North American anarchist obession with "image"

[What Would Durruti Do?]

It has occured to be recently that the reason the North American anarchist movement seems to be a shell of it's European and global counterparts is because of the obsession of North American anarchists with creating a good image and having good public relations.

Take the anti-Olympic riots in Vancouver for example. The extreme backlash of the Canadian media against the rioters caused many within the movement to question the tactics of going straight to rioting and destruction in the streets, especially in cases such as the Olympics when the majority of the general populace view the Games as a good thing which in turn makes them think of anarchists as "no good punk kids" with nothing better to do but smash windows.

Now in North America we are hearing cries for a "Mass Movement, not a Black Bloc" in what I assume are hopes that the anarchist ideology and it's supporters are taken more seriously by engaging in more traditional political activities that are less emotional and not as strongly based on physical struggle.

Could this obsession with creating a good image be what is holding back anarchism in North America? Are North American anarchists pandering too much to the media and the bourgeois while European anarchists actively struggle in the streets for REAL anarchy?

Here is a great response from anarchistnews.org directed at these anti-riot, pro-public relations people that I think is spot on:


You and the rest of the "mass movement" crowd seem to totally be missing the point.
This idea seems to stem from the anarchist movement's leftist tendencies; where a revolution is ONLY a revolution if it happens within the context of a particular nation state. For example, you leftist "anarchists" are always talking about a "national" movement where all of the US is somehow represented on a massive scale.
For me at least, revolution means creating a space where:
1) social relationships are basically based on anarchist values (anti-oppressions stuff, direct action, collectivity, autonomy and solidarity)
2) capitalism does not function; where there is no police (or policing... I'm looking at you, activists) and commodity relations as well as property cease to exist.
a "couple thousand" people can, and typically DO make this happen on a relatively large scale. Huge autonomously-run spaces litter large cities all over europe, Asia, and South America (one could also look to shanty-towns, which are typically less politicized in nature, but which are nonetheless a part and a result of social war). These communities (Exharchia, in Athens, for example) make NO excuses for their actions whatsoever. The mass media is constantly giving them bad press, but they continue to loot, riot and grow gardens because that's liberating and they're creating spaces in which to breathe... Unlike the PR-crazed activists in North America.
Like I've said before, the excluded in this society (the people who might actually find affinity with Anarchy) live lives of crime, violence (police, gang, or otherwise), and oppression. THE DESIRES AND SENTIMENTS OF THOSE OF US ON THE BOTTOM ARE IN NO WAY THE SAME AS THE OPINIONS AND FEELINGS OF THOSE ON THE TOP.
LIsten, to all you "mass movement" fucks out there:
We're fighting for our lives and our spaces. The "criminals", hooligans, and drop outs working 2 jobs to pay the rent; we're the ones who'll carve out the free spaces of Anarchy.
You can take an uncompromisingly anti-capitalist stance and advocate for insurrection, occupation, solidarity, and autonomy. Or, you can obsess over PR and try to impress all of suburbia with your altruistic activist "social justice" bullshit.
Pick a goddamn side.
--Johnny Omen


Thoughts?

[Jia]

Anarchists should public explain their motives more or people will think they just want to cause destruction for no good reason

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Anarchists should public explain their motives more or people will think they just want to cause destruction for no good reason

This is what the mass movement people are arguing, but the other side of the argument is that it doesn't matter what other people think as the bourgeois media will always portray anarchists in a negative manner. We shouldn't try to pander to the middle class by playing nice with the media and changing our tactics, we should just continue our struggle and accept the fact that we can only fight our enemies, not try to win them over.

[Wolf Larson]

Because Americans aren't as educated as Europeans. Europeans know true history- they know anarchism is about labor/equality/socialism and not chaos. When Americans think anarchism they think Somalia death squads, kids huffing paint, rape and murder. We nee to be focusing on educating our fellow working class in a friendly accessible manner. I've found it helpful to call myself a libertarian socialist when spreading propaganda online. Liberal and conservative reactionaries immediately shut down at the mention of anarchism. It's frustrating to no end.

