fabricated it. Woops.

Forward Union believes electing leftist union bosses is a part of this, do you share his beliefs on the issue?

I thought we were talking about my organisation, not me?

You must feel very important, But I'm not the least bit interested, I think L&S have made their positions on most issues very clear.

So your not interested in our positions, but your still going to criticise them as anti-working class? Nice one there, makes sense.

Lets just compare two things you said to finish this off then:

It's kind of hard to say which positions L&S share with trots since you have no real positions

I think L&S have made their positions on most issues very clear.

Arguing not your strong point ey mate?

BobKKKindle$

16th November 2009, 22:07

Yeh, fuckin women ey, put them in the same fuckin boat as the uppety natives and let the fuckers sink I sayPogue has a point here - do Left-Communists support campaigns that are designed to attain and defend abortion rights, for instance? Or are they just a case of working-class women being brainwashed into siding with a faction of the bourgeoisie, despite the fact that the struggle for abortion rights and similar historic struggles against oppression were and are generally led by working people and supported by trade unions (at least in the case of abortion rights) precisely because the ruling-class members of oppressed groups like women and ethnic minorities have always been able to avoid some of the worst impacts of their oppression by virtue of their membership of the ruling class. It seems to me that the basic premise of Left-Communism when it comes to struggles that they don't see as part of the "class terrain" is that working people are involved in these struggles (e.g. the workers who support Hamas and Hezbollah, or the working women who go on demonstrations to defend abortion rights and object to the way that women are often treated within progressive circles) only because they've been brainwashed into thinking that these struggles have something to do with their interests and never because it might actually be in their interests to support these struggles - in other words, there's always an accusation of false consciousness, and a denial of the ability of working people to recognize where their interests lie. In this sense they're no different from the Stalinists who claim that workers were brainwashed into overthrowing "socialism" in 1989 - the same belief that working people are fundamentally confused about what they should be doing to further their class interests which easily gives rise to the assumption that they need enlightened ideological leadership to tell them what to do.

Also, from an analytical standpoint, national liberation struggles have never received the support of any section of the bourgeoisie in underdeveloped countries because those ruling classes are too weak to carry out the historic tasks that Marx assigned them. They are more often than not led by a section of the petty-bourgeoisie, which accounts for their vacillating character.

Madvillainy

16th November 2009, 22:21

I'd be interested to know who wrote that, could you tell me please?
The ICC.

I thought we were talking about my organisation, not me?

um er do you have different positions than your organisation? I guess the whole talk about theoretical unity within the platfromist camp is just that, talk. But I am genuinely curious, do you personally support electing left wing union bosses?

So your not interested in our positions, but your still going to criticise them as anti-working class? Nice one there, makes sense.

Lets just compare two things you said to finish this off then:

Arguing not your strong point ey mate?

Well the L&S don't have any positions as an organisation but I think it is very clear where they stand on certain issues, sorry if I didn't make myself clear but that was what I meant to say.

Just out of curiosity, what do I have to agree with to join your organisation, taking into account the fact that you have no official positions? I honestly would like to know because the L&S seems to be a very confused group of people.

redasheville

17th November 2009, 00:41

Sasha

17th November 2009, 01:17

wow an anachist vs left-communist sectarian shit/flame fest, thats an nice change from the usual trots/stalin, stalin/leftcommunist, anartchist/anyone authoritarian, etc tec...

h0m0revolutionary

17th November 2009, 01:17

17th November 2009, 01:22

Thank you Devrim, for starting this thread, already it has sparked off an interesting conversation.

It is quite interesting analyzing all the different currents within anarchism, there are a lot of different things attached to different positions.

For instance, a friend of mine, Alan Woodward, along with other people who describe themselves as "Libertarian Socialists" often appear to support the Chavez regime. The difference I see between "Libertarian Socialists" and "Platformists" in practice, is that Platformists justify it under anti-imperialism rather than that it is 'socialism' but that 'anarchists should work within the struggle'.

Now, I have spent quite a lot of time with people who describe themselves as 'Libertarian Socialists'. Often they will deride all organisations (such as teh ICC for example) as "bourgeois stooges. Leninists behind the curtains who want to appear as though they care for the workers, then rule over them with authoritarian measures and an iron fist.".

It is quite an odd phenomenon if you ask me, I'm not sure if I identify as a libertarian socialist anymore, but I can tell you this: I don't support national liberation on the basis of anti-imperialism or on the basis that there is a 'socialism' being built that socialists have a duty to support. That said, I don't see much point in being hostile to people such as Irish republicans anymore who have a different pov to me, it seems to achieve little in mutual understanding of viewpoints. :cool:

in other words, there's always an accusation of false consciousness, and a denial of the ability of working people to recognize where their interests lie. In this sense they're no different from the Stalinists who claim that workers were brainwashed into overthrowing "socialism" in 1989 - the same belief that working people are fundamentally confused about what they should be doing to further their class interests which easily gives rise to the assumption that they need enlightened ideological leadership to tell them what to do.

What is any of this supposed to mean? Do left-communists believe in a minority vanguard carrying out the revolution? No, the ICC are not 'ultra-leninist' Bordigist purists, rather than believe in the party as the vanguard. Can't say the same for Cliffites. ;)

This is a complete load of nonsense, actually left-communists such as the ICC probably put the most trust into people as being able to carry out the revolution. Anarchist and Trotskyist notions of what a vanguard entails either mean: the people are morons and need an invisible number of highly-trained monkeys..err insurrectionists to enforce an invisible dictatorship, or that people need a 'strong leader' in a time of need. No need to bang on about the 'socialism from below' trotskyist stuff that you always come out with.

Also, from an analytical standpoint, national liberation struggles have never received the support of any section of the bourgeoisie in underdeveloped countries because those ruling classes are too weak to carry out the historic tasks that Marx assigned them.

Is this some kind of a joke? :cool: Oh yeah, because the AKP in Turkey haven't let the DTP (the Kurdish representation in parliament) represent the 'interests' (down the bourgeois path to hell) of Kurdish workers.

In any case, the concrete differences between all the kinds of Insurrectionists (IAF) I think need clarifying. The same rings true for Syndicalists (IWA), I think there is so much difference in these circles that it is hard to say there is even one main group, that insurrectionists believe anywhere near the same things as each other. It's telling that some Syndicalists on this thread have wildly different viewpoints, Jurko to Stranger than Paradise for example. I've seen this manifest itself in real life, where the Solfed have members who believe in certain kinds of 'oppressed liberation' whereas others scold them for it. There is obviously no organisation like Afed, where members generally all have different ideas of how the class-struggle should play out, I have even met Syndicalists part of Afed!

Sasha

17th November 2009, 01:29

so where do autonomist and insurectionist anarchist fit in this list?

Forward Union

17th November 2009, 02:11

Well yeah, they rallied behind a section of the bourgeoisie (the euro-skeptics) and gave legitimacy to capitalist democracy instead of pointing out what a farce the whole thing is. Their line was identical to the trotskyist groups.

This is hyperbolic but I will try to extract some sort of argument from it. You seem to be arguing not quite that their position did not object to the entire process (which it did) but that they should have remined pure in practice by doing absolutely nothing of use. Which is of course, morally fortight, but, as always with ultra-off-the-wall-leftism, completely impracticable. Or perhaps it's better to call it 'in practical' as doing nothing but writing mad fringe leaflets is quite practically possible, (and easy to defend ideologically) not so beneficial to building class power, which is my one and only goal. At all costs, and by any means.

Yes supporting national liberation.I suppose you are referring to the Zapatistas when you say 'grassroots national liberation', but whether it's in Lebanon, Ireland or Mexico, it's still nationalism and it's still anti-working class. Who are you leveling these accusations at exactly? Im not sure what the exact criticism is? My Zapatista sympathies are not Platformist, but if you want to bring up a specific debate about that feel free. The platform itself never commented on National liberation, but the subsequent tradition has made a clear path on the matter. The question of pro or anti working class is not one of moral forces. Good versus evil. It is what is practically useful in the long term against what may be nothing more that ideological zealism. It is logically possible to conceive that by allowing nationalist gangsters to succeed in some areas, we 'sew the seeds' of their inevitable downfall at other times.

You mean by campaigning for left wing union bosses? Yeah sure, that'll work! :rolleyesThe only thing that would democratise unions is a militant class conscious base. Once that's achieved a democratic structure can be put in place. If you set this goal in place then it is conceivable that putting someone in a certain administrative position can weaken the opposition or strengthen your odds in achieving this (this may also, not be the case). But make no mistake the goal is still as it has always been; to change things from the bottom up. there is no other way, trotskyists spend too much of their time trying to take unions over forgetting that they'd be inheriting a paper tiger. We need to rebuild unions, not conquer them. We're simply happy to engage with reality and get our hands dirty. Rather then 'hold reality ransom' to some incredible notion of how things should be. This may be parralllel to certain trotskyist elements, but it's also true of all political elements which engage in reality.

Identity politics have nothing to do with communism. I know, but I still support women who would, for example demand strike action for equal pay or maternity leave... I also object to the phenomena of rape and domestic violence, and think residents associations should take responsibility for preventing these and creating community solidarity.

It's kind of hard to say which positions L&S share with trots since you have no real positions, but yeah groups like the WSM are identical on most issues with the trotskyist groups here.We have several positions on several issues. But even if they did bare some similarities with trots I'm not really sure why this is either shocking or problematic? Can you, rather than feed me some cheap 'reductio ad trotsky' ideological shitcake, debate the practical facts of our documents. if you insist on commenting on them so much.

The Douche

17th November 2009, 05:04

so where do autonomist and insurectionist anarchist fit in this list?

See my comment...

Saorsa

17th November 2009, 05:50

Where do self described anarchist-communists fit in? I know anarchists who are loosely platformist, class-struggle focussed etc, who call themselves A-Cs.

17th November 2009, 05:54

Where do self described anarchist-communists fit in? I know anarchists who are loosely platformist, class-struggle focussed etc, who call themselves A-Cs.

Mostly kind of class-struggle insurrectionists.

Revy

17th November 2009, 07:14

Anarcho-communism ftw.
I used to be one. And anarchist groups which have a more "anarchist-communist" type of ideology seem to be more decent. Whereas crimethinc in the US or Class War in the UK are just full of lifestylist anarcho-wannabes.

Patchd

17th November 2009, 08:54

Again I don't think I need to reiterate. I think its pretty obvious that the working class would have been better off without the treaty and see nothing controversial in the WSM's statement. It doesn't, contrary to the sort of word wrangling and out right lies we see on the left all the time ('So and so didnt outright condemn so and so, so they wholeheartedly accept all of so and sos ideology' etc) demonstrated in that article, at any stage claim that public capitalism is betetr than private capitalism. They just demonstrated a pro-working class position - public services are better than private services. I for one am very pleased I have an NHS and would fight to defend it. Its a sign of the weakness and lack of any real substance in your politics that you reject this idea, but as I said, you have a weak ideology that supports baseless principles over what actually works for working class people and revolution, hence why you are thankfully so insignificant.
Yes, perhaps the Irish working class would have, like how the British working-class may be better off under a Labour government than, say, a Tory or Lib Dem one. However, as a revolutionary organisation, in fact, as an Anarchist revolutionary organisation, is it our task to tell people to put even an inch of faith in the farce that is liberal democracy, which manifests itself in the state?

If individuals want to vote for whatever reason, such as in the interests of their current material conditions, then I have no objections to that, but as a revolutionary group, I think sticking to revolutionary politics would be best, and let the capitalist democracy campaigning to the mainstream political groups, the non-revolutionary ones.

I like public services too, but the defence of what we already have, or even working with campaigns to improve them is different. In the case of public services, groups actually put out demands and challenge the status quo over the existing conditions, a referendum vote is simply conforming to that status quo, with the twisted belief that you can even do anything substantial under the capitalist 'democratic' system, and to call for it is to not make a demand to resist or push for better conditions, but to capitulate to the ruling class' way of pretending we have any say whatsoever. I realise that most WSM people don't view bourgeois democracy as actually being genuine, so what I was wondering was why don't they stick to their politics. There's a difference with being a politically principled organisation, and acting, as an individual in your own material interests even if that might mean that you go against your own personal stances on things.

Devrim

17th November 2009, 08:59

Devrim

17th November 2009, 09:03

only because they've been brainwashed into thinking that these struggles have something to do with their interests and never because it might actually be in their interests to support these struggles - in other words, there's always an accusation of false consciousness, and a denial of the ability of working people to recognize where their interests lie. In this sense they're no different from the Stalinists who claim that workers were brainwashed into overthrowing "socialism" in 1989 - the same belief that working people are fundamentally confused about what they should be doing to further their class interests which easily gives rise to the assumption that they need enlightened ideological leadership to tell them what to do.

It is not the way that we think about consciousnesses at all. We have a very different view of it. The whole concept of false consciousness is basically a Maoist one.

Also, from an analytical standpoint, national liberation struggles have never received the support of any section of the bourgeoisie in underdeveloped countries because those ruling classes are too weak to carry out the historic tasks that Marx assigned them. They are more often than not led by a section of the petty-bourgeoisie, which accounts for their vacillating character.

I don't think that this is true at all, but don't want to get into a long off topic argument on this thread. They do certainly though receive the support of the bourgeoisie of local, regional, and international powers.

Devrim

Madvillainy

17th November 2009, 09:17

I think anarkismo's shameless distribution of nationalist propaganda is a good example of this:
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/14918

Devrim

wow.

Devrim

17th November 2009, 09:39

so where do autonomist and insurectionist anarchist fit in this list?

Would you describe Autonomism as an anarchist tendency? I wouldn't. As for insurrectionism, it depends what you mean by it. It is used differently than I would use it by someone in this thread:

In any case, the concrete differences between all the kinds of Insurrectionists (IAF) I think need clarifying.

Are the IAF groups what is commonly described as 'insurrectionists'? I thought that insurrectionism was people like Alfredo Maria Bonanno. I think that they are anti-organisational, and although they may historically come from the anarchist tradition, aren't really a part of what modern organised anarchism is.

In any case, the concrete differences between all the kinds of Insurrectionists (IAF) I think need clarifying. The same rings true for Syndicalists (IWA), I think there is so much difference in these circles that it is hard to say there is even one main group, that insurrectionists believe anywhere near the same things as each other. It's telling that some Syndicalists on this thread have wildly different viewpoints, Jurko to Stranger than Paradise for example. I've seen this manifest itself in real life, where the Solfed have members who believe in certain kinds of 'oppressed liberation' whereas others scold them for it. There is obviously no organisation like Afed, where members generally all have different ideas of how the class-struggle should play out, I have even met Syndicalists part of Afed!

Yes, of course there are differences within the groups.One that I know about is within anarcho-syndicalism, the difference between the 'FORA tendency' and the mainstream.

I think that another thing that confuses it, at least in England, is people who are anarchists tend to jion either AF, SolFed, or in the past CWF, because there was a strong active local group, and not because of particular political positions. This leads to a situation where there is perhaps more diversity within the AF or SolFed than between them.

Its pretty sound apart from the fact that Class War doesn't define itself as an anarchist orgaanisation and would object to that classification.

I think they are really. I saw Ian (I know he is no longer in it) at the bookfair last year, and he was going on about anarchy.

Anarcho-communism ftw.
I used to be one. And anarchist groups which have a more "anarchist-communist" type of ideology seem to be more decent. Whereas crimethinc in the US or Class War in the UK are just full of lifestylist anarcho-wannabes.

I am somebody who has been very critical of Class War in the past, and even I think this is unfair to them. I think that you are misinformed.

For instance, a friend of mine, Alan Woodward, along with other people who describe themselves as "Libertarian Socialists" often appear to support the Chavez regime. The difference I see between "Libertarian Socialists" and "Platformists" in practice, is that Platformists justify it under anti-imperialism rather than that it is 'socialism' but that 'anarchists should work within the struggle'.

Now, I have spent quite a lot of time with people who describe themselves as 'Libertarian Socialists'.

I sort of (accidentally) missed libertarian socialists out. It could go in, or it could be a split on the Marxist tree.

It's kind of hard to say which positions L&S share with trots since you have no real positions, but yeah groups like the WSM are identical on most issues with the trotskyist groups here.We have several positions on several issues. But even if they did bare some similarities with trots I'm not really sure why this is either shocking or problematic? Can you, rather than feed me some cheap 'reductio ad trotsky' ideological shitcake, debate the practical facts of our documents. if you insist on commenting on them so much.

The whole question about whether the Platformists are similar to the Trotskyists is, I think, something that depends on the terminology that you use.

For an anarchist the opposition between libertarianism and authoritarianism is a crucial one. If you take this as a vital difference, there is no way that you could see the Platformists as similar to the Trotskyists. For Marxists though the whole libertarian authoritarian thing isn't really part of their discourse, so judged on their positions, I think it is therefore a fair comment.

What further complicates it though is that for many anarchists 'Trot' has been a common insult. You can see this reflected in FU's post where he say that it is not 'shocking or problematic' to be similar to Trotskyists. Indeed its not. When we said that they were like Trotskyists we didn't mean it as an insult, though maybe we should have been more careful with our words, but as a description. We don't veiw Trotskyism as a revolutionary tendency, but we don't use it as an insult.

Where do self described anarchist-communists fit in? I know anarchists who are loosely platformist, class-struggle focussed etc, who call themselves A-Cs.

I suppose it depends upon their views on organisation. If they are against it I would put them into my catorgory 5, 'basically worthless'. If they are for it, which organisation are they for.

Devrim

Devrim

17th November 2009, 09:48

I'm no anarchist, but I doubt "theoretical unity" means that all members have the exact same opinions on every political issue. I'm in a "democratic centralist" organization and not every member thinks the same way about everything (something the Sparts don't seem to understand) but decisions that have been made democratically are binding on members. Not the same thing.

I think that it depends on what you base the criteria for membership of an organisation on. For example, our organisation, the ICC, uses its Platform. For me this is theoretical unity. It doesn't mean that we all agree on everything, but on things like the national question, we do. It is part of our platform, and you need to agree on it to join.

With the SWP (I can't comment on the ISO as I don't know about them or their operating practices, so I chose a similar group to yours who you will know about), they take anybody who will sign up, and hope to convince them of the politics later. To me this method of recruitment gaurantees that an organisation can't be democratic, and revolutionary, and indeed I think the SWP is neither.

As for democratic centralism, it is one of those phrases beloved by Trotskyists, which seem sophisticated, but where the noun actually reduces the adjective to an almost superfluous role, such as critical support.

Devrim

NiccolÃ² Rossi

17th November 2009, 11:03

I think what a left communist would call anti working class is basically anything that doesn't fit into your idealised 'clean hands' idea of what class sturggle is, which is ultimately a cowardly intellectual refusal to engage in any politics which may in any way shape or form potentially attack your ideological purity, hence why you're a self-defeating tendency.

[...]

Although being a left communist you're probably more at home publishing leaflets 'against union x' or whatever it is you lot substitute for meaningful activity... But then again for a left communist, as I said, anything other than pure working class revolution is anti-working class so you know, apples and pears.

[...]

Yeh man, fuck those uppety natives and their desire to resist imperialist oppression! Let the west rape them, I say!

[...]

Yeh, fuckin women ey, put them in the same fuckin boat as the uppety natives and let the fuckers sink I say

etc. etc.

Pogue, please, pull your head in. This is all completely rediculous. There is no argument here, only strawmen and insults. When you contribute something meaningful maybe you will get a meaningful response.

The WSM are not identical because what they call for is different to what Trots call for, i.e. they don't call for a vanguard party, a workers state, etc.

Which do you think are more pivitol issues? An organisations position on a hypothetical workers' state and the construction of a vanguard party or their position on participation in inter-imperialist war, the machinery of the bourgeois state, etc.?

Like the ICCs anti-union activities during the miners strikes?

You seem to bring this up often as if it is some deep, dark secret betrayl of the ICC's past that instantly discredits the organisation completely. It wasn't. It's not. Get over it.

Also, I think Madvillainy responds to alot of yours and Pogue's other points (the meager few that there are)

do Left-Communists support campaigns that are designed to attain and defend abortion rights, for instance?

I support the liberation of women from sexism, patriarchy and all forms of sexual oppression. As such I support the right of women to free abortion on demand.

It seems to me that the basic premise of Left-Communism when it comes to struggles that they don't see as part of the "class terrain" is that working people are involved in these struggles (e.g. the workers who support Hamas and Hezbollah, or the working women who go on demonstrations to defend abortion rights and object to the way that women are often treated within progressive circles) only because they've been brainwashed into thinking that these struggles have something to do with their interests and never because it might actually be in their interests to support these struggles - in other words, there's always an accusation of false consciousness, and a denial of the ability of working people to recognize where their interests lie. In this sense they're no different from the Stalinists who claim that workers were brainwashed into overthrowing "socialism" in 1989 - the same belief that working people are fundamentally confused about what they should be doing to further their class interests which easily gives rise to the assumption that they need enlightened ideological leadership to tell them what to do.

I've heard this argument from you before, Bob. Last time you were claiming that you didn't like the idea that workers were 'stupid enough' to act in ways which might be against their own class interests, such as joining or supporting organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Personally this only leaves me scratching my head. Sure Bob, you might not like to think that workers can think and act in reactionary ways, but unlike you, it would seen, we live in the real world.

If this is the logic you choose to adopt, that workers, by the grace of being workers, recognise their own class interests and will spontaneously struggle in defense of those interests, what purpose does your political activity have? Whilst this kind of stuff may on some level seem profound, really it doesn't say anything meaningful at all.

17th November 2009, 11:12

Are the IAF groups what is commonly described as 'insurrectionists'? I thought that insurrectionism was people like Alfredo Maria Bonanno. I think that they are anti-organisational, and although they may historically come from the anarchist tradition, aren't really a part of what modern organised anarchism is.

Then what did you used to classify IAF people as, when you were an anarcho-syndicalist. Do they simply come under 'anarcho-communist'? From everything I can tell, organised anarcho-communism does not have one set theory of how to enact a revolution. Generally though, people in AFed for instance, will talk about insurrection and how it is a good thing.

Yes, of course there are differences within the groups.One that I know about is within anarcho-syndicalism, the difference between the 'FORA tendency' and the mainstream.

Please elaborate, I don't know too much about the differences within anarcho-syndicalism, if anarcho-syndicalists want to add to this please go ahead too.

I think that another thing that confuses it, at least in England, is people who are anarchists tend to jion either AF, SolFed, or in the past CWF, because there was a strong active local group, and not because of particular political positions. This leads to a situation where there is perhaps more diversity within the AF or SolFed than between them.

Is that a bad thing though. I personally would be for anarcho-syndicalists working together equally with anarcho-communists, it would organise the anarchist movement a lot more if IAF joined IWA, it's pretty much a practical impossibility though.

I sort of (accidentally) missed libertarian socialists out. It could go in, or it could be a split on the Marxist tree.

It's up to you, but what do you think about them anyway?

I suppose it depends upon their views on organisation. If they are against it I would put them into my catorgory 5, 'basically worthless'. If they are for it, which organisation are they for.

Devrim

Certain 'worthless' anarchists, from what I can tell, despite not being organised into any one thing are active in workplaces attempting to struggle against the system and spread consciousness. With that in mind, I don't think I would call them 'worthless'. There are probably trots with unorthodox views that are not active in any organisation that are making some form of difference like that too, not that I know of any, but writing people off simply because they aren't active in an organisation (as in they haven't found a correct one) achieves little in my mind.

Forward Union

17th November 2009, 12:30

I think anarkismo's shameless distribution of nationalist propaganda is a good example of this:
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/14918

Devrim

Nice try but it was added by a third party and aproved on this basis;

2.4 How about articles that are not from a libertarian source or where the article is from such a source but the content is clearly hostile to the editoral statement?
We are not interested in publishing such articles except very occasionly to provoke debate but links to such articles can be published either under 'non-anarchist press' or ''Other Libertarian press' . Publication of such articles should either be intended to provoke debate (and such publications should be rare) or it should contain news or analysis of unusual importance. They may only be published once a majority of the editorial group post to the list agreeing to publication - if the article is a direct attack on the editorial statement or anarchist communism then it can only be published once an editor has prepared a reply - this reply should be added before the article is unhidden and the title of the article should be changed to start with "Debate:".

Would someone please respond to my last post?

Devrim

17th November 2009, 13:07

Nice try but it was added by a third party and aproved on this basis;

I know what basis anarkismo has justified it on. However, that doesn't mean that there are not publishing nationalist propoganda. How would they react an article by another nationalist organisation's leader, say, Nick Griffin, was posted up alongside BNP press releases. Would they act in the same way?

Of course Publishing it without comment implies some level of endorsement.

Devrim

Jazzratt

17th November 2009, 13:57

I think anarkismo's shameless distribution of nationalist propaganda is a good example of this:
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/14918

Devrim

The link seems to be broken.

Forward Union

17th November 2009, 14:03

I think you left communists are crediting L&S with too much. As they said at their meeting at the London bookfair, they don't do publications (or ideas.. or discussion...) because they're more interested in being a (perpetually small) body for coordiniation of direct actions

Not direct actions, but certainly coordination. But given that you probably aren't involved in any of the organisations we coordinate within, I can't see much value in your commentary.

Quite right. But on questions as huge as national liberation, you kind of do. And there isn't even a solid opinion on that, as we see from the gems given to us above.Right, L&S has no position on National Liberation, because it's not an issue we need to engage with. And given that it's such an abstracted issue, on which we have no set policies, I am not sure why it is such a point of contention??

We have Pouge spouting the anti-nationalist credentials of the WSMAs did I a few posts back

therefore backing the idea that an oppressed 'national' group is better led by their own kind.No that is absolutely not what I propose. I've explained my position on this already. If your too intellectually stunted to understand the content of my arguments then I don't see the point in replying. Im not interested in dealing with straw men for the rest of this thread. Please, either respond to what I am actually saying or don't comment. I appologise for my bluntness here, but it's really infuriating to read such slander. All I would ask is that you try to see what I am actually trying to say before formulating a response.

Indistinguishable from trots much?I breath, cat's breath, therefore I am a cat

ZeroNowhere

17th November 2009, 14:12

From everything I can tell, organised anarcho-communism does not have one set theory of how to enact a revolution. Generally though, people in AFed for instance, will talk about insurrection and how it is a good thing.That's generally not how 'Insurrectionism' is used, though. It refers to a fair bit more than supporting an insurrection.

