anarchism in the us, a discussion

[black magick hustla]

I posted this in a chit chat thread in reply to devrim being weirded out by some american anarchists political positions. i think it deserves more elucidation:

i think the problem here is that there isnt really any sort of "cohesive" anarchism in the us and its more of a personal belief than anything else. i mean, there are collectives out there, and there are sorts of noticeable tendencies (crimethinc is really fuckin big), but there is no such thing as an Afed, IWA, IAF, etc. so people find anarchism in the internet or in the music scene and and thent investigate about it. i mean, this people obviously participate in stuff and do activism but its just out of the mill "activist" campaigns with some very fiery people. out of the mill "campaigns" a lot of the time involve supporting this or that, being against queer oppresion and racism, etc. some of this stuff is important but in the practical sense many "radicals" approach them doesnt differ much with liberal campaigns. so you have anarchists inserting themselves in the mainstream political camp because that is the only thing there is right now, but at the same time, carrying this "big" personal anarchist beliefs.

a lot of anarchist activists are aware of the class roots of their beliefs. but again, because its such a personal thing, and it develiops in local grouplets rather than in cohesion with bigger "revolutionary networks" you have all sorts of people that are kindof weird in it. so it becomes this weird synthesis of liberalism, some vague socialism, and tidbits of "lifestylism" in it. ive heard so many silly anarchists "frown" at the word communism without realizing what it really is.

again, i dont think there is a solution to the problem. its just symptomatic to how weak is the class in the US. weakness in the class creates political isolation, detachment, and lifestylism. political clarity correlates generally with the strength of the class

[The Douche]

I still think its weird to hear how much people hate on "lifestyleism" and insurrectionism.

In my experience most anarchists are social anarchists. I have been active in the anarchist movement for probably seven or eight years, which isn't very long, but still, the majority of people I have met have been "class struggle anarchists", not lifestyleists or insurrectionists.

I think it may be related very much to geography. Since I do live in the area that NEFAC is active in.

[black magick hustla]

again, i pointed out that most anarchists are aware of the class issue, but tbh it always seemed to me that they dont really treat as a practical possibility, they dont really know that much about i and people pay lipservice mostly out of respect to anarchism's history than a genuine attempt to build a class analysis

[The Douche]

again, i pointed out that most anarchists are aware of the class issue, but tbh it always seemed to me that they dont really treat as a practical possibility, they dont really know that much about i and people pay lipservice mostly out of respect to anarchism's history than a genuine attempt to build a class analysis

I don't think so, in my experience most anarchists have adopted marxist economics (except for the syndicalists) but with the social outlook of Kropotkin.

But again, I think it is because I am in an area where NEFAC is the largest anarchist group, and the IWW is also relatively large. Most of the time, around here, insurrectionary anarchists like myself are looked down on, and a lot of times excluded from the planning/decision making processes.

I remember one protest a few years ago in DC which was pretty big, actually had two black blocs, one was for the "red anarchists" and the other was for the "other anarchists", they were planned, organized, and endorsed by different groups and both had probably 1000-1500 members, and they did eventually meet at a planned intersection and converge into one bloc.

[The Red Next Door]

I still think its weird to hear how much people hate on "lifestyleism" and insurrectionism.

In my experience most anarchists are social anarchists. I have been active in the anarchist movement for probably seven or eight years, which isn't very long, but still, the majority of people I have met have been "class struggle anarchists", not lifestyleists or insurrectionists.

I think it may be related very much to geography. Since I do live in the area that NEFAC is active in.
by the way, are still on active duty?

[The Red Next Door]

I have friends who are anarchists for the lifestyle in my opinion.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I have friends who are anarchists for the lifestyle in my opinion.

this is weird to me. i know plenty of people who ride bikes, are vegan, go to punk shows, etc, but none of them are under any kind of impression that these things will destroy capitalism or the state somehow. i find it odd that anyone could actually believe that. still have yet to meet one of these lifestylists

but as for the topic at hand, the U.S. could really use some kind of umbrella organization to get everyone on the same page and allow for broader nation-wide mobilizations

[nuisance]

It looks like dada is once again formulating his analysis by relying on assertions spat out by people who have had no active experience in the US anarchist movement.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think you also need to recognize that anarchism is, for a lot of people, their first point of contact with revolutionary politics, and also has a very attractive "ethos", so it's not surprising that you get a lot of people who identify as anarchists without having a clear idea of where they stand on a lot of issues and questions.

[which doctor]

There's a fine line between being an anarchist by virtue of temperament and being an anarchist by virtue of politics. In areas that lack any clear sense of Anarchist politics (such as the US), most of the anarchists are only anarchists by way of their temperament.