The only thing that will further our cause is broad support and acceptance of our ideas. Any property damage or what is perceived as aggressive behavior from average Americans only serves to strengthen the capitalist states propaganda

To take my point to the extreme lets look at Baader-Meinhof/RAF. If those actions took place in America [and I know you're not advocating this- no one on this forum is advocating this] Americans would join hands with the state in some anti-anarchist frenzy far exceeding the anti-communist McCarthyism mentality of the early-mid 20'th century. Back to what we're taking about, non violent direct action- in order for non violent direct action to have an effect we still need the support of the people. This is what we should be working on. Propaganda. We all need to band together, stop the infighting and work 10 hours a day spreading clear and concise propaganda. We need to do it online, within the community, through the phone. Everywhere. We need to battle the MsM media story line Americans are being inoculated with. Americans have been saturated with disinformation. Even liberals. Especially liberals. We need to target liberals as I don't think an avid Tea Party attendee would be open to our ideas no matter what. There needs to be a collective shift in consciousness. Without the support of at least 25-30% of the population we have nothing.

[JacobVardy]

Part of it might be that for historic reasons EU anarchists have closer ties with their communities. Also, the EU anarchist have been at it longer so there has been more time for their message to filter through.

David Graeber pointed to polls after Seattle the 40% of people felt proud of the protesters. This is despite uniformly hostile media coverage. So Yankees might be more sympathetic than you think.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I can't say I agree with that article. Fuck the idea of tiny, closed-off little "pure" anarchist spaces. Commodity relations still exist in Greece. I don't want an "autonomous space" without capitalism, I want a world without capitalism. The anarchist ghetto isn't going to achieve that, only the working class can. Getting there will be hard and scary and it'll mean having to talk to people who don't already think exactly like us, but it beats sitting around in our "free spaces" wanking over how hardcore anarchist we are.

[Across The Street]

Wolf Larson: "The only thing that will further our cause is broad support and acceptance of our ideas."

Gongchanzhuyi: "Anarchists should public explain their motives more or people will think they just want to cause destruction for no good reason"

These are both good points. The only thing that will protect the people is ourselves. Obviously the cops are willing to protect property over people, often times violently, yet most North Americans still hold ideas that the police are there to safeguard freedoms. This among other reasons are why we should care about how the media portrays developments across the globe. I definitely don't see how it doesn't matter what other people think. Spreading true and correct information about our beliefs should be a priority. Most people learn by example though and until there more fiercely defended autonomous spaces in North America with which the communities can interact, we won't see much progress. We have a mountainous task ahead of us as far as transforming ideas about what Anarchism really means, and this goes for Communism and Socialism as well. People don't think about the alternatives to Capitalism because none are being presented through the mass media or through societal relations, and that's why it's up to us to live and breathe Anarchy, and forcefully defend our communities from the various forces that would wish to suppress. I'll post more later, as I currently am a wage-slave and need to make some motherfucking wages.

[The Douche]

Cue rants about "lifestyleism".

[The Red Next Door]

I have the same problem with explain to some of my friends about anarchy, We need to educate.

[Invincible Summer]

This is what the mass movement people are arguing, but the other side of the argument is that it doesn't matter what other people think as the bourgeois media will always portray anarchists in a negative manner. We shouldn't try to pander to the middle class by playing nice with the media and changing our tactics, we should just continue our struggle and accept the fact that we can only fight our enemies, not try to win them over.

It's not just anarchists, but communists of all stripes that are trying to improve their public image.

While it's true that the bourgeois media will try its best to portray activists negatively, the public cannot deny a true, clear message when they see one.

The fact is, hardly anyone will join a movement, no matter how well-intentioned it is, if all the movement cares about is itself. You're running the risk of becoming so insular that no one is "radical enough" for your movement.

And if you don't try to win people over, how do you expect to gain enough for a true working class movement?




To take my point to the extreme lets look at Baader-Meinhof/RAF. If those actions took place in America [and I know you're not advocating this- no one on this forum is advocating this] Americans would join hands with the state in some anti-anarchist frenzy far exceeding the anti-communist McCarthyism mentality of the early-mid 20'th century.

Ever hear of the Weather Underground?

[syndicat]

Now in North America we are hearing cries for a "Mass Movement, not a Black Bloc" in what I assume are hopes that the anarchist ideology and it's supporters are taken more seriously by engaging in more traditional political activities that are less emotional and not as strongly based on physical struggle.

Could this obsession with creating a good image be what is holding back anarchism in North America? Are North American anarchists pandering too much to the media and the bourgeois while European anarchists actively struggle in the streets for REAL anarchy?