The Douche

17th November 2009, 14:35

BobKKKindle$

17th November 2009, 15:24

If this is the logic you choose to adopt, that workers, by the grace of being workers, recognise their own class interests and will spontaneously struggle in defense of those interests, what purpose does your political activity have?It's not that workers always know where their class interests lie and know how to pursue their interests - as you rightly point out, if this were the case then we would presumably have socialism by now, and there wouldn't be a need for political organization at all because there wouldn't be different levels of consciousness within the working class. The point is that many of the ideas that workers hold under capitalism have a contradictory character that can't be grasped simply by dismissing a given set of ideas as the work of the bourgeoisie and nothing else - on the one hand, ideologies frequently embody the bourgeoisie's attempts to instill a distorted view of the world and to obscure the contradictions and injustices that lie at the heart of capitalist society, this being the understanding of ideology that is most familiar to Marxists, having its roots in the famous quote about "ruling ideas" in The German Ideology, but at the same time these exact same ideologies can also enable workers (and other exploited groups throughout the history of class society, including peasants and slaves) to articulate their resistance against class oppression, and to make sense of the world in which they live and the alienation they suffer as inhabitants of class societies. This contradictory character is most evident in Marx's description of religion, which Marx, in addition to describing as "the opiate of the masses", which is the part of the quote that almost everyone is familiar with, also viewed as "the heart of a heartless world" and "the sigh of the oppressed creature". What Marx is getting at here is the fact that, yes, religion is frequently used by ruling classes to make their class rule legitimate in the eyes of the working population and to legitimize all sorts of nasty practices that involve the oppression of women and other groups in order to create divisions and turn working people against each other, but religion is also something that working people have historically used to shield themselves from the most alienating and destructive impacts of class societies, and has sometimes guided and motivated them in their efforts to fight back against class rule even if this kind of resistance takes place in a distorted way - you only need to look at the number of peasant rebellions whose leaders have expressed their aims in religious terms to see what Marx is talking about here, if you aren't persuaded by his quote alone.

This is relevant to Left-Communism because I've never got a sense that groups like the ICC acknowledge the contradictory character of ideas like nationalism and religion. It's always a case of workers unthinkingly accepting the ideas of the ruling class in their entirety - whereas the IS tradition has, when analyzing nationalism, for example, always argued that nationalism is both a ruling-class ideology as well as something that reflects the pain of national oppression, which is why we have no problem understanding why workers overwhelmingly support groups like Hamas and why Hamas has been able to retain this support despite having physically threatened trade unionists and challenged workers in a range of other ways whilst they've been the government of Gaza. Of course, we think that the ruling-class aspect of nationalism is especially present in countries like the UK and the US, which are at the core of the imperialist world-system and maintain the national oppression of other countries whilst not being victims of national oppression themselves, and we accept that there is a division between oppressor and oppressed nations and that nationalist ideas can have different meanings and purposes depending on the context in which they're propagated - these premises are obviously not shared by the ICC. I think a Socialist Review article put it especially well when they said that a group of Irish workers singing 'A Nation Once Again' in a pub is not the same as the Last Night of the Proms. In essence, I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for how workers come to accept nationalist ideas from the ICC. Nor do I think that the simplistic approach of the ICC is limited to nationalism - you and others on this forum who share your ideas have frequently dismissed feminism as a bourgeois ideology, which is not only problematic in itself, but is also even more simplistic than your account of nationalism, because it doesn't make much sense to speak of there being a single ideology that we can designate feminism, such is the diversity of feminist ideas and currents, which present fundamentally different accounts of the nature and origin of women's oppression, these currents having frequently come into sharp conflict with each other.

I support the liberation of women from sexism, patriarchy and all forms of sexual oppression. As such I support the right of women to free abortion on demand.Firstly, it seems a bit incoherent to speak of patriarchy here. The concept of patriarchy was developed primarily by thinkers who, in many cases, were initially socialists, but objected to the tendency of other socialists to reduce the oppression of women to simply a particular case of class oppression and something that would have to be dealt with after a socialist revolution and not before, and as such they split from the socialist movement and developed their own ideas, often through the process of consciousness-raising, with their eventual understanding of women's oppression being centered around the notion that there exists a system of oppression that is distinct from class oppression and impacts all women regardless of their class origin or ethnicity - in other words, patriarchy, although, once again, this concept has a variety of interpretations that defy a short summary so this shouldn't be treated as a definitive account of how radical feminism emerged. I view this as incoherent on your part because a practical conclusion of patriarchy theory is that women should organize as women in order to confront the forms of oppression that impact them all regardless of which class or ethnicity they come from, and that it can be useful for women to come together without the presence of men in order to discuss their experiences as women in a patriarchal society, and I don't see how you can reconcile accepting the existence of patriarchy and the conclusions from flow from it whilst also viewing feminism (whatever that means) as a bourgeois ideology.

Secondly, I've no doubt that you support free abortion on demand under socialism. This isn't what I asked you though. I asked you whether you support campaigns to defend abortion rights under capitalism, with the knowledge that the bourgeois state isn't likely to make all of the concessions we want to see, and that these campaigns are likely to encompass women from multiple class backgrounds, even though it is working women who have always suffered most from abortion restrictions, and been at the forefront of campaigns to defend the right to choose.

Or is this just another case of workers tying themselves to a section of the bourgeoisie?

Pogue

17th November 2009, 15:30

The ICC.

Ah, of course. I wonder how their strategy differs...

um er do you have different positions than your organisation? I guess the whole talk about theoretical unity within the platfromist camp is just that, talk. But I am genuinely curious, do you personally support electing left wing union bosses?

Link to where we said we support left wing union bosses?

Well the L&S don't have any positions as an organisation but I think it is very clear where they stand on certain issues, sorry if I didn't make myself clear but that was what I meant to say.

Just out of curiosity, what do I have to agree with to join your organisation, taking into account the fact that you have no official positions? I honestly would like to know because the L&S seems to be a very confused group of people.

So we don't have positions but you know what they are, right, cos your not bullshitting.

Membership of L&S would be based upon agreeing with the strategies outlined on our website, or maybe you'd just like the structure and membership of the group. We usually vote on whether or not we think someone would be best suited to being in our organisation.

Pogue

17th November 2009, 15:34

I think you left communists are crediting L&S with too much. As they said at their meeting at the London bookfair, they don't do publications (or ideas.. or discussion...) because they're more interested in being a (perpetually small) body for coordiniation of direct actions (although where these actions have materialised I have no idea..)

Quite right. But on questions as huge as national liberation, you kind of do. And there isn't even a solid opinion on that, as we see from the gems given to us above.

We have Pouge spouting the anti-nationalist credentials of the WSM (the same WSM seeking to protect "Irish oil" against Shell and their nasty plundering of "Irish" national resources in "Irish" waters). Then we have FU throwing his weight behind "grassroots national liberation" and therefore backing the idea that an oppressed 'national' group is better led by their own kind. Supporting the establishment of a new up-and-coming national bourgeoisie.

Indistinguishable from trots much?

Yes, we'd be much better off if we just let these struggles pass us by, maybe issuing a pamphlet on why we're against nationalism, rather than trying to engage in struggles and divert them down our own route. Because the working class read AFed pamphlets.

I mean seriously, your going to criticise WSM for talking about 'Irish oil'. Well it is Irish oil. Its oil based around Ireland that should be used for the benefit of the working class in Ireland (Irish people) rather than for multinational private companies who will use it for profit. Its only a left communist analysis that rejects being involved in such campaigns, and its pathetic.

What are we doing now if not discussion. If you don't like the focus of the grou, don't join. I personally don't agree with party building or the organisational model AFed follow hence I am not a member. I don't think AFed are a bad thing, I am not 'opposed' to AFed, I don't think they are a useless organisation, but I don't think their strategy, the party building aspect, is really whats needed.

Again, we're distinguishable from Trots because we don't call for a vanguard party, a workers state, we don't lend uncritical support for national liberation, etc.

Pogue

17th November 2009, 15:36

I think they are really. I saw Ian (I know he is no longer in it) at the bookfair last year, and he was going on about anarchy.

So one ex member 'going on about anarchy' makes an organisation which doesn't define itself as anarchist, anarchist?

Devrim

17th November 2009, 16:27

So one ex member 'going on about anarchy' makes an organisation which doesn't define itself as anarchist, anarchist?

No, of course not, but to my knowledge it has always been an organisation of anarchists even if they don't specifically use the term.

Devrim

17th November 2009, 18:08

That's generally not how 'Insurrectionism' is used, though. It refers to a fair bit more than supporting an insurrection.

And despite your elitist conception of what I meant and what I'm ignorant about, you can look at the (hopefully now open to read) Anarchist group and see people in AFed saying that insurrectionism is a good thing.

revolution inaction

17th November 2009, 19:52

And despite your elitist conception of what I meant and what I'm ignorant about, you can look at the (hopefully now open to read) Anarchist group and see people in AFed saying that insurrectionism is a good thing.

Which posts are you taliking about? Afed is not insurrectionist, this doesn't mean we are opposed to insurrection.
As far as i can tell insurrectionists are opposed to formal organisation, although cmoney's post makes me curious what they mean by insurectionary

17th November 2009, 23:22

Which posts are you taliking about? Afed is not insurrectionist, this doesn't mean we are opposed to insurrection.
As far as i can tell insurrectionists are opposed to formal organisation, although cmoney's post makes me curious what they mean by insurectionary

Yes, once again 'insurrectionism' is not one absolute iron set of ideas, it crosses over into all the different branches of anarchism and has lots of different theories attached really. This thread tells a lot: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1929; it has plenty of AFed members agreeing with aspects of insurrectionism. As for AFed themselves; there's no concrete position on it so this is expected really. Non-members won't be able to view that thread unfortunately, because for some reason the anarchist group is precious.

Patchd

17th November 2009, 23:42

Yes, once again 'insurrectionism' is not one absolute iron set of ideas, it crosses over into all the different branches of anarchism and has lots of different theories attached really. This thread tells a lot: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1929; it has plenty of AFed members agreeing with aspects of insurrectionism. As for AFed themselves; there's no concrete position on it so this is expected really. Non-members won't be able to view that thread unfortunately, because for some reason the anarchist group is precious.
Please keep in mind that some AF members left over the issue of the AF and insurrectionism, those who left were insurrectionists, although they left out of their own will over tactical differences, as you said, as we don't have this topic in our Aims and Principles, I won't be surprised to find insurrectionist comrades in the AF.

I have no problem with that, I understand that a lot of our comrades are more class and workplace orientated, others in the communities and others are more into protest activism.

18th November 2009, 00:08

Please keep in mind that some AF members left over the issue of the AF and insurrectionism, those who left were insurrectionists, although they left out of their own will over tactical differences, as you said, as we don't have this topic in our Aims and Principles, I won't be surprised to find insurrectionist comrades in the AF.

I have no problem with that, I understand that a lot of our comrades are more class and workplace orientated, others in the communities and others are more into protest activism.

Exactly. :)

What would you say are the main currents in AFed then, based on what members actually believe? Also, what in the world is 'protest activism'..?

Patchd

18th November 2009, 00:22

Exactly. :)

What would you say are the main currents in AFed then, based on what members actually believe? Also, what in the world is 'protest activism'..?
Sorry, protest activism isn't a real term, I simply couldn't find a word which would accommodate what I meant, which was those who prefer going to protests, demonstrations (eg: environmentalist one attempting to shut down a power station, or anti-fascist protesting) etc..., as opposed to being focussed workers' organisation, or community organisation for example. Obviously most people cross over one or the other I'd imagine, and have enough time for all three.

I wouldn't be able to say what trends there are in the AFed. There are definitely noticeable distinctions, which in turn needs to be categorised into issues people focus on, and then political positions.

On the issues, AF members do seem to be quite varied, a lot into environmental issues, animal rights, gender and sexuality and so forth, as well as workplace organisation, community projects, anti-militarism, the list goes on, and like I said before they all cross over. For politics, the differences can sometimes be seen in the different groups, some may have more insurrectionist tendencies, some may be more 'workerist' (I use this in the sense that they focus primarily on workplace/rights as a worker etc. Ideologically we have Council Communists, Insurrectionist A-Cs, Platformist A-Cs (or people/groups with platformist tendencies), and A-Cs, sorry if I've missed out an obvious one. This difference can be attributed to group autonomy, obviously members who are closer to one another are more able to share/discuss their political differences, and usually come to a closer line on certain matters. Our theoretical unity is based around our aims and principles.

Devrim

18th November 2009, 10:27

The link seems to be broken.

The article has been replaced by this:

Document Not Available

Sorry. This story has been hidden due to a possible breach of the editorial guidelines (http://www.anarkismo.net/editorial) and is under review by the editorial group. If you think that this story should be allowed to remain on the newswire, please check our editorial guidelines and if you think that your article does not breach any of these guidelines, you can contact (http://www.anarkismo.net/article/contact) the editorial collective to make your case.

Devrim

Pogue

18th November 2009, 13:16

No, of course not, but to my knowledge it has always been an organisation of anarchists even if they don't specifically use the term.

Devrim

I'd haveto say your wrong on this then. If you read Unifinished Business - the politics of Class War, they clearly state they are not anarchists, and many of their members reject the term too.

Devrim

18th November 2009, 13:54

I'd haveto say your wrong on this then. If you read Unifinished Business - the politics of Class War, they clearly state they are not anarchists, and many of their members reject the term too.

Yes, I could be. My knowledge of them is certainly out of date.

To me though class war was always the anarchist group which was most rooted in what they would have referred to as the 'anarchist ghetto'. I think that it was quite obvious that they were anarchists, even if attempts to distance themselves from that milieu have caused them to deny it.

Devrim

Stranger Than Paradise

18th November 2009, 18:27

I wouldn't be able to say what trends there are in the AFed. There are definitely noticeable distinctions, which in turn needs to be categorised into issues people focus on, and then political positions.

So does AFed not have an outlined strategy for workplace and community struggles? What is AFed's line on agitation?

Pogue

18th November 2009, 18:30

So does AFed not have an outlined strategy for workplace and community struggles? What is AFed's line on agitation?

Well on workplace struggles they have a strategy which they outlined in a document called 'Anarchists on the frontline' or something similar which calls for the creation of 'workplace resistance groups' which are meant to bypass the unions and be a direct form of worker self organisation.

I don't know what their communtiy strategy is.

Stranger Than Paradise

18th November 2009, 18:33

Well on workplace struggles they have a strategy which they outlined in a document called 'Anarchists on the frontline' or something similar which calls for the creation of 'workplace resistance groups' which are meant to bypass the unions and be a direct form of worker self organisation.

I don't know what their communtiy strategy is.

Ok thanks, I'll have to read it. If anyone else wants to read it here's a link: http://www.afed.org.uk/news-and-events/62-on-the-frontline-anarchists-at-work-af-workplace-strategy-document.html

Pogue

18th November 2009, 18:35

Yes, I could be. My knowledge of them is certainly out of date.

To me though class war was always the anarchist group which was most rooted in what they would have referred to as the 'anarchist ghetto'. I think that it was quite obvious that they were anarchists, even if attempts to distance themselves from that milieu have caused them to deny it.

Devrim

They are certainly part of the anarchist scene, but they don't have explicitly anarchist politics either theoretically or practically.

Искра

18th November 2009, 18:36

I'd haveto say your wrong on this then. If you read Unifinished Business - the politics of Class War, they clearly state they are not anarchists, and many of their members reject the term too.
If you read interview with Ian in Anarcho-Punk book The Day That Country Died he says that they were anarchists and that for the most of members they were.

So what's with that?

Forward Union

18th November 2009, 18:39

then again, who cares

18th November 2009, 18:41

Искра

18th November 2009, 18:46

We should leave room for 'anti-imperialist' anarchists (I suppose it might be considered some kind of tendency), I'm thinking of FreeFocus and Plagueround among some others that don't immediately spring to mind (mostly because they have obscure sounding names and avatars).
Excuse me, but wtf is 'anti-imperialist' anarchist?
Every anarchist is anti imperialist. What will you make now? Anarcho-antisateists?

EDIT: This is not personal nor directed to you, but to your statement. No offence.

Pogue

18th November 2009, 18:50

Excuse me, but wtf is 'anti-imperialist' anarchist?
Every anarchist is anti imperialist. What will you make now? Anarcho-antisateists?

EDIT: This is not personal nor directed to you, but to your statement. No offence.

While I agree with you Jurko, ls has a point, i.e. we're talking about anarchists who specifically focus on and have a coherent opinion on imperialism and anti-impersialism. Western anarcho communists don't focus on it enough.

18th November 2009, 18:57

Every anarchist is anti imperialist. What will you make now? Anarcho-antisateists?

But most anarchists' understanding of what defines imperialism is vastly different to that of what a lot of MLs consider to be imperialism, basically what I'm saying is it's a monopolised term and attempting to "take it back" is utterly pointless.

There are anarchists with a pretty much ML understanding of imperialism and there are quite a lot of them, I would say most Platformists have an ML/Trotskyist understanding of imperialism for example, but there are those that stand inbetween the different tendencies (listed here throughout the thread) that don't really fit in, hence my suggestion to name them 'anti-imperialist' anarchists. I don't think it's a perfect name either, but it has slight historical precedent.

Patchd

18th November 2009, 19:06

So does AFed not have an outlined strategy for workplace and community struggles? What is AFed's line on agitation?
Yes, Pogue has already pointed it out for you and it seems like you have found our workplace strategy online. Remember that as libertarians we do not force a member to commit to any specific form of action (even with threat of expulsion, so long as they are still an active member if they are able to be one), I realise that some people won't be able to commit to workplace agitation because they don't work (non-working student/unemployed worker/disabled unemployed etc.) or because they have other interests. But the industrial strategy outlines what the Federation will collectively work towards in terms of workplace agitation and organisation, and how we believe this can best be achieved.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2009, 19:14

In any case, the concrete differences between all the kinds of Insurrectionists (IAF) I think need clarifying.

What? I think you're very misinformed. How have you come to this conclusion?

There is obviously no organisation like Afed, where members generally all have different ideas of how the class-struggle should play out

I really don't understand how people have come to characterise the AF as this losely based class struggle, synthesist organisation. We're not and never have been. We are a very specific class struggle anarchist organisation with a very clear and specific work place strategy.

I think the problem is that the AF is somehow expected to automatically, by it's simple existence, have magically created the perfect anarchist organisation. It's a completely unfair, not to mention unrealistic, expectation of a political organisation; of which half of its members only joined in the last 18 months! We're not a perfect organisation and there are practical issues that we are facing and that we are trying, as workers and as people who are trying to get this right. We're not magicians and we wholly accept, humbly, that we're not perfect.

We have had problems with people joining and not agreeing with our aims and principles, that's true, but we have made great efforts to overcome those issues. But we are not a synthesist organisation. If you're not an anarchist communist, if you don't agree with our aims and principles or our workplace strategy or our manifesto and perspectives on national liberation and trade unions, you can't be a member. It's a simple as that.

There has been a lot of mud slinging at the AF from people who had or have very little experience with the structures of the organisation and have made assumptions based on their own political prejudice.

I have even met Syndicalists part of Afed!

Who is this person?

Stranger Than Paradise

18th November 2009, 19:20

We should leave room for 'anti-imperialist' anarchists (I suppose it might be considered some kind of tendency), I'm thinking of FreeFocus and Plagueround among some others that don't immediately spring to mind (mostly because they have obscure sounding names and avatars).

I would definitely consider myself an Anti-Imperialist Anarchist in the same mould as FreeFocus. But then again I am sure there are few here who have a strong position on Anti-Imperialism.

18th November 2009, 19:28

What? I think you're very misinformed. How have you come to this conclusion?

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have phrased it like that, I realise that not everyone in Afed is an insurrectionist, but there is a lot of sympathy for insurrectionism and quite a few people appear to be insurrectionists outright.

I really don't understand how people have come to characterise the AF as this losely based class struggle, synthesist organisation. We're not and never have been. We are a very specific class struggle anarchist organisation with a very clear and specific work place strategy.

Your workplace strategy is not particularly clear though is it, I read it when it first came out, in fact, I think it was you who first posted about and linked to it on these boards. ;)

I think the problem is that the AF is somehow expected to automatically, by it's simple existence, have magically created the perfect anarchist organisation.

Not at all, I think this is an odd thing to say, no organisation is perfect, the IAF itself has had collectively terrible positions in the past which have pushed some good organisations the wrong way in their perspective too.

It's a completely unfair, not to mention unrealistic, expectation of a political organisation; of which half of its members only joined in the last 18 months! We're not a perfect organisation and there are practical issues that we are facing and that we are trying, as workers and as people who are trying to get this right. We're not magicians and we wholly accept, humbly, that we're not perfect.

One of the best things about members of AFed, is usually their talk about struggling as workers within their workplace, I'm not blind to the positive aspects of most members of AFed as well you know. And there is little of what I specifically mentioned in the left movement.

We have had problems with people joining and not agreeing with our aims and principles, that's true, but we have made great efforts to overcome those issues. But we are not a synthesist organisation. If you're not an anarchist communist, if you don't agree with our aims and principles or our workplace strategy or our manifesto and perspectives on national liberation and trade unions, you can't be a member. It's a simple as that.

There are members who disagree with basic tenets of AFed, or who 'sympathise' with strange positions.

There has been a lot of mud slinging at the AF from people who had or have very little experience with the structures of the organisation and have made assumptions based on their own political prejudice.

I'm not mudslinging tbh, in fact I tried to help a comrade who had been trying to join AFed, to get involved after they did not return his emails. :)

Who is this person?

I do not know their name.

Is it untrue though, that there are a lot of people in AFed who at least 'sympathise' with other currents such as anarcho-syndicalism or insurrectionism for instance (which in my opinion is fine re syndicalism, I'm not condemning that). The fact that Palachinov has pointed out a bunch of insurrectionists collectively left AFed of their own accord should say something I reckon.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2009, 19:44

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have phrased it like that, I realise that not everyone in Afed is an insurrectionist, but there is a lot of sympathy for insurrectionism and quite a few people appear to be insurrectionists outright.

No there are not. That's just a lie. It's just not true.

Your workplace strategy is not particularly clear though is it, I read it when it first came out, in fact, I think it was you who first posted about and linked to it on these boards. ;)

How isn't it? What isn't clear about it?

Not at all, I think this is an odd thing to say, no organisation is perfect, the IAF itself has had collectively terrible positions in the past which have pushed some good organisations the wrong way in their perspective too.

Then where does your characterisation of the AF come from? Certainly not reality. You are making claims about the AF which are not true, and I am trying to work out from what basis you're making them.

One of the best things about members of AFed, is usually their talk about struggling as workers within their workplace, I'm not blind to the positive aspects of most members of AFed as well you know. And there is little of what I specifically mentioned in the left movement.

I don't know who you are, so I couldn't possibly judge what your views of the AF are except the ones you state on this forum.

There are members who disagree with basic tenets of AFed, or who 'sympathise' with strange positions.

Such as who? If they exist, then they have lied to the organisation and shouldn't be a member.

This comment goes back to what you characterised as being odd. I'm not entirely sure what you expect from the AF. What are you trying to say? Are you saying that the AF tolerates this or that this has happened, because while it has happened it is not tolerated.

I'm not mudslinging tbh, in fact I tried to help a comrade who had been trying to join AFed, to get involved after they did not return his emails. :)

These issues you're referring to are about a year old. Our internal communication system is fundamentally better than it was a year ago. I am the internal liaison officer and I respond to every email I receive, as does the national secretary. If they have not received an email, it's not because we haven't sent one.

I do not know their name.

So how do you know they're a member of the AF?

Is it untrue though, that there are a lot of people in AFed who at least 'sympathise' with other currents such as anarcho-syndicalism or insurrectionism for instance (which in my opinion is fine re syndicalism, I'm not condemning that).

Possibly, but sympathising and being are two very different things.

The fact that Palachinov has pointed out a bunch of insurrectionists collectively left AFed of their own accord should say something I reckon.

About what?! They left because it was impossible for them to stay. There was no other option but for them to leave. That was a good thing. There politics was not in line with the AF's and so they left.

It's implicit in your comments that surely you think that's a good thing? Surely the point is to achieve theoretical and tactical unity...?

Forward Union

18th November 2009, 19:47

Is it untrue though, that there are a lot of people in AFed who at least 'sympathise' with other currents such as anarcho-syndicalism or insurrectionism for instance

In their defense, the AF does characterise itself as a mass membership organisation or to put it bluntly a "partyist" organisation, in other words membership is more prioritised over capacity. It is not cadre, and thus having a broader spectrum of members is inevitable.

The question is one of whether an organisational line can be formed, in the last few months they have begun to produce mandatory positions. Which is obviously a step away from the previous rethoric that people like TAT used to spout (but I wont dig that up as we all make mistakes).

The issue is the content of those positions (and the partyist nature of the organisation, which is a criticism i hold against the Trotskyists as well) . But I wont go into such detail here

Искра

18th November 2009, 19:48

While I agree with you Jurko, ls has a point, i.e. we're talking about anarchists who specifically focus on and have a coherent opinion on imperialism and anti-impersialism. Western anarcho communists don't focus on it enough.
That's what affinity groups are about.
Go deal with only anti-imperialism, feminism, go hug trees, but you wont get your tendency :lol:

Искра

18th November 2009, 19:53

I would definitely consider myself an Anti-Imperialist Anarchist in the same mould as FreeFocus. But then again I am sure there are few here who have a strong position on Anti-Imperialism.
If you are anarchist you are anti-imperialist. End of story.

Strong position on anti-imperialism? What's that? If you fight against state and capitalism you fight against imperialism.

I don't like this "making of tendencies". Should I say that I'm anarchoantistatistanticapitalistantiimperialistant ipatriarchyantihomofobicantifascistantinationalist antixenofobicantistatecapitalistantimutualistcommu nist-syndicalis?

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2009, 19:57

In their defense, the AF does characterise itself as a mass membership organisation or to put it bluntly a "partyist" organisation, in other words membership is more prioritised over capacity. It is not cadre, and thus having a broader spectrum of members is inevitable.

Membership figures do not take priority over anything, stop acting like a child! We encourage a broad spectrum of members insofar as they agree with our aims and principles etc.

The question is one of whether an organisational line can be formed, in the last few months they have begun to produce mandatory positions. Which is obviously a step away from the previous rethoric that people like TAT used to spout (but I wont dig that up as we all make mistakes).

Please don't pretend you've ever understood my position. You react to my views in the same way you have always reacted to them: with prejudice and ignorance.

If you were to go back and dig it up you would see that I have consistently called for theoretical and tactical unity, I just don't do it in the confines of your myopic, prescriptive view of organisation. The fact is, you've been totally incapable of understanding that due to your supreme arrogance.

18th November 2009, 20:01

No there are not. That's just a lie. It's just not true.

I'm pretty sure you yourself hold some views in common with insurrectionists.

How isn't it? What isn't clear about it?

Workplace resistance groups is at best an unclear concept, also your ideas of what to do with the IWW seem odd, don't you feel that if syndicalism isn't as good as a-communism that you should be saying something along the lines of, I don't know "AFed members should get involved where the IWW have built a solid unified struggle in workplaces [such as in the IWW Starbucks union]". There is a lot of "AF members should judge what is best to do themselves here" in the strategy, which I think is a mistake, at least providing theoretical examples would be a step forward.

Then where does your characterisation of the AF come from? Certainly not reality. You are making claims about the AF which are not true, and I am trying to work out from what basis you're making them.

What relation does this have to what I wrote?

