On the class composition of Anarchism [Archive]

Devrim

17th March 2010, 09:54

There were some points on another thread that I wanted to comment on which seem to be verging widely off the topic:

That's not the case at all, because you're making a broad claim about "always". The vast majority of anarchists I meet are a weird coalition of the lumpenproletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and of university students. The movement as such, in general, is not based in the working class. Even where its membership is, its politics isn't. There are lots of anarchists who are workers, and even lots whose politics is a working class politics. But not even close to "always".

It's derailing the thread, but basically: most anarchism (what I would call anarchism, people who reasonably self-describe or have similar politics to those who do; maybe you don't think they're real anarchists) doesn't have a class-based politics, and in addition, its membership is skewed towards the petty bourgeoisie and (especially) sections of the lumpenproletariat and less organized working class.

I don't think that you can really smear anarchism as a whole by referring to anybody who calls themselves an anarchist, and considering some of the people who have called themselves Marxists, it would be a very foolish line of argument for Marxists to take up.

I think that if you want to attack anarchism, you should attack its real organisations, basically the sections of the three international anarchist organisations/currents:

International Workers Association:
http://www.iwa-ait.org/

International of Anarchist Federations:
http://www.iaf-ifa.org/
Anarchismo:
http://www.anarkismo.net/

In Canada, where I notice that you live, the first two don't have sections, but I think that there are two groups connected to the third:

Union Communiste Libertaire: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Communiste_Libertaire

Common Cause: http://www.linchpin.ca/

All of these groups are orientated towards the working class.

When you talk about the class basis of anarchist militants you also go completely against my experience, where I have found that anarchist groups tend to have a more 'working class base' than most left groups.

I can only give examples from my own experience, but when I was a member of an anarchist organisation, DAM-IWA now SolFed in London, in the late 1980s, the composition of our local branch (South West London) of 15 people was: 2 postmen, 4 Dole office clerks, 2 nurses, 1 mid-wife, 1 fire-woman, 1 bank clerk, 1 student, 1 unemployed, 1 council office worker, and 1 council manual worker.

I think that compares well to most leftist organisations today. It certainly doesn't fit your description of anarchists as 'a weird coalition of the lumpenproletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and of university students' or a 'membership skewed towards the petty bourgeoisie and (especially) sections of the lumpenproletariat and less organized working class'.

Also I notice from your profile that you are a 'student/poet/musician'. A phrase containing the words 'pot', 'kettle', and 'black' comes to mind.

It is true that anarchism has its historical roots in the petit-bourgeoisie such as small artisans and small peasants, and that 'Proudhonism'/mutalism was a profoundly petit-bourgeois ideology. However, Marx recognised that it was progressive at its time, anarchism today is in no way 'Proudhonism', and the working class itself has its roots in the proletarianisation of the dispossesed peasantry and small scale artisans.

There are lots of criticism of anarchism that I believe can be made. Setting up straw men doesn't help to make any sort of useful criticism though.

Devrim

Zanthorus

17th March 2010, 13:49

I was going to make some points on this but since you made this thread I thought I'd comment here...

Chapter one (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/chapter1.html) of Dolgoff's "The Cuban Revolution" notes the anarcho-syndicalist origins of a lot of the latin-american labour movement:

The character of the Latin American labor movement was originally shaped, not by Marxism, but by the principles of anarcho-syndicalism worked out by Bakunin and the libertarian wing of the International Workingmen's Association -- the "First International" -- founded in 1864.

The Latin American labor movement was, from its inception, greatly influenced by the ideology and revolutionary tactics of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist movement. Even before 1870, there were organized anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist groups in Buenos Aires, Argentina; Mexico, Santiago, Chile; Montevideo, Uruguay; Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, Brazil.

And spain is another point, despite the best efforts of Paul Lafargue the main current of socialism in spain was anarcho-syndicalism and not any variant of Marxism. It's simply false to assert that anarchists are petit-bourgeois or lumpen when such large swathes of the worlds labour movement have their origins in anarchism.

jake williams

17th March 2010, 15:12

The Douche

17th March 2010, 15:30

When I first got involved in anarchism I would say most of the people I worked with were somewhere in their mid 20s to early 30s, and most worked professional jobs, and many were active in their business unions. Others were hourly workers, and some were university students. At this time I was running in the circles of the IWW, NEFAC, and SP-USA.

Now I would say that most anarchists I work with are hourly workers (non-union), and community college students, some are unemployed workers, and they're mostly in their early to mid 20s. And I work with RAAN, and various insurrectionary or non-traditional (as in not syndicalist, not platformist) collectives/projects.

I think the older guys have more in common with how we typically/dogmatically see the "working class", and how we view revolution, but I think where I work now is more representative of the world we live in. I can't see much relevance for the IWW when the vast majority of US workers have never been/will never be in a union. (not to insult the IWW, its just an anecdote)

It just seems funny to me, what most people see as "real anarchism" is, in my opinion, not very relevant to the world today and not very connected, but what people call "lifestyleism" or "petite-bourgeois" seems far more plugged in to the real world. I am sure the situation varies around the world.

Yehuda Stern

17th March 2010, 17:30

Devrim

17th March 2010, 17:33

Devrim - you might be totally right about where you're working, but that's not the scene in Montreal. I've seen a lot of posters from the UCL, but I don't know what they actually do. At any rate Marxists are more organized, or perhaps more neutrally, their political work is more focused in organizations. It makes more sense to talk about Marxist organizations than it does to talk about anarchist organizations, because most of the anarchists active in Montreal aren't part of explicitly anarchist organizations - there are the NEFAC people, but there are a lot of people in the ASSE, around the QPIRGs, etc. and there are a lot of various folks just hanging around.

I don't really think that the 'folks hanging around' are anarchists. NEFAC are anarchists. The UCL are anarchists. Anarchists are people who are militant and sympathisers of anarchist organisations, not anybody who draws a circled @ on a wall.

I'm not at all including every kid with spray paint and poor taste in music as a "self-identified anarchist" and as the people who constitute the movement.

I think that is exactly what you are doing.

What I'm talking about is the group of people I know who constitute the anarchist movement based on the historical tradition that has descended from the split in the first international, however varied it might be.