You're misconstruing the issue. It isn't about "image." It's about strategy for changing the society. From the poinst of view of mass-struggle-oriented social anarchism, it is the working class & oppressed majority who liberate themselves. to do this they will need to develop mass movements.

in the USA much of the problem is the lack of connection between radicals (of any stripe) and working class people. liberation isn't going to happen through small groups of radicals engaging in militant actions on their own.

some of the criticisms of the article you cite is that people have said that, in the particular case being discussed, the black bloc was linked in with existing social movements on the ground. it's not about whether "militancy" is a good thing or not, but Whose militancy? Who controls it? People learn by being involved in struggles & movements, and through controlling their own movements. Small group actions by the already radicalized doesn't necessarily aid this process.

of course there are different kinds of anarchists, and individualists, primitivists and insurrectos do not have the same conception as mass struggle-oriented social anarchists.

also, when you say "image," I would ask, image among who? You are talking as if society is not divided on class and other dimensions.

[bcbm]

doesn't this argument happen every time there is a protest? you would think we'd have something new to argue about after a decade of this shit, but apparently not.

i think most of the "we need to build a mass movement!" criticisms of the black bloc that pop up are just one part of the movement trying to blame its failures on another part. i think it is important to re-evaluate our strategy often, but nothing presented in these arguments is new and most of it is just blame shifting. as if when the black bloc stops breaking windows, the media and workers will all suddenly be able to see what anarchism is really about? what a bunch of crap. people who want a mass movement should keep on organizing it, and give some reports on developments, new strategies they're using and that sort of thing. i think actually organizing within the class will probably do more for "anarchist image" than stopping people from breaking windows (which, incidentally, always seems to get protester's views in the news, get anarchism in the news and ultimately attract more interest. no press is bad press).


Fuck the idea of tiny, closed-off little "pure" anarchist spaces. Commodity relations still exist in Greece. I don't want an "autonomous space" without capitalism, I want a world without capitalism. The anarchist ghetto isn't going to achieve that, only the working class can. Getting there will be hard and scary and it'll mean having to talk to people who don't already think exactly like us, but it beats sitting around in our "free spaces" wanking over how hardcore anarchist we are.

nobody is talking about closed-off pure spaces. they're talking about having a material base (ie, homes, collective spaces, gardens) from which to operate. i think putting our politics into practice on a small scale is a positive thing if only because it makes our lives more bearable and beyond that, i think it gives us more opportunities to interact with people who "don't already think exactly like us."

[Jimmie Higgins]

:thumbup1:What Syndicat was arguing! Particularly...

People learn by being involved in struggles & movements, and through controlling their own movements. Small group actions by the already radicalized doesn't necessarily aid this process.When people don't have a strong political understanding they sometimes fetishize tactics as an ends in of themselves rather than the means to an ends... this response from "Johnny Omen" is a good example of that. The irony is that without the "mass protest" side, there would be no base of people to even notice the actions of the insurrectionists.

There is no simple tactic - appearing nice and clean cut or wearing a bandanna and saying "fuck the pigs" a lot - that will unlock the magic key of revolution. Every tactic should be considered by radicals based on how well it will advance the working class struggle.

As I see it, the real debate seems to be do we need to involve more people and more workers to be involved or can we act now and the working class will follow us. I think the tone of the anarchistnews response was highly elitist because basically it was arguing that the enlightened insurrectionists have to act and then the sheep-like masses will follow. They want revolution - they just have no clue how to do it or work democratically with others and so they want to jump over the real problems of a small and unorganized left with little organic connection to the working class and say, "fuck all of you, we are going to do what we want right now (because we have no alternate plan for changing the conditions we face)".

I understand the impatience and the desire for the better world we all know is possible to exist right now, but "just do it" will get us no where closer to another world - particularly if we shut out the very people necessary for this to happen: the working class.

We don't have to have everyone on our side, but we do need to be organized and that means laying the foundations for mass radicalization. The IWW was smeared in the press and never won over any bourgeois politicians, but they built a strong base in the working class and proved in practice why and how radical politics are necessary for workers to win. Because of this, people who were won to radical politics during that time probably saw the IWW as their heros until the day they died. Same with the people involved in the sit-down strikes and general strikes of the 1930s. Breaking windows and having your "White riot" does not automatically show people much of anything unless it is connected to larger forces in society. If you occupy a building with no base of support, with no organization, then it doesn't advance the struggle. If you organize openly with other people and are able to appeal to their anger and frustration, then when you occupy a building you have mass support and can effectively show people how to stand up to the bosses or cops and then it's radical.