I don't know who you are, so I couldn't possibly judge what your views of the AF are except the ones you state on this forum.

Yes, but you seem to think it's based on mudslinging from the off, which appears to be motivated by some need to defend the organisation from any critique. Like I said, I don't condemn AFed so much as think improvement is needed which is, as you said, the case with every organisation.

Such as who? If they exist, then they have lied to the organisation and shouldn't be a member.

Sympathy and solidarity is expressed in the workplace document to syndicalists and syndicalism, this is in a core organisational document, there is once again nothing wrong with this, it just contradicts what you appear to be saying, which is that members should not be sympathetic to non-anarcho-communist positions.

This comment goes back to what you characterised as being odd. I'm not entirely sure what you expect from the AF. What are you trying to say? Are you saying that the AF tolerates this or that this has happened, because while it has happened it is not tolerated.

Fair enough, most of what I'm saying is not from examples any newer than within the last 3 or so months, I'm not saying AFed isn't changing its positions.

These issues you're referring to are about a year old. Our internal communication system is fundamentally better than it was a year ago. I am the internal liaison officer and I respond to every email I receive, as does the national secretary. If they have not received an email, it's not because we haven't sent one.

I don't know why you're getting defensive, that wasn't even an attack or critique of/on AFed. The issue happened around April, but yes I believe the guy contacted AFed via email a few months before that

So how do you know they're a member of the AF?

Well maybe he isn't, but he told me he was.

Possibly, but sympathising and being are two very different things.

This is something you should clarify further. Heavily sympathising with positions of organisations so often leads to joining and following different lines, I think this is an important point.

About what?! They left because it was impossible for them to stay. There was no other option but for them to leave. That was a good thing. There politics was not in line with the AF's and so they left.

Yes, I agree it was a good thing, their politics certainly shouldn't be tolerated in AFed.

It's implicit in your comments that surely you think that's a good thing? Surely the point is to achieve theoretical and tactical unity...?

What are you referring to here?

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2009, 20:40

I'm pretty sure you yourself hold some views in common with insurrectionists.

Such as what?

Workplace resistance groups is at best an unclear concept:confused:

It's only unclear insofar as it's not a standard activist dynamic in the work place. It is, in a way, an untested course of action. Beyond that I don't see what's so unclear about it...

Our medium term aim is the creation of workplace resistance groups. These are groups consisting of the most active and class conscious workers within a given workplace, groups that unite workers in militant struggle against the bosses. They work in a number of different ways depending on the context of struggle they find themselves in. Sometimes they simply produce propaganda against management and the union, attempting to create a larger context for debate on tactics and goals. At other times they will engage in clandestine militant, even violent, action in support of a particular workplace conflict. They are always independent of trade unions, even when they sometimes work within trade union structures.

It is not always possible to build this kind of group in every workplace at every time. A heightened level of struggle is necessary for these groups to be possible. In workplaces where struggle is at a low level, attempts to form workplace resistance groups are unlikely to succeed and are more likely to result in the isolation and potentially the sacking of the workers involved. In workplaces with a higher level of struggle the potential for this kind of group must be judged by the workers involved.

Workplace resistance groups are a key tactic in breaking with the trade unions in situations of heightened struggle. They are one means of preventing the unions channelling the anger and activity of workers into harmless and easily controlled streams. In this way, they can maintain militancy and encourage in the independent organisation and direct action of other workers.

A workplace resistance group, as an autonomous manifestation of workers’ struggles, has the potential to carry forward struggles in a manner that permanent workers’ organisations such as unions cannot, either through lack of desire or for fear of legal repercussion. For instance, during struggles of a significant size, an informal grouping of militant workers can agitate for occupations and blockades, can undertake sabotage, and can directly approach sympathisers in a way which unions cannot. When such dramatic activity is not viable, workplace resistance groups can undertake other forms of direct action. They can produce clandestine and anonymous propaganda against management, against the 'negotiations' carried out by unions behind closed doors and the sale of these stitch-ups to the membership. They can give coherence to the forms of individual resistance which happen in workplaces anyway – such as stealing, slacking and scamming. But what unites these disparate tactics is their relationship to the struggle. In all these cases, the role of the workplace resistance group is to spread militancy and consciousness irrespective of the role and the activity of the union.

What we are describing is not a discrete thing, but a tendency. It is the tendency for militant and politicised workers to seek to advance their interests, and the state of the struggle. This tendency encompasses many historical examples, from miners’ hit squads and unofficial flying pickets to the informal presence of anarchist and revolutionary groups in the workplace, either in individual or in broader networks such as those currently being formed through IWW dual-carding and the industrial networks of the Solidarity Federation.

Undoubtedly, were the latter two examples to coalesce into functioning unions they would cease to be workplace resistance groups as we understand them, but currently they represent the attempts of politicised workers to push struggles forward and engender a culture of resistance amongst the workforce.

In this sense they differ from the presence of leftist groups within the workplace, whose aim is invariably to ‘capture’ the union (and in the course of doing this defend its role), and to spread the party word and party line amongst the workforce. Anarchist communists seek the advancement of working class struggles, and for these to reach the point where they pose the possibility of the working class taking power for itself, they must go beyond the union form. We seek the establishment of a widespread culture of resistance, rather than simply the establishment of strong unions, or faith in a ‘workers party’. The use of unions for struggle is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid in most situations. However, anarchist communists do not confuse the power of the unions with the power of the working class.
The workplace resistance group, as an informal and semi-clandestine group of politicised workers, will therefore develop a healthy disdain for law, the unions and management alike.

It seems clear to me...(?)

also your ideas of what to do with the IWW seem odd, don't you feel that if syndicalism isn't as good as a-communism that you should be saying something along the lines of, I don't know "AFed members should get involved where the IWW have built a solid unified struggle in workplaces [such as in the IWW Starbucks union]". There is a lot of "AF members should judge what is best to do themselves here" in the strategy, which I think is a mistake, at least providing theoretical examples would be a step forward.I don't really understand what the problem is. We don't agree that trade unions, even syndicalist ones can be vehicles for revolutionary change, but we accept that they can have some use.

What relation does this have to what I wrote?What :confused:

You keep saying that we have members who syndicalists and insurrectionists, implying that we're synthesist and that we ignore potential members. I'm responding to what you're saying...

Yes, but you seem to think it's based on mudslinging from the off, which appears to be motivated by some need to defend the organisation from any critique.It is based on mudslinging. I'm not saying you're slinging it, but your views are very reminiscent.

Sympathy and solidarity is expressed in the workplace document to syndicalists and syndicalism, this is in a core organisational document, there is once again nothing wrong with this, it just contradicts what you appear to be saying, which is that members should not be sympathetic to non-anarcho-communist positions.Where have I said that...?

Well maybe he isn't, but he told me he was.So you met some stranger, somewhere, who told you he was an AF member and a syndacalist?

This is something you should clarify further. Heavily sympathising with positions of organisations so often leads to joining and following different lines, I think this is an important point.The AF can't stop people from changing their politics and beliefs. But as I have said, repeated in fact, there are very strict guidelines to membership. If someone joins, it's because they agree with our perspectives and A&P's. Beyond that there isn't a great deal an organisation can do and we certainly do not police what peoples sympathies are, providing they don't conflict.

What are you referring to here?You said: "The fact that Palachinov has pointed out a bunch of insurrectionists collectively left AFed of their own accord should say something I reckon."

Forward Union

18th November 2009, 20:54

Membership figures do not take priority over anything, stop acting like a child! We encourage a broad spectrum of members insofar as they agree with our aims and principles etc.

Sorry, I wasn't saying this was a specific organisational policy, but a sentiment that I pick up from a majority of it's members that I have encountered, along with a lot of Wobs and other socialists. Probably a majority of the ones here. Too often, discussions about how many members or branches the IWW has takes president over how much density, industrial capacity, or workplace concentration it has. As an example of this problem we face.

Although I'd say the production of materials (which is time money and manpower) aimed at nothing more than promoting an organisations own policy to the general public rather than soley practically engaging in pre-existing structuress; displays a priority or at least a tension toward promoting ones self in an attempt to recruit over building organs of class power. Of course, members of the AF do participate in building organs of class power, as individuals, but as an organisation you collectively produce propaganda.

Patchd

18th November 2009, 20:57

The AF can't stop people from changing their politics and beliefs. But as I have said, repeated in fact, there are very strict guidelines to membership. If someone joins, it's because they agree with our perspectives and A&P's. Beyond that there isn't a great deal an organisation can do and we certainly do not police what peoples sympathies are, providing they don't conflict.

I can't speak for all autonomous groups, but from what I've experienced in our national delegate meetings since I've been a member is the same from all groups, and that is that upon making a point that you want to join the AFed, there is a meeting(s) to discuss what politics the person holds as well as to outline what the role of the organisation is and what the federation expects from it's members. Like TAT has explained, if someone in the federation has a contradictory position on an issue to our Aims and Principles, then either, they had lied to us (or not fully understood the A&Ps) upon joining about their agreement with the A&Ps, or their position on those matters had changed in their time in the AFed.

If the latter is the case, then they should be open about those disagreements, and should discuss them with other members of their group and/or the federation. We want active members, but we also want to maintain a large degree of theoretical unity, and I think this is achieved without having to have such an extensive party political-esque platform in the form of our Aims and Principles.

18th November 2009, 21:05

Such as what?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=360239&postcount=27

It's only unclear insofar as it's not a standard activist dynamic in the work place. It is, in a way, an untested course of action. Beyond that I don't see what's so unclear about it...

How is it an untested course of action? So a loose 'autonomous' group of workers who've had enough and start to self-organise. It's just so vaguely defined, if you called for the various kinds of workers' committees, such as strike committees for example to be formed then fine.

I don't really understand what the problem is. We don't agree that trade unions, even syndicalist ones can be vehicles for revolutionary change, but we accept that they can have some use.

For what? What possible use could the IWW have when it is not largely organised in some sector already? Do you believe in reviving the IWW from its deathbed? I don't mind the idea of working within an already IWW-unionised environment as an IWW militant, but other than that it seems pointless.

You keep saying that we have members who syndicalists and insurrectionists, implying that we're synthesist and that we ignore potential members. I'm responding to what you're saying...

You have tendencies leaning towards insurrectionism yourself though.

It is based on mudslinging. I'm not saying you're slinging it, but your views are very reminiscent.

My views aren't an attack on AFed, that is all.

So you met some stranger, somewhere, who told you he was an AF member and a syndacalist?

Err, would you have preferred it I interrogated him in a questioning room as to whether he was really in AFed or not?

The AF can't stop people from changing their politics and beliefs.

Fair enough, and like I said, I'm sure that the newer rules on membership are having a positive effect.

But as I have said, repeated in fact, there are very strict guidelines to membership. If someone joins, it's because they agree with our perspectives and A&P's. Beyond that there isn't a great deal an organisation can do and we certainly do not police what peoples sympathies are, providing they don't conflict.

Ah well. I think there should be more internal discussion about sympathies, where they ultimately end up lying and what sympathies conflict.

You said: "The fact that Palachinov has pointed out a bunch of insurrectionists collectively left AFed of their own accord should say something I reckon."

Yes and it is a good thing.. you said it was a good thing too.... I don't understand what you are saying here. Theoretical unity of non-deep sympathisers of insurrectionism with those that do deeply sympathise? Is that a wise idea?

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2009, 21:26

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=360239&postcount=27

Sorry, what...?

How is it an untested course of action?

It's not a generally used tactic in the work place.

So a loose 'autonomous' group of workers who've had enough and start to self-organise. It's just so vaguely defined, if you called for the various kinds of workers' committees, such as strike committees for example to be formed then fine.

I'm sorry, I just can't see how it's vague. What is it that you need spelling out for you? I'm not trying to be obstinate, but I don't understand your criticism? What more do you think is required?

How do you think the necessary conditions for social change, in the work place, will manifest themselves?

For what? What possible use could the IWW have when it is not largely organised in some sector already? Do you believe in reviving the IWW from its deathbed? I don't mind the idea of working within an already IWW-unionised environment as an IWW militant, but other than that it seems pointless.

Bringing workers together, uniting them in struggle, providing them a legal framework to challenge their boss and protect themselves. Education, resource.

I have no illusions about the IWW nor am I defending them as an organisation particularly, but clearly they have some use, as limited as it may be.

You have tendencies leaning towards insurrectionism yourself though.

Do I? I'm sorry, but you keep attributing opinions to me. You've not even been a member of this forum for a year, I don't remember ever speaking to you before, so I'm not sure how you think you know my politics so well. I think you listen to gossip far too much.

Ah well. I think there should be more internal discussion about sympathies, where they ultimately end up lying and what sympathies conflict.

I think there are greater and more important things to be worrying about.

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 01:26

Bringing workers together, uniting them in struggle, providing them a legal framework to challenge their boss and protect themselves. Education, resource.

Don't regular Trade unions do this much more effectively than the IWW?

but clearly they have some use, as limited as it may be.
Like regular trade unions or, the NSSN

Patchd

19th November 2009, 01:35

Don't regular Trade unions do this much more effectively than the IWW?

Like regular trade unions or, the NSSN

Yes, members can be, and are, members of larger 'mainstream' unions because it is of use to them in their immediate interests. The IWW is only different in it's libertarian structure, revolutionary outlook and industrial nature. There is nothing wrong with agitating within trade unions you are part of anyway, but we have no illusions with them, they are not revolutionary vehicles.

coda

19th November 2009, 01:43

hmm. I'm not so picky about classifying anarchists. I consider anyone an anarchist comrade if they are pro-communism and anti-state.

19th November 2009, 07:38

Sorry, what...?

You seem to agree with the concept of a Bakuninist vanguard.

I'm sorry, I just can't see how it's vague. What is it that you need spelling out for you? I'm not trying to be obstinate, but I don't understand your criticism? What more do you think is required?

How do you think the necessary conditions for social change, in the work place, will manifest themselves?

In the traditional ways they always have, I don't think a departure from that is needed in the form of some vague notion of an autonomous workers' group, the traditional committees and councils that workers form are fine as they are and if anything, are not pushed for being made enough, the mass meetings were workers elect delegates to form committees are of the utmost important.

Bringing workers together, uniting them in struggle, providing them a legal framework to challenge their boss and protect themselves. Education, resource.

I have no illusions about the IWW nor am I defending them as an organisation particularly, but clearly they have some use, as limited as it may be.

I don't understand this so much. The IWW is a syndicalist union where AFed is an.. anarcho-communist federation, your org is as a federaton, supposed to provide education and some resource for workers. The traditional unions (as has been stated already) provide more direct material resources for workers and have to be understood very carefully, what does the IWW offer that is so much better.. when you have AFed and a normal union. Syndicalist thought? Is that perhaps such an amazing idea? I wouldn't mind if AFed called itself a mixed anarcho-communist and syndicalist organisation, but the fact is, is that you are saying syndicalists are not part of AFed, it doesn't make much sense as a stance.

Do I? I'm sorry, but you keep attributing opinions to me. You've not even been a member of this forum for a year, I don't remember ever speaking to you before, so I'm not sure how you think you know my politics so well. I think you listen to gossip far too much.

I've read your previous posts before and it's not that hard to use the search function..

I think there are greater and more important things to be worrying about.

Perhaps, but I think it's important to clarify your positions on basic politics.

Stranger Than Paradise

19th November 2009, 08:04

Yes, members can be, and are, members of larger 'mainstream' unions because it is of use to them in their immediate interests. The IWW is only different in it's libertarian structure, revolutionary outlook and industrial nature. There is nothing wrong with agitating within trade unions you are part of anyway, but we have no illusions with them, they are not revolutionary vehicles.

Then again what Anarchist thinks reformist trade unions are revolutionary vehicles?

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 08:08

Yes, members can be, and are, members of larger 'mainstream' unions because it is of use to them in their immediate interests. The IWW is only different in it's libertarian structure, revolutionary outlook and industrial nature. There is nothing wrong with agitating within trade unions you are part of anyway, but we have no illusions with them, they are not revolutionary vehicles.

Why is a revolutionary outlook relevant in a non revolutionary body? Why not simply promote the NSSN within mainstream unions if you want to promote a radical syndicalist agenda in the workplace?

Why not equally support the RMT? A much larger, industrial anti-capitalist union.

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2009, 10:07

You seem to agree with the concept of a Bakuninist vanguard.

I think that's a bit of a leap. I was actually trying to explain the fundamental differences between what Bakunin meant by vanguard and what Lenin meant by vanguard. I suggest you do some reading on the subject. Pages 190-200 of Mark Leier's biography would help you.

In the traditional ways they always have, I don't think a departure from that is needed in the form of some vague notion of an autonomous workers' group, the traditional committees and councils that workers form are fine as they are and if anything, are not pushed for being made enough, the mass meetings were workers elect delegates to form committees are of the utmost important.Firstly, it's vague to you, for some inexplicable reason. Secondly, the concept of a workers committee and council are fundamentally different and are surely a long term aim of any revolutionary activity. They are an expression of workers control, rather than workers resistance. A workers resistance group is a medium term aim: "They work in a number of different ways depending on the context of struggle they find themselves in. Sometimes they simply produce propaganda against management and the union, attempting to create a larger context for debate on tactics and goals. At other times they will engage in clandestine militant, even violent, action in support of a particular workplace conflict. They are always independent of trade unions, even when they sometimes work within trade union structures." WRG's are a way of building confidence, resisting bosses and helping build towards more worker control in a way that is not confined by unionism and which allows workers to take take control of their struggles directly.

I don't understand this so much. The IWW is a syndicalist union where AFed is an.. anarcho-communist federation, your org is as a federaton, supposed to provide education and some resource for workers. The traditional unions (as has been stated already) provide more direct material resources for workers and have to be understood very carefully, what does the IWW offer that is so much better.. when you have AFed and a normal union. Syndicalist thought? Is that perhaps such an amazing idea? I wouldn't mind if AFed called itself a mixed anarcho-communist and syndicalist organisation, but the fact is, is that you are saying syndicalists are not part of AFed, it doesn't make much sense as a stance.You're pushing me into a corner, where you're making defend the IWW. And I'm not. Clearly members who are in IWW rather than mainstream unions are so because they find the politics better, perhaps because the union is member led and that's politically appealing to people. I was a member of IWW during my work dispute because it helped provide an immediate low level support network in terms of industrial law and process etc. I didn't join GMB because of it's internal structures and bureaucratic control, plus it didn't offer the kind of militancy the IWW offered.

You seem to have this wonderful ability to over-complicate things. It's not that difficult to understand, really.

I've read your previous posts before and it's not that hard to use the search function..You've provided a 5 year old post where I clarify what a Bakuninist vanguard is, because for some reason you think a Bakuninist vanguard is "insurrectionist"(?). I am not an insurrectionist, despite what you may have heard or what you think you have read, but if you want to substantiate your rather obsessive claim then do so, otherwise you're going to have to accept that you're wrong.

Perhaps, but I think it's important to clarify your positions on basic politics.Yes, I agree, it's important to clarify positions on basic politics. This is something the AF does.

Don't regular Trade unions do this much more effectively than the IWW?

I don't think so. Plus they're controlled by a union bureaucracy that wouldn't tolerate the kind of militancy we call for.

Like regular trade unions or, the NSSN

Are far more limited in their scope.

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 10:27

I don't think so. Plus they're controlled by a union bureaucracy that wouldn't tolerate the kind of militancy we call for.

Well, it is far more productive to try and rebuild the base strength of the Unions in opposition to the leadership, tan to build a union of independent workers. We will then have a larger platform for our political views, a larger audience. Much better than retreating to the backroom and preaching to the choir.

This is after all, one of the biggest pillars of the IWWs strategy of base unionism and dual carding. Not building itself as a separate trade union.

Also, I think you have to exclude the RMT from your analysis.

Are far more limited in their scope.I think it's goal of building an industrial union through a network of militants in all the existing unions is anything but a limited scope.

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2009, 10:30

Well, it is far more productive to try and rebuild the base strength of the Unions in opposition to the leadership, tan to build a union of independent workers.

It would be better for workers to build organisations that express their immediate needs and long term goals, beyond unions.

I think it's goal of building an industrial union through a network of militants in all the existing unions is anything but a limited scope.These tactics have been tried by Trotskyists for decades and they have failed to make any significant gains, even in times of high militancy. Why do you think you're efforts will work better?

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 10:36

Then again what Anarchist thinks reformist trade unions are revolutionary vehicles?

ok, misread that. None, but there is a debate of whether a reformist trade union can itself be reformed.

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 10:43

It would be better for workers to build organisations that express their immediate needs and long term goals, beyond unions.

I'm not talking about what workers should do, but how we should coordinate, as an incredibly small band, within the existing workers movement. The strength or weakness of this 'workers movement' is determined by factors completely outside our control. Unions are the bodies that ought to fight for workers immediate needs and long term goals inside the workplace. The fact that they don't do that is our failure. They are our organs of power, and we ought to ensure they do their job. Outside of the workplace, the Residents and tenants associations will/should/do fulfil the same function.

These tactics have been tried by Trotskyists for decades and they have failed to make any significant gains, even in times of high militancy. Why do you think you're efforts will work better?Various communists have also taken anti-union positions (or at least very critical positions) and performed propaganda/activist activities very similar to the AF. I'm thinking of groups like Solidarity, SPGB, and a century of other failed anarchist and left communist groups. What makes you think your efforts will work better than these? - don't answer this. It's a rhetorical question to show the irrelevance of the question, no particular praxis has succeeded. But Union involvement has certainly bore more fruits than ultra leftism. The SP is far more powerful than any anarchist group has ever been.

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2009, 11:03

I'm not talking about what workers should do, but how we should coordinate, as an incredibly small band, within the existing workers movement.

This is a fundamental difference. You talk as if we're some "other". Who is "we"?

Unions are the bodies that ought to fight for workers immediate needs and long term goals inside the workplace.No, that's the job of workers themselves.

Various communists have also taken anti-union positions (or at least very critical positions) and performed propaganda/activist activities very similar to the AF. I'm thinking of groups like Solidarity, SPGB, and a century of other failed anarchist groups. What makes you think your efforts will work better than these? - Rhetorical question to show the irrelevance of the question.I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I think it gets right to the heart of these issues. Firstly, I can't really comment on these activities unless you mention them. Could you be specific please?

Secondly, why do I think workers organising themselves is better than being organised within a union? Besides the obvious reasons, it builds confidence and ownership over struggle, they are not confined by bureaucracy and can act in accordance with their own wishes. More importantly the working class, organised together, beyond stagnate organisational structures like unions, which seek to compromise with the bosses to get "fairer" terms of exploitation, are the revolutionary vehicle and without our struggles being an expression of our own power and ability, then a revolution will never succeed.

You could argue that unions provide this space, but even if that's true, at some point they will become redundant as workers express views that move beyond the prescriptive nature of a union. Either through irrelevance or redundancy, the union is not and can never be the means by which workers take control.

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 12:17

This is a fundamental difference. You talk as if we're some "other". Who is "we"?

It refers to 'us' as class struggle Anarchists who organise in a particular way within the class struggle.

No, that's the job of workers themselves.Unions are not made up of organised workers?

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I think it gets right to the heart of these issues. Firstly, I can't really comment on these activities unless you mention them. Could you be specific please?You want an example of what exactly? pro or anti union activity?

Secondly, why do I think workers organising themselves is better than being organised within a union?When workers organise themselves in order to fight for their rights at work we call this organisation a 'union'. Should existing unions contain features that we find to be inpractical in the class struggle, it is our duty as workers to fight against them. And restore unions to their optimum ability.

This is empowering, and creates class consciousness, it saves time, and gives us a theater of operation which exists in reality land. We can measure union density, and ensure their internal democracy. We cannot measure 'empowerment' or whatever physiological strengths people might have.

h0m0revolutionary

19th November 2009, 12:30

Just to mention, that this RMT Union that Liberty and Solidairty members apparently have so many wet dreams over, is the same RMT Union backing calls to "restore our sovereignty" away from the EU.

The same RMT Union headed by Bob Crow - not anti-capitalist, but a blood and soil patriot, interested in protectionist economics and restoration of British legislative powers to Britain (as opposed to the EU). Pure Stalinism of the worst variety.

The same RMT that in it's backing of the ghastly NO2EU electoral alliance held no consultation with it's wider membership - despite the fact this cost the RMT leaders (along with a little financial help from Socialist Party and Communist Party of Britain) £5000 for each slate in each constituency and at least a million election leaflets in each constituency.

- The same RMT leadership, who have proven themselves time and time again to be bureaucratic and nationalistic. As opposed to democratic and internationalist in outlook (See: 'A Dummies Guide to Leftism').

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 12:50

Just to mention, that this RMT Union that Liberty and Solidairty members apparently have so many wet dreams over, is the same RMT Union backing calls to "restore our sovereignty" away from the EU.

Not important when discussing their industrial capacity and our relationship to that fact as Anarchists. What I am saying is that any criticisms of the RMT must be made separately from criticisms made of the general trade union situation. They are an anomaly in that they are rapidly growing, militant, industrial, powerful, and have a leadership which often expresses more militancy than the members. They are also set to leave the TUC, which would be a massivly favourable event if we organaise before hand.

The same RMT Union headed by Bob Crow - not anti-capitalist, but a blood and soil patriot,One can be an anti-capitalist and be a patriot. But yes, Bob crow does have some deplorable views. Not my problem though.

The same RMT leadership, who have proven themselves time and time again to be bureaucratic and nationalistic. As opposed to democratic and internationalist in outlook (See: 'A Dummies Guide to Leftism').I think calling them nationalist is absolutely ridiculous. A truly nationalist union would not organise so many strikes which negative effect the nations economy. Nor would they be victimised to no end by the Nationalist press. see* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PwQwLXDxWA) The no2eu campaign was a rushed attempt at creating a leftwing voice in the EU debate and used some very clumsy language. As I have said before, it is quite logical (though you may not agree) to prefer isolated EU states to a superstate, whilst trying to build a Labour international, across these borders. Thus internationalising the working class, and halting neo-liberal attacks on the workers of Europe. From what I understand Bob Crow has a variation of this ideal and has maintained the RMTs links internationally.

The EU represents one of the worst things that could ever happen to the European working class, and I've seen members of the AF argue for it, even vote in it's elections.

Bilan

19th November 2009, 13:49

Western anarcho communists don't focus on it enough.

I don't know about you British Anarchists - and even there, I don't believe you - but here at least no one shuts up about Imperialism. Anarchists are more inclined to talk about Imperialism - whether American, or for us in particular, Australian imperialism [e.g. in East Timor and the Asia-Pacific region] - and social inequalities than they are about class, or any indepth analysis on the state, or capitalism.
That, my friend, is a whole heap of bullshit. If anarchists focus on that anymore, they will simply become Maoists.

I mean, even with this group you're a member of/associated with, Liberty and Solidairty: Forward Union seems to be quite an influential member, and he seems to be quite into it.
This criticism merely appears as an off hand swipe at other anarchist communists.