I think that the organisations, not people, who are the descendants of the anarchists expelled from the 1st international, are the three international organisations I mentioned above. The IWA probably best expresses the organic continuity of anarchism, in existence since 1922, it was formed by organisations who had members who had been members of the First International and in that way constitutes a historic link. It is also probably the biggest of the international anarchist organisations.

There's a self-conscious anarchist movement in Montreal, those are the people I'm talking about. And they have a lot in common, in terms of their politics and their class composition, of those I know working elsewhere in Canada and the US.

I think the lack of political anarchist organisations in North America is connected to the weakness of the working class there. I don't think that there is much anarchist about 'a self-conscious anarchist movement'. The real anarchists in Montreal are UCL and NEFAC.

Devrim

Devrim

17th March 2010, 17:44

I think that discussing the class composition of anarchism or Marxism or Trotskyism or Maoism is pretty irrelevant; it's usually a way for people to attack each others' tendencies without really addressing their ideas. It would be better to argue on the level of politics rather than the level of demographics.

I agree actually. I brought this up because the someone was again criticising anarchists on that basis. I was just pointing out that it doesn't at all fit with my experience, which is that on a sociological basis anarchists tend to be 'more working class', and more 'blue collar' than Trotskyists. It is not a valid political criticism though, but only raised to refute a point.

I've met many European and American Trotskyists who were working class people, but no such Anarchists. My experience, however, is obviously biased as I've met more Marxists than Anarchists.

Yes, it is funny that, isn't it. I think that people tend to know people who have things in common with them either in interests or demographics. The few anarchists I know in Ankara are middle-aged workers. That is quite strange really because I happen to be a middle-aged worker. Leo knows lots of younger anarchists, equally unsurprising as he is less than half my age. I think these sort of comments about anarchists usually say more about the social environment that the speaker mixes in than anarchism in general.

Devrim

Yehuda Stern

17th March 2010, 18:00

I think these sort of comments about anarchists usually say more about the social environment that the speaker mixes in than anarchism in general.
Which is why I also mentioned that I've had a completely different experience with Marxists, specifically Trotskyists. That breaks the symmetry somewhat, though not completely as the numbers are different.

bcbm

17th March 2010, 18:01

Anarchists are people who are militant and sympathisers of anarchist organisations

anarchism has a long history of anti-organizational currents and the anarchists who hold those ideas are certainly still anarchists.

jake williams

17th March 2010, 20:41

I'd like to make a few points clear. First, I didn't raise the question about the class makeup of the anarchist movement on my own; it was in response to someone else's assertion. I don't have the time right now to dig through the threads, but I think I've already stated quite clearly that the most important thing isn't who's in the movement, but what it does. The question and I was and am most concerned with isn't whether or not the majority of anarchists are workers - they almost certainly are, especially if we use a pretty broad definition, because the vast majority of people are workers anyway.

The question is whether or not anarchists are primilarly active in the workers' movement, which I don't believe they are. Again, at least in the areas where I work, anarchist participation in organized mass movement politics is really low, especially compared to the size of their movement, which again at least in Montreal is way bigger in terms of raw numbers than the Marxist movement, at least right now. And that's only including dedicated activists, I'm really not talking about people who are just wandering around. If an anarchist happens to be a worker, but actively opposes the union because it's not radical enough for her, she's not a part of the working class movement.

Devrim - the notion that unless you're a member of one of three organizations then you're not an anarchist is totally absurd, and makes the term almost meaningless.

Glenn Beck

17th March 2010, 20:58

I don't think there is a single left-wing political tendency I haven't heard characterized as petit-bourgeois. I say: we are all petit-bourgeois now.

Certainly its valid to point out and debate the class character of certain ideological trends and the class composition of particular organizations and local scenes but when using such broad and imprecise categories as "anarchists", "Stalinists", "trade-unionists" to personally single out as "all a bunch of middle class fucks! *snort*" its not difficult for someone to find a counterexample that makes you look like a fool.

syndicat

17th March 2010, 21:45

I think it would be best to point out that, at least as far as the USA is concerned (I don't have experience with other countries), there are broadly two different kinds of politics that are called anarchist. On the one hand, there are those social anarchists who identify with the main social anarchist tradition, which originated in the "first international" and has been expressed through various organizations since then. This section of social anarchism in the USA is very definitely oriented to the class struggle.

The organizations in this tendency in North America have had two conferences in the past two years and a third scheduled for later this year, and they are all called "Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences." This politics in the USA is pro-organizational and is dual organizational, that is, it believes that there is a role for both a horizontally disciplined revolutionary organization and also for mass worker organizations, and mass organizations of struggle also outside the workplace. This tendency includes UCL and Common Cause in Canada, NEFAC, Common Action, Amanecer, Workers Solidarity Alliance in USA and a number of local collectives such as Four Star Anarchist Organization in Chicago and Buffalo Class Action. There are several hundred people who are members and supporters of these groups.

Altho this type of anarchism is class struggle oriented, nowadays it has also been much influenced by the socialist-feminist concept of intersectionality, in seeing various non-class forms of oppression as equally important to class and as important to understand if class unity is to become a reality.

Most of the organizations I refer to above have expressed solidarity with the Anarkismo network...one of the "internationals" Devrim refers to. Workers Solidarity Alliance was the U.S. affiliate of the IWA for over 20 years and is at present an independent libertarian socialist worker organization (not affiliated to any of the 3 mentioned internationals). Among other things, WSA is active within grassroots workers centers and in the Starbucks Workers Union and the United Electrical Workers Union. WSA has concentrations of members in retail, health care and education (labor education, adjuncts, TAs, other college employees, students). Back in the '80s our concentrations were different, being mainly in garment, textile, meatpacking, newspapers, university employees. But the jobs mix in the USA has changed.

Now, it's true that there is also a very large "other" anarchism which tends to be anti-organizational and to have other disfunctional characteristics. Certainly there are tendencies in it that have no interest in worker organization or worker struggle. A good example would be Cindy Milstein's new book "Anarchism and its Aspirations" which, despite mentioning various collectives and sites of struggle, never talks about any potential for workplace organizing. She also fails to talk about environmental justice struggles and other kinds of organizing in communities of color (which are also working class communities). But she's a Bookchinite, and Bookchin was opposed to the class struggle orientation of classical social anarchism.