The 60s anti-war movement didn't begin with insurrectionism - that came later after hundreds of thousands of people had collectively learned the lessons that imperialism can't be reasoned with, that the capitalist state needs imperialism, and that cops and the national guard and the liberals are all in service of that state.

I totally agree we need to "occupy everything and make no demands" so the real question is how do we get there. The fight for the 8 hour day, the fight for industrial unions, and other movements that drew in hundreds of thousands of radicalizing workers helped lay the groundwork for factory occupations, general strikes, and many other sweeping radical movements that posed a challenge to the state that dwarfed anything we've seen since the demise of the new left.

[jake williams]

The North American anarchists have exactly the opposite fucking problem: they don't give a fuck about what anyone other than their freaky little friends think. It's true all they care about is image, but that "image" they're maintaining is for each other. I'm not at all saying it's never okay to do illegal things, or even to use black bloc tactics, and a lot of the black bloc kids are personal friends, and a lot of them are even doing it for good reasons. But the move toward mass movement politics and away from personalized, individualized "direct action" is EXTREMELY, and I can't understate this, EXTREMELY valuable. In fact I'm a little surprised, but pleasantly surprised, there's even so much of a drive in that direction.

[bcbm]

They want revolution - they just have no clue how to do it or work democratically with others and so they want to jump over the real problems of a small and unorganized left with little organic connection to the working class and say, "fuck all of you, we are going to do what we want right now (because we have no alternate plan for changing the conditions we face)".this describes perhaps a small number of anarchists generally, but this is a really unfair dismissal of insurrectionary anarchism. there is theory behind insurrectionary practice and while most attention is focused on some minor window breaking activities, most of the [email protected]'s i know are very interested in making connections to others in the same condition they find themselves in (exploited workers, unemployed, etc) and fighting against it.


If you occupy a building with no base of support, with no organization, then it doesn't advance the struggle.i think the new school occupation in nyc was undertaken without a very large base of support and this inspired the first occupation in the uc system, which also didn't seem to be backed by a very large movement. now occupations have taken place at a lot of the schools and the tactic is spreading to other schools in america- olympia in the past week and it looks like boston will be occupying something on march 4th.


I totally agree we need to "occupy everything and make no demands" so the real question is how do we get there. The fight for the 8 hour day, the fight for industrial unions, and other movements that drew in hundreds of thousands of radicalizing workers helped lay the groundwork for factory occupations, general strikes, and many other sweeping radical movements that posed a challenge to the state that dwarfed anything we've seen since the demise of the new left.they also laid the groundwork for a reorganization by the ruling class that has destroyed the power of workers and mounted a fairly efficient assault on all of the gains made, at least in the us. this is what many [email protected]'s see from these movements, and i think they are trying to examine new ways of bringing down capitalism without falling into the same traps.


----


But the move toward mass movement politics and away from personalized, individualized "direct action" is EXTREMELY, and I can't understate this, EXTREMELY valuable. In fact I'm a little surprised, but pleasantly surprised, there's even so much of a drive in that direction.

i don't see much of a move towards it. its just the usual suspects saying the usual shit they say whenever there is some direct action that gets media attention.

[Wolf Larson]

Wolf Larson: "The only thing that will further our cause is broad support and acceptance of our ideas."

Gongchanzhuyi: "Anarchists should public explain their motives more or people will think they just want to cause destruction for no good reason"

These are both good points. The only thing that will protect the people is ourselves. Obviously the cops are willing to protect property over people, often times violently, yet most North Americans still hold ideas that the police are there to safeguard freedoms. This among other reasons are why we should care about how the media portrays developments across the globe. I definitely don't see how it doesn't matter what other people think. Spreading true and correct information about our beliefs should be a priority. Most people learn by example though and until there more fiercely defended autonomous spaces in North America with which the communities can interact, we won't see much progress. We have a mountainous task ahead of us as far as transforming ideas about what Anarchism really means, and this goes for Communism and Socialism as well. People don't think about the alternatives to Capitalism because none are being presented through the mass media or through societal relations, and that's why it's up to us to live and breathe Anarchy, and forcefully defend our communities from the various forces that would wish to suppress. I'll post more later, as I currently am a wage-slave and need to make some motherfucking wages.