Bilan

19th November 2009, 13:54

The EU represents one of the worst things that could ever happen to the European working class, and I've seen members of the AF argue for it, even vote in it's elections.

Probably not. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the nature of the EU, but I am suspicious that whether or not you vote on it will have any significant impact on the state of the working class - for better or for worse. To me, that implies a relatively naive, and quasi-anti-capitalist, but in reality merely protectionist tendency within your politics: presuming that the free movement of capital necessitates the absolute degradation of the working class (Which it does), but that somehow protectionism quite literally does protect workers (which it doesn't): an argument strongly held by the politically facile (nationalists), and economically absurd.

Correct me if I am mistaken in this interpretation.

Bilan

19th November 2009, 14:03

One can be an anti-capitalist and be a patriot. But yes, Bob crow does have some deplorable views. Not my problem though.
.

No, you can't really. Especially when one notes that the nature of the modern nation state is largely determined by bourgeois constructions of identity (collective and individual), and is more defined by it's economy than by anything intrinsically unique about it (in the cultural sense).
Nationalism is a purely bourgeois concept. Incidentally, the bourgeois class as the dominant economic class, is also a by-product of capitalist society. Therefore, as the dominant class, possessing the dominant ideology, it's constructs then become intrinsically linked with capitalism.
What kind of nationalism, in the modern, global capitalist system, can negate the dominant economic model and expect to act outside it without undermining, or destroying, it's borders so it may survive? This union bureaucrat may be all chums with workers, but when it comes down to it, nationalism is against the working class.
It matters not whether you can retort every accusation against the bourgeois, and anti-working class nature of nationalism with some verbose, tedious, heart rendering rhetoric about the suffering of the English working class: You're still an anti-working class bastard.

Patchd

19th November 2009, 14:16

Why is a revolutionary outlook relevant in a non revolutionary body? Why not simply promote the NSSN within mainstream unions if you want to promote a radical syndicalist agenda in the workplace?

Why not equally support the RMT? A much larger, industrial anti-capitalist union.
Well for one I don't want to promote a radical syndicalist agenda, I'm not a syndicalist. Like TAT has already posted, our workplace strategy shows that we, as a federation, seek to build 'workplace resistance groups', that do act in a revolutionary manner, that do seek to gain workers' control, this we can do through the unions we are part of. We still see unions as being a mere mediating role within society, not a revolutionary one.

Again, it would apply to the RMT, if an AF member was a member of it, they can work within it, but so long as they were honest about agreeing with the Aims and Principles upon joining, they would have no illusions with syndicalism.

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2009, 14:41

The EU represents one of the worst things that could ever happen to the European working class, and I've seen members of the AF argue for it, even vote in it's elections.

Now unless you have a name, then you're full of shit. Who is this AF member who made these arguments and went and voted. Who is it? If members of the AF are saying these things, then they shouldn't be members of the AF.

I mean, this is just your default position isn't it? Every time you enter into discussion with AF members you always fall back on: "well I've seen AF members do this and do that". Stop using this as an argument, it's utterly ridiculous; who cares whether you've seen an AF member make such a stupid argument. What actual quality does this "revelation" bring to the debate? Nothing! It's just your pathetic efforts to try and discredit the organisation.

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 14:45

Now unless you have a name, then you're full of shit. Who is this AF member who made these arguments and went and voted. Who is it? If members of the AF are saying these things, then they shouldn't be members of the AF.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=380 and here is a gem "Sure this is a capitalist, neo-liberal Europe but it is a united Europe, a borderless (internally) section of Earth, surely that is a step in the right direction. So there we have it, in essence I am voting Green because they will introduce measures towards individual autonomy and greater freedoms."

But it was really a footnote, and I'd rather you responded to the content of my arguments. Furthermore I don't see this as a criticism against the AF per se, but against a general liberalism which is festering in our movement and is a problem for all of us.

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 14:47

Again, it would apply to the RMT, if an AF member was a member of it, they can work within it, but so long as they were honest about agreeing with the Aims and Principles upon joining, they would have no illusions with syndicalism.

Work within it how? what work would be done? And for the record I am not a syndicalist either. I take the line that

"Anarcho-syndicalism, trying to forcefully introduce libertarian ideas into the left wing of revolutionary syndicalism as a means of creating anarchist-type unions, represents a step forward, but it does not, as yet, go beyond the empirical method, for anarcho-syndicalism does not necessarily interweave the 'anarchisation' of the trade union movement with that of the anarchists organised outside the movement. For it is only on this basis, of such a liaison, that revolutionary trade unionism could be 'anarchised' and prevented from moving towards opportunism and reformism."
und

Without restricting ourselves to the creation of anarchist unions, we must seek to exercise our theoretical influence on all trade unions, and in all its forms (the lWW, Russian TU's). We can only achieve this end by working in rigorously organised anarchist collectives; but never in small empirical groups, having between them neither organisational liaison nor theoretical agreement.

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2009, 14:53

But it was really a footnote, and I'd rather you responded to the content of my arguments.

What fucking content? When you take the time to respond in full to my arguments, I'll take the time to do likewise. Until then, I'm not interested in reading the same tired, repetitive shit you come out with.

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 14:56

nothing to say about the blog either. Arguments with you aren't what they used to be

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2009, 15:00

nothing to say about the blog either. Arguments with you aren't what they used to be

Yes, I have many things to say about the blog, but not to you.

As for arguing with me, like I said, if you want to actually respond to my arguments in full context, instead of picking isolated sentences and addressing their immediate meaning (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1602816&postcount=95) then fine, otherwise you can fuck off.

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 15:15

Yes, I have many things to say about the blog, but not to you.

As for arguing with me, like I said, if you want to actually respond to my arguments in full context, instead of picking isolated sentences and addressing their immediate meaning (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1602816&postcount=95) then fine, otherwise you can fuck off.

I think the essential problem is that you seem to define workplace organisations as something other than unions. And bureaucratic workplace organisations as "unions". Which seems odd to me. Rather than agitate within, rebuild the base of existing unions, utilising their name, tradition, legitimacy, and legality to build a militant workers movement (not to mention connecting with a legion of militants willing to help you out), you seem to favour constructing (presumably illegal) bands of workers which would have no collective workplace agreement, no recognition rights, no legal protection, no right to strike etc. Which would either in the end, fail through repression or an inability to appeal to the working class, or, become a Union...

Furthermore, you seem to think the unions inherently restrict class struggle. This is simply not true either, they are an expression of it. Numerous pamphlets were written in the 80s prophesising that; with Thatchers destruction of the Unions, in a time when conditions were quite bad for workers (to say the least), that the working class' anger would now be completely explosive. With no pesky unions to calm the situations down, the workers would erupt in militancy to respond to their problems . In a way, many anarchists welcomed the death of the Unions. All that happened in reality, was things got far, far worse. Life expectancy for working people dropped, along with the average wage, contrasted with a rise in injuries and fatalities at work. This trend continues, though union density is far from the only factor. The dismal state we find ourselves in can only be turned around by the repairing democratisation, and independence of the Unions.

Unions cannot be blamed for the conditions of workplace resistance. Only 15% of the working class are even in Unions, and that, by the way, tends to be the most active in defending workers at work.

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 15:19

Yes, I have many things to say about the blog, but not to you.

As for arguing with me, like I said, if you want to actually respond to my arguments in full context, instead of picking isolated sentences and addressing their immediate meaning (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1602816&postcount=95) then fine, otherwise you can fuck off.

I think the essential problem is that you seem to define workplace organisations as something other than unions. And bureaucratic workplace organisations as "unions". Which seems odd to me. Rather than agitate within, rebuild the base of existing unions, utilising their name, tradition, legitimacy, and legality to build a militant workers movement (not to mention a legion of militants willing to help you out), you seem to favour constructing (presumably illegal) bands of workers which would have no collective workplacec agreement, no recognition rights, no legal protection, no right to strike etc. This would either fail, or, become a Union...

Furthermore, you seem to think the unions restrict class struggle. This is simply not true either, they are an expression of it. Numerous pamphlets were written in the 80s prophesising that; with Thatchers destruction of the Unions, in a time when conditions were quite bad for workers (to say the least), that the working class' anger would now be completely explosive. With no pesky unions to calm the situations down, the workers would erupt in militancy in response to their problems . In a way, many anarchists welcomed the death of the Unions. All that in reality, was things got far, far worse. Life expectancy for working people dropped, along with the average wage, contrasted with a rise in injuries and fatalities at work. This trend continues, though union density is far from the only factor. The dismal state we find ourselves in can only be turned around by the repairing, democratisation, and political independence of the Unions.

Leo

19th November 2009, 15:32

I find it moderately funny that English platformism developed entirely as a reaction to the influence of left communist positions.

Shows that we are on the right track.

Forward Union

19th November 2009, 15:36

I find it moderately funny that English platformism developed entirely as a reaction to the influence of left communist positions.

Link?

I don't really know how British platformism developed. Presumably it came about in the late 1930s after the platform was translated. And was a responce to the disorganisation prevalent in Anarchist Communism (which is why it was written aftre all) Either way it's not a particularly relevant tradition to research, it clearly failed to get anywhere and had no historical influence.

Leo

19th November 2009, 16:04

I don't really know how British platformism developed.

I am talking about the Anarkismo line.

Link?

I can give links to your posts if you wish.

Stranger Than Paradise

19th November 2009, 16:26

Well for one I don't want to promote a radical syndicalist agenda, I'm not a syndicalist. Like TAT has already posted, our workplace strategy shows that we, as a federation, seek to build 'workplace resistance groups', that do act in a revolutionary manner, that do seek to gain workers' control, this we can do through the unions we are part of. We still see unions as being a mere mediating role within society, not a revolutionary one.

Again, it would apply to the RMT, if an AF member was a member of it, they can work within it, but so long as they were honest about agreeing with the Aims and Principles upon joining, they would have no illusions with syndicalism.

I don't see what this actually means as such. AF's stance seems very vague. No Anarcho-Syndicalist recognises the reformist unions, which are an expression of a time of low class consciousness, as revolutionary.

Devrim

19th November 2009, 18:00

I find it moderately funny that English platformism developed entirely as a reaction to the influence of left communist positions.

Shows that we are on the right track.

Link?

I don't really know how British platformism developed. Presumably it came about in the late 1930s after the platform was translated. And was a responce to the disorganisation prevalent in Anarchist Communism (which is why it was written aftre all) Either way it's not a particularly relevant tradition to research, it clearly failed to get anywhere and had no historical influence.

I think that Leo is wrong here, and I am not sure where he picked up this idea. Before L&S, Platformism in Britain was represented by the Anarchist Workers' Group, had influence in the founding of the Anarchist Communist Federation (now Anarchist Federation), and a little before my time though people like Nick Heath would remember, the Libertarian Communist Group, and the Organisation of Revolutionary Anarchists.

I don't think it has a history going back to the 30s though.

Devrim

Leo

19th November 2009, 18:06

Ah I thought LS was the first platformist group in England. Oh well, lets say that I find it moderately funny that the new English platformism developed entirely as a reaction to the influence of left communist positions.

black magick hustla

19th November 2009, 18:08

I think that Leo is wrong here, and I am not sure where he picked up this idea. Before L&S, Platformism in Britain was represented by the Anarchist Workers' Group, had influence in the founding of the Anarchist Communist Federation (now Anarchist Federation), and a little before my time though people like Nick Heath would remember, the Libertarian Communist Group, and the Organisation of Revolutionary Anarchists.

I don't think it has a history going back to the 30s though.

Devrim

I think what he meant is the "leftist" platformism of anarkismo people and the like. the original platform did not imply the sort of pseudo-trotskyist positions anarkismo folks have.

19th November 2009, 18:10

I think that's a bit of a leap. I was actually trying to explain the fundamental differences between what Bakunin meant by vanguard and what Lenin meant by vanguard. I suggest you do some reading on the subject. Pages 190-200 of Mark Leier's biography would help you.

Thank you, but I saw it as you defending a Bakuninist vanguard, I am not keen on the idea of a Bakuninist vanguard whatsoever, I also believe anarchists should never entertain or be sympathetic to this idea.

Firstly, it's vague to you, for some inexplicable reason.

Alright, let me put it another way: do you have any examples of these 'workplace resistance groups' having been formed?

There. If they have been formed and forced successful demands then I will back down on this portion of the argument, fair enough?

They don't need 'clarifying' as existing, small groups of workers who have attained a good level of class-consciousness will naturally drift together, organisations linking together can act as a means for militants to link up. Why do you feel that this is an important step to clarify?

Secondly, the concept of a workers committee and council are fundamentally different and are surely a long term aim of any revolutionary activity.

Actually I don't think so, are the rank-and-file committees in the RMT that force so many demands to go through both from the union leadership and from the companies that try to exploit them "long term"? It depends on what you mean by that phrase doesn't it, I don't think you are using it very wisely myself.

They are an expression of workers control, rather than workers resistance.

This notion of resistance and control is quite confusing to me, I mean it makes sense insofar as resistance obviously means forcing demands from Capitalists..

..then again, the workers at Lindsey oil refinery who forced demands formed committees too, what is your obsession with 'medium' and 'long term' goals? I don't follow you here at all, I must say.

A workers resistance group is a medium term aim: "They work in a number of different ways depending on the context of struggle they find themselves in. Sometimes they simply produce propaganda against management and the union, attempting to create a larger context for debate on tactics and goals. At other times they will engage in clandestine militant, even violent, action in support of a particular workplace conflict. They are always independent of trade unions, even when they sometimes work within trade union structures." WRG's are a way of building confidence, resisting bosses and helping build towards more worker control in a way that is not confined by unionism and which allows workers to take take control of their struggles directly.

Sorry, but it still seems vague to me. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

You're pushing me into a corner, where you're making defend the IWW. And I'm not. Clearly members who are in IWW rather than mainstream unions are so because they find the politics better

There you go then, deeply sympathetic to.. syndicalism.

There's nothing wrong with that though, which is what I'm saying. I encourage more solidarity in the anarchist movement, of all currents - between syndicalists and communists, there shouldn't even be a solfed and afed imo, there also shouldn't be an IAF and IWA (and I don't care if that sounds 'opportunist' it's true), there should be one world federation of anarchist federations.. and one mixed anarcho-communist and syndicalist federation in each locale.

perhaps because the union is member led and that's politically appealing to people. I was a member of IWW during my work dispute because it helped provide an immediate low level support network in terms of industrial law and process etc. I didn't join GMB because of it's internal structures and bureaucratic control, plus it didn't offer the kind of militancy the IWW offered.

Ok, but don't you feel that you have a duty to support anarcho-syndicalists who seek to propagate and defend this union if they've helped you with low-level work disputes? Also, why did you quit the IWW? I assume you did as you said.. "were" a member. And if they are ok then why don't you defend the NSSN as well? From what I can tell, they are not as useless as you make out.

You've provided a 5 year old post where I clarify what a Bakuninist vanguard is, because for some reason you think a Bakuninist vanguard is "insurrectionist"(?).

Perhaps I am the lone minority here, but I don't think a Bakuninist vanguard fits in with anarcho-communist or indeed anarcho-syndicalist thought, it does however make sense in an insurrectionist context. Anarchists (not insurrectionists though) who believe in a Bakuninist vanguard are betraying their principles IMHO. It still seems like you were defending it in that post, but perhaps I am wrong.

Yes, I agree, it's important to clarify positions on basic politics. This is something the AF does.

Largely yes, but there's abit more to do.

nuisance

19th November 2009, 18:16

There seems to be alot of confusion of what insurrectionalism is. Perhaps people should define what they mean to build up a little bit of coherency.

Stranger Than Paradise

19th November 2009, 18:18

There seems to be alot of confusion of what insurrectionalism is. Perhaps people should define what they mean to build up a little bit of coherency.

Could you tell me what the AFed's so called 'insurrectionism' actually is.

nuisance

19th November 2009, 18:21

Could you tell me what the AFed's so called 'insurrectionism' actually is.
None, that is outlined in any of our theoritcal works or A&Ps that I can think of. Perhaps individual members are influenced by insurretionalism, myself for example, but as a coherent position of the Federation, no. Afterall there is alot more to insurrectionalism than just supporting insurrection.

19th November 2009, 18:35

None, that is outlined in any of our theoritcal works or A&Ps that I can think of. Perhaps individual members are influenced by insurretionalism, myself for example, but as a coherent position of the Federation, no. Afterall there is alot more to insurrectionalism than just supporting insurrection.

Yes, sorry for promoting the misunderstanding, when I said:

Insurrectionist (IAF)

The words got muddled up in my head, AF isn't actually insurrectionist, but yeah as you've said a lot of members are influenced or sympathetic to insurrectionism, which imo just detracts from anarchist politics.

nuisance

19th November 2009, 18:58

AF isn't actually insurrectionist, but yeah as you've said a lot of members are influenced or sympathetic to insurrectionism, which imo just detracts from anarchist politics.
I wouldn't say alot or even many are.

which imo just detracts from anarchist politics.
How and what do you think Insurrectionalism is?

19th November 2009, 19:13

How and what do you think insurrectionalism is?

A current based firmly in autonomous anti-organisational affinity groups practising 'illegalism' and is probably the least coherent anarchist current there is, Wikipedia seems to state it best here:

1. "The concept of 'attack' is at the heart of the insurrectionist ideology"[2]. As such it is viewed that "It is through acting and learning to act, not propaganda, that we will open the path to insurrection."[1] although "propaganda has a role in clarifying how to act"[1]. In the state of action is in the state that one learns[1]. The Italian text Ai ferri corti says: "An individual with a passion for social upheaval and a ‘personal’ vision of the class clash wants to do something immediately. If he or she analyses the transformation of capital and the State it is in order to attack them, certainly not so as to be able to go to sleep with clearer ideas."[15] "Attack is the refusal of mediation, pacification, sacrifice, accommodation, and compromise in struggle."[2]
2. Insurrection(s) and Revolution: Revolution is seen as "a concrete event, it must be built daily through more modest attempts which do not have all the liberating characteristics of the social revolution in the true sense. These more modest attempts are insurrections. In them the uprising of the most exploited and excluded of society and the most politically sensitized minority opens the way to the possible involvement of increasingly wider strata of exploited on a flux of rebellion which could lead to revolution."[1]
3. "The self-management of struggle"[1] as "those that struggle are autonomous in their decisions and actions; this is the opposite of an organization of synthesis which always attempts to take control of struggle. Struggles that are synthesized within a single controlling organization are easily integrated into the power structure of present society. Self-organized struggles are by nature uncontrollable when they are spread across the social terrain."[1] It is seen that the system and its institutions are afraid of rebellious acts becoming propaganda by the deed and thus making rebellion extend itself[1]. "Small actions, therefore, easily reproducible, requiring unsophisticated means that are available to all, are by their very simplicity and spontaneity uncontrollable."[1] This also means that insurrectionary anarchists should not see themselves as a vanguard or as the conscious ones but just as part "of the exploited and excluded"[1].
4. Temporary affinity groups instead of permanent organizations: This means rejection of ": thus we are against the party, syndicate and permanent organization, all of which act to synthesize struggle and become elements of integration for capital and the state."[1] Instead the view that "organization is for concrete tasks".[1] "The informal anarchist organization is therefore a specific organization which gathers around a common affinity."[1]
5. The trascendence of the dichotomy between the individual and the rest of society and of individualism and communism: "Insurrection begins with the desire of individuals to break out of constrained and controlled circumstances, the desire to reappropriate the capacity to create one’s own life as one sees fit."[1] But the view that "Individuality can only flourish where equality of access to the conditions of existence is the social reality. This equality of access is communism; what individuals do with that access is up to them and those around them. Thus there is no equality or identity of individuals implied in true communism."[1]

What do you think of Malatesta saying:

Violence (physical force) used to another's hurt, which is the most brutal form of struggle between men can assume, is eminently corrupting. It tends, by its very nature, to suffocate the best sentiments of man, and to develop all the antisocial qualities, ferocity, hatred, revenge, the spirit of domination and tyranny, contempt of the weak, servility towards the strong. And this harmful tendency arises also when violence is used for a good end. ... Anarchists who rebel against every sort of oppression and struggle for the integral liberty of each and who ought thus to shrink instinctively from all acts of violence which cease to be mere resistance to oppression and become oppressive in their turn are also liable to fall into the abyss of brutal force. ... The excitement caused by some recent explosions and the admiration for the courage with which the bomb-throwers faced death, suffices to cause many anarchists to forget their program, and to enter on a path which is the most absolute negation of all anarchist ideas and sentiments

That is a good quote in my opinion, it doesn't in any way say self-defence or even violence is reactionary, but instead says that violence can be corrupting, violence born out of a genuine grassroots struggle is the only acceptable kind of violence.

I think that although Malatesta was an insurrectionist, the insurrectionary current largely leads to this kind of thing. The examples of Greek insurrectionists fighting their supposed other anarchist comrades (and it is noted on the wikipedia page) is an example of the real-world conflicts.. that can arise between the two currents.

bcbm

19th November 2009, 19:34

A current based firmly in autonomous anti-organisational affinity groups practising 'illegalism' illegalism stopped being popular before the last world war, and was really only a truly meaningful experiment in france. i think "autonomous anti-organizational" sounds negative; i would say it is based firmly in the self-organization of the exploited.
and is probably the least coherent anarchist current there is, Wikipedia seems to state it best here: odd to call it incoherent and then give a list of fairly coherent principles and ideas. the wikipedia also leaves out the influence of agamben, the invisible committee/tiqqun, perlman, claire fontaine, deleuze, dauve, foucault and others who, at least in the us, have a strong influence within the "insurrectionary" current.

19th November 2009, 19:39

illegalism stopped being popular before the last world war, and was really only a truly meaningful experiment in france. i think "autonomous anti-organizational" sounds negative; i would say it is based firmly in the self-organization of the exploited. odd to call it incoherent and then give a list of fairly coherent principles and ideas. the wikipedia also leaves out the influence of agamben, the invisible committee/tiqqun, perlman, claire fontaine, deleuze, dauve, foucault and others who, at least in the us, have a strong influence within the "insurrectionary" current.

The insurrectionists in the USA tend to stick out quite differently to the rest of the anarchist movement, the coming insurrection and other publications like that just reaffirm my belief that insurrectionism is an ideology that got deprecated by modern organised anarcho-communism, it is best left as a tactic we don't endorse anymore.

That does not mean I don't support insurrectionists in certain ways, for example the Greek insurrectionists in some of their actions are nothing but class expressions, black bloc organisational practices against Fascism are progressive in a way and are generally associated with insurrectionaries too, but I don't think that insurrectionism as an ideology and indeed 90% of its practices offer anything progressive for modern anarcho-communists.

19th November 2009, 19:39

Also, what do you mean illegalism isn't used?

Don't you think that some of the insurrectionaries in Greece's constant bank robberies were in line with illegalist thought? :confused:

bcbm

19th November 2009, 19:52

The insurrectionists in the USA tend to stick out quite differently to the rest of the anarchist movement do you mean on a global level, or within the us?
the coming insurrection and other publications like that just reaffirm my belief that insurrectionism is an ideology that got deprecated by modern organised anarcho-communism, it is best left as a tactic we don't endorse anymore. why do they reaffirm your belief? i think the incorporation of modern theory is pretty important and something a lot of communists (anarchists, whateverists) don't do a very good job of.
but I don't think that insurrectionism as an ideology i think i think insurrectionary anarchism ("ia" for future use?) is at most a theory of praxis, ideologically driven by the need for communism. sorry to nit-pick.
and indeed 90% of its practices offer anything progressive for modern anarcho-communists. i'd question your view of what "90% of its practices" are.
Also, what do you mean illegalism isn't used? Don't you think that some of the insurrectionaries in Greece's constant bank robberies were in line with illegalist thought? i think the situation with the armed groups in greece is developing more as an urban guerrilla front than an illegalist one.

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2009, 20:02

I think the essential problem is that you seem to define workplace organisations as something other than unions. And bureaucratic workplace organisations as "unions". Which seems odd to me. Rather than agitate within, rebuild the base of existing unions, utilising their name, tradition, legitimacy, and legality to build a militant workers movement (not to mention connecting with a legion of militants willing to help you out), you seem to favour constructing (presumably illegal) bands of workers which would have no collective workplace agreement, no recognition rights, no legal protection, no right to strike etc. Which would either in the end, fail through repression or an inability to appeal to the working class, or, become a Union...

I favour both options, but within context. Workers should be in a union if it can directly help their immediate aims, but as you have appropriately demonstrated they are limited by their very nature, and that's the point.

While unions can provide "legitimacy" (to who, I'm not sure?), legality and support networks (not that a union is exclusive in that respect); that legality and legitimacy is also restrictive in forwarding struggle to a more combative role. Revolution isn't going to happen within the confines of legitimacy or legality, nor is the name of a union or its tradition particularly relevant to the realities of social conflict.

Workplace resistance groups act as a means for which struggle - that may or may not happen within the legal and "legitimate" framework of a union - can progress from what that is, into the next stage of militancy. As our strategy talks about, the conditions have to be right for this stage in class struggle to be effective. In the meantime, working within the legal and "legitimate" union structure can be desirable, if not necessary. That's not to say that they will remain desirable or necessary, because they won't.

Furthermore, you seem to think the unions inherently restrict class struggle. This is simply not true either, they are an expression of it.

I can accept that unions are an expression of class struggle. That's obvious.

Numerous pamphlets were written in the 80s prophesising that; with Thatchers destruction of the Unions, in a time when conditions were quite bad for workers (to say the least), that the working class' anger would now be completely explosive. With no pesky unions to calm the situations down, the workers would erupt in militancy to respond to their problems . In a way, many anarchists welcomed the death of the Unions. All that happened in reality, was things got far, far worse. Life expectancy for working people dropped, along with the average wage, contrasted with a rise in injuries and fatalities at work. This trend continues, though union density is far from the only factor. The dismal state we find ourselves in can only be turned around by the repairing democratisation, and independence of the Unions.

You make a sound argument for transitional demands. I have no problem with workers using unions to make their life expectancy rise or to achieve concrete minimum wages or to make it safer for their bosses to exploit them. Capitalists have become wise to these issues. A happier worker is a more productive worker.

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2009, 20:18

Thank you, but I saw it as you defending a Bakuninist vanguard, I am not keen on the idea of a Bakuninist vanguard whatsoever, I also believe anarchists should never entertain or be sympathetic to this idea.

It seems to me that you don't really understand the nature of a Bakuninist vanguard. I accept the term is rather misleading, but the language used and the meaning behind the language are two very different things.

Alright, let me put it another way: do you have any examples of these 'workplace resistance groups' having been formed?

No, but I already made this claim to begin with, in response to your initial opinion that they are "unclear".

They don't need 'clarifying' as existing, small groups of workers who have attained a good level of class-consciousness will naturally drift together, organisations linking together can act as a means for militants to link up. Why do you feel that this is an important step to clarify?

The structure of this sentence confuses me. Can you repeat it more clearly please.