Many people in this tendency would say they are not "anti-organizational" but what they mean is that they are for informal, temporary, ad hoc formations, such as people coming together to form "affinity groups" for protests. This is a very diverse section of American anarchism as it includes both insurrectos and primitivists and others as well.

This tendency has basically nil connection to classical social anarchism. Now, there are people, such as Devrim and the authors of the recent book "Black Flame," who want to say that "real" anarchism is the continuation of the classical mass-struggle-oriented social anarchism. I would agree with them in wanting to divorce ourselves form the disfunctional "other" ostensible anarchism. But I think it's not useful to say that this anti-organizational, individualist, lifestylist stuff isn't "anarchism" because the reference of words is determined by how most people use them. And nowadays in the USA people do use the word "anarchism" to refer to this "other" ostensible anarchism.

By the way, the traditional Marxist critique of anarchism as "petit bourgeois" wasn't based on an empirical examination of its actual class composition but on an apriori argument like this: "Marxism is the only "real" expression of working class interests. The anarchists differ with the Marxist party. So they must represent some non-proletarian alien class, so they must be petit bourgeois." Now, I would say that MLism represents in fact the interests of an emergent bureaucratic ruling class, not the interests of the proletarian class. Engels had predicted that the anarchists in Spain would have their main base of support in the artisanal workshops of the more backward parts of the country, not "the big factories in Barcelona." But Engels' prediction was falsified by facts. In the revolution in the '30s the "big factories in Barcelona" were the stronghold of the anarchosyndicalists, and the Marxist UGT had its main base in the more backward central part of the country (along with coal miners in Asturias and farm laborers in the under-developed south).

Devrim

17th March 2010, 23:11

Devrim - the notion that unless you're a member of one of three organizations then you're not an anarchist is totally absurd, and makes the term almost meaningless.

I didn't say those three organisations. I gave them as an example . There are of course other anarchist groups besides this. Nor did I say you have to be a member. I said member or sympathiser.

I don't think the idea that an anarchist is a political militant involved with a political organisation so absurd. I think that it is wholly reasonable. I'd apply it to our own current and to Marxism in general too. One of our members here is a student and goes to a university where there are lecturers who claim to be 'Marxists'. Of course, most of them are not members of political organisations. Should we take these people seriously as Marxists. I don't think so.

Workers Solidarity Alliance was the U.S. affiliate of the IWA for over 20 years and is at present an independent libertarian socialist worker organization (not affiliated to any of the 3 mentioned internationals).

The WSA is of course an anarchist organisation. I wasn't saying that those three were the only anarchist organisations.

This tendency includes UCL and Common Cause in Canada, NEFAC, Common Action, Amanecer, Workers Solidarity Alliance in USA and a number of local collectives such as Four Star Anarchist Organization in Chicago and Buffalo Class Action. There are several hundred people who are members and supporters of these groups.
...
Most of the organizations I refer to above have expressed solidarity with the Anarkismo network...one of the "internationals" Devrim refers to.

All of these groups are obviously real anarchist organisations too. I don't think that it contradicts what I said though. I'd say there isn't much difference between 'expressing solidarity' and 'being a sympathiser'.

I think it would be best to point out that, at least as far as the USA is concerned (I don't have experience with other countries), there are broadly two different kinds of politics that are called anarchist. On the one hand, there are those social anarchists who identify with the main social anarchist tradition, which originated in the "first international" and has been expressed through various organizations since then. This section of social anarchism in the USA is very definitely oriented to the class struggle.

I never heard this term until I started reading US anarchists posting on message boards. It wasn't in use in Europe when I lived there twenty years ago. To me this is anarchism. Despite my disagreements with anarchism, I still think that it is a revolutionary tradition within the workers movement, and a proud one at that.

I don't believe that real anarchists should have to put an adjective in front of the word to differentiate themselves from hippy liberals. Anarchism is the part of the workers' movement, which originated with those expelled from the international with Bakunin. As you say:

This tendency has basically nil connection to classical social anarchism. Now, there are people, such as Devrim and the authors of the recent book "Black Flame," who want to say that "real" anarchism is the continuation of the classical mass-struggle-oriented social anarchism. I would agree with them in wanting to divorce ourselves form the disfunctional "other" ostensible anarchism. But I think it's not useful to say that this anti-organizational, individualist, lifestylist stuff isn't "anarchism" because the reference of words is determined by how most people use them. And nowadays in the USA people do use the word "anarchism" to refer to this "other" ostensible anarchism.

I can see your point, but I really do think that this kind of stuff is more prevalent in the US, so your argument might not carry over water.

By the way, the traditional Marxist critique of anarchism as "petit bourgeois" wasn't based on an empirical examination of its actual class composition but on an apriori argument like this: "Marxism is the only "real" expression of working class interests. The anarchists differ with the Marxist party. So they must represent some non-proletarian alien class, so they must be petit bourgeois."

A bit harsh, I think that you can see petit-bourgeois ideology manifested in Proudhonism, which as I said I don't think is connected to modern anarchism, and that its view was essentially that of that class.

Devrim

The Douche

17th March 2010, 23:32

syndicat

17th March 2010, 23:37

me:
By the way, the traditional Marxist critique of anarchism as "petit bourgeois" wasn't based on an empirical examination of its actual class composition but on an apriori argument like this: "Marxism is the only "real" expression of working class interests. The anarchists differ with the Marxist party. So they must represent some non-proletarian alien class, so they must be petit bourgeois."
Devrim:

A bit harsh, I think that you can see petit-bourgeois ideology manifested
in Proudhonism, which as I said I don't think is connected to modern anarchism, and that its view was essentially that of that class.

okay, but what you have here is one of the common strawman fallacies that Marxists have used against social anarchism. That's because Proudhon wasn't a social anarchist in the modern sense. Social anarchism, as a political tendency, began with the libertarian socialists in the first international. Their orientation was to the development of worker unions and mass struggle. The followers of Proudhon were opposed to both unionism and mass direct action. Proudhon's politics had been oriented to the old class of self-employed artisans and peasant farmers which was still very large in the early 1800s in France.