Well, Berkman sat in a prison cell for years and when released capitalism and it's beneficiaries had become even more powerful. If you read his memoirs check out the conversation he had with workers who didn't understand why he was in Homestead. The workers were fighting the Pinkertons BUT not to take over the means of production- they simply didn't get it. They also didn't understand why he tried to kill Henry Frick- workers actually saved Frick. The workers said they "didn't want trouble" they just wanted to make a living. Propaganda of the deed is basically fruitless unless there is already at least 30% of the population that understands and is behind you, even then I wouldn't go that route myself unless about 75% of the people were behind the deed. As Orwell said:

If there was hope, it must lie in the proles because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. It's enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. Even if the legendary Brotherhood existed, as just possibly it might, it was inconceivable that its members could ever assemble in larger numbers than twos and threes. Rebellion meant a look in the eyes, an inflection of the voice; at the most, an occasional whispered word. But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet--!.

As you know Bakunin also had the mind frame thinking if only a few people could spark a revolution it would be successful but the people need to know and understand what they're fighting against. Even if a few people could spark a revolution if the masses of people didn't understand why and lets say the initial stage of a revolution was successful it would be doomed to fail due to the fact an elite group of people would still be in charge. In order for workers to self manage they need to know WHY they should self manage. They need to be class conscience. There needs to be a shift in consciousness. Americans aren't anywhere near the necessary mind frame mostly because of the corporate media but also because we're dropping the ball. We need to focus on propaganda- especially right now during this crisis so when the next crisis hits, and it will, people will be ready to simply stand up and shake the old system off like a horse shaking off flies. Is it a pipe dream? EDIT: I don't think property damage is violence BUT too many Americans do think that way. That's what we need to change.

[black magick hustla]

i disagree a lot with insurrectionary anarchism because i think it mistakens nihilism for revolutionary consciousness. like the fetish of aimless riots. i do think, however, that in the other side of the coin, there are some anarchists who fetishize "mass party" building. the problem is that "mass parties", including mass anarchist organizations like the old anarchist trade unions are a thing of the past, at least the way we think of "mass parties". state capitalism has basically integrated all the strong parties that used to have a sort of revolutionary potential into its system. so because of this, you get a lot of empty talk of "democracy" and building a "mass base" from the activist wing within the leftist movement, trying to rebuild their power through the old methods of the massive social democratic parties, and this sometimes throws people into doing shit for the sake of doing shit.

i think we have to prevent cultural ghettoization, but at the same time, i side a bit with bordiga on the issue of a "theory of a party". i.e. communist organizations should be for attracting similar minded people and do not necessarily express immediate goals. Also:

"Thus if there is a complete negation of the theory of democratic action it is to be found in socialism." -bordiga

[The Ungovernable Farce]

doesn't this argument happen every time there is a protest? you would think we'd have something new to argue about after a decade of this shit, but apparently not.
A decade is an understatement. I'm sure this argument's probably about as old as anarchism itself.


nobody is talking about closed-off pure spaces. they're talking about having a material base (ie, homes, collective spaces, gardens) from which to operate. i think putting our politics into practice on a small scale is a positive thing if only because it makes our lives more bearable and beyond that, i think it gives us more opportunities to interact with people who "don't already think exactly like us."
Fair enough, I respect that (for better or worse, I've been involved in social centre stuff in the past, and I'm sure I will be in the future), but comments like:

This is what the mass movement people are arguing, but the other side of the argument is that it doesn't matter what other people think as the bourgeois media will always portray anarchists in a negative manner. We shouldn't try to pander to the middle class by playing nice with the media and changing our tactics, we should just continue our struggle and accept the fact that we can only fight our enemies, not try to win them over.
put me on edge. To go from "the bourgeois media will always portray anarchists in a negative manner" (which is obviously true) to "it doesn't matter what other people think" is a massive, unjustifiable leap of logic. The bit about "we can only fight our enemies, not try to win them over" is also unclear - what enemies are we talking about here? Obviously, the idea of trying to get the state and the capitalists on our side is so ludicrous it's barely even worth dismissing, but if we're talking about the millions and millions of exploited, fucked-over workers who still identify with God and the nation-state and think that anarchism sounds crazy (if they've heard of it at all), and may even see themselves as being "middle class", then that's exactly the people we need to be trying to win over. (Which, of course, isn't to say that you can't have reasonable disagreements about the tactics most likely to win them over, or to recognise that different tactics are going to appeal/put off different sub-sections of the class).