Actually I don't think so, are the rank-and-file committees in the RMT that force so many demands to go through both from the union leadership and from the companies that try to exploit them "long term"? It depends on what you mean by that phrase doesn't it, I don't think you are using it very wisely myself.

This is the confusion. I am not referring to demands, I am referring to actual workers control. WRG's should be looked at within the context of the stages of struggle, not necessary as a means to achieve transitional demands.

"A workplace resistance group, as an autonomous manifestation of workers’ struggles, has the potential to carry forward struggles in a manner that permanent workers’ organisations such as unions cannot, either through lack of desire or for fear of legal repercussion. For instance, during struggles of a significant size, an informal grouping of militant workers can agitate for occupations and blockades, can undertake sabotage, and can directly approach sympathisers in a way which unions cannot."

This notion of resistance and control is quite confusing to me, I mean it makes sense insofar as resistance obviously means forcing demands from Capitalists..

..then again, the workers at Lindsey oil refinery who forced demands formed committees too, what is your obsession with 'medium' and 'long term' goals? I don't follow you here at all, I must say.

Social revolution will happen in stages. A union can make demands, but you can never make the demand that capitalism doesn't exist any more. There will require stages as struggle progresses and workers gain confidence in challenging capital, their bosses, the state and begin to express desires for fundamental change.

That's what we're talking about right? I mean, I'm a communist, I want to destroy capitalism, smash the state and create a communist society. Doing that through a union is impossible and it will require stages of struggle.

Is that clearer?

Sorry, but it still seems vague to me. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I have asked several times what specifically you are having difficulty with and you never answer. I don't want to appear rude, but it seems that this isn't a question of it being vague, rather you just don't understand.

There you go then, deeply sympathetic to.. syndicalism.

I don't see how that's the case. You're making great leaps in logic to back up your points.

Ok, but don't you feel that you have a duty to support anarcho-syndicalists who seek to propagate and defend this union if they've helped you with low-level work disputes? Also, why did you quit the IWW? I assume you did as you said.. "were" a member. And if they are ok then why don't you defend the NSSN as well? From what I can tell, they are not as useless as you make out.

I participate in strikes as an anarchist communist. As such I will support any worker who is on strike, whether they are in the FBU, GMB or IWW and will be part of a union as and when it serves the interests of my class and fellow workers.

Perhaps I am the lone minority here, but I don't think a Bakuninist vanguard fits in with anarcho-communist or indeed anarcho-syndicalist thought

Why not?

Largely yes, but there's abit more to do.

Not in any way that would be healthy for an organisation.

19th November 2009, 20:20

do you mean on a global level, or within the us?

Within the US of course.

why do they reaffirm your belief? i think the incorporation of modern theory is pretty important and something a lot of communists (anarchists, whateverists) don't do a very good job of.

But it is not good modern theory imo, like I said (and picked out bits from before), the coming insurrection only has some good points, I've tried Tiqqun before but found myself dropping it pretty quickly. I don't think these are great advancements of modern communist thought in any way, as is constantly made out.

i think insurrectionary anarchism ("ia" for future use?) is at most a theory of praxis, ideologically driven by the need for communism. sorry to nit-pick. i'd question your view of what "90% of its practices" are.

Those stated.

'self-organisation' as you put is it not always extremely positive, an organisation to the extent of a federation (like AFed) is by all means necessary, forming autonomous groups outside of something like that is to be expected, but only in some circumstances.

Saying that it should be the primary form workers organise themselves to struggle is a massive difference.

i think the situation with the armed groups in greece is developing more as an urban guerrilla front than an illegalist one.

Yes, which is also not a good tactic and is where illegalism can take you.

nuisance

19th November 2009, 20:26

A current based firmly in autonomous anti-organisational affinity groups practising 'illegalism' and is probably the least coherent anarchist current there is, Wikipedia seems to state it best here:
What do you mean by least coherent? It's a tactic. The majority of contempoary Insurrectionists are anarchist-communists. It's important to note that they are not 'anti-organisational' but actually wary of formal organisation and use self-organised informal structures- affinity groups, cells, base nuclei and so on. Illegalism isn't a main tenent of [email protected] nor exclusive to it.

Why we are insurrectionalist anarchists
—Because we are struggling along with the excluded to alleviate and ultimately
abolish the conditions of exploitation imposed by the included.
—Because we consider it possible to contribute to the development of struggles that
are appearing spontaneously everywhere, turning them into mass insurrections, that
is to say, actual revolutions.
—Because we want to destroy the capitalist order of the world which, thanks to
computer science restructuring, has become technologically useful to no one but
the managers of class domination.
—Because we are for the immediate, destructive attack against the structures,
individuals and organisations of Capital and the State.
—Because we constructively criticise all those who are in situations of compromise
with power in their belief that the revolutionary struggle is impossible
at the present time.
—Because rather than wait, we have decided to proceed to action, even if the
time is not ripe.
—Because we want to put an end to this state of affairs right away, rather than
wait until conditions make its transformation possible.
These are the reasons why we are anarchists, revolutionaries and insurrectionalists.

What do you think of Malatesta saying:
Insurrectionists, these days, I'd say en masse don't reckon attentats (political assassinations) are particulary useful.

That is a good quote in my opinion, it doesn't in any way say self-defence or even violence is reactionary, but instead says that violence can be corrupting, violence born out of a genuine grassroots struggle is the only acceptable kind of violence.
So, meaning that we live under constant oppression, then any attack against the State or capital is actually in self-defence.

I think that although Malatesta was an insurrectionist, the insurrectionary current largely leads to this kind of thing.
What thing?

The examples of insurrectionists fighting their supposed other anarchist comrades (and it is noted on the wikipedia page) is an example of the real-world conflicts.. that can arise between the two currents.
The fighting goes both ways. For example the AK (formal organisatonalists) in Greece beat up some insurrectionists because they believed them to have nicked computers from a university while the AK had a talk on. In response, the insurrectionists molotoved the AKs HQ. Neither are exempt.

19th November 2009, 20:33

It seems to me that you don't really understand the nature of a Bakuninist vanguard. I accept the term is rather misleading, but the language used and the meaning behind the language are two very different things.

Of course I understand the nature of a Bakuninist vanguard, it completely fits into an insurrectionist line of thought, partly because insurrectionism is such an unclear ideology.

The structure of this sentence confuses me. Can you repeat it more clearly please.

Militants will inevitably link up with each other in the way you have stated; 'workplace resistance groups', it is not a thing that needs clarification.

Social revolution will happen in stages. A union can make demands, but you can never make the demand that capitalism doesn't exist any more. There will require stages as struggle progresses and workers gain confidence in challenging capital, their bosses, the state and begin to express desires for fundamental change.

That's what we're talking about right? I mean, I'm a communist, I want to destroy capitalism, smash the state and create a communist society. Doing that through a union is impossible and it will require stages of struggle.

Is that clearer?

This doesn't clear up anything at all. You are just parroting rhetoric, what does this have to do with organising committees? I have just pointed to an example where they have formed not in the long term but infact immediately as the workers felt they needed them. What's the confusion? I know you're a communist.

I have asked several times what specifically you are having difficulty with and you never answer. I don't want to appear rude, but it seems that this isn't a question of it being vague, rather you just don't understand.

I think I understand and I don't think they are worth clarifying, militants will inevitably link up in their workplaces, the only way they can find out whether there are other militants in their workplaces is via organisations like AFed.

I participate in strikes as an anarchist communist. As such I will support any worker who is on strike, whether they are in the FBU, GMB or IWW and will be part of a union as and when it serves the interests of my class and fellow workers.

Yep, but you have to make the correct judgement as to when this is the case and when not.

Why not?

We are the most pronounced enemies of every sort of official power – even if it is an ultra-revolutionary power. We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists. But, you will ask, if we are anarchists, by what right do we want to influence the people, and what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort of power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people's revolution? By a force that is invisible, that no one admits and that is not imposed on anyone, by the collective dictatorship of our organization which will be all the greater the more it remains unseen and undeclared, the more it is deprived of all official rights and significance...[Secret organizations] would finally have the strength of that close solidarity which binds isolated groups in one organic whole...These groups would not seek anything for themselves...and they would be in a position to direct popular movements...This is what I call the collective dictatorship of a secret organization.
Letter to Sergei Nechaev

Is that really in line with anarchist thought? Is it inline with your ideas of struggling as an anarcho-communist worker? No I don't think it is.

Like I have said, these ideas of dictatorship are extremely unhelpful and in line with what hardline insurrectionists want; they have caused trouble for the movement before, I've already pointed out the example of Greek insurrectionists engaging in attacking Greek anarcho-communists, it is totally unnecessary.

Not in any way that would be healthy for an organisation.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree here too.

What do you mean by least coherent? It's a tactic. The majority of contempoary Insurrectionists are anarchist-communists. It's important to note that they are not 'anti-organisational' but actually wary of formal organisation and use self-organised informal structures- affinity groups, cells, base nuclei and so on. Illegalism isn't a main tenent of [email protected] nor exclusive to it.

No, but it is oft heard in insurrectionist circles, being wary of formal organisation achieves nothing imo.

Insurrectionists, these days, I'd say en masse don't reckon attentats (political assassinations) are particulary useful.

I don't think Malatesta was just referring to political assassinations there, he refers quite broadly to violence.

So, meaning that we live under constant oppression, then any attack against the State or capital is actually in self-defence.

I don't think that is a particularly helpful conclusion to draw from it either. Granted, I don't think they are "really terrible", but they in many cases, are not progressive.

What thing?

Illegalism and that can lead to guerrillaism.

The fighting goes both ways. For example the AK (formal organisatonalists) in Greece beat up some insurrectionists because they believed them to have nicked computers from a university while the AK had a talk on. In response, the insurrectionists molotoved the AKs HQ. So, it goes both ways.

Well why were they doing that to AK? Why the hell would you sabotage an anarchist organisation's talk? Nicking computers from the university is going to get the blame put on AK, how is that fair?

What do you think the point is in sabotaging your own movement!?

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2009, 21:05

Of course I understand the nature of a Bakuninist vanguard

No you don't. You mirror the same views as liberal scholars who have neither the patience nor inclination to understand the history of Bakunin and his thought. His views are the victim of misinterpretation, either from those too incapable of grasping them or from spite and opportunity.

Bakunin simply called for there to be an organisation of workers capable of offering resources, experience, skill and time to workers struggle. In fact, the AF is an example of what Bakunin referred to as the vanguard.

This doesn't clear up anything at all. You are just parroting rhetoricAny one who has been part of struggle, whether it's on a small scale or not, will know that they develop in stages. That's not rhetoric, it's fact.

what does this have to do with organising committees?A great deal. I am trying to make you understand, which is seemingly impossible, the differences between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about, so that this discussion can be a little more coherent.

I have just pointed to an example where they have formed not in the long term but infact immediately as the workers felt they needed them.Yes, I know. You keep referring to demands that a committee makes, I am talking about something completely different. That's the point.

Is that really in line with anarchist thought? Is it inline with your ideas of struggling as an anarcho-communist worker? No I don't think it is.As I said before you have been the victim of historical inaccuracy. Also, it's customary to link your source and when talking about something controversial like this, it's never wise to miss out great chunks of the text. These two things combined make it rather suspicious.

Like I have said, these ideas of dictatorship are extremely unhelpful and in line with what hardline insurrectionists wantThe first thing you should understand is that the term 'dictatorship' meant something very different to what it means now. It referred to the Roman practice of giving a magistrate limited, extraordinary powers in an emergency. This was the sense in which Bakunin used the term.

He did not mean the establishment of a political autocracy, he meant the creation of temporary organisations, formed as class conscious elements, that could be used as a tool by the working class to struggle against oppression and exploitation. Anyone who has actually read his work and the history of his life and thought would plainly see this. I strongly recommend you read Bakunin: The Creative Passion by Mark Leier (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bakunin-Creative-Passion-Mark-Leier/dp/0312305389).

Bakunin's position does not make him an insurrectionist, neither does it make me one for clarifying it.

bcbm

19th November 2009, 21:16

Within the US of course.

then i'm really not sure what you're talking about. the "insurrectionists" are fairly integrated amongst anarchists in the us and can only really be opposed distinctly to the more "scene" elements that focus on things like food not bombs, building bikes, and circle jerks.

But it is not good modern theory imo, like I said (and picked out bits from before), the coming insurrection only has some good points, I've tried Tiqqun before but found myself dropping it pretty quickly. I don't think these are great advancements of modern communist thought in any way, as is constantly made out.well i was referring to the others listed as well, plus many more who are becoming more and more widely read. they're not all communist theorists, obviously, but many of their ideas on society, structure, etc have relevance to the struggle we're engaged in.

Those stated.where?

'self-organisation' as you put is it not always extremely positivethe working class organizing itself towards self-interest is not positive?

Yes, which is also not a good tactic and is where illegalism can take you.i'm not suggesting either are useful tactics in their totality, but they stem from different goals and practices.

nuisance

19th November 2009, 21:28

No, but it is oft heard in insurrectionist circles, being wary of formal organisation achieves nothing imo.
Is it? What circles have you been moving in?
Well yeah, it's no surprise that you think that, that's why you're not an informalist. The basic line is that formal organisation stifle self-organisation, can be a security risk and fundamentally exists to maintain itself meaning that it can be recuperated into the capitalist system- like trade unions.
Though I don't specifically aline myself to this idea completely but I am hugely sympathetic towards it, I can discuss it with you in another thread or something.

I don't think Malatesta was just referring to political assassinations there, he refers quite broadly to violence.
It looks pretty clear that the statement is in reaction to the what is now known as the propaganda by deed bomb throwers. What other incidents of violence by anarchists would he be talking about?

The excitement caused by some recent explosions and the admiration for the courage with which the bomb-throwers faced death, suffices to cause many anarchists to forget their program, and to enter on a path which is the most absolute negation of all anarchist ideas and sentiments

I don't think that is a particularly helpful conclusion to draw from it either. Granted, I don't think they are "really terrible", but they in many cases, are not progressive.
What do you mean by progressive? For what? Who?
'Class struggle exists in all of the individual and collective acts of revolt in which small portions of life are taken back or small portions of the apparatus of domination and exploitation are obstructed, damaged or destroyed. In a significant sense, there are no isolated acts of revolt. All such acts are responses to the social situation, and many involve some level of implict complicity, indicating some level of collective struggle. Even apparently lone acts of revolt have their social aspects and are part of the general struggle of the exploited and alienated. Both for this reason and because of the personal sense of joy and satisfaction that the individual finds in such acts, it needs to be recognised that no act is futile'

Illegalism and that can lead to guerrillaism.
The urban guerrillas in Greece aren't anarchists, as was said in a talk by a Greek comrade at the London anarchist bookfair.

Well why were they doing that to AK? Why the hell would you sabotage an anarchist organisation's talk? Nicking computers from the university is going to get the blame put on AK, how is that fair?
It wasn't done to the AK. It was never proven that they stole the computers. As I said, they suspected them of doing so. It's interesting how you jump straight to the defence of the AK.

What do you think the point is in sabotaging your own movement!?
Did I say this was a good move?

20th November 2009, 01:01

No you don't. You mirror the same views as liberal scholars who have neither the patience nor inclination to understand the history of Bakunin and his thought. His views are the victim of misinterpretation, either from those too incapable of grasping them or from spite and opportunity.

This is exactly the same line practically everyone else, when someone disagrees with their theory, "liberal views". There's nothing liberal about what I said whatsoever.

Bakunin simply called for there to be an organisation of workers capable of offering resources, experience, skill and time to workers struggle. In fact, the AF is an example of what Bakunin referred to as the vanguard.

So do you just ignore his talking about them "directing the movement" then? You don't think they have to be part of a movement as opposed to directing a movement?

At least the left-communist (ICC's) line, that the mass party is the vanguard is clearer on this, you can't be anti-vanguardist then.. vanguardist, you also can't attack the true and correct interpretation of what a Leninist vanguard should entail with what you're saying.

Any one who has been part of struggle, whether it's on a small scale or not, will know that they develop in stages. That's not rhetoric, it's fact.

It's irrelevant to our discussion.

A great deal. I am trying to make you understand, which is seemingly impossible, the differences between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about, so that this discussion can be a little more coherent.

'workplace resistance groups' are redundant, what you are describing happens by default.

Yes, I know. You keep referring to demands that a committee makes, I am talking about something completely different. That's the point.

I've outlined my criticism of workplace resistance groups already though.

As I said before you have been the victim of historical inaccuracy. Also, it's customary to link your source and when talking about something controversial like this, it's never wise to miss out great chunks of the text. These two things combined make it rather suspicious.

I've already linked a source.

The first thing you should understand is that the term 'dictatorship' meant something very different to what it means now. It referred to the Roman practice of giving a magistrate limited, extraordinary powers in an emergency. This was the sense in which Bakunin used the term.

Hehe, that actually makes it sound worse than what it is.

He did not mean the establishment of a political autocracy, he meant the creation of temporary organisations, formed as class conscious elements, that could be used as a tool by the working class to struggle against oppression and exploitation. Anyone who has actually read his work and the history of his life and thought would plainly see this. I strongly recommend you read Bakunin: The Creative Passion by Mark Leier (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bakunin-Creative-Passion-Mark-Leier/dp/0312305389).

I've quoted a relevant passage of text in reply to your attempted refutal of my arguments, you seem to have ignored it, that's your choice but in the end of the day, you always denounce vanguardism but then you believe in a Bakuninist vanguard. What makes your position so different to that, for example, of the ICC?

Bakunin's position does not make him an insurrectionist, neither does it make me one for clarifying it.

It is a pretty typical insurrectionist position though, I don't think it makes you one for just clarifying it, but it looked like you were defending it and you still do seem to be defending it.

then i'm really not sure what you're talking about. the "insurrectionists" are fairly integrated amongst anarchists in the us and can only really be opposed distinctly to the more "scene" elements that focus on things like food not bombs, building bikes, and circle jerks.

I'm confused about what you're saying here, in relation to my previous post?

well i was referring to the others listed as well, plus many more who are becoming more and more widely read. they're not all communist theorists, obviously, but many of their ideas on society, structure, etc have relevance to the struggle we're engaged in.

If you think so, we have been over this argument before in another thread, perhaps it's best if we agree to disagree, you can link some of the really relevant ones if you feel it's necessary.

where?

In the post before the one you just quoted.

the working class organizing itself towards self-interest is not positive?

Way to take my quote out of context.

i'm not suggesting either are useful tactics in their totality, but they stem from different goals and practices.

Good, then why do you defend them as tactics?

I would proportionately defend insurrectionists, except for when they either unnecessarily kill or harm workers or fellow anarchists.

Is it? What circles have you been moving in?

No insurrectionist ones, although, many people in my group do seem to agree with a lot of insurrectionist principles.

Well yeah, it's no surprise that you think that, that's why you're not an informalist. The basic line is that formal organisation stifle self-organisation, can be a security risk and fundamentally exists to maintain itself meaning that it can be recuperated into the capitalist system- like trade unions.

Trade unions are so different to a federation of anarchists.

Though I don't specifically aline myself to this idea completely but I am hugely sympathetic towards it, I can discuss it with you in another thread or something.

I'll start one soon then.

It looks pretty clear that the statement is in reaction to the what is now known as the propaganda by deed bomb throwers. What other incidents of violence by anarchists would he be talking about?

No, I don't mean he's not referring specifically to that, but he is broadly talking about violence.

What do you mean by progressive? For what? Who?

For the class-struggle of course.

Even apparently lone acts of revolt have their social aspects and are part of the general struggle of the exploited and alienated.

This is how I view insurrectionists doing things like robbing banks. I don't condemn them, but if they unfairly cause trouble for other anarchists or attack or kill workers during something like this, then I'm not "on their side".

Both for this reason and because of the personal sense of joy and satisfaction that the individual finds in such acts, it needs to be recognised that no act is futile'[/I]

I don't like this part at all, it fetishises it as a good thing. I'm pretty sure Malatesta would not find this bit here much good.

The urban guerrillas in Greece aren't anarchists, as was said in a talk by a Greek comrade at the London anarchist bookfair.

I'm pretty sure I heard that part as well, during the WhitechapelAG meeting right?

No, they aren't anarchists, you're right. But perhaps we should learn from this and the past that acts at least inspire others in a certain direction, also factions can evolve in organisations that push in different directions. I think overall the workers' struggles in Greece have pushed people more towards illegalism and guerrillaism and that they are not good tactics.

It wasn't done to the AK.

No, but it would've caused them trouble.

It was never proven that they stole the computers. As I said, they suspected them of doing so. It's interesting how you jump straight to the defence of the AK.

True, could be some external sabotage (and I wouldn't put it past some shady other organisations in Greece who had it in for the anarchists) to provoke internal discord, but nonetheless I would certainly defend AK if the accusations were true.

Did I say this was a good move?

Nope, sorry for jumping the gun there abit.

bcbm

20th November 2009, 01:14

I'm confused about what you're saying here, in relation to my previous post? you said ia's somehow "stick out" from other us anarchists, but this isn't really the case. ia and non-ia's have a lot of overlap, are involved in many of the same projects, etc.
If you think so, we have been over this argument before in another thread, perhaps it's best if we agree to disagree, you can link some of the really relevant ones if you feel it's necessary. we've discussed the coming insurrection, not so much any of the other stuff mentioned, but whatevs.
In the post before the one you just quoted. the one with the wikipedia quote?
Way to take my quote out of context. that's what is being discussed here. i don't see how going on to talk about how permanent organizations like afed are better adds "context" to this comment.
Good, then why do you defend them as tactics?
where did i defend illegalism or the urban guerrilla?

nuisance

20th November 2009, 03:05

No insurrectionist ones, although, many people in my group do seem to agree with a lot of insurrectionist principles.
What are these insurrectionalist principles they argue. You claim that insurrectionalism is incoherent afterall, though it evidently isn't.

Trade unions are so different to a federation of anarchists.
Obviously, the critique however is of formal organisation as awhole but we'll get onto that if you create that other thread.

No, I don't mean he's not referring specifically to that, but he is broadly talking about violence.
OK, but how is it relevant to this discussion outside of the critique he makes of anarchist bomb throwers?

For the class-struggle of course.
So the individual expression of revolt is not relevant to the class sturggle? Can such actions not inspire and be repeated, aswell as achieveing that feeling of joy in expelling the myth of invulnerabilty? That is a liberating feeling, is it not? I'd suggest that individual acts of revolt can 'revolutionise' the individual, thus making them more inclined to partake in collective action. The two don't counter-act one another.

This is how I view insurrectionists doing things like robbing banks. I don't condemn them, but if they unfairly cause trouble for other anarchists or attack or kill workers during something like this, then I'm not "on their side".
Outside of Greece, these bank robberies aren't particulary common. Also, as far as I'm aware, workers haven't been hurt and alot of the money has been donated to poor communities aswell as funding the insurrectional program.

I don't like this part at all, it fetishises it as a good thing. I'm pretty sure Malatesta would not find this bit here much good.
There's no fetishisation here. The extreact is merely speaking against your leftist dogma of collective action. Insurrectionists see, and indulge in, both forms of action and create their own theory of action based on what has proven and appear to be relevant and compilmentary means of discourse.

'm pretty sure I heard that part as well, during the WhitechapelAG meeting right?

No, they aren't anarchists, you're right. But perhaps we should learn from this and the past that acts at least inspire others in a certain direction, also factions can evolve in organisations that push in different directions. I think overall the workers' struggles in Greece have pushed people more towards illegalism and guerrillaism and that they are not good tactics.
No, I'm talking about the one on the Greek insurrection and current situation. Though that guy in the WAG meeting may have mentioned it aswell.
I'd disagree that urban guerillaism was birthed in Greece because of the prominence of insurrectionists. Armed assualts on the State, in the style of the urban guerillas, usually occur to give the illusion of strength and to provide a balance in the asymmetery of power- the same rationale behind suicide bombings.

The Feral Underclass

20th November 2009, 09:22

This is exactly the same line practically everyone else, when someone disagrees with their theory, "liberal views". There's nothing liberal about what I said whatsoever.That's not really the point I was making. I was merely pointing out that you are mimicking the arguments of liberal academics. It's pretty clear what I was saying, actually, I'm not going to repeat it.

So do you just ignore his talking about them "directing the movement" then? You don't think they have to be part of a movement as opposed to directing a movement?As I have said, his choice of wording is unfortunate in some cases, but your understanding of the word "direct" is wrong. If you read his work, he simply refers to organisations that can assist working class people with resources, experience and theoretical & tactical knowledge in their struggles. That could be seen as directing, but as Bakunin said:

This revolutionary alliance excludes any idea of dictatorship and of a controlling and directive power. It is, however, necessary for the establishment of this revolutionary alliance and for the triumph of the Revolution over reaction that the unity of ideas and of revolutionary action find an organ in the midst of the popular anarchy which will be the life and the energy of the Revolution. This organ should be the secret and universal association of the International Brothers.

This association has its origin in the conviction that revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies. They make themselves; they are produced by the force of circumstances, the movement of facts and events. They receive a long preparation in the deep, instinctive consciousness of the masses, then they burst forth, often seemingly triggered by trivial causes. All that a well-organized society can do is, first, to assist at the birth of a revolution by spreading among the masses ideas which give expression to their instincts, and to organize, not the army of the Revolution – the people alone should always be that army – but a sort of revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all, men neither vain nor ambitious, but capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people.Programme of the International Brotherhood (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program.htm)

To be clear, his talk of a "general staff" is again his flowery use of language, and as he says - such an "organ" would exclude the "idea...of a controlling and directive power."

He specifically talks about open, social revolution by working class people, and to merely have an organisation, temporary in its nature, that can "assist" a revolution at the request of the workers themselves. This isn't an insurrectionist position, it's perfectly compatible with a social anarchist.

At least the left-communist (ICC's) line, that the mass party is the vanguard is clearer on this, you can't be anti-vanguardist then.. vanguardist, you also can't attack the true and correct interpretation of what a Leninist vanguard should entail with what you're saying.You haven't understood what I've said. You're not as clever as you think you are, and I think it's high time that you stop acting like it.

It's irrelevant to our discussion.:confused:

No. It's really not.

'workplace resistance groups' are redundant, what you are describing happens by default.How can something be redundant if it happens out of necessity...

I've outlined my criticism of workplace resistance groups already though.Not really. First you said they were unclear, then you said they were vague, then you said they weren't vague and now you're saying they happen anyway. You've not outlined any criticism really, you've just gone around in a circle.

I've already linked a source.I'm sorry, I'm not very good at seeing magical, invisible links.

Hehe, that actually makes it sound worse than what it is.So something that is a temporary, extraordinary organisation is worse than an "absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control." (See dictionary.com).

What the hell are you talking about?

I've quoted a relevant passage of text in reply to your attempted refutal of my arguments, you seem to have ignored it, that's your choice but in the end of the day, you always denounce vanguardism but then you believe in a Bakuninist vanguard.Dude, I responded directly to it...