The main idea that the libertarian socialists adopted from Proudhon was workers' self-management. It's just that there strategy for achieving a self-managed socialism was different than Proudhon's.

But Marxists have long used Proudhon as a way to smear social anarchism (using his disreputable personal traits such as sexism and anti-semitism as well as his orientation to the self-employed class).

Leo

18th March 2010, 01:50

Interesting discussion.

anarchism has a long history of anti-organizational currents and the anarchists who hold those ideas are certainly still anarchists. This actually is a fair point in my opinion, although those anarchists who hold anti-organizational ideas, if involved in actual collective political activities, work either close to this or that collective, semi-organization or get involved in black blocks or similar stuff and efforts to organize them. It could be considered that there were anti-organizational currents which lead to forming some sort of "organizations", CrimethInc. being an example, or for example Black Bridge International, an more proper "anti-organizational" organization. Even with regards to more intellectual anarchist circles, for example with currents like post-left anarchy, it could be said that they too end up coming up with some sort of a "collective voice", becoming magazine-circles and so on.

The point about organizations is this: politics is not something that can be done by isolated individuals, but by collective bodies, and thus that is where we look at while evaluating an ideology. If the anti-organizational currents are a part of anarchism (which I think they are, and same with "hippie-liberal-lifestylist" anarchism), it is not because there are individual anarchists who hold those ideas are certainly still anarchists, but because there are collective bodies that act together who hold these ideas, and are still recognized as anarchists. I think the fundamental point Devrim makes is very true as despite the fact that members of most anarchist groups are obviously far from sharing homogeneous political positions, it is the only way to be able to say something about anarchism:

if you want to attack anarchism, you should attack its real organisationsI am not sure about the following part though:

basically the sections of the three international anarchist organisations/currentsI think to develop a more clear analysis, one would have to refer to something like this:

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

I think this list from wiki, while obviously incomplete and also including some organizations that aren't anarchist and were mistakenly put in there, gives a more comprehensive idea of what organizations there are which consider themselves anarchists.

I think it is obvious that the list includes groups and organizations with very different class positions which consider themselves anarchists. Ever since the appearance of anarchism as a current within the workers movement (which evidently happened after anarchism itself appeared as a current), I think this has been the case. It is true that if one looks at another similar list, that of marxist organizations, one could also think the same about marxism - but there is a difference. When one looks at the history of the "marxist current", one would see that the lines are much more clear, that the marxists who were proletarian revolutionaries did all that was possible to separate themselves from those who betrayed, those claimed to be marxists but who were anti-working class. The marxists revolutionaries, at every turn, vigorously denounced those "marxists" who defended petty-bourgeois or bourgeois positions and from their point of view demonstrated systematically why such people were not marxists any longer, or were not marxists at all. By doing so, marxist revolutionaries created a continuity, a tradition. The denunciation firstly of social democracy, then of Stalinism and afterwards of Trotskyism left no open-doors for the tradition, nothing unclear on these movements within what remained marxism. While there has been attempts to do the same thing within anarchism, nothing nearly as clear-cut has been reached. Here's an example: you can have an anarchist organization which defends proletarian positions, while at the same time having Kropotkin among those they identify with historically - you can't have a marxist organization which defends proletarian positions while identifying with Kautsky. The positions of Kropotkin and Kautsky in the face of WW1 were, on the other hand, exactly the same chauvinistic one. In many ways, the very nature of the anarchist ideology prevented such a clear-cut historical split from taking place, and prevents such a clear-cut division between the anarchist organizations which defend different class positions.

This comment by syndicat is interesting in regards to this very point:

I think it would be best to point out that, at least as far as the USA is concerned (I don't have experience with other countries), there are broadly two different kinds of politics that are called anarchist. On the one hand, there are those social anarchists who identify with the main social anarchist tradition, which originated in the "first international" and has been expressed through various organizations since then. This section of social anarchism in the USA is very definitely oriented to the class struggle. I indeed do agree that there are two different kind of politics (even three perhaps but anyway) that are called anarchism, or politics of two different classes we might say. Yet, for instance, I don't think the difference is with regards to originating from the First International. Certain anarchist organizations that do claim tradition to older organizations originating from the First International and the following anarchist movements have positions identical to Trotskyists in many issues, and I also know anarchist collectives which do defend proletarian internationalism, but are very confused on other issues, such as the question of organization, violence, "building collectives", "autonomous spaces" etc. I don't think it is possible to make this distinction based on the First International. This brings us to what Devrim said in response to this point:

I never heard this term until I started reading US anarchists posting on message boards.
I don't believe that real anarchists should have to put an adjective in front of the word to differentiate themselves from hippy liberals.It would have been certainly good had they managed to do so at one point in the last century and a half, but since that isn't the case there is no point for us to talk about whether they should or shouldn't do it - I think it is clear that they aren't able to do so anyway. On this term "social anarchism", for example, as Devrim says he never heard it until he started reading US anarchists posting on message boards. As for myself, I have met several anarchists from the US and none of them talked about social anarchism either.

I think that fundamentally, one principle thing all anarchists (and anarchisms) have in common is a lack of method, and this is at the heart of why the anarchists haven't been able to create a clear-cut revolutionary tradition within what goes on as anarchists. This does not mean that there hasn't been lots of anarchists who have been among the most committed and braves fighters of the proletarian cause, and it doesn't mean that there aren't anarchist organizations today which do defend working class positions, even if there are things we criticize about them.

The Douche

18th March 2010, 04:11

This actually is a fair point in my opinion, although those anarchists who hold anti-organizational ideas, if involved in actual collective political activities, work either close to this or that collective, semi-organization or get involved in black blocks or similar stuff and efforts to organize them. It could be considered that there were anti-organizational currents which lead to forming some sort of "organizations", CrimethInc. being an example, or for example Black Bridge International, an more proper "anti-organizational" organization. Even with regards to more intellectual anarchist circles, for example with currents like post-left anarchy, it could be said that they too end up coming up with some sort of a "collective voice", becoming magazine-circles and so on.