[Dimentio]

The riots in Europe have primarily served to make the public wary against anarchism. All media attention isn't necessarily good attention.

[The Douche]

i disagree a lot with insurrectionary anarchism because i think it mistakens nihilism for revolutionary consciousness. like the fetish of aimless riots. i do think, however, that in the other side of the coin, there are some anarchists who fetishize "mass party" building. the problem is that "mass parties", including mass anarchist organizations like the old anarchist trade unions are a thing of the past, at least the way we think of "mass parties". state capitalism has basically integrated all the strong parties that used to have a sort of revolutionary potential into its system. so because of this, you get a lot of empty talk of "democracy" and building a "mass base" from the activist wing within the leftist movement, trying to rebuild their power through the old methods of the massive social democratic parties, and this sometimes throws people into doing shit for the sake of doing shit.

i think we have to prevent cultural ghettoization, but at the same time, i side a bit with bordiga on the issue of a "theory of a party". i.e. communist organizations should be for attracting similar minded people and do not necessarily express immediate goals. Also:

"Thus if there is a complete negation of the theory of democratic action it is to be found in socialism." -bordiga

1) When is a riot "aimless"? I'm guessing you're referring to a riot that would occur after something like a sports team's victory/loss? I don't think those are fetishized within the movement, I mean, yeah, I get stoked to see the destruction of corporate property and conflict with the cops that results. But I don't think any anarchists see them as being revolutionary (except in the fact that they highlight the contradiction of the masses and the state, and that it is an expression of the social war)

2) Aren't you in an organization seeking to build a mass party?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Same old same old.

Personally, I think you should riot AND build a mass movement.

I don't think that riots are particularly harmful (nor do I think they're particularly beneficial (Most of the time, there are exceptions)), but they have pretty much occurred along with or under the rise of any major leftist movement. To try and reign rioting in, I think, would be a mistake, and most likely not possible. As with any kind of proclamation of what exactly to do in a crazy ass situation like being in a riotous mob, it won't work, or it won't work without enforcing some kind of consensus on people who disagree, and creating yet more sectarian division. Its depressing to go to a rally and see the Anarchists rioting and the Communists standing still around some red banner - and you know that both of the groups are slagging each other off for "presenting the wrong image."

[jake williams]

Its depressing to go to a rally and see the Anarchists rioting and the Communists standing still around some red banner - and you know that both of the groups are slagging each other off for "presenting the wrong image."
It's because a lot of Communists, at least the ones I know, do a hell of a lot more than standing around banners - they're active in peace organizations, environmental organizations, municipal politics and local organizations, labour unions, student unions, antiracist organizations, womens' organizations, etc. There are some really good anarchists who do all of these things, and some of them also do the rioting stuff sometimes. There are also a lot of kids who mostly just do the rioting. I don't know any communists (other than trots) who exclusively hang out on banner poles. Maybe they exist, it's certainly possible they exist, but I haven't seen them.

[tophat]

I think if by "image" you mean the popular perception of anarchism, the it is important and worth seriously thinking about. After all, anarchism is about building a mass mocement - so if we're widely regarded as idiots that is not a good thing.
However, I think most of the criticism of black bloc type stuff is that is tactically awful: it is not going to improve our lives, or living or working conditions. It is not going to bring us any closer towards the abolition of wage labour, and the institution in its place of communism. Summit hopping fails to connect with people because real movements are built when people organise around things that affect their lives, and thus realise the practical potential of anarchism.
Also, what's the response to building a mass movement that involves presenting a positive (and thus, unless you don't like anarchism which would be strange, a representative) image of anarchism? More of the smashing shit up? Some insurrectionary stuff is ok - community spaces, etc. I concede, but that is not what the author is talking about otherwise they wouldn't worry about people worrying about image, as people probably get a positive 'image' of anarchism from community gardens and the like.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

It's because a lot of Communists, at least the ones I know, do a hell of a lot more than standing around banners - they're active in peace organizations, environmental organizations, municipal politics and local organizations, labour unions, student unions, antiracist organizations, womens' organizations, etc. There are some really good anarchists who do all of these things, and some of them also do the rioting stuff sometimes. There are also a lot of kids who mostly just do the rioting. I don't know any communists (other than trots) who exclusively hang out on banner poles. Maybe they exist, it's certainly possible they exist, but I haven't seen them.