[black magick hustla]

It looks like dada is once again formulating his analysis by relying on assertions spat out by people who have had no active experience in the US anarchist movement.

considering i prolly know all the anarchists in a 50 mile radius you are wrong sir

[Tablo]

The Anarchists I have met have always been primitivists and lifstylists. I do recognize they are a minority, but where I live there is no actual organizations besides Food Not Bombs. Sad thing is that my city has a massive working class population of oppressed black people, but the have no organizations here at all. Not even the Communist parties are active down here.

[The Douche]

by the way, are still on active duty?

I'm in the national guard.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

I thouht the IWW was quite big in the US. Although from what ive read online of the US anarchist scene it does seem to be lifestylist liberals and street punks mostly.

[The Douche]

I thouht the IWW was quite big in the US. Although from what ive read online of the US anarchist scene it does seem to be lifestylist liberals and street punks mostly.

Bigger than it is in England? Yes. I think it has like two or three thousand members?

The internet is not real life.

[Devrim]

but there is no such thing as an Afed, IWA, IAF, etc.

But there is NEFAC and the WSA.


But again, I think it is because I am in an area where NEFAC is the largest anarchist group, and the IWW is also relatively large. Most of the time, around here, insurrectionary anarchists like myself are looked down on, and a lot of times excluded from the planning/decision making processes.

I don't think it is at all surprising if NEFAC exclude people who are members of their organisation from their decision making process.



I thouht the IWW was quite big in the US. Although from what ive read online of the US anarchist scene it does seem to be lifestylist liberals and street punks mostly.Bigger than it is in England? Yes. I think it has like two or three thousand members?

I have heard tw0 thousand as the number for 'members in good standing' world wide. The IWW isn't specifically anarchist though.

Devrim

[The Douche]

I don't think it is at all surprising if NEFAC exclude people who are members of their organisation from their decision making process.

I should make it clear that I was not a member of NEFAC and that I do not meet their political criteria for membership.

And on a personal (not political) level, that organization is shitty.


I have heard tw0 thousand as the number for 'members in good standing' world wide. The IWW isn't specifically anarchist though.


i think you may be right about that.

[bricolage]

I think you also need to recognize that anarchism is, for a lot of people, their first point of contact with revolutionary politics, and also has a very attractive "ethos", so it's not surprising that you get a lot of people who identify as anarchists without having a clear idea of where they stand on a lot of issues and questions.

I'm not sure if this is necessarily true, I know for myself (and a lot of other people) I was far more exposed to groups such as your own, notably through Stop The War marches and Love Music Hate Racism long before I ever knew anything about anarchist politics.

[x359594]

I think you also need to recognize that anarchism is, for a lot of people, their first point of contact with revolutionary politics, and also has a very attractive "ethos", so it's not surprising that you get a lot of people who identify as anarchists without having a clear idea of where they stand on a lot of issues and questions.

How things have changed! In the US during the 1960s Marxism-Leninism was the first point of contact with revolutionary politics for most people (and secondarily the civil rights movement.)

[black magick hustla]

But there is NEFAC and the WSA.
i would be surprised if NEFAC had more than 50 militants. there are thousands of anarchists.

As WSA, i imagine they are even smaller than NEFAC.

[Devrim]

I should make it clear that I was not a member of NEFAC and that I do not meet their political criteria for membership.

And on a personal (not political) level, that organization is shitty.

I don't know anything about the personal level, but I think they are pretty awful on a political level too.

Devrim

[Devrim]

i would be surprised if NEFAC had more than 50 militants. there are thousands of anarchists.

As WSA, i imagine they are even smaller than NEFAC.

WhenI first read this I was thinking that organisation like the AF and Solfed aren't that much bigger. Then I thought well they are a few times bigger and in a much smaller country.

Devrim

[The Douche]

i would be surprised if NEFAC had more than 50 militants. there are thousands of anarchists.

As WSA, i imagine they are even smaller than NEFAC.

Maybe now NEFAC is that size? (I hope they are getting smaller) When I was running in circles involving NEFAC they had probably 30 or so people in Baltimore alone. And their sphere of influence in the Baltimore/DC area definitely exceeded 50 people. Also, I was under the impression then that the NYC chapter was of a similar size, and that the Canadian chapters were double that.


I don't know anything about the personal level, but I think they are pretty awful on a political level too.

Devrim

Agreed.

[Tablo]

I don't quite understand the hate for NEFAC. The only negative things I have heard about them is that they are a little bureaucratic.