On the subject of the vanguard, I think it's perfectly clear to anyone what I'm saying. I mean, I can repeat myself, but that just seems a little pointless, as I've already stated my opinion.

If you have a problem with the word 'vanguard' that's fine, I don't particularly think it's a good word either, but we're not discussing whether we like a particular word or not; surely we're discussing the actually meaning. Irrespective of our feelings towards the word "vanguard", Bakunin and Lenin's interpretation of that word are fundamentally different.

So while I oppose a centralised, elitist organisation, the aim of which is to control a political class who in turn controls the working class, I do support the formation of temporary organisations of people with the experience, resources and theoretical and tactical will to assist working class struggle. The nature of it's temporariness depends on the historical context of it's existance. The AF sees itself as a temporary organisation, that will be made redundant in a revolution and that's the way it should be.

What makes your position so different to that, for example, of the ICC?I explained that in my previous post and have just explained again above.

It is a pretty typical insurrectionist position though, I don't think it makes you one for just clarifying it, but it looked like you were defending it and you still do seem to be defending it.It's not a typical insurrectionist position at all, and though you keep saying it you've yet to adequately substantiate that claim. As for my defence of Bakunin's position, I don't see what the problem is or how the view he expressed contradicts anarchist principles (what with him being an anarchist and all).

There are two problems in this discussion. Namely, you seem to have a problem with accepting when your mistaken. You also haven't read the history and theory to really understand what's being said. There's nothing wrong with that, but you can't keep debating with me if you're going to refuse to listen to what I'm saying. It's fine for you to disagree if you want, but at least know what you're talking about before you do it. Otherwise, this going round in circles becomes very tedious.

Forward Union

20th November 2009, 14:41

I favour both options, but within context. Workers should be in a union if it can directly help their immediate aims, but as you have appropriately demonstrated they are limited by their very nature, and that's the point.

Limited in that they are generally incapable of moving people on from the level of Trade Union Consciousness. But an integral part of any praxis.

Revolution isn't going to happen within the confines of legitimacy or legality, nor is the name of a union or its tradition particularly relevant to the realities of social conflict.

Actually, I would say it's entirely within the confines of "legitimacy". When you asked earlier 'to who' the answer is to the working class. We must appear to be legitimate. And, actually, static organs of class power are integral to the success or failure of social conflict. Struggles arise again and again, the left mobilises, working class people come out etc etc. And and at the end of the day the stuggle wins or it losses, but instantly dissolves. We are constantly starting again and again, and this is a serious problem brought about by the lack of a strong class conscious union movement, and equally fucked (if not more so) residents associations.

In the meantime, working within the legal and "legitimate" union structure can be desirable, if not necessary. That's not to say that they will remain desirable or necessary, because they won't.

My question then is; what work is to be done in the legal and legitimate trade unions? What strategy is there for advancing them to a situation of greater workers self organisation ?

20th November 2009, 18:21

you said ia's somehow "stick out" from other us anarchists, but this isn't really the case. ia and non-ia's have a lot of overlap, are involved in many of the same projects, etc.

I think they do stick out myself, there are organised anarchists such as those of NEFAC then there are the ones that as rs2k described "spend all day fixing bicycles". Bear in mind though that I haven't ever been to the US, so it is second hand knowledge and you might be right, but everyone generally seems to agree that us anarchists are influenced a lot by insurrectionism and a lot of the us anarchist movement is not going anywhere fast.

the one with the wikipedia quote? that's what is being discussed here.

I think so yep.

i don't see how going on to talk about how permanent organizations like afed are better adds "context" to this comment.

Building temporary groups that simply disappear to me, seems like a waste.

What are these insurrectionalist principles they argue. You claim that insurrectionalism is incoherent afterall, though it evidently isn't.

Insurrectionism is incoherent. They tend to agree with building temporary autonomous groups to do different things, they don't want to be federated into a bigger group which seems to lead to the mentality of localism, which is detrimental to our common cause. It is not just my group, I had a discussion with one guy from WAG after the WAG meeting at the bookfair, he wasn't very keen on the idea on the idea of a federation of smaller groups. A guy I've spoken to from Walthamstow anarchists also felt the same way, it's pretty common an attitude and it is totally in line with insurrectionist principles in the way I have outlined.

It's not good.

Obviously, the critique however is of formal organisation as awhole but we'll get onto that if you create that other thread.

I have started a new thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/formal-informal-organisation-t122887/index.html?p=1603815. Should make for some interesting discussion hopefully.

OK, but how is it relevant to this discussion outside of the critique he makes of anarchist bomb throwers?

It's relevant because of the unnecessary fetishisation of violence that alot of anarchists (that I've experienced at least, which is a lot in my group) express, for instance: http://www.outrage1909.org.uk/story2.html. I've spoken to alot of people about that, they will usually say things along the lines of "stuff like that never happens anymore - we need more of that" meaning exactly that. No irony.

Anarchists from my group have joined the movements in many other countries, a lot of them are from other countries anyway but I think what I said tells us a lot about their views. And don't get me wrong, with something like this I am happy to say it's historically an interesting event, but we should note that stuff like this should not be practised anymore, we should have long advanced beyond that.

So the individual expression of revolt is not relevant to the class sturggle? Can such actions not inspire and be repeated, aswell as achieveing that feeling of joy in expelling the myth of invulnerabilty? That is a liberating feeling, is it not? I'd suggest that individual acts of revolt can 'revolutionise' the individual, thus making them more inclined to partake in collective action. The two don't counter-act one another.

In some ways true, but the acts must still be progressive, this is down to concrete details.

Outside of Greece, these bank robberies aren't particulary common. Also, as far as I'm aware, workers haven't been hurt and alot of the money has been donated to poor communities aswell as funding the insurrectional program.

No, but then again Greece is where the anarchist movement has been strongest recenty, it is not just a tiny example.

There's no fetishisation here. The extreact is merely speaking against your leftist dogma of collective action. Insurrectionists see, and indulge in, both forms of action and create their own theory of action based on what has proven and appear to be relevant and compilmentary means of discourse.

That's not how I interpret it, no point going round in circles here.

I'd disagree that urban guerillaism was birthed in Greece because of the prominence of insurrectionists. Armed assualts on the State, in the style of the urban guerillas, usually occur to give the illusion of strength and to provide a balance in the asymmetery of power- the same rationale behind suicide bombings.

I think insurrectionist tendencies could have had a part in pushing things towards armed assaults myself, but yes what you said is mostly true.

That's not really the point I was making. I was merely pointing out that you are mimicking the arguments of liberal academics. It's pretty clear what I was saying, actually, I'm not going to repeat it.

No you don't. You mirror the same views as liberal scholars who have neither the patience nor inclination to understand the history of Bakunin and his thought. His views are the victim of misinterpretation, either from those too incapable of grasping them or from spite and opportunity.

Bakunin simply called for there to be an organisation of workers capable of offering resources, experience, skill and time to workers struggle. In fact, the AF is an example of what Bakunin referred to as the vanguard.

This is simply a joke, that is why I didn't fully substantiate it with a complete response. AF is just not what Bakunin envisaged as a vanguard, AF is not a secret, temporary or small organisation.

This revolutionary alliance excludes any idea of dictatorship and of a controlling and directive power. .. It is, however, necessary for the establishment of this revolutionary alliance and for the triumph of the Revolution over reaction that the unity of ideas and of revolutionary action find an organ in the midst of the popular anarchy which will be the life and the energy of the Revolution. This organ should be the secret and universal association of the International Brothers.

Yeah a secret international, like I have said so many times before, is not a good idea, furthermore I've pointed out authoritarian sounding parts of his language and.. "flowery language" is just a silly way to try and account for that.

He specifically talks about open, social revolution by working class people, and to merely have an organisation, temporary in its nature, that can "assist" a revolution at the request of the workers themselves. This isn't an insurrectionist position, it's perfectly compatible with a social anarchist.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, were it not for his seemingly at odds ideas of keeping it secret and saying it needs a "general staff", where does he talk about democratic structures of the organisation? I don't see it, point out to me where he states his positions on that and I will back down on this point.

You haven't understood what I've said. You're not as clever as you think you are, and I think it's high time that you stop acting like it.

:lol: Will take that as a compliment, also never acted like that afaik. I've understood what you've said in its totality and now you seem slightly annoyed.

No. It's really not.

It's irrelevant as in we both know that revolutions develop in stages.. but that your argument, that committees will only spring up in the 'mid-term' is wrong.

Not really. First you said they were unclear, then you said they were vague, then you said they weren't vague and now you're saying they happen anyway. You've not outlined any criticism really, you've just gone around in a circle.

Don't think I said they "weren't vague".. other than that, yes, your outline of them is vague because necessarily, they are vague they are the inevitably vague first step, of radicalised workers linking up in their workplace and this can't be clarified into something solid.. and yes, WPRGs spring up anyway and are not worth clarifying, no need to clarify them.

I'm sorry, I'm not very good at seeing magical, invisible links.

I guess I'll have to quote it for you again..

We are the most pronounced enemies of every sort of official power – even if it is an ultra-revolutionary power. We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists. But, you will ask, if we are anarchists, by what right do we want to influence the people, and what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort of power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people's revolution? By a force that is invisible, that no one admits and that is not imposed on anyone, by the collective dictatorship of our organization which will be all the greater the more it remains unseen and undeclared, the more it is deprived of all official rights and significance...[Secret organizations] would finally have the strength of that close solidarity which binds isolated groups in one organic whole...These groups would not seek anything for themselves...and they would be in a position to direct popular movements...This is what I call the collective dictatorship of a secret organization.

Does that help? Interesting too isn't it that Bakunin seeks association with left deviationists like Sergei, when specifically he talks about his theory of a vanguard.

So something that is a temporary, extraordinary organisation is worse than an "absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control." (See dictionary.com).

What the hell are you talking about?

What are you talking about? It makes a Bakuninist vanguard sound worse than it is. I'm not comparing dictionary definitions of anything unlike you..

Dude, I responded directly to it...

On the subject of the vanguard, I think it's perfectly clear to anyone what I'm saying. I mean, I can repeat myself, but that just seems a little pointless, as I've already stated my opinion.

If you have a problem with the word 'vanguard' that's fine, I don't particularly think it's a good word either, but we're not discussing whether we like a particular word or not; surely we're discussing the actually meaning. Irrespective of our feelings towards the word "vanguard", Bakunin and Lenin's interpretation of that word are fundamentally different.

Yes, obviously I realise that and I've pointed out that I know the difference.

So while I oppose a centralised, elitist organisation, the aim of which is to control a political class who in turn controls the working class

That isn't what a Leninist vanguard entails, if anyone has got their ideas wrong here it is you.

I do support the formation of temporary organisations of people with the experience, resources and theoretical and tactical will to assist working class struggle.

So did Blanqui, you have consistently missed out that Bakunin believed it must be secret too.

The nature of it's temporariness depends on the historical context of it's existance. The AF sees itself as a temporary organisation, that will be made redundant in a revolution and that's the way it should be.

And why do you think that is such a good idea, because it will become authoritarian if it remains for too long? Why do you believe democratic structures can't prevent that from happening?

I agree that the revolution needs a vanguard party or federation, that much should be obvious by now, I take no issue with the term 'vanguard' at all. My criticism has been outlined of a Bakuninist vanguard and of insurrectionism too and its effects on the anarchist movement.

The view that whatever mass party or federation arises out of the masses, must necessarily become the vanguard of the revolution and that, it will continue to exist throughout DOTP seems to me to be the correct, most fair and actually most compatible with social anarchism, vanguard theory.

bcbm

20th November 2009, 18:53

I think they do stick out myself, there are organised anarchists such as those of NEFAC then there are the ones that as rs2k described "spend all day fixing bicycles" then there's the majority of anarchists who move fluidly between both circles and find this sort of dichotomy making and shit talking fruitless. well, actually fuck the bicycle fixers.
Bear in mind though that I haven't ever been to the US, so it is second hand knowledge and you might be right i've only been involved here for a decade all over the country, i could be wrong.
but everyone generally seems to agree that us anarchists are influenced a lot by insurrectionism and a lot of the us anarchist movement is not going anywhere fast. yes "everyone" seems to agree about this from the rest of the world, while our movement is actually doing the best it has been since i got involved. i know we're fun to hate, but the sad truth is that the "movement" in much of the rest of the world is just as much of a pathetic farce, if not worse because it pretends to be something more than it is.
I think so yep. not much "practice" there.
Building temporary groups that simply disappear to me, seems like a waste. unofficial isn't the same as temporary, unless you think everyone who works together stops talking the second things are done?
They tend to agree with building temporary autonomous groups to do different things, they don't want to be federated into a bigger group which seems to lead to the mentality of localism, which is detrimental to our common cause. there's a pretty nice informal national anarchist network here. i bet it has more active participants than nefac.

20th November 2009, 19:09

then there's the majority of anarchists who move fluidly between both circles and find this sort of dichotomy making and shit talking fruitless.

That is what I perceive you as being like, although there have been numerous reports of the majority not being like this, usually alleged by people from the US themselves too.. such as rs2k, even he said that RAAN were an interesting group though.

i've only been involved here for a decade all over the country, i could be wrong.

People who have been involved for decades can be wrong too.

yes "everyone" seems to agree about this from the rest of the world, while our movement is actually doing the best it has been since i got involved.

The US anarchist movement is doing the best? I think that's very far-fetched, I'd imagine everyone on here would agree that it certainly isn't "the best".

i know we're fun to hate, but the sad truth is that the "movement" in much of the rest of the world is just as much of a pathetic farce

Didn't say it wasn't, I was only commenting on America in this case.

not much "practice" there.

Elaborate?

unofficial isn't the same as temporary, unless you think everyone who works together stops talking the second things are done?

It is a fact that unofficial groups often disappear off the radar.. and are never seen nor heard from again leaving no lasting impact beyond very involved circles.

there's a pretty nice informal national anarchist network here. i bet it has more active participants than nefac.

Of course it does, it has loads of people. My group is not just an anarchist group, it has loads of other kinds of people in it, in fact neither of my groups are explicitly only anarchist, they do however suffer from a localist mentality that impedes their development.. and it annoys me to a level I can't express.

If they were linked however.... but no, why do that when you can have it all nice and informal like, let's just go to pickets in our borough, fuck those workers on strike at a massive depot that pisses all over the tiny depots in this borough- in the adjacent borough even though it's pretty close. Localism ftw.

bcbm

20th November 2009, 19:17

That is what I perceive you as being like, although there have been numerous reports of the majority not being like this, usually alleged by people from the US themselves too.. such as rs2k, even he said that RAAN were an interesting group though.
People who have been involved for decades can be wrong too. yes, of course, you are correct. i'll defer to someone who has never set foot in this country or met anarchists in many of its cities on the issue of what the anarchist movement looks like here.
The US anarchist movement is doing the best? I think that's very far-fetched, I'd imagine everyone on here would agree that it certainly isn't "the best"
the best it has been since i got involved. i'll assume you just missed that part.
Elaborate? the wikipedia quote is primarily an outline of insurrectionist theory, and most of that from the 80's and 90's.
It is a fact that unofficial groups often disappear off the radar.. and are never seen nor heard from again leaving no lasting impact beyond very involved circles. cite?
Of course it does, it has loads of people. My group is not just an anarchist group, it has loads of other kinds of people in it, in fact neither of my groups are explicitly only anarchist, they do however suffer from a localist mentality that impedes their development.. and it annoys me to a level I can't express.

If they were linked however.... but no, why do that when you can have it all nice and informal like, let's just go to pickets in our borough, fuck those workers on strike at a massive depot that pisses all over the tiny depots in this borough- in the adjacent borough even though it's pretty close. Localism ftw. i'm not going to argue with the strawmen you construct.
.
interesting you accuse "informal" groups of localism and, when presented with a counter-example, admit that your formal groups suffer from localism... then go right back to accusing informal groups of localism.

Dr. Fish

20th November 2009, 19:27

I'm an anarchist and I believe the whole anti-authoritarian, non-domination, bottom upwards, and personally, anti-vanguard rhetoric. I think that the tactics and modes of revolution (syndicalist, etc.) tend to depend on the circumstances of the country. Labour unionizing in Somalia makes just as much sense as in Papau New Guinea, therefore syndicalism fails (in less industrialized countries).

20th November 2009, 19:27

yes, of course, you are correct. i'll defer to someone who has never set foot in this country or met anarchists in many of its cities on the issue of what the anarchist movement looks like here.

Don't you think that US posters on this site other than you.. maybe have some experience with the anarchist movement too?

the wikipedia quote is primarily an outline of insurrectionist theory, and most of that from the 80's and 90's.

And what do you think has changed so very much since then.

cite?

There are so many groups like this, is it worth it? Most people thought RAAN had died when their website went offline, even reading the main anarchist sources like anarchist news or whatever tells little about them.

When they go away, the only people who miss them were those involved and they do die out easily.

i'm not going to argue with the strawmen you construct.

How is my argument a strawman? It's an important factor that you miss out. There are affinity groups that go beyond local boundaries sure, but then again my other group is primarily based on affinity groups that form to various kinds of direct action.

Yes, that's right, they all suffer from a very localist mentality.

interesting you accuse "informal" groups of localism and, when presented with a counter-example, admit that your formal groups suffer from localism... then go right back to accusing informal groups of localism.

My groups are not that formal at all really, lcap is almost like a big affinity group in itself and the other is like I said, primarily based on lots of affinity groups performing different actions, so no you are incorrect in your presumption.

bcbm

20th November 2009, 19:39

Don't you think that US posters on this site other than you.. maybe have some experience with the anarchist movement too? i don't think there are many anarchist posters from the us on this site and the few there are i don't think have been involved in as many places as i have. i could be wrong, but i don't think my impressions of what the anarchist movement looks like the us are entirely inaccurate, at least concerning the midwest and parts of the southeast/west.
And what do you think has changed so very much since then. what i said in my first or second post in this thread about influences coming from outside italian texts from the 70's.
There are so many groups like this, is it worth it? Most people thought RAAN had died when their website went offline, even reading the main anarchist sources like anarchist news or whatever tells little about them. When they go away, the only people who miss them were those involved and they do die out easily. believe it or not, most formal anarchist groups die much the same death, if not worse. and in many ways what is happening right now is a large collective experiment in new strategies of organization; there hasn't really been the terrain to do this in the us for decades.
How is my argument a strawman? It's an important factor that you miss out. There are affinity groups that go beyond local boundaries sure, but then again my other group is primarily based on affinity groups that form to various kinds of direct action.

Yes, that's right, they all suffer from a very localist mentality.

My groups are not that formal at all really, lcap is almost like a big affinity group in itself and the other is like I said, primarily based on lots of affinity groups performing different actions, so no you are incorrect in your presumption. ok, so that's your groups. lovely. over here things aren't quite so localist, and what exists is being worked on.

20th November 2009, 20:16

i don't think there are many anarchist posters from the us on this site and the few there are i don't think have been involved in as many places as i have. i could be wrong, but i don't think my impressions of what the anarchist movement looks like the us are entirely inaccurate, at least concerning the midwest and parts of the southeast/west.

Fair enough, it's possible that there are some over-exaggerations, but yeah I think that past mistakes are there to learn from.

what i said in my first or second post in this thread about influences coming from outside italian texts from the 70's.

Yes, then you stated "at least in the us", a lot of people do seem influenced by stuff like the coming insurrection as that is now quite popular and yeah, I've heard Agamben talked about before, but generally not the others.

believe it or not, most formal anarchist groups die much the same death, if not worse.

I would say not as badly, but yes they do as well, I'm not denying that.

and in many ways what is happening right now is a large collective experiment in new strategies of organization; there hasn't really been the terrain to do this in the us for decades.

ok, so that's your groups. lovely. over here things aren't quite so localist, and what exists is being worked on.

And you should learn from mistakes, not repeat them. It does look like the US anarchist movement is regaining momentum from my perspective (as you've said yourself). Don't get me wrong I think there are some progressive elements to the oft bashed group RAAN and some other US anarchist ones, but there are tendencies that need ironing out of the movement imo.

nuisance

20th November 2009, 20:39

Insurrectionism is incoherent. They tend to agree with building temporary autonomous groups to do different things, they don't want to be federated into a bigger group which seems to lead to the mentality of localism, which is detrimental to our common cause.
Nope, still not proven to be incoherent.
OK, insurrectionists do not oppose federalising groups- how else did you think that so many insurrectionary cells in Greece burst into action almost instantaneously after the murder of Alexis? The Insurrectionalist method of mass organising is called 'autonomous base nuclei'. This attempts to coordinate and network informal anarchist groups around the social struggle that are untied in the belief of attacking without compromise, mediation or accomdation to be as effective as possible in attacking the State and capital, aswell as sharing information and develoing a theory of struggle with one another.

It is not just my group, I had a discussion with one guy from WAG after the WAG meeting at the bookfair, he wasn't very keen on the idea on the idea of a federation of smaller groups. A guy I've spoken to from Walthamstow anarchists also felt the same way, it's pretty common an attitude and it is totally in line with insurrectionist principles in the way I have outlined.

It's not good.
Unfortunatly this contradicts the methods of effective IAs and the ideas that have been produced, particulary in Greece and Italy. Even the Galleanisti had affinities had connections and methods of organising with other groups throughout the countries they were active in. These people you have been speaking to appear to be lacking in insurrectionalist theory.

It's relevant because of the unnecessary fetishisation of violence that alot of anarchists (that I've experienced at least, which is a lot in my group) express, for instance: http://www.outrage1909.org.uk/story2.html. I've spoken to alot of people about that, they will usually say things along the lines of "stuff like that never happens anymore - we need more of that" meaning exactly that. No irony.
That is honestly you're critique of insurrectionalism is? What a few people fantaise over?

Anarchists from my group have joined the movements in many other countries, a lot of them are from other countries anyway but I think what I said tells us a lot about their views. And don't get me wrong, with something like this I am happy to say it's historically an interesting event, but we should note that stuff like this should not be practised anymore, we should have long advanced beyond that.
If the robbery can fund or help people and projects then why would you, as an anarchist, be against minor expropriation and redistribution from banks? IAs, that do believe in bank robberies, don't think actions like that can be the sole means of struggle or attack, instead calling for a diversity of tactics and learning what works and is useful through the interpretation of their own personal struggle and that of others.

In some ways true, but the acts must still be progressive, this is down to concrete details.
OK, what actions don't have these concrete details? Is this to mean you're saying that the liberation of the human mentality, though temporarily, isn't a good reason to make minor attacks? You don't seem to have addressed my point.

No, but then again Greece is where the anarchist movement has been strongest recenty, it is not just a tiny example.
So?

That's not how I interpret it, no point going round in circles here.
But your interpretation hasn't got any basis in the actual quote, which is why I pointed at dogma.

bcbm

20th November 2009, 20:40

Yes, then you stated "at least in the us", a lot of people do seem influenced by stuff like the coming insurrection as that is now quite popular and yeah, I've heard Agamben talked about before, but generally not the others. the others are where tci and other popular groups right now are pulling a lot of their ideas.
I would say not as badly, but yes they do as well, I'm not denying that. most anarchist groups of any sort are destined to die without leaving any meaningful legacy, but there will be informal and formal ones that leave a mark. not that any of this really matters to what we're discussing.
And you should learn from mistakes, not repeat them. i don't think anyone is looking to repeat mistakes, i'm not sure what you're talking about. there's great interest in new forms, ideas, tactics, etc, hence the "experiment."
Don't get me wrong I think there are some progressive elements to the oft bashed group RAAN and some other US anarchist ones, but there are tendencies that need ironing out of the movement imo. why do you keep mentioning raan? none of us give a shit about raan.

20th November 2009, 23:57

Nope, still not proven to be incoherent.

It is incoherent though, what does it lay out that autonomous groups should really do beyond how they should organise..

OK, insurrectionists do not oppose federalising groups- how else did you think that so many insurrectionary cells in Greece burst into action almost instantaneously after the murder of Alexis? The Insurrectionalist method of mass organising is called 'autonomous base nuclei'.

This is the old way of doing it, does that not hark back to the old Italian ways of organising? See, this is what I was talking about earlier. I am pretty sure 'autonomous base nuclei' is not a new phenomenon.

A lot of those kinds of groups develop into cliqueism (if that's even a word) quite easily, it doesn't seem to work in a democratically structured way, not that groups like that are all like cliques. But that kind of attitude springing up in the group is really hard to fight, honestly I know what I'm talking about here, it does spring up and you have to kind of step back and revaluate, the group as a whole has to do that.

This attempts to coordinate and network informal anarchist groups around the social struggle that are untied in the belief of attacking without compromise, mediation or accomdation to be as effective as possible in attacking the State and capital, aswell as sharing information and develoing a theory of struggle with one another.

Don't you think that in Greece, one of the things that's gone wrong is that the networks were not in-sync with each other enough? If there was a better formally organised federation of anarchist organisations for example I think that would've worked wonders.

Unfortunatly this contradicts the methods of effective IAs and the ideas that have been produced, particulary in Greece and Italy. Even the Galleanisti had affinities had connections and methods of organising with other groups throughout the countries they were active in. These people you have been speaking to appear to be lacking in insurrectionalist theory.

How does it contradict it, they refuse to be organised into a formal organisation (the people I was talking about).

That is honestly you're critique of insurrectionalism is? What a few people fantaise over?

A few? I think that insurrectionism overfetishises violence, autonomy and 'permanent attack' as a principle, those are my most basic criticisms of it.

Honestly, there's nothing I have against insurrectionists, I just think it detracts from anarchist politics, the overfetishisation of attack without specifically targeting and placing it into the correct context is a massive error.

If the robbery can fund or help people and projects then why would you, as an anarchist, be against minor expropriation and redistribution from banks?

If workers get shot inside mostly, also because comrades who could be useful to the class-struggle in more productive ways get banged up, that's basically why.

IAs, that do believe in bank robberies, don't think actions like that can be the sole means of struggle or attack, instead calling for a diversity of tactics and learning what works and is useful through the interpretation of their own personal struggle and that of others.

I know but still, insurrectionists usually don't engage in this but they certainly don't think it's a bad tactic.

OK, what actions don't have these concrete details? Is this to mean you're saying that the liberation of the human mentality, though temporarily, isn't a good reason to make minor attacks? You don't seem to have addressed my point.

It's an odd point, you seem to be saying that all sudden revolts against capital (that is so loosely defined anyway) are connected in some way, it doesn't make much sense, at least to me.

But your interpretation hasn't got any basis in the actual quote, which is why I pointed at dogma.

What is dogmatic about what I'm saying? I believe in workers' self-organisation, I don't care starts it. You know, I think some of the most successful examples of this are the absolute stubborn refusal to be shoved around by the Portuguese workers in 1974 and the Hungarians in 1956. You said:

Insurrectionists see, and indulge in, both forms of action and create their own theory of action based on what has proven and appear to be relevant and compilmentary means of discourse.