Well, my point really wasn't to suggest that all communists do is hang around red banners, but that it is always a sad sight when we divide ourselves into different camps on what, to be honest, is an issue which will always occur, can't really be controlled, and I don't think can be said to be clearly beneficial or harmful to our cause overall (Note that there may be circumstances were it is clearly one or the other.).

But i'm surprised you haven't encountered the age old stereotype of the newspaper obsessed Trotskyite?

And what other communists do you know aside from Trots? those were the ones I had in my mind, and aside from a few Stalinist (Who don't just stand around red banners, but actually huge banners of Stalin's face) I don't really know any significant communist parties that aren't Trots where I'm from.

[Omi]

Because Americans aren't as educated as Europeans. Europeans know true history- they know anarchism is about labor/equality/socialism and not chaos. When Americans think anarchism they think Somalia death squads, kids huffing paint, rape and murder. We nee to be focusing on educating our fellow working class in a friendly accessible manner. I've found it helpful to call myself a libertarian socialist when spreading propaganda online. Liberal and conservative reactionaries immediately shut down at the mention of anarchism. It's frustrating to no end.

The only thing that will further our cause is broad support and acceptance of our ideas. Any property damage or what is perceived as aggressive behavior from average Americans only serves to strengthen the capitalist states propaganda

To take my point to the extreme lets look at Baader-Meinhof/RAF. If those actions took place in America [and I know you're not advocating this- no one on this forum is advocating this] Americans would join hands with the state in some anti-anarchist frenzy far exceeding the anti-communist McCarthyism mentality of the early-mid 20'th century. Back to what we're taking about, non violent direct action- in order for non violent direct action to have an effect we still need the support of the people. This is what we should be working on. Propaganda. We all need to band together, stop the infighting and work 10 hours a day spreading clear and concise propaganda. We need to do it online, within the community, through the phone. Everywhere. We need to battle the MsM media story line Americans are being inoculated with. Americans have been saturated with disinformation. Even liberals. Especially liberals. We need to target liberals as I don't think an avid Tea Party attendee would be open to our ideas no matter what. There needs to be a collective shift in consciousness. Without the support of at least 25-30% of the population we have nothing.

The part about europe is nonsense. If people here knew what anarchism is about we would have a far bigger movement. People in europe generally think the same about anarchism as you portray North Americans.

[Wolf Larson]

The part about europe is nonsense. If people here knew what anarchism is about we would have a far bigger movement. People in europe generally think the same about anarchism as you portray North Americans.

Indeed BUT not the same ratio. In America I'd say 99.9% of the workers have NO CLUE what anarchism/socialism/communism is. Trust me on this. This is a shared problem worldwide but Americans suffer from misinformation and capitalist propaganda on such a megalithic scale it can hardly be explained. Everything is accepted by a majority of the population. The wars, the corporate/capitalist policies, the meddling in foreign economies and political systems via World Bank/IMF and the CIA/NSA. The blind unquestioning patriotism in America far exceeds the patriotism and unquestioning captive servitude found in Europe. The EU in general is still a haven of western colonial power's but there is more resistance than in America. Not enough resistance by far but more than in America. Europeans are more liberal, capitalistic but liberal and I think there's more of a chance for revolution in Europe albeit small than there is in America. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll admit when I'm wrong. I don't give a shit about my ego ;)

[Wolf Larson]

It's not just anarchists, but communists of all stripes that are trying to improve their public image.

While it's true that the bourgeois media will try its best to portray activists negatively, the public cannot deny a true, clear message when they see one.

The fact is, hardly anyone will join a movement, no matter how well-intentioned it is, if all the movement cares about is itself. You're running the risk of becoming so insular that no one is "radical enough" for your movement.

And if you don't try to win people over, how do you expect to gain enough for a true working class movement?



Ever hear of the Weather Underground?