[revolution inaction]

Maybe now NEFAC is that size? (I hope they are getting smaller) When I was running in circles involving NEFAC they had probably 30 or so people in Baltimore alone. And their sphere of influence in the Baltimore/DC area definitely exceeded 50 people. Also, I was under the impression then that the NYC chapter was of a similar size, and that the Canadian chapters were double that.

i don't have any idea about the numbers of nefac, but recently the US and canadian parts separated, the US organisation is still called nefac, the canadian one has a new name, cant remember it though.

[The Douche]

I don't quite understand the hate for NEFAC. The only negative things I have heard about them is that they are a little bureaucratic.

They have shitty politics. Also, I have a dislike for them on a personal level because me and some friends were left stranded in a city by one of their collectives so they could go home and get drunk.

[Tablo]

They have shitty politics. Also, I have a dislike for them on a personal level because me and some friends were left stranded in a city by one of their collectives so they could go home and get drunk.
That fucking sucks. What politics in particular are you opposed to?

[The Douche]

That fucking sucks. What politics in particular are you opposed to?

I am opposd to platformism in general, so I would never be a member of their organization. And they have had members come out in support of national liveration struggles.

[Devrim]

i don't have any idea about the numbers of nefac, but recently the US and canadian parts separated, the US organisation is still called nefac, the canadian one has a new name, cant remember it though.

I think it might be called 'Common Cause'. I am not sure that it was a split though as they still see themselves as part of the 'anarkismo' current. Maybe it was more of a reorganisation.

Devrim

[Pawn Power]

A discussion about anarchism in the US between people with little actual knowledge of anarchist organizing in the US does not seem very productive to me.

[The Douche]

A discussion about anarchism in the US between people with little actual knowledge of anarchist organizing in the US does not seem very productive to me.

I have plenty of knowledge about anarchist organizing in the US.

[Devrim]

A discussion about anarchism in the US between people with little actual knowledge of anarchist organizing in the US does not seem very productive to me.

Why do you need personal direct knowledge of it to discuss it?

Devrim

[Pawn Power]

I have plenty of knowledge about anarchist organizing in the US.

Cool.


Why do you need personal direct knowledge of it to discuss it?

Devrim

You don't. The discussion just won't be very productive, factual, accurate, or relevant.

[Floyce White]

Before the fall of the Soviet Bloc, anarchist political activism was virtually nonexistent in the US. Afterwards, it still remains a literary (not activist) movement. Little wonder anyone would get "creeped out" by his or her encounters with anarchism.

[Anarchia]

I think it might be called 'Common Cause'. I am not sure that it was a split though as they still see themselves as part of the 'anarkismo' current. Maybe it was more of a reorganisation.

Devrim

Devrim is wrong here - Common Cause is based in Ontario, and, while it contains some former NEFAC'ers, is not a split from NEFAC. The Quebec section of NEFAC is now called Organisation Communiste Libertaire (OCL).

FWIW - NEFAC, OCL and Common Cause are all still a part of the Anarkismo project.

There was another (much smaller) split from OCL that formed another group, but I can't recall their name and don't know much of anything about them.

edit - Woops, I made a mistake. The Quebec group is called Union Communiste Libertaire, not Organisation - UCL not OCL. Sorry for any confusion caused!

[ls]

Cool.



You don't. The discussion just won't be very productive, factual, accurate, or relevant.

Right, so what you are saying is that the most active anarchist organizations in the USA, put out completely incorrect things on their website that no one can gauge anything from, plus that dada doesn't actually know anything about anarchism.

Are you not the same "anarchist" who supports all kinds of odd unanarchistic struggles anyway? I'd be more inclined to listen to someone else thanks.

[Jimmie Higgins]

this is weird to me. i know plenty of people who ride bikes, are vegan, go to punk shows, etc, but none of them are under any kind of impression that these things will destroy capitalism or the state somehow.While the bay area has a lot of what I would call "good anarchists" who are political and have a very good understanding of class and the history of class struggle, unfortunately there are quite a lot of people who call themselves anarchists but are really "radical liberals" who actually do believe that their dumpster-diving or bike-riding is a challenge to the state.

A prime example is a couple of self-described "anarchists" who help organize the local critical mass. I was tabling one night - I think Chomsky was speaking or something, I can't remember what the event was. Anyway I was out there talking to people standing in line and critical mass rode by, saw the big group of people and began criticizing them over a megaphone. "If you drove here you are responsible for the Iraq war" they shouted and tried to get people to get out of line and join them. Yeah, people who are paying to see Chomsky talk are the cause of the Iraq war:rolleyes:.

Other times they have come out to events and burned American flags on the street until the cops came and shut down the outdoor event.