Yes and insurrectionists engage in many other forms of action too, because a lot of insurrectionists are at least deeply sympathetic to anarcho-communism, however as I said, I think insurrectionist theory just detracts from anarchists' poitics.

I don't think what you said is true though. Whether something is complimentary or not is determined by its usefulness to the class-struggle, this just doesn't seem useful to the class-struggle. I'm obviously not a purist in the area of what I deem 'complimentary' to the class-struggle either (being a member of lcap and having said before that food not bombs and stuff like that deserve support).

Pogue

21st November 2009, 00:57

This argument is really shit. Neither side is making much sense, its long and rambling and no one is really getting at a point, sort it out.

bcbm

21st November 2009, 01:48

food not bombs and stuff like that deserve support why

Stranger Than Paradise

21st November 2009, 09:33

Both sides in this debate seem to be misunderstanding each other. It seems to me even on the stance of strategy that the tactics of both our traditions are fairly similar and it is only a few issues we differ on. Myself I don't quite understand the advocacy of individual acts of protest or action, could someone please elaborate on this.

nuisance

21st November 2009, 15:17

It is incoherent though, what does it lay out that autonomous groups should really do beyond how they should organise..
You took a quote from wikipedia earlier that laid it out. The main ones being able to accumulate capital and attacking and intervening in struggles, quite how you haven't understood that is bewildering. Please remember, Insurrectionalism is a tactic, as is anarcho-syndicalism.

This is the old way of doing it, does that not hark back to the old Italian ways of organising? See, this is what I was talking about earlier. I am pretty sure 'autonomous base nuclei' is not a new phenomenon.
So? Why would it be new, who even suggested such?
Again you haven't taken in what I've said, which is that insurrectionists aren't opposed to mass structures, neither do they wish to remain small in size (like you claimed in the informal organisation thread). Will you just except that you do not know what you're talking about and do some reading?

A lot of those kinds of groups develop into cliqueism (if that's even a word) quite easily, it doesn't seem to work in a democratically structured way, not that groups like that are all like cliques. But that kind of attitude springing up in the group is really hard to fight, honestly I know what I'm talking about here, it does spring up and you have to kind of step back and revaluate, the group as a whole has to do that.
This happens also in formal structures. However, the structure of the affinity group is down to the participants to organise and regulate through decision and action. If you mean 'cliqueism' as a small group forming a cell/s (a small group that coordinate action between themselves) within the affinity group, what is wrong with this?

Don't you think that in Greece, one of the things that's gone wrong is that the networks were not in-sync with each other enough? If there was a better formally organised federation of anarchist organisations for example I think that would've worked wonders.
No one is arguing that Greece is perfect, obviously problems arose and should be reevaluated and learnt from. But what do you mean the networks weren't in-sync?
There is a formal anarchist organisation- the AK. However, what would this group you speak of done so much better, which is incompatible with the insurrectionist model?

How does it contradict it, they refuse to be organised into a formal organisation (the people I was talking about).
:rolleyes:
Because insurrectionalism isn't solely based on informal organisation and states that it's necessary to coordinate among eachother? Infact, your wiki quote at the beginning stated that.

A few? I think that insurrectionism overfetishises violence, autonomy and 'permanent attack' as a principle, those are my most basic criticisms of it.
Hold on, I thought you said that insurrectionalism was just about informal organisation?
It sounds like you have a problem with the theory of attack- that we can learn and further theory through constant conflict and attacks against capital and State. This isn't necessarily violence though. Also, what autonomy? If this is going to progress you're going to have to state what problems you have, why you hold them and base the problem firmly into the insurrectionalist tendency- meaning theory and practice.

Honestly, there's nothing I have against insurrectionists, I just think it detracts from anarchist politics, the overfetishisation of attack without specifically targeting and placing it into the correct context is a massive error.
That does sound like you have something against insurrectionists- you even say why here!
But, when have insurrectionists not attacked a targetted spot? That's the whole point of the theory of attack, to attack targets for a set of reasons.

If workers get shot inside mostly, also because comrades who could be useful to the class-struggle in more productive ways get banged up, that's basically why.
When did someone get shot? This hypothetical. I think it's up to the participants to decide how they best act, since it's their autonomy they putting in danger.

I know but still, insurrectionists usually don't engage in this but they certainly don't think it's a bad tactic.
Based upon what data? I'm sure alot of insurrectionists would have the same problems with bank robberies as you do.

It's an odd point, you seem to be saying that all sudden revolts against capital (that is so loosely defined anyway) are connected in some way, it doesn't make much sense, at least to me.
The problem in interpretation here has arisen from the lack of coherency of your arguements and unwillingness to define your points, aswell as not actually commenting on the selected quote. I mean, how does that quote suggest that?

What is dogmatic about what I'm saying? I believe in workers' self-organisation, I don't care starts it. You know, I think some of the most successful examples of this are the absolute stubborn refusal to be shoved around by the Portuguese workers in 1974 and the Hungarians in 1956. You said:
They are instants of collective actions, that conforms to your dogma, affirming that the only relevant or worthwhile action is something perpetrated by a mass of bodies. Of course collective action is great, and more effective generally but this does not mean that the progressive and development of individuals through solitary action.

Yes and insurrectionists engage in many other forms of action too, because a lot of insurrectionists are at least deeply sympathetic to anarcho-communism, however as I said, I think insurrectionist theory just detracts from anarchists' poitics.
Most IAs are anarchist-communists.
How does it detract? You still haven't said, or atleast based it in relevant, modern insurrectionist theory or actions.

I don't think what you said is true though. Whether something is complimentary or not is determined by its usefulness to the class-struggle, this just doesn't seem useful to the class-struggle. I'm obviously not a purist in the area of what I deem 'complimentary' to the class-struggle either (being a member of lcap and having said before that food not bombs and stuff like that deserve support).
What is and isn't useful can best be understood by reflection, unless the action is obviously not going to give any positives.
So, you say that collective and individual actions cannot by complimentary. Why?

Pogue

21st November 2009, 17:07

Your arguments would be more convincing if you took that balaclava off and put that molotov down so you can type easier, Edelweiss Pirate :lol:

22nd November 2009, 10:51

Anyway.

I've left out some posts for the informal organisation thread, apologies to everyone except Pogue :glare: for my large contribution to confusion in this thread. I will not respond to every post/point/parts of a point presented as it will take too long, instead I'm going to have one main bloc of info which should address several.

You took a quote from wikipedia earlier that laid it out. The main ones being able to accumulate capital and attacking and intervening in struggles, quite how you haven't understood that is bewildering. Please remember, Insurrectionalism is a tactic, as is anarcho-syndicalism.

Anarcho-syndicalists don't tend to see it that way, they see it as an ideology, some of the [email protected] I have met identified as anarcho-communists, but I would believe those who identify explicitly as [email protected] would see it as an ideology rather than just a tactic, just like anarcho-syndicalists, after all someone who places either of those things as their 'ideology' would think it is the best 'tactic' for achieving socialism no? That doesn't make either of them not sympathetic to anarcho-communism.

It sounds like you have a problem with the theory of attack- that we can learn and further theory through constant conflict and attacks against capital and State. This isn't necessarily violence though. Also, what autonomy? If this is going to progress you're going to have to state what problems you have, why you hold them and base the problem firmly into the insurrectionalist tendency- meaning theory and practice.

That does sound like you have something against insurrectionists- you even say why here!
But, when have insurrectionists not attacked a targetted spot? That's the whole point of the theory of attack, to attack targets for a set of reasons.

When did someone get shot? This hypothetical. I think it's up to the participants to decide how they best act, since it's their autonomy they putting in danger.

Based upon what data? I'm sure alot of insurrectionists would have the same problems with bank robberies as you do.

The problem in interpretation here has arisen from the lack of coherency of your arguements and unwillingness to define your points..

How does it detract? You still haven't said, or atleast based it in relevant, modern insurrectionist theory or actions.

What is and isn't useful can best be understood by reflection, unless the action is obviously not going to give any positives.
So, you say that collective and individual actions cannot by complimentary. Why?

On insurrectionism:
1. Talk about affinity groups, communes then individual autonomy without clarifying enough to what extent and how the groups and communes' structures should exist, what individual and collective types of actions generally are progressive.. leading to a potentially unlimited number of difficulties in organising to the best extent possible imo and increasing the potential of agent provocateurs and repression (Genoa arrested interview (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ssn/belbull/genoa_interview.html) seems like a good example of that last point, though I don't like the guy's moralism)
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..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. .. seeks to break all economic dependency and all political subjugation', ranging from wildcat strikes to Radio Alice in Bologna in 1977, and innumerable other forms of collective experimentation. p68
As we apprehend it, the process of instituting communism can only take the form of a collection of acts of communisation, of making common such-and-such space, such-and-such-machine, such-and-such-knowledge.
We cannot expect everyone to sacrifice themselves in the name of universal anarchism. Limited objectives, then, where our presence as anarchists has the precise task of urging people to struggle directly in their own interests because it is only through direct, autonomous struggle that these objectives can be reached. And once the aim has been reached the nucleus withers and disappears. The comrades then start again, under different conditions. p24

2. Overemphasis on attacking capital, but not working based on objective material conditions, in fact, direct rejection of that in some cases, then unclear and a vague perception of working 'within reality' in some others..
—Because rather than wait, we have decided to proceed to action, even if the time is not ripe.
—Because we want to put an end to this state of affairs right away, rather than wait until conditions make its transformation possible. These are the reasons why we are anarchists, revolutionaries and insurrectionalists.
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. p68

3. Struggle outside the realm of workers is not discouraged, which it should be otherwise poisonous class-collaborationism will rear its head, the philosophical talk of "beings" does not help this, I elaborate on this in another point.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/practice/sp001892.htmlEach model should be worked out in one's own field of intervention and take into account of the plalce one is operating in. We can work out a logic to start , but are not trying to export revolutionary organisational model because it would be contrary to our way of seeing and living reality. This is what we mean by direct mass attack and the possibility of a development of insurrectional mass organisms through the creation of autonomous base nucleii which are not necessarily linked to the world of work. In any case, it is always necessary to structure the intervention, in realitiy itself, adapting the conditions therein.

4. Strange things to say on industrialisation and technological advancement with unclear motives as to why these things are being attacked
Yesterday was the era of machinery, instruments used by capital in its industrial phase, the proletarians in the factories which were gigantic prisons of forced labour. (In the current reality, it is a technological apparatus which traps the proletariat into the) global cycle of production-distribution-consumersim which is transforming each proletarianised person into periferal appendice.

5. Odd philosophical conclusions, especially by Agamben who talks about "whatever being". He talks about how the state cannot comprehend something that is not identity politics nor a demand because it is "whatever it is" and that people can come together based simply on their singularity. He talks about a 'planetary petty-bourgeois'.
What the state cannot tolerate, however, is that the singularities form a community without affirming an identity, that humans co-belong .. If we had once again to conceive of the fortunes of humanity in terms of class, then today we would have to say that there are no longer social classes, but just a single planetary petty bourgeoisie, in which all the old social classes are dissolved: The petty bourgeoisie has inherited the world and is the form in which humanity has survived nihilism.

6. Constant talk about invisibility, surreptitiousness and non-identity which once again, when not placed in correct contexts has the potential to be detrimental to our class-struggle
Not making ourselves visible, but instead turning the anonymity to which we’ve been relegated to our advantage, and through conspiracy, nocturnal or faceless actions, creating an invulnerable position of attack. The fires of November 2005 offer a model for this. No leader, no demands, no organization, but words, gestures, complicities. To be socially nothing is not a humiliating condition, the source of some tragic lack of recognition – from whom do we seek recognition? – but is on the contrary the condition for maximum freedom of action. Not claiming your illegal actions, only attaching to them some fictional acronym – we still remember the ephemeral BAFT (Brigade Anti-Flic des Tarterêts)25– is a way to preserve that freedom. Quite obviously, one of the regime’s first defensive maneuvers
was the creation of a “banlieue” subject to treat as the author of
the “riots of November 2005.” Just looking at the faces on some of this society’s somebodies illustrates why there’s such joy in being
nobody.
..
The more I want to be me, the more I feel an emptiness. The more I express myself, the more I am drained. The more I run after myself, the more tired I get. We cling to our self like a coveted job title. p18

Positives:

1. Certain autonomous traditions arising from insurrectionism, ie the black bloc have good use in the correct contexts; ie against organised fascism, against attemped state suppression of strikes.

2. The talk of 'joy' and radicalisation based on being a part of insurrectionary practices is interesting has some relevance.

3. The talk of individual actions has some use, but only if you clarify it better. For instance, the WTO riots had a use for actions such as causing economic damage by destroying buildings, you could say that injuring police in some contexts (as police are paid for and do the bidding of capitalists after all) is an attack upon capital in a way.

4. Occupying space is definitely an interesting concept, but it should be considered carefully and not done on the spur of the moment.

5. The speed at which people can get organised is decent in some of these affinity groups and cells.

The ideas of individual struggle really have to be thought about a lot more imo, what actions have what effect. Good and more spontaneous insurrectionist-style actions you might see me applauding from the Greek riots for instance, would be the massive xmas tree going down, the occupation of that radio station. Those were progressive spontaneous actions that seemed fairly uncoordinated, but had a progressive role when placed in the context of the riots altogether.

The fact that the Italian autonomous and Greek ones collapsed, I think shows the need for quite a lot of reflection on both theory and practice.

In any case, I don't have anything against insurrectionists personally as has been misrepresented, at all in fact. Oh and honestly, Tiqqun with its love of that "Don't know what I want, but I know how to get it. Sex Pistols Anarchy in the UK" quote is really something else. :p Yep, I finally went through quite a lot of 'comment faire' and some others.

bcbm

22nd November 2009, 14:53

somebody's been busy...:tt2:

I would believe those who identify explicitly as [email protected] would see it as an ideology rather than just a tactic

most ia writing is pretty clear that it isn't an ideology and, as a tactic, seeks to actively avoid the trappings of ideology. i think if someone identified exclusively with that current, they'd be wary of describing it as an ideology.

On insurrectionism:
1. Talk about affinity groups, communes then individual autonomy without clarifying enough to what extent and how the groups and communes' structures should exist, what individual and collective types of actions generally are progressive.. leading to a potentially unlimited number of difficulties in organising to the best extent possible imo and increasing the potential of agent provocateurs and repression (Genoa arrested interview (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ssn/belbull/genoa_interview.html) seems like a good example of that last point, though I don't like the guy's moralism)i think it is left purposefully vague to an extent because, if we accept their premise that the whole social terrain is our field of operations, than the situations facing the individual/collective reader may be wildly different and proposing a more solid "mold" would inherently limit potential. i think the idea is to start from the base idea and the few examples given, and determine what that means in your own context and how to find others and multiply within that context. if anything, i think this leads to unlimited possibilities in organizing.

the point of provocateurs still seems odd to me when compared to formal organizations. i've been in affinity clusters with police spies, and they came through formal organizations. the major cases here in the us- anna, brandon darby, panda- all involved snitches who got involved through formal organizations or events. basing what you do around affinity and friendship seems a way to limit provocateurs and spies more than anything.

2. Overemphasis on attacking capital, but not working based on objective material conditions, in fact, direct rejection of that in some cases, then unclear and a vague perception of working 'within reality' in some others.. i think the point ia would bring up is that the "objective material conditions" are basically a myth communists fall back on to excuse themselves from doing anything, or worse, when they recuperate movements into capital. the point is about figuring out how to start now and build communism from there.

In 1940, Georges Guingouin, the “first French resistance fighter,” started with nothing other than the certainty of his refusal of the Nazi occupation. At that time, to the Communist Party, he was nothing but a “madman living in the woods,” until there were 20,000 madmen living in the woods, and Limoges was liberated.

3. Struggle outside the realm of workers is not discouraged, which it should be otherwise poisonous class-collaborationism will rear its head, the philosophical talk of "beings" does not help this, I elaborate on this in another point.i haven't ever encountered the text you quote here, where did you find it?

anyway, i would imagine they're talking about working with other exploited sections of capital and opening the struggle in neighborhoods, apartment complexes, prisons, etc judging from the italian origin of the text.

4. Strange things to say on industrialisation and technological advancement with unclear motives as to why these things are being attacked in the bit you quote they appear to be attacking the transformation of workers into cogs, and the degree to which technology has built the commodity relationship into a cage, or at least that is my understanding.

5. Odd philosophical conclusions, especially by Agamben who talks about "whatever being". He talks about how the state cannot comprehend something that is not identity politics nor a demand because it is "whatever it is" and that people can come together based simply on their singularity. He talks about a 'planetary petty-bourgeois'.i don't think the philosophical conclusions are particularly odd. agamben is basically arguing that the state can accept anything that has an identity or allows itself to be identified because it then because a part of the empire, which basically defines everything we exist under, the global civil war that runs through all relationships and interactions. therefore the only way to oppose empire is through negation, the rejection of all identity for community. for tiqqun/tci, this is heavily related to their concepts of anonymity and communization, basically taking agamben a step further and spelling out a direct means of attack.

as for the "planetary petit-bourgeois," i haven't read the coming community, but here's the two best explanations i could find online:
"Agamben imagines a space of generalized language, a pseudo-public where capital 'has realized parodistically the Marxian project of a classless society' by providing for a global petit-bourgeois the illusion of abundance and satisfactions."
http://styleofnegation.wordpress.com/

"Traditionally ‘production of subjectivity’ has referred to the fact
that in order to expand and thereby survive, capital has always had to
produce not only goods and services, but also workers, managers,
capitalists, etc., disposed or at least resignedly willing to function
as such. In the last few years, of course, the outward reference points
have changed, as working- class populations in 'advanced' countries
assume the cultural self-perception of what Giorgio Agamben calls a
'planetary petit-bourgeoisie' at the same time as sliding into
sub-proletarian economic vulnerability. Attributes sacred to today's
think-tanks are no longer obedience for workers and rationality for
bosses, but on both sides of the hazy line, dynamic opportunism:
'flexibility', 'personal responsibility', 'communication skills' and
other similarly abstract images of affliction."
http://www.mattin.org/recordings/matthewundistilled.html

its basically an expansion on some of the ideas the situationists had.

6. Constant talk about invisibility, surreptitiousness and non-identity which once again, when not placed in correct contexts has the potential to be detrimental to our class-strugglei think they're placing it within a context- if we're operating as enemies of the state it doesn't make sense to openly proclaim ourselves as such when we're in a position of absolute weakness. let's take it to a smaller scale...

if you're organizing a union in your workplace, do you proclaim to everyone that you're starting a union and you want to get rid of the boss? of course not, you'd be sacked instantly. instead you build the union clandestinely until you have enough power to assert yourselves.

if workplace struggles are often a matter of life and death, why would we view the struggle for our enter existence as anything less? and if that is the case, why wouldn't we act in such a way so as to build our power before coming to the light?

Good and more spontaneous insurrectionist-style actions you might see me applauding from the Greek riots for instance, would be the massive xmas tree going down, the occupation of that radio station. Those were progressive spontaneous actions that seemed fairly uncoordinated, but had a progressive role when placed in the context of the riots altogether.i think its very strange to isolate individual acts during an insurrection as indicative of positive insurrectionary actions. the entire thing as a whole is the insurrectionary action.

The fact that the Italian autonomous and Greek ones collapsed, I think shows the need for quite a lot of reflection on both theory and practice.i think there are mistakes to be learned from, i don't think they damn the entire thought anymore than the failure of the working-class in spain damns anarchist-communism.

The Feral Underclass

22nd November 2009, 15:51

This is simply a joke, that is why I didn't fully substantiate it with a complete response. AF is just not what Bakunin envisaged as a vanguard, AF is not a secret, temporary or small organisation.

We're not secret no, but we are temporary and we are small.

Yeah a secret international, like I have said so many times before, is not a good idea, furthermore I've pointed out authoritarian sounding parts of his language and.. "flowery language" is just a silly way to try and account for that.Yes, the term "general staff" does sound authoritarian, but if you actually analyse his ideas you can see that his meaning was not.

On the issue of these secret organisations, I think it should be noted that most political organisations operated within nations devoured by reaction secretly. To do otherwise would have meant death or imprisonment. Bakunin himself spent 15 years in solitary confinement, and only managed to get back into politics having escaped from Siberia. One can understand the need for secrecy when faced with such prospects.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, were it not for his seemingly at odds ideas of keeping it secret and saying it needs a "general staff", where does he talk about democratic structures of the organisation? I don't see it, point out to me where he states his positions on that and I will back down on this point.Any body whose read any of his works, and I have read much of it, would know full well his political beliefs. For someone to get into a discussion about Bakunin's ideas and then announce their inability to see his politics makes me rather suspicious.

Bakunin's ideas of freedom and democracy are well documented. Reading one pamphlet in isolation of the rest of his political writing is ludicrious. Read Revolutionary Catcheism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm) for a start (written in 1866, three years before Programme Of The Internaitonal Brotherhood), although there are countless other works at http://www.marxists.org/ that you can read.

Solidarity In Liberty: The Workers' Path To Freedom (1867) (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch04.htm) and Red Association (1870) (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch05.htm) may also be rather good for you to read.

Is this International Movement a secret idea, a conspiracy? Not in the least. The International Movement, the Council Association, does not dictate from above or prescribe in secret. It federates from below and will from a thousand quarters. It speaks in every group of workers and embraces the combined decision of all factions. The Council is living democracy: and whenever the Association formulates plans, it does it openly, and speaks to all who will listen. Its word is the voice of labor recruiting its energies for the overthrow of capitalist oppression.

It's irrelevant as in we both know that revolutions develop in stages.. but that your argument, that committees will only spring up in the 'mid-term' is wrong.:blink:

That hasn't been my argument. I specifically said: "...the concept of a workers committee and council are fundamentally different and are surely a long term aim of any revolutionary activity."

Post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1602758&postcount=89)

Don't think I said they "weren't vague".. other than that, yes, your outline of them is vague because necessarily, they are vague they are the inevitably vague first step, of radicalised workers linking up in their workplace and this can't be clarified into something solid.. and yes, WPRGs spring up anyway and are not worth clarifying, no need to clarify them.But radicalised workers linking up and the formation of workplace resistance groups are two fundamentally different things. The document, which you characterise as unclear, specifically talks about the particular context in which WRG's would form and what the nature of their activity would be at that given time.

WRG's are the next step beyond union activity and would be a direct consequence of the progression of struggle.

I guess I'll have to quote it for you again..I wanted a link...

Does that help? Interesting too isn't it that Bakunin seeks association with left deviationists like Sergei, when specifically he talks about his theory of a vanguard.I just want to ask a serious question: Where have you learned your history of Bakunin?

Yes, his association with Nechayev was an unfortunate one and got Bakunin into a lot of trouble. There's a lot of speculation of why Bakunin remained friends with him for so long. At the more sensationalist end of the spectrum they were lovers, but it's my feeling that Bakunin simply had loyalty and compassion to one of his friends. Bakunin was an incredibly affable, passionate person who struck up many deep personal friendship and his loyalty to his friends is well documented. Bakunin also saw the revolutionary potential of the Russian youth movement, of which Nechayev was part (Young Russia was the name of the Nihilist organisation). It should be noted that while Bakunin refused to break away from the students movement (they were the most radical elements in Russia at the time) as other reformist elements did, he did criticise them for their lack of class analysis and their propaganda of the deed. His association with them and Nechayev cannot be seen as any indictment on his own political beliefs.

That isn't what a Leninist vanguard entails, if anyone has got their ideas wrong here it is you.I was part of one for 7 years. I was a paid member of the SWP. If anyone knows what a Leninist vanguard entails I think I would be a pretty strong contender.

In any case, if you want to try and argue that a Leninist organisation is not elitist or centralist then go ahead, but that would be utterly absurd and not one I'm prepared to entertain.

So did Blanqui, you have consistently missed out that Bakunin believed it must be secret too.There were no other way for organisations to operate within countries like Germany, Russia and the Austrian Empire.

And why do you think that is such a good idea, because it will become authoritarian if it remains for too long? Why do you believe democratic structures can't prevent that from happening?It would become redundant because it would no longer be necessary. What would a membership organisation like the AF be good for in a post revolutionary society? We don't seek any form of permanency. We seek to foster cultures of resistance and offer strategy, resource and ideas to a revolutionary moment. Once the working class have destroyed capitalism and the state and established a workers society, the existence of organisations like the AF would become irrelevant.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd November 2009, 22:48

1) Utopians (setting up an isolated "commune")
2) Individual lifestylists
3) Hooligans ("Battle of Seattle" type)
4) Insurrectionist anarchists (more violent action)
5) Class-strugglist anarchists

Pogue

22nd November 2009, 22:51

1) Utopians (setting up an isolated "commune")
2) Individual lifestylists
3) Hooligans ("Battle of Seattle" type)
4) Insurrectionist anarchists (more violent action)
5) Class-strugglist anarchists

Surely 'hooligans' wouldn't be anarchists, but would simply be hooligans.

Thats an absurd statement really, and a purposeful slur. If your a 'hooligan' then clearly your not a type of anarchist, your just a rent a mob type.

Stranger Than Paradise

22nd November 2009, 22:52

1) Utopians (setting up an isolated "commune")
2) Individual lifestylists
3) Hooligans ("Battle of Seattle" type)
4) Insurrectionist anarchists (more violent action)
5) Class-strugglist anarchists

I wouldn't say your description of a 'Utopian' is in line with no. 2.

Insurrectionist Anarchists are Class Struggle Anarchists.

Hooligans is just rude.

Sasha

22nd November 2009, 22:56

1) Utopians (setting up an isolated "commune")
2) Individual lifestylists
3) Hooligans ("Battle of Seattle" type)
4) Insurrectionist anarchists (more violent action)
5) Class-strugglist anarchists

i think all 5 of your types aply to me and most other dutch anarchist squaters depending on how (or with what assumptions) you look at us and what time of the day you catch us.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd November 2009, 22:58

Surely 'hooligans' wouldn't be anarchists, but would simply be hooligans.

I was lazy typing. Nevertheless, the distinction is there to be made. That third group makes a mockery of "direct action," even as I oppose fetishes for such.

The interesting debate between anarcho-syndicalists and Anarchist Federation types falls into the fifth category, but underestimates the role of genuine party-movements: class struggle is political, not economic. This is something both groups (yourself included) fail to understand.

Insurrectionist Anarchists are Class Struggle Anarchists.

The fourth group refers to the stereotypical anarchists before WWII: anarchist terrorists.

Stranger Than Paradise

22nd November 2009, 23:06

class struggle is political, not economic. This is something both groups (yourself included) fail to understand.

Hos is that so Jacob? The organisations we advocate (syndicates, workers councils) are expressions of working class political power.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd November 2009, 23:09

Pogue

22nd November 2009, 23:17

The problem is that, from the outset, these organs do not have the immediate aim of uniting the class as a whole (unemployed workers, retired workers, disabled workers). These organs, which can't even meet on a regular basis, unite the workers in their workplaces and such, and mainly for economic issues. Which workplace council/syndicate would be interested in addressing the construction of new senior retirement facilities, or taxation policy?