The point about organizations is this: politics is not something that can be done by isolated individuals, but by collective bodies, and thus that is where we look at while evaluating an ideology. If the anti-organizational currents are a part of anarchism (which I think they are, and same with "hippie-liberal-lifestylist" anarchism), it is not because there are individual anarchists who hold those ideas are certainly still anarchists, but because there are collective bodies that act together who hold these ideas, and are still recognized as anarchists. I think the fundamental point Devrim makes is very true as despite the fact that members of most anarchist groups are obviously far from sharing homogeneous political positions, it is the only way to be able to say something about anarchism:

I completely agree, and I kind of wanted to hint at this by saying that I don't think the term "anti-organizational" really means anything, and though I might use it to describe myself, its only because thats what social anarchists want to call me.

I mean, in RAAN we have occasionally referred to ourselves as a revolutionary (dis)organization. We certainly are an organization, in that we have a network of crews, we talk to each other, we have texts, and we have an agreed upon set of politics.

But we're still usually considered (and the members consider themselves) in the autonomist and insurrectionist schools.

syndicat

18th March 2010, 04:49

The Douche

18th March 2010, 04:57

i can't respond to either Leo or cmoney because their posts are basically assertions without argument.

As to what "anti-organizationalism" means, from the social anarchist point of view, I think I explained that. It's an approach I can't take seriously for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons being that they have no concept whatsoever of class formation, of how the mass of the oppressed and exploited move from being, as Marx said, a "class in itself" to being a "class for itself," that is, a class with the mindset and skills and organizational capacity to fundamentally challenge the dominating classes. Hence their lack of orientation to mass organization building, lack of appreciation for rootedness in mass social movements and their organizations.

If you look at writings of anarchists in the classical period, you can find both socialist and individualist statements. Anarchism, considered as a whole, contains inconsistencies within it. Since the world war 1 era, I think there has been an evolution in the thinking of various libertarian socialists towards being clearer about things like the need for a disciplined revolutionary organization and for the aim of a libertarian socialist revolution to be the construction of popoular power, a form of governance, to replace the state. A continuing theme, however, continues to be the emphasis on the mass self-managed organizations. If the liberation of the oppressed & exploited is the work of the oppressed themselves, then it is through the development of their social counterpower that they develop the capacity to do this. In more recent decades the emphasis has been not only on the workplace organizations, but also on various kinds of community organizations and sites of struggle as well. Class/mass struggle takes place against employers but outside the workplace as well.

"social anarchism" or "class struggle anarchism" or "libertarian socialism" are phrases by which the advocates of organizational mass struggle-oriented social anarchism try to differentiate themselves from the disfunctional elements of the anarchist milieu.

Wow, get the fuck out of here! You're just going to ignore the two posts which defend the position you're attacking, cool bro.

syndicat

18th March 2010, 05:04

Wow, get the fuck out of here! You're just going to ignore the two posts which defend the position you're attacking, cool bro.

I can't respond to any arguments if you don't make any. I didn't ignore the posts, tho. I explained a bit more why I disagree with your brand of anarchism. The thing is, most of the time I don't call myself an "anarchist" at all. I use "libertarian socialist". I prefer a clean break.

Devrim

18th March 2010, 14:05

Which is why I also mentioned that I've had a completely different experience with Marxists, specifically Trotskyists. That breaks the symmetry somewhat, though not completely as the numbers are different.

Actually I want to come back on the class composition of various political groups. I sometimes worry about the composition of our organisation, but in our case it is a few too many white collar workers. Anarchist organisations tend to have a higher proportion of manual workers in my experience.

If we take the example of the English SWP, it is not just people like Paul Foot who came from the ruling class, and Alex Callinicos, whose Grandfather was Lord Acton, and whose mother was hilariously called the Hon. Ædgyth Bertha Milburg Mary Antonia Frances Lyon-Dalberg-Acton, but the fact that the vast majority of their CC members are university educated, but a large proportion of them are academics. Is this meant to inspire confidence in working class people? The SWP is mainly a student based group, and has got more so in recent years.

An example of this even twenty-odd years ago when the SWP had more workers and when I was a postman in London, DAM, the UK IWA section with about 160 members nationally, had 8 people in the London Post Office. The SWP with (a claimed) 8,000 members nationally had 1. Now this could be coincidence, but I doubt it.

I don't think this is a problem on an individual level. Of course some comrades can come from the 'middle class', and even possibly from the upper class. I think it is a problem when it is the demographic basis of an organisation though.

When I worked in the UK, the National Secretaries of the three main anarchist organisations were a hospital porter (DAM-IWA), a postman (ACF, now AF), and a dole office Clerk (AWG)*.

Compare this to the Trotskyist groups, whose leaders are generally university professors, and the constant complaints about the class bais of anarchism that you hear on here become even more bizarre.

Devrim

*There was another large anarchist organisation at the time 'Class War Federation', which was independent of the three main currents listed earlier. I don't know who its national secretary was.

Voloshinov

18th March 2010, 16:03

Marx and Engels were hardly proletarians themselves, by the way. But this is logical, the socialist movement operates in a context with a strong division between mental (ideology emancipated from its direct material reality, cfr. German Ideology) and manual labor. The communist movement, starting with the communist league, was conceived as a way to bring materialist theory together with the practice of the working class. Although it is possible for the working class to create its own intellectuals, they engage in a primitive accumulation of intellectual capital through the recuperation of petty bourgeois intellectuals as well. From this point of view, the communist movement is the crossroads of theory realizing its materiality and social reality expressing itself through theory.

Anyway, the problem with anarchism is that it just encompasses too many different trends. I think, for example, that the ideas of revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism have more in common with Rosa Luxemburg than with Bakunin, or that Kropotkin was closer to council communism than any other form of anarchism, etc. *shrug*

lipmeister

18th March 2010, 16:31

Anarchists in Canada are non-existant outside the campuses. They tried to create a "revolutionary union" in Montreal and they failed miserably (6 people participated in its branch...). The anarchist-workers are usualy those who encountered anarchism in their youth and remained anarchist after they finished university, but now hang around QPIRGs expelling anyone who they don't agree with. Recently, the lumpen anarchist activist Jaggi Singh managed with machinations, to kick out a trotskyist group from QPIRG concordia (QPIRG is a student activist place-umbrella group in every campus, funded by the state).