Their "anarchism" is definitely a personal statement of how radical they are compared to the rest.


i find it odd that anyone could actually believe that. still have yet to meet one of these lifestylistsI agree it is strange, but I think it is also a sign that most people in the US have no fucking clue how to organize any more - this isn't really their fault, it's the fault of the failures of the US left to build a left-wing that is independent of the corporate Democrats and other "establishment" or "top-down" strategies for change; it is also due to the left-wing organizations being smashed by the US and thereby severing workers and radicals today from the history of US radical worker actions.

If you want to meet lifestylists, come to the SF Anarchist Book-fair. Last year I tabled there and went around and was happy when I found the handful of tables by syndicalists and other class-oriented and political anarchists. There was a great guy there selling left-wing books who I talked to for a while - he pulled out a unopened box of books and began restocking - the person at the booth next to him was selling totally apolitical craft shit and when she saw that his box was full of packing peanuts she went ape-shit and called him names and told him how evil he was and how he was part of the problem. He responded that this was how the publisher sent it to him but it didn't really matter to the other seller.


but as for the topic at hand, the U.S. could really use some kind of umbrella organization to get everyone on the same page and allow for broader nation-wide mobilizationsI agree, unfortunately I think while the left is still small and marginalized, the lifestylists will get to define "anarchism" just as many people who are becoming attracted to socialism probably have democratic-socialist or liberal welfare-state views.

What radicals of all stripes will have to do is keep organizing and building our struggles so that our politics and views are clear in a concrete way. If we can be more organized we will both be able to win some of these "radical liberals" to a revolutionary perspective as well as make our politics distinct and more known to people at large.

[Devrim]

You don't. The discussion just won't be very productive, factual, accurate, or relevant.


Devrim is wrong here - Common Cause is based in Ontario, and, while it contains some former NEFAC'ers, is not a split from NEFAC. The Quebec section of NEFAC is now called Organisation Communiste Libertaire (OCL).

FWIW - NEFAC, OCL and Common Cause are all still a part of the Anarkismo project.

There was another (much smaller) split from OCL that formed another group, but I can't recall their name and don't know much of anything about them.

Well, I have learned some new facts here already.

Devrim

[syndicat]

There is a current of social anarchism in the USA that advocates ongoing, formal organization and a class struggle perspective. This current over the past two years held two successful Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences, in New York City in 2008 and in Detroit in 2009. These were invitation only. The organizations that attended probably have all together around 300 members. The organizations involved include: WSA, NEFAC, Solidarity & Defense (Michigan), Four Star Anarchist Organization (Chicago), Minnesota-Michigan Anarchist Group, Buffalo Class Action, Amanecer (California), Common Action (Pacific Northwest), Humboldt Grassroots, Common Cause (Ontario), and Union Comuniste Libertaire (Quebec). I'm probably forgetting somebody.

There has generally been a high level of agreement in these conferences.

NEFAC is the largest group with about 60 activists and WSA is second largest with about 50.

WSA is the only group organized on a coast-to-coast basis, with members in English-speaking Canada as well as USA. WSA has branches in Edmonton, Twin Cities, New York, Bay Area, Pensacola, Hartford. WSA is not a federation but an organization based on a single political perspective, codified in its "Where We Stand" statement: http://workersolidarity.org/?page_id=78 WSA is also the oldest social anarchist political group in the USA, founded in 1984. The other groups have all been founded in the past decade. WSA derives from an anarcho-syndicalist tendency that came together back in the late '70s. For over 20 years the WSA was the American affiliate of the anarcho-syndicalist International Workers Association. Despite its unitary political perspective, WSA provides a somewhat flexible framework that allows people to work together who have been influenced by, or identify with, different traditions...anarcho-communism, platformism, syndicalism, participatory economics, libertarian socialism.

Although the current represented at these conferences retains a class struggle perspective, it's not "class reductionist" and tends to use the concept of intersectionality to understand the relationship of the non-class forms of oppression to the class system.

Topics at the conferences ranged from workplace organizing and workers centers to anarchists & feminism, anarchists in communities of color, housing organizing, intersectionality, regroupment, and included queer and women's caucuses.

This social anarchist current is dual organizational in the sense of advocating both (1) mass social movement organizations, such as grassroots unions, worker centers, rank and file resistance groups, as well as organizations based in the community; and (2) a revolutionary political organization that would be based on horizontal discipline and put together around agreement with a common political perspective. The principle "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves" is central to this political currernt, and the emphasis on building self-managed mass social movements is based on the idea that these movements are the means to liberation.