Dugh...who :) During the 1960's the revolutionary youth became painfully aware of the pointlessness in fighting the power of the state with violence without total support from the people. This is why they joined the political system. A lot of good parliamentary/incremental socialism is doing [sarcasm]. I'm no fan of Keynesian reformists and I'm also no fan of violence [right now]. I think we need massive propaganda campaigns competing with or far exceeding the capitalist propaganda machines. It's a monumental task- to marginalize global media conglomerates. I thought the internet would have been a big step in the right direction along with this current economic crisis but....nothing substantial has come out of it. Why do you think that is? [rhetorical question]

[black magick hustla]

1) When is a riot "aimless"? I'm guessing you're referring to a riot that would occur after something like a sports team's victory/loss? I don't think those are fetishized within the movement, I mean, yeah, I get stoked to see the destruction of corporate property and conflict with the cops that results. But I don't think any anarchists see them as being revolutionary (except in the fact that they highlight the contradiction of the masses and the state, and that it is an expression of the social war)

2) Aren't you in an organization seeking to build a mass party?

1) everybody was getting a hardon about the immigrant riots in france, if I remember correctly.

2) I am not a militant of the ICC. I merely sympathisize and help them. But I do agrtee with the idea of a world communist party. I think the issue here is not so much "massive parties", but the idea of being fixated at recruiting.

[The Douche]

1) everybody was getting a hardon about the immigrant riots in france, if I remember correctly.

Why do you think those were "aimless"? I don't think I'm comfortable saying "aimless". I don't think rioters need to have a stated "demand" for a riot to be valid.


2) I am not a militant of the ICC. I merely sympathisize and help them. But I do agrtee with the idea of a world communist party. I think the issue here is not so much "massive parties", but the idea of being fixated at recruiting.

Fair enough. But if you support the ICC, if you agree with political parties, then don't you agree that building the party is a primary goal of its members/supporters? (but I will concede, that if I were to support a political party it would probably be the ICC, as they're politics are closer to mine than any other parties')

[Omi]

Indeed BUT not the same ratio. In America I'd say 99.9% of the workers have NO CLUE what anarchism/socialism/communism is. Trust me on this. This is a shared problem worldwide but Americans suffer from misinformation and capitalist propaganda on such a megalithic scale it can hardly be explained. Everything is accepted by a majority of the population. The wars, the corporate/capitalist policies, the meddling in foreign economies and political systems via World Bank/IMF and the CIA/NSA. The blind unquestioning patriotism in America far exceeds the patriotism and unquestioning captive servitude found in Europe. The EU in general is still a haven of western colonial power's but there is more resistance than in America. Not enough resistance by far but more than in America. Europeans are more liberal, capitalistic but liberal and I think there's more of a chance for revolution in Europe albeit small than there is in America. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll admit when I'm wrong. I don't give a shit about my ego ;)

I can not really speak educated about the state of affairs in other countries in europe, but in the Netherlands if I say there are about 5000 revolutionaries almost anybody would say that it's an overestimation. In Holland there are about 16 million people, which means that about 99,99% or something of the people are not familiar with or do not hold any revolutionary idea, and I have not talked to an awful lot of people who know anything about it, only already within the revolutionary milieu. This country is notorious for it and I know few countries with less revolutionary potential, and a smaller revolutionary movement, except maybe for Belgium or Luxembourg or something.

So yeah, don't get your hopes up yet. We are doing our what we can though.:thumbup1:

[McCroskey]

I have the same problem with explain to some of my friends about anarchy, We need to educate.

As far as I am concerned, Anarchism is about Socialism, not Anarchy. Anarchy is a dreadful state of affairs whose definition is close to "chaos". The anarchist socialists used the word to oppose the state control and bureaucracy associated with the communist side of the AIT. It has nothing to do with previous anarchism, which was a fringe movement against all kind of authority and only advocated for burgeois individual freedom without no regulation whatsoever.

This is my opinion on the subject, I accept there are other points of view:

Seattle had more support from the population because the motives were made clear to the whole world, and an alternative was presented. Rioting just for the sake of it without engaging with the population whose demands they are supposed to represent, just makes the general public focus on the smashed windows and the destruction caused by a few uncontrolled angry youngs, as they would see them as refusing to propose a viable alternative. People want liberation, but they don't like to see their streets burning just for a laugh.

Dramatic tactics as disruptive and worrying for the general population as rioting must be used as a last resort, and organisers need to be able to present the people with a proper justification of the use of violence. Mass involvement in other organising work must take place prior to it. That makes the difference between the general public seeing it as common self-defence when demanding changes that they know are their own demands, or seeing it as violence just for the hell of it, by a bunch of nihilist punks whose bigger problem is boredom, not hunger.