Furthermore if you go at the anarchist bookfair you seriously need to block your nose. Anarchist bookfairs really smell and that's not a slander. When you go in, you have a bunch of punks/lumpens getting drunk and doing drugs in front of the entrance. Most people either smell, have a hippy style, a punk style or just long beards and hair. The anarchist bookfair is really a different world, a world where the concentration of lumpen and petty bourgeois elements exceeds 90%, as opposed to the real world where they are insignificant.

In some places however, anarchism can have some influence on workers. Anarchism though is an idea that has risen historicaly from the petit-bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. Of course ideas have a material basis, but once they arise from a certain class they can "spill over" to other classes. That doesn't change the class basis of the idea though, anarchism was, is and will remain an ideology alien to the working class.

Devrim

18th March 2010, 17:13

Now it does not, and there are plenty of people (malatesta?!) who are important anarchist thinkers who were "anti-organizational" (whatever that means). There were also plenty of anarchists (bakunin) who were absurdly authoritarian. And still more who clearly represent ideas which influence IA (Parsons, Berkman).

So Parsons, and Maletsta were anti-organisational?

Do you mean Albert Parsons, founding member of the International Working People's Association, co-founder of the first Chicago order of the Knights of Labour, recording secretary of the Chicago Eight-Hour League, and member of the national eight-hour committee?

Do you mean Errico Malatesta, member of the First International, co-founder of the first militant workers' union in Argentina, and member of the International Bureau set up by the 1907 Anarchist conference in Amsterdam?

Devrim

Devrim

18th March 2010, 17:15

okay, but what you have here is one of the common strawman fallacies that Marxists have used against social anarchism. That's because Proudhon wasn't a social anarchist in the modern sense. Social anarchism, as a political tendency, began with the libertarian socialists in the first international. Their orientation was to the development of worker unions and mass struggle. The followers of Proudhon were opposed to both unionism and mass direct action. Proudhon's politics had been oriented to the old class of self-employed artisans and peasant farmers which was still very large in the early 1800s in France.
...
But Marxists have long used Proudhon as a way to smear social anarchism (using his disreputable personal traits such as sexism and anti-semitism as well as his orientation to the self-employed class).

Which is pretty much what I said:

It is true that anarchism has its historical roots in the petit-bourgeoisie such as small artisans and small peasants, and that 'Proudhonism'/mutalism was a profoundly petit-bourgeois ideology. However, Marx recognised that it was progressive at its time, anarchism today is in no way 'Proudhonism', and the working class itself has its roots in the proletarianisation of the dispossesed peasantry and small scale artisans.

Devrim

YKTMX

18th March 2010, 17:24

The SWP is mainly a student based group, and has got more so in recent years.

It would be interesting to see your evidence for this. This somewhat chimes with my experience in the Party, although it's not the trend that has most impressed itself upon me. If anything, the thing that has struck me is that the Party is become more and more female. And more racially diverse. Although perhaps that is a function of your thesis about its large student composition.

I would certainly accept that our members are more highly educated than the population as a whole.

Although, I think you're missing an important point if you're trying to think about class composition in the context of contemporary Britain. That is, about half of young people in Britain are 'students' at one point. It is therefore a mathematical certainty that a large section, even a majority, of students at British universities today have working class or lower middle class backgrounds.

As such, you would be saying that it's unfortunate that lots of SWP members are young and educated people from working class backgrounds? I'm not convinced this is a bad thing.

black magick hustla

18th March 2010, 18:20

Yehuda Stern

18th March 2010, 19:08

Devrim, my experience in Israel is that the CP had a pretty impressive presence in the Palestinian working class, and still has some today, and that Trotskyist groups have had some success recruiting from the working class in the past, and even sometimes manage to do so today. The Anarchists, on the other hand, are always middle class people. The same is probably true for the USA, certainly in NY (unless a local has some other info).

The point is, these things change from place to place, even in the same country. It seems you're trying to bend the stick too far the other way, claiming that anarchism is more proletarian than Trotskyism, which frankly, isn't going that well.

syndicat

18th March 2010, 20:22

I think that the class composition of an organization or movement will depend on where it organizes and who it appeals to. In the USA there is a sizeable part of the "anarchist" milieu who have abandoned any appeal to, or interest in organizing among, the working class.

The radical left of the '60s/70s era was largely a student left, at least in the USA it was. Because there had been an expansion of low cost education accessible to working class students in the '60s, a sizeable portion of this radical student left (not necessarily the leaders tho) were of working class origin.

Most of these activists went into ML or Trotskyist groups. Many of them "colonized" themselves in industries and there is still a layer in the local leadership of unions, as officers or staff or whatever, who derive from this layer. But their "boring from within" approach to unionism led them to get absorbed by the bureaucracy to a certain extent over time.

Marxism was attractive to a student left because it offers an ostensibly comprehensive social theory that appeals to intellectuals. And the Leninist vanguard part appealed to their sense of entitlement as educated people.

Nowadays, however, there are more student anarchists in the USA than there were in the past, and some of them have a working class orientation...but these are usually students from working class backgrounds. Thus we have more graduate student members nowadays in Workers Solidarity Alliance than we had in the past. But all of them are from working class backgrounds.

bcbm

18th March 2010, 20:24

Anarchists, on the other hand, are always middle class people

always?:rolleyes:

syndicat

18th March 2010, 20:33

Anyway, the problem with anarchism is that it just encompasses too many different trends. I think, for example, that the ideas of revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism have more in common with Rosa Luxemburg than with Bakunin, or that Kropotkin was closer to council communism than any other form of anarchism, etc. *shrug*

so, you mean Marxism is all united and doesn't encompass discordant trends? You have social dem Marxists, Left-communist marxists, Hoxahists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc.

Bakunin was a proto-syndicalist, he believed the mass worker associations would be the basis of the revolution, through the general strike. He was opposed to individualism.

zimmerwald1915

18th March 2010, 21:00

so, you mean Marxism is all united and doesn't encompass discordant trends? You have social dem Marxists, Left-communist marxists, Hoxahists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc.