Which kind of organization can unite the class as a whole, address policy, and also develop an extensive "mutual aid" network? [Genuine] Political parties.

See, thats a valid argument, if you cut out half of the stuff you say, and jsut argued this, in everyday language, you'd have more of a following.

I think a confederation of all of the organs of working class power can do that job. I think it will be our role as revolutionaries to promote revolutionary ideas within the organs mentioned above (syndicates, councils), and through a general confederation, expressed through delegatory meetings, 'policy' can be formulated. I'd like to see an libertarian communist organisation puting forward ideas, i.e. trying to establish a 'leadership of ideas', across these organs as well.

To be honest no one can really talk about what organs will come about to promote the interests of the class, I don't really care myself, be it syndicate or party, as long as it is directly democratic, in the control of the working class and genuinely revolutionary in its nature.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd November 2009, 23:29

See, thats a valid argument, if you cut out half of the stuff you say, and just argued this, in everyday language, you'd have more of a following.

Thanks for the advice, then. :blushing:

I think a confederation of all of the organs of working class power can do that job.

Can they meet regularly enough? As bad as parliaments are, soviets in any form did not meet regularly enough (and "once a month," while an improvement over historical models, isn't enough). I doubt such a "confederation" can overcome this.

I think it will be our role as revolutionaries to promote revolutionary ideas within the organs mentioned above (syndicates, councils), and through a general confederation, expressed through delegatory meetings, 'policy' can be formulated. I'd like to see an libertarian communist organisation puting forward ideas, i.e. trying to establish a 'leadership of ideas', across these organs as well.

See, that's another problem: such an organization putting forward ideas would in fact be a party, albeit one stripped of "mutual aid" functions.

Now, why the absence of such functions? It's the same reason that class-strugglist anarchists have with anything other than "workers councils" in whatever form (workplace committees, neighbourhood assembles, etc.): immature avoidance of the levels of bureaucracy that are needed to unite workers as a class.

To be honest no one can really talk about what organs will come about to promote the interests of the class, I don't really care myself, be it syndicate or party, as long as it is directly democratic, in the control of the working class and genuinely revolutionary in its nature.

I think it all comes down to semantics, as recalled by Mike Macnair:

If the working class is to take power, it must lead the society as a whole. To do so, it must address all questions animating politics in the society as a whole and all its elements. To do so is to become a political party even if you call yourself an ‘alliance’ or ‘unity coalition’ or whatever - or a ‘trade union’, as the small revived ‘Industrial Workers of the World’ group calls itself. To fail to do so is to fail even as an ‘alliance’ or ‘unity coalition’.

[The problem with the IWW, of course, is that it addresses only economic questions, including vague references to socialism.]

The transitional period is characterized politically by the rule of the party(ies) of the working class. Every other organizational form is a decoration for such party(ies) to operate in.

Искра

22nd November 2009, 23:36

IWW has nothing to do with anarchism.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd November 2009, 23:40

Pogue

22nd November 2009, 23:42

Thanks for the advice, then. :blushing:

Can they meet regularly enough? As bad as parliaments are, soviets in any form did not meet regularly enough (and "once a month," while an improvement over historical models, isn't enough). I doubt such a "confederation" can overcome this.

See, that's another problem: such an organization putting forward ideas would in fact be a party, albeit one stripped of "mutual aid" functions.

Now, why the absence of such functions? It's the same reason that class-strugglist anarchists have with anything other than "workers councils" in whatever form (workplace committees, neighbourhood assembles, etc.): immature avoidance of the levels of bureaucracy that are needed to unite workers as a class.

I think it all comes down to semantics, as recalled by Mike Macnair:

If the working class is to take power, it must lead the society as a whole. To do so, it must address all questions animating politics in the society as a whole and all its elements. To do so is to become a political party even if you call yourself an ‘alliance’ or ‘unity coalition’ or whatever - or a ‘trade union’, as the small revived ‘Industrial Workers of the World’ group calls itself. To fail to do so is to fail even as an ‘alliance’ or ‘unity coalition’.

[The problem with the IWW, of course, is that it addresses only economic questions, including vague references to socialism.]

I think they can meet regularly enough. Especially given new levels of communication in the modern world. A delegatory system makes this possible too.

What you have to realise is revolutions are dynamic and living. What will work will happen because if everyones starving or the factories aren't working because theres no communication or administration, then the people can sort it out. Its not as tohugh we'll meet at inappropriate times in a candle lit room cos the electricians soviet arent meeting for another week or something. So i think organs of working class control (or revolutionary control, as classes will be sort of semi abolished at this stage) will be formed fit for purpose. we can decide this there and then, otherwise we're just clutching at straws.

I don't think it being a 'party' is a bad thing. I have nothing against parties. As a comrade pointed out, the AFed might as well be a 'party', its just a party of a particular type, i.e. a highly decentralised one based upon a different decision making basis than say the SWP. I don't care what you call my group, L&S, we call it a revolutionary group, an libertarian socialist organisation, etc, party isn't really the term used in anarchist circles but i'm not that bothered if people think we are a party. its our structure that is rly important and our structure is democratic.

I don't think the Wobs is a party or anything similar. I think at the moment it shows some characteristics in some areas of being like an activist network or a solidarity group, but with pretentions to becoming a union. The structure is that of a union, a revolutionary syndicalist one, the things we talk about them and how we talk about them is like a union, etc. Either way, its irrelevant, as come a revolutionary period, the IWW wont be the only organisation of the working class/revolutionary faction, it'll be one of many or even just part of an over-arching organisation.

Pogue

22nd November 2009, 23:44

You're right: despite the token membership rules for uniting the employed, the unemployed, the retirees, the disabled, etc., its activity is anything but.

However, the IWA/AIT and the AF are both content with not becoming proper political parties, and that is why few workers are won over to class-strugglist anarchism.

Well operating as a party in the sense your talking, i.e. a representative organisation putting across a political platform it aims to 'win people over to' would go against anarchist ideas on organisation and the role of the class/militants/revolutionaries. its a different dynamic we're talking about.

The IWW doesn't claim to be anarchist, but it has alot of anarchists in it, and it is a vital tool for anarchists to use, it should certainly be part of our politics, so it is very relevant to anarchism, i would argue it always has been due to what its done and hwo its structured.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd November 2009, 23:50

I think they can meet regularly enough. Especially given new levels of communication in the modern world. A delegatory system makes this possible too.

I realize the developments in telecommunication, but with Kautskyan skepticism, I don't overestimate their potential.

I don't think it being a 'party' is a bad thing. I have nothing against parties. As a comrade pointed out, the AFed might as well be a 'party', its just a party of a particular type, i.e. a highly decentralised one based upon a different decision making basis than say the SWP.

That's another problem: fetishes for decentralization have led to movements and organizations being mere caricatures of what they once were. It is another immature avoidance of the bureaucracy question. Mass movements of the working class were defined by the extensive bureaucracy (by definition, bureaucracies are centralized) of their organizations, including "mutual aid" ones.

I noted that you understand perfectly what I mean by "parties":

Well operating as a party in the sense you're talking, i.e. a representative organisation putting across a political platform it aims to 'win people over to'

Indeed, bureaucracies may also be needed for forming policy, as demonstrated by the structure of think tanks. After all, research needs to be done before some policies are proposed. Whatever programmatic work I have done, whatever rehabilitation of woefully ignored policies I have done (transforming Lassalle's "producer co-operatives with state aid" slogan into policy, partially solving the problem of capitalist mass media through certain policies, etc.) - all would pale in comparison to similar but more extensive work done by such bureaucracies.

[One could argue that Die Neue Zeit was a prototype for the modern think tank, with the structure of its editorial board, distribution apparatus, and what not.]

the IWW wont be the only organisation of the working class/revolutionary faction, it'll be one of many or even just part of an over-arching organisation

I hope such "over-arching" organization is one that learns from the positive lessons of the pre-war SPD and USPD, and one that would dwarf the CPSU. :)

SpudsMcGee

25th November 2009, 09:04

"Especially this "modern" (or better to say post-modern) individualists and lifestylish asses"

Umm, individualists have been around for a while. Tucker and Spooner among others. So to say that it's some newish fad cooked up by lifestylish asses is weak.

And of course you want us out of the debate; because you're scared of us :laugh:.

The Feral Underclass

25th November 2009, 09:06

Scared of what, precisely?

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

25th November 2009, 09:32

5) Mutualists,[...], individualists and other people who pass themselves off as anarchists

I think the title speaks for itself, basically worthless.

What do people think?Clearly I take issue with the first semblance of contemporary anarchism being dismissed as faux-anarchism when it precluded and later inspired social anarchists like Emma Goldman. Even Peter Kropotkin, who often supposed individualism would be confined to intellectual curiosity, acknowledged the many traditions established through its basic 'philosophes' in his writings (I'm thinking of 'Anarchism' specifically). His reflections have of course been contionusly proven wrong, the most obvious example being a resurgance of support for mutualism circa (or via) 1968.

Even prior to Proudhon, the mutualist branch developed as the first criticism of utopian socialism through thinkers like Josiah Warren. The non-descript application of terms like "modern" and "post-modern" is heavily ironic considering quite a few posts in this thread relate to Platformism.

25th November 2009, 19:18

most ia writing is pretty clear that it isn't an ideology and, as a tactic, seeks to actively avoid the trappings of ideology. i think if someone identified exclusively with that current, they'd be wary of describing it as an ideology.

No, but there are many who seem happy to refer to themselves as 'insurrectionary anarchists', I think that says a lot myself if someone calls themselves that.

i think it is left purposefully vague to an extent because, if we accept their premise that the whole social terrain is our field of operations, than the situations facing the individual/collective reader may be wildly different and proposing a more solid "mold" would inherently limit potential. i think the idea is to start from the base idea and the few examples given, and determine what that means in your own context and how to find others and multiply within that context. if anything, i think this leads to unlimited possibilities in organizing.

And unlimited conclusions as to what is progressive what is not (and all the other things I pointed out). The authors I mentioned even talk about dialectics at times, not a particularly good thing really and while I'm not anti-dialectics, it seems to lead to very reactionary conclusions when concretely put into practice much of the time.

the point of provocateurs still seems odd to me when compared to formal organizations. i've been in affinity clusters with police spies, and they came through formal organizations. the major cases here in the us- anna, brandon darby, panda- all involved snitches who got involved through formal organizations or events. basing what you do around affinity and friendship seems a way to limit provocateurs and spies more than anything.

And don't you think one charismatic person is all it takes - working for the state to charm their way into a clique, obviously if a formal organisation's members aren't linked like they should be (ie generally everyone should have a good idea about each other, it shouldn't be like some mass assembly of faces who mostly don't know each other) then yeah it's easier to be able to blend in.

Organising is getting better in many ways, I think having open discussions with new members rather than clinically "vetting" them is the way to go about it, also yeah sometimes covert activity is needed to see what they get up to. But, I've read/heard of alot of examples of provocateurs posing as insurrectionaries (espesh at protests) because the open affinity affords them an opportunity to jump in and disrupt.

i think the point ia would bring up is that the "objective material conditions" are basically a myth communists fall back on to excuse themselves from doing anything, or worse, when they recuperate movements into capital. the point is about figuring out how to start now and build communism from there.

And so are dialectics which many [email protected] seem to respect - and so is the other odd philosophy that goes along with insurrectionism. What makes material conditions so much worse than any other excuse to justify what you do or don't do? Also, when you say "the point is about figuring out how to start now" - that is not based on any kind of objective material conditions - and why not? What reason is there for not even attempting to research this?

i haven't ever encountered the text you quote here, where did you find it?

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/practice/sp001892.html Pierleone Porcu

anyway, i would imagine they're talking about working with other exploited sections of capital and opening the struggle in neighborhoods, apartment complexes, prisons, etc judging from the italian origin of the text.

Yep, but then we should be doing that anyway, if any of those things happen they are always secondary to the primacy of workers' struggle in workplaces, it's why you don't see them happening quite as much and when you do, they started off from a mass workers' struggle in almost every case.

in the bit you quote they appear to be attacking the transformation of workers into cogs, and the degree to which technology has built the commodity relationship into a cage, or at least that is my understanding.

Eh, I'm not sure on this, but then that isn't the first time I've seen attacking of technology and so on. I've noted a bit of sympathy towards the luddites from insurrectionists before too.

i don't think the philosophical conclusions are particularly odd. agamben is basically arguing that the state can accept anything that has an identity or allows itself to be identified because it then because a part of the empire

The 'empire' concept is not one I agree with at all.

which basically defines everything we exist under, the global civil war that runs through all relationships and interactions. therefore the only way to oppose empire is through negation, the rejection of all identity for community. for tiqqun/tci, this is heavily related to their concepts of anonymity and communization, basically taking agamben a step further and spelling out a direct means of attack.

But it doesn't seem to be a decent tactic, at least, I think it has been practised in the past (such as in Italy) and it hasn't been successful.

as for the "planetary petit-bourgeois," i haven't read the coming community, but here's the two best explanations i could find online:
..
its basically an expansion on some of the ideas the situationists had.

Indeed, it says much of what I interpreted from it too, such as people being "resigned" to their jobs and whatever and in effect having a petit-bourgeois mentality, well yeah we already see a lot of people are disaffected so I don't agree with that.

i think they're placing it within a context- if we're operating as enemies of the state it doesn't make sense to openly proclaim ourselves as such when we're in a position of absolute weakness. let's take it to a smaller scale...

It depends what you mean by 'absolute weakness', in countries where political persecution is at its highest then yeah, there are established traditions of organising like this though and this still isn't the best one of them.

if workplace struggles are often a matter of life and death, why would we view the struggle for our enter existence as anything less? and if that is the case, why wouldn't we act in such a way so as to build our power before coming to the light?

All I can say on this: if insurrectionists really think this way, indeed if any significant majority of people thought like that, the world would be a different place (like it has been in times past, when struggle was at its height), but it takes large shifts in social conditions and struggle to push people to getting to that point, it can't just be imposed..

i think its very strange to isolate individual acts during an insurrection as indicative of positive insurrectionary actions. the entire thing as a whole is the insurrectionary action.

So you think that any act is progressive?

i think there are mistakes to be learned from, i don't think they damn the entire thought anymore than the failure of the working-class in spain damns anarchist-communism.

Spain was anarcho-syndicalist though.

We're not secret no, but we are temporary and we are small.

And you wish to remain small?

Yes, the term "general staff" does sound authoritarian, but if you actually analyse his ideas you can see that his meaning was not.

Bakunin had a lot of ideas, they don't all make much sense when you compare it with his earlier or latter ones, he even changed his mind from believing in a more authoritarian kind of vanguard to a lesser one, I still disagree with his ideas on it, but I'm just saying.

On the issue of these secret organisations, I think it should be noted that most political organisations operated within nations devoured by reaction secretly. To do otherwise would have meant death or imprisonment. Bakunin himself spent 15 years in solitary confinement, and only managed to get back into politics having escaped from Siberia. One can understand the need for secrecy when faced with such prospects.

Indeed we can, but they are not applicable to today's society.

Any body whose read any of his works, and I have read much of it, would know full well his political beliefs. For someone to get into a discussion about Bakunin's ideas and then announce their inability to see his politics makes me rather suspicious.

He did believe in a lot of contradictory stuff, I don't think that is even up for debate. His political ideas went across so many different spectrums, for such an anti-statist he said things like "The most imperfect of republics is a thousand times better than the most enlightened monarchy." and he thought patriotic rhetoric was a good idea in getting French workers out against the bourgeois there too.

So I don't think basing what he actually writes in the same letter against his "general political beliefs" is very fruitful, I'm not ignorant as to what Bakunin practised and believed by any means, I think he's got some good to offer the modern anarchist movement, but some of it that has been accepted is incorrect.

But radicalised workers linking up and the formation of workplace resistance groups are two fundamentally different things. The document, which you characterise as unclear, specifically talks about the particular context in which WRG's would form and what the nature of their activity would be at that given time.

WRG's are the next step beyond union activity and would be a direct consequence of the progression of struggle.

Alright, then I simply disagree with that, I can't see them forming myself and anything like that would be too unclear to concretely define.

I wanted [B]a link...

Eh, apparently you can find it in "Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings" p.191-193.

I just want to ask a serious question: Where have you learned your history of Bakunin?

Not from one biased place if that's what you think.

Yes, his association with Nechayev was an unfortunate one and got Bakunin into a lot of trouble. There's a lot of speculation of why Bakunin remained friends with him for so long. At the more sensationalist end of the spectrum they were lovers, but it's my feeling that Bakunin simply had loyalty and compassion to one of his friends. Bakunin was an incredibly affable, passionate person who struck up many deep personal friendship and his loyalty to his friends is well documented. Bakunin also saw the revolutionary potential of the Russian youth movement, of which Nechayev was part (Young Russia was the name of the Nihilist organisation). It should be noted that while Bakunin refused to break away from the students movement (they were the most radical elements in Russia at the time) as other reformist elements did, he did criticise them for their lack of class analysis and their propaganda of the deed. His association with them and Nechayev cannot be seen as any indictment on his own political beliefs.

It seems clear he had an undeniable influence upon Bakunin, despite as you say, the fact that had many disagreements.

I was part of one for 7 years. I was a paid member of the SWP. If anyone knows what a Leninist vanguard entails I think I would be a pretty strong contender.

In any case, if you want to try and argue that a Leninist organisation is not elitist or centralist then go ahead, but that would be utterly absurd and not one I'm prepared to entertain.

The ICC are 'Leninist' yet they don't have the typical "Leninist" conception of what a vanguard is, so no you are tarring all "Leninist" organisations with the same brush, which is unhelpful at best.

There were no other way for organisations to operate within countries like Germany, Russia and the Austrian Empire.

Indeed, so it is now, certainly redundant for us.

It would become redundant because it would no longer be necessary. What would a membership organisation like the AF be good for in a post revolutionary society? We don't seek any form of permanency. We seek to foster cultures of resistance and offer strategy, resource and ideas to a revolutionary moment. Once the working class have destroyed capitalism and the state and established a workers society, the existence of organisations like the AF would become irrelevant.

There seems to me to be a need for a political organisation to look on and organise things during the DOTP period, I don't think a simple decentralised set of communes is enough to organise things, it may even be enough - I just don't think it would be the best way to organise ourselves. Additionally, I don't see how it would be 'irrelevant', having no overt organisation that promotes class-consciousness seems to me, to be a mistake.

Искра

25th November 2009, 19:27

Scared of what, precisely?
I hope not individualism :) because I believe that no one gives a shit about them.

Madvillainy

25th November 2009, 19:39

The ICC are 'Leninist' yet they don't have the typical "Leninist" conception of what a vanguard is, so no you are tarring all "Leninist" organisations with the same brush, which is unhelpful at best.

I know you might see this as nitpicking but I think it's important to point out that the ICC are most certainly not leninists, although this is a slur often used (solely by anarchists in my experience) to discredit left communists. The ICC see leninism as counter revolutionary and a betrayal of Lenins internationalism. :p

Pogue

25th November 2009, 19:42

I know you might see this as nitpicking but I think it's important to point out that the ICC are most certainly not leninists, although this is a slur often used (solely by anarchists in my experience) to discredit left communists. The ICC see leninism as counter revolutionary and a betrayal of Lenins internationalism. :p

Leninism is a betrayal of Lenin's internationalism?

Madvillainy

25th November 2009, 19:53

Leninism is a betrayal of Lenin's internationalism?

*sigh* Yes, leninism today as a movement is something completely different from Lenin the man. In fact they are directly opposed to each other. Leninism throughout its history has continually picked sides during whichever imperialist war, and their support for socialism in one country have nothing to do with internationalist politics.

Devrim

25th November 2009, 19:54

Leninism is a betrayal of Lenin's internationalism?

I don't think that that is necessarily contradictory. Lots of ideologies distort the ideas of their founding figure/inspiration.

Devrim

syndicat

27th November 2009, 20:31

I am not entirely sure how to categorize all the people who consider themselves "anarchists" in the USA. There isn't really a very clear distinction here between "Platformists" (or groups signed on to Anarkismo statement) and anarcho-syndicalists. WSA is not signed on to the Anarkismo statement and has never considered itself a "Platformist" organization, but it is a political organization that adheres to the dual organizational idea...distinguishing between the role of mass organizations and political organizations. WSA has members who do consider themselves to be "platformists" however. I'm not sure to what degree this isn't just a difference of labels.

In North America there has occurred over the past two years two Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences. This has included Workers Solidarity Alliance (ex-IWA section), NEFAC (northeast), Common Action (northwest), Amanecer (California, influenced by South American especifismo), Four Star Anarchist Organization (Chicago), Buffalo Class Action, Solidarity & Defense (Michigan), Capital Terminus Collective (Atlanta), Michigan-Minnesota Group. (Canadian organizations have also attended the conferences.) Two largest groups in USA are NEFAC and WSA. There has generally been a high level of agreement. A comradely atmosphere was maintained throughout.

There is some talk about regroupment in a single national organization. The groups associated with this tendency may have 300 to 400 members. Anarcho-Syndicalist Review attended the first conference but denounced it later, but they are a small group with declining influence.

so the conferences sort of groups the pro-organizational libertarian socialists or social anarchists who have a class struggle perspective. as with WSA quite a few have an intersectional analysis as their way of analyzing the various forms of oppression and how they relate.

But there are many people who consider themselves anarchists who are outside of this organized working class struggle-oriented tendency. There are the primitivists, post-left anarchists (who don't seem to do anything I am aware of), insurrectionists.

I think there are anarchists or libertarian socialists around who have some sort of class analysis and do community organizing or whatever but who are outside the organized tendency described above. In other words, I think there are other social movement activists who identify to one degree or another with libertarian socialist ideas but don't belong to a political organization.

Insurrectionism, so far as I am aware, seems to be identified with, or is claimed by, at any rate, the Crimethinc oriented crowd. Their mag "Rolling Thunder" claims to be insurrectionist. Their orientation is on street actions and protests, which tend to be limited to an already radicalized minority...a very tiny section of the population. And they have no orientation to organizing in communiites or workplaces nor do they have any understanding of how to root themselves and their ideas in the communities of the oppressed.

So, categorization can be applied in a number of intersecting ways. You can try to categorize by positions or ideas, but i think that is an overly intellectualized approach. You can look at conduct and how they are involved, their relations to various kinds of organizations...e.g. are they unaffiliated social movement activists or do they favor a political organization, and so on.

bcbm

27th November 2009, 21:34

Insurrectionism, so far as I am aware, seems to be identified with, or is claimed by, at any rate, the Crimethinc oriented crowd. Their mag "Rolling Thunder" claims to be insurrectionist.

not really, most of the insurrectionists have/want nothing to do with crimethinc, maybe selling some of their stuff through various distros at the most. rolling thunder had a critique of insurrectionary anarchism in the last issue and has had some thinly veiled attacks in other issues. i'm not sure why platformists always try to make this connection; i suppose its probably just a misunderstanding but it often comes off as a way of connecting insurrectionary thought to the whipping boy of the us anarchist movement, crimethinc.

Their orientation is on street actions and protests, which tend to be limited to an already radicalized minority...a very tiny section of the population. And they have no orientation to organizing in communiites or workplaces nor do they have any understanding of how to root themselves and their ideas in the communities of the oppressed.

i can't comment on all sections of the country, but in the midwest/south/some parts of the east the orientation is on building relationships and networks. protests only factor into that marginally. almost all of these groups are active within their community and workplaces, even if they're taking a slightly different approach than platformists.

syndicat

27th November 2009, 21:54

i'm not a platformist.

building networks and relationships with who? and on what basis? with eacho other? with tiny miniscule networks of like-minded people with radical ideas? how is this related to any possible development of the mass consciousness that could lead to an actual social transformation?

in my observation, there is generally no understanding among insurrectos of how mass consciousness changes through more people becoming involved in mass struggles, such as creations of unions, strikes, tenant organizations and their struggles, and so on. but building this kind of larger scale self-activity requires mass organization and popular education...things the insurrectos aren't interested in.

the issue of "Rolling Thunder" i read claimed to be insurrectionary anarchist. if there is some other source, point to it. that issue of "Rolling Thunder" had an article playing up an action of several hundred people, against G8 in 2006, organized by Anarchist Action, who rampaged through my neighborhood, breaking windows and dumping news boxes in the street, and assaulting a police officer. Nobody in the vicinity of the action afterwards had any idea of what was going on. They had zero base in the working class neighborhood they rampaged thru. I knew some of the people who were involved because some of them were involved for awhile in the attempt to organize a transit fare strike, which i was involved in. They mostly proved to be flakes who dropped out in the midst of the organizing. People who flit from one "action" to another aren't going to develop a social base for radical ideas.

bcbm

28th November 2009, 00:20

i'm not a platformist.

my mistake.

with eacho other? with tiny miniscule networks of like-minded people with radical ideas? how is this related to any possible development of the mass consciousness that could lead to an actual social transformation?

i think it would promote a more interesting and friendly discussion discussion if you had just asked the original question and at least feigned curiosity, instead of immediately launching into this sort of "questioning" that is just full of assumptions and insults.

building networks and relationships with who? and on what basis?

most of the networking is very new, having only begun in the lead up to the rnc protests in 2008 and so on a national level its primarily being built amongst those who are already pro-revolutionaries. on a local level, i would imagine it varies from place to place and i haven't seen them all, but what i have seen has been about building relationships with neighbors and coworkers on whatever common basis can be found, and going from there. some people pursue more traditional means, attempting to unionize, but i think there is some desire to figure out other modes of organization. this is all very new, and i think people are still trying to figure out how to proceed.

in my observation, there is generally no understanding among insurrectos of how mass consciousness changes through more people becoming involved in mass struggles, such as creations of unions, strikes, tenant organizations and their struggles, and so on. but building this kind of larger scale self-activity requires mass organization and popular education...things the insurrectos aren't interested in.

i think its hard to compare observations, especially when we're talking about different regions of the country. even within the groups i'm familiar with, there are certainly people who have no understanding of struggle. this is true of most sections of the anarchist movement, though, and i'm not going to try and discount organizationalist tendencies based on a few idiots and the same with insurrectionists.

the issue of "Rolling Thunder" i read claimed to be insurrectionary anarchist. if there is some other source, point to it.

i've read every issue except the newest one, and they've all been fairly critical of insurrectionary anarchism. certainly the primary person involved in getting a lot of crimethinc stuff off the ground and to the printers is not a huge fan.

I knew some of the people who were involved because some of them were involved for awhile in the attempt to organize a transit fare strike, which i was involved in. They mostly proved to be flakes who dropped out in the midst of the organizing. People who flit from one "action" to another aren't going to develop a social base for radical ideas.

like i said, there's some in every crowd. that doesn't discredit all of the ideas or projects coming out of insurrectionary circles. most in the regions i mentioned aren't really interested in those sort of actions at all, at least not as a primary focus.