At the last conference there also began a discussion about the possibility of merging or creating a new continental organization that would create greater unity, replacing the existing organizations. This would not be a federation but a single organization with a single political program or perspective, to replace existing organizations. Some have advocated a federation as an interim step but this hasn't gained wide acceptance yet.

In regard to the IWW, quite a few members of the political groups I referred to above are also members of the IWW, which has around 1,500 members in the USA. The largest single organizing project is the Starbucks Workers Union which has between 300 and 400 members.

The third Class Struggle Anarchist Conference will occur later this year, probably somewhere on the west coast.

[comradshaw]

i think the problem here is that there isnt really any sort of "cohesive" anarchism in the us and its more of a personal belief than anything else. i mean, there are collectives out there, and there are sorts of noticeable tendencies (crimethinc is really fuckin big), but there is no such thing as an Afed, IWA, IAF, etc.

I, and many others I know on the libertarian left, are all for something analogous to the IWA or Afed, or even the CNT/FAI. I think what anarchists are, perhaps, skeptical about is what can be perceived as party-lines, a la the infamous "Platform." Yet, a large, loose federation of groups would be completely in line with anarchist principles. And to be frank, I wish people would stop *****ing about organization; I feel as though it's crucial to a successful movement.


but in the practical sense many "radicals" approach them doesnt differ much with liberal campaigns. so you have anarchists inserting themselves in the mainstream political camp because that is the only thing there is right now, but at the same time, carrying this "big" personal anarchist beliefs.

I must say I reject this outright. Accompanying people in their struggles or participating in struggles as an oppressed person, ie, a wage slave, a woman, a queer person, a prisoner, etc., is not equatable with liberalism. Liberalism, to me, represents the end-goal being reform with a healthy dose of revisionism. This is not part of the anarchist program


a lot of anarchist activists are aware of the class roots of their beliefs.

I would argue that if one wasn't aware of this, it's doubtful that they've been studying anarchism for a very long time. Of course, like Marxism, anarchism (as a more formal sociopolitical theory) arose from class struggle, as opposed to the other way around.



so it becomes this weird synthesis of liberalism, some vague socialism, and tidbits of "lifestylism" in it. ive heard so many silly anarchists "frown" at the word communism without realizing what it really is.

Again, anyone who subscribes to some amalgam of liberalism with "some vague socialism," and scared of the word "communism" probably hasn't studied anarchism very much. I'm hesitant to get into the "You're not a real anarchist if..." conversation, as it's not an exclusive club in spite of this.

In regards to liberalism or progressivism, I've had conversations with members of the ISO who were highly supportive of Ralph Nader, speaking of liberalism. :)


its just symptomatic to how weak is the class in the US. weakness in the class creates political isolation, detachment, and lifestylism. political clarity correlates generally with the strength of the class

There's certainly some truth to this, but I think, if anything, even the sort of atypical American trends in anarchism (which one obviously can't deny exist), reveal that one interested in anarchism has more class consciousness than the average working-class person, who have been taught that class doesn't exist.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcop0EUg-Ag&feature=related

[syndicat]

I, and many others I know on the libertarian left, are all for something analogous to the IWA or Afed, or even the CNT/FAI. I think what anarchists are, perhaps, skeptical about is what can be perceived as party-lines, a la the infamous "Platform." Yet, a large, loose federation of groups would be completely in line with anarchist principles. And to be frank, I wish people would stop *****ing about organization; I feel as though it's crucial to a successful movement.


I don't think this will work. Back in the '70s we tried to build a federation of this sort here in the USA, called the Anarchist Communist Federation. It was formed by a bunch of pre-existing groups coming together. Despite having a seemingly very coherent and worked out statement of principles, the group ended up falling apart within 2 years. This happened because each of the pre-existing groups was based on its own local ideology. And they ended up being sort of jealous of their own group perspective. This led to all sorts of intractable disagreements about strategy and the way forward.

Becuase of this experience, those of us who formed WSA, most of whom had been in ACF, decided to form it as a unitary organization with a single perspective. You join as an individual based on agreement with the common perspective, and then members form branches locally and through the branches control the local work, and there is a delegate committee, votes of the members, conferences etc for coordination, but it is work within the framework of the common perspective.

[The Red Next Door]

I'm in the national guard.
are you still in Iraq then?

[Anarchia]

Woops, I made a mistake. As syndicat mentioned, the Quebec group is called Union Communiste Libertaire, not Organisation - UCL not OCL. Sorry for any confusion caused!

[syndicat]

hey, libertarian greetings to our kiwi comrades in autearoa.

[The Douche]

are you still in Iraq then?

I was in Iraq from like, summer 07 til spring/summer 08 I think.