Bakunin was a proto-syndicalist, he believed the mass worker associations would be the basis of the revolution, through the general strike. He was opposed to individualism.
This point was made earlier, and was made clearer then: just about every tendency that claims to be Marxist has violently distinguished itself from each other such tendency. Self-names Marxists encourage this behavior, for various reasons. Anarchists draw lines between themselves and other anarchists less clearly.

The Douche

18th March 2010, 21:28

I can't respond to any arguments if you don't make any. I didn't ignore the posts, tho. I explained a bit more why I disagree with your brand of anarchism. The thing is, most of the time I don't call myself an "anarchist" at all. I use "libertarian socialist". I prefer a clean break.

Thats fine, and I think certain people (especially in the platformist tradition) should stop calling themselves anarchists, but should use the term libertarian socialist.

I just don't understand how you can say people like Parsons, Berkman, or Malatesta are in some way "not anarchists". I mean, I disagree with the syndicalists on tactics but I don't think they are not anarchists. (though certain platformists ought to come out and claim trotskyism in my opinion)

syndicat

19th March 2010, 01:37

I just don't understand how you can say people like Parsons, Berkman, or Malatesta

I didn't say they are not anarchists. In fact they were mass struggle-oriented social anarchists. They werenot lifestylists or individualists or primitivists or anti-organizationalists (or "informal organizationalists" if you prefer) (altho Malatesta was sometimes inconsistent in his preferred mode of speech, implying agreement sometimes with individualist assumptions). Parsons was an elected leader of the Chicago Labor Union. Lucy Parsons was a prominent organizer of seamstresses. They were part of the International Working People's Association, which aimed to organize the working class for mass struggle. There was such a thing as "the Chicago idea," identified with IWPA. this was the view that mass union organizations could become a means to revolution and self-liberation.

The problem is that, here in the USA, there are many people who have re-defined "anarchism" to mean something different than the original movement that was created by radical workers. on the other hand, it can also be said that often that "classical" anarchist movement wasn't always so clear in the principles that it appealed to, so sometimes they mixed inconsistent ideas without seeing the inconsistency.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 01:50

This point was made earlier, and was made clearer then: just about every tendency that claims to be Marxist has violently distinguished itself from each other such tendency. Self-names Marxists encourage this behavior, for various reasons. Anarchists draw lines between themselves and other anarchists less clearly.

In the USA this lack of clarity is due to the lack of any significant anarchist organization since the destruction of the IWPA in the 1880s. Organizations develop programs and strategies and popularize ideas. They then provide a pole of reference for the politics.

Also, social anarchism has only gradually evolved towards an appreciation of the importance of a horizontally disciplined political organization. The failure to perceive a need for this was sometimes due to existence of mass organizations that were a field of activity, such as syndicalist unions.

Also, social anarchism originally differentiated itself by opposition to Marxism's partyist strategy. only in time did the movement increasingly come to appreciate the importance of a political organization that would not be a party (which is defined by anarchists as an organization that seeks to control a state) but would still be a source of revolutionary influence.

Importance of the revolutionary organization, to develop and sustain influence for libertarian ideas and practices within mass movements, and within the working class in general, has developed slowly. There was the initial "dual organization" concept developed in the world war 1 era by Italian social anarchists, then the "Platform" in 1926 which did not have much immediate impact, then the experience of the divisions in the FAI in the Spanish revolution (over the issue of political power), emergence of the Friends of Durruit Group in 1937, the development of the Uruguayan FAU's practice in the '60s and '70s and their concept of popular power, which continues the tradition from the FoD.

On the other hand, it's possible to differentiate a mass struggle oriented libertarian socialist organization from the dis-organizationalists, lifestylists, Bookchinites, insurrectos, etc. without being so narrow as to not allow for any differentiation of views.

Marxist groups that seem to be multi-tendencied include Solidarity and the Workers Party in America; the members of the latter identify with various traditions such as Trotsyism, Maoism, etc. WSA is like this also in that, although we have a single program that members agree to when they join, members identify with different traditions...anarcho-communism, participatory economics, anarcho-syndicalism, platformism. But the forms of anarcho-communism that exist in our organization are of the syndicalist and/or platformist variety. This mix is consistent in our case because our brand of anarcho-syndicalism was always dual organizational.

The Douche

19th March 2010, 01:51

I didn't say they are not anarchists. In fact they were mass struggle-oriented social anarchists. They werenot lifestylists or individualists or primitivists or anti-organizationalists (or "informal organizationalists" if you prefer) (altho Malatesta was sometimes inconsistent in his preferred mode of speech, implying agreement sometimes with individualist assumptions). Parsons was an elected leader of the Chicago Labor Union. Lucy Parsons was a prominent organizer of seamstresses. They were part of the International Working People's Association, which aimed to organize the working class for mass struggle. There was such a thing as "the Chicago idea," identified with IWPA. this was the view that mass union organizations could become a means to revolution and self-liberation.

The problem is that, here in the USA, there are many people who have re-defined "anarchism" to mean something different than the original movement that was created by radical workers. on the other hand, it can also be said that often that "classical" anarchist movement wasn't always so clear in the principles that it appealed to, so sometimes they mixed inconsistent ideas without seeing the inconsistency.

I mean, are you denying that IA has roots in the ideas of Malatesta, Berkman, and Parsons? Certainly Malatesta lays the foundations for informal organization in his critique of the platform and of syndicalism as a strategy. And the way Berkman and Parsons advocated revolutionary violence have obviously influenced the theory of attack found in IA today.

Like I said, I don't think syndicalism is wrong per se, I just think it is outdated. Which is why I said I would belong to the IWW if I was alive in 1902, but now I don't see syndicalism as a revolutionary tactic. (I think Malatesta makes this case quite well)

I think anarchism needs to move beyond the theory of the first/second revolutionary wave (1900-1940). To me, IA is about finding workable solutions to every situation, not forcing a revolutionary theory from the start of the 20th century on the modern world.

bcbm

19th March 2010, 02:44

I mean, are you denying that IA has roots in the ideas of Malatesta, Berkman, and Parsons?

malatesta, sure. i'm not as sure about the others. ia in malatesta's time was largely an italian thing, though its tactics and ideas did spread. the modern current is almost entirely based around italian writings from the "years of lead" on, with some more recent influence by tiqqun, agamben, foucault, etc.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 03:17

I mean, are you denying that IA has roots in the ideas of Malatesta, Berkman, and Parsons? Certainly Malatesta lays the foundations for informal organization in his critique of the platform and of syndicalism as a strategy. And the way Berkman and Parsons advocated revolutionary violence have obviously influenced the theory of attack found in IA today.

In the late 19th century I don't think social anarchism was well-defined. However, Parsons and others in the IWPA considered themselves both socialists and anarchists, and said they took ideas from both Marx and Bakunin. It's true they believed that a revolution would be violent. They built a workers militia for self-defense. Violence against workers struggles was very open and crude in that era.

I don't think social anarchism in that era had a good idea as to how revolutionary consciousness within the class develops. And this is an obvious problem with the insurrectos and many other anarchists nowadays. there is a lack of clarity about who the revolutionary agent is. among the worst is Bookchin with his idea of appealing to all "citizens." Problem is, the bureaucratic and capitalist classes are also "citizens."

If you take the IWPA's talk about dynamite and their belief in violent revolution, and take that out of context, then I think that's implausible as a way of saying present day insurrectos somehow have something to do with the IWPA, which was a syndicalist organization.

In regard to the Platform, Malatesta later said he was mistaken and that he had misunderstood the proposal, probably due to translation problems. On the other hand, as I said before, Maltesta's writings show a common kind of inconsistency of many prominent anarchist writers in that era with his adoption of various individualist ideas, such as his opposition to majority vote. on the other hand, he was a founding member of the Italian Anarchist Union, which was a formal political organization, which played a prominent role in the biennio rosso (1919-20). for example, when the leadership of the Italian Syndicalist Union followed Mussolini to a nationalist position in 1915, the UA mobilized the rank and file and expelled the pro-Mussolini leadership at the next USI congress, and elected an anarchist secretary (Armando Borghi). This is "dual organizationalism" in action.

on the other hand, Galleani is a legitimate predecessor of present day anti-organizatonal insurrectos.

The Douche

19th March 2010, 03:18

malatesta, sure. i'm not as sure about the others. ia in malatesta's time was largely an italian thing, though its tactics and ideas did spread. the modern current is almost entirely based around italian writings from the "years of lead" on, with some more recent influence by tiqqun, agamben, foucault, etc.

I don't even consider Malatesta to be an "insurrectionary anarchist", though I know some people do.

But Berkman, and Parsons especially I think contributed to the theory of attack in an indirect manner, I mean, quotes like:

Let every dirty, lousy tramp arm himself with a revolver or knife on the steps of the palace of the rich and stab or shoot their owners as they come out. Let us kill them without mercy, and let it be a war of extermination and without pity

Could easily be found in the blogs and zines of RAAN/MAC/FTTP/PINAB/The invisible committee

And I certainly don't consider myself a "strict insurrectionary anarchist" (that phrase makes me snicker a little bit). But I would say that IA is the largest influence on my politics, though I certainly take influence from autonomist marxism, and, more importantly, common sense.

The Douche

19th March 2010, 03:21

In the late 19th century I don't think social anarchism was well-defined. However, Parsons and others in the IWPA considered themselves both socialists and anarchists, and said they took ideas from both Marx and Bakunin. It's true they believed that a revolution would be violent. They built a workers militia for self-defense. Violence against workers struggles was very open and crude in that era.

I don't think social anarchism in that era had a good idea as to how revolutionary consciousness within the class develops. And this is an obvious problem with the insurrectos and many other anarchists nowadays.

If you take their talk about dynamite and their belief in violent revolution, and take that out of context, then I think that's implausible as a way of saying this somehow has something to do with the IWPA, which was a syndicalist organization.

In regard to the Platform, Malatesta later said he was mistaken and that he had misunderstood the proposal, probably due to translation problems. On the other hand, as I said before, Maltesta's writings show a common kind of inconsistency of many prominent anarchist writers in that era with his adoption of various individualist ideas, such as his opposition to majority vote.

I have never met an insurrectionary anarchist who is not a communist. And like I keep saying, at the time I think syndicalism was probably the best revolutionary tactic, but I think time has proven Malatesta's critique of syndicalism and unionism correct. I think its likely that many post revolutionary workplaces will be organized on syndicalist principles, but I don't think a union will bring the revolution about.

bcbm

19th March 2010, 03:26

I mean, quotes like . . . Could easily be found in the blogs and zines of RAAN/MAC/FTTP/PINAB/The invisible committee

actually i think insurrectionary anarchism has largely moved past that sort of rhetoric, especially the latter groups you mention. i'm not as familiar with the other publications, but what i have seen doesn't seem to be in that vein.

The Douche

19th March 2010, 03:35

actually i think insurrectionary anarchism has largely moved past that sort of rhetoric, especially the latter groups you mention. i'm not as familiar with the other publications, but what i have seen doesn't seem to be in that vein.

Rhetorically yes, (well there is still some of that to be seen in TCI and in FTTP) but I think talk like that is still at home in IA, and I think that ideas like that were formative in IA.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 03:42

I have never met an insurrectionary anarchist who is not a communist. And like I keep saying, at the time I think syndicalism was probably the best revolutionary tactic, but I think time has proven Malatesta's critique of syndicalism and unionism correct. I think its likely that many post revolutionary workplaces will be organized on syndicalist principles, but I don't think a union will bring the revolution about.

almost every MLer says they are "communist" and Bookchin said he was an "anarcho-communist" and so on. This is mere rhetoric. The problem is that I've found that people can be entirely individualist in many of their ideas and their practices and still call themselves "communists." So I've concluded that "communism" doesn't mean anything.

The revolution in Spain would never had happened without decades of working class organizers explaing and developing an understanding that in a moment of opportunity it was necessary to seize the means of production, that this was a crucial initial step in the creation of a libertarian socialist society, and it wouldn't have happened at all without the mass involvement of workers in struggles that helped to develop an increasing revolutionary consciousness in masses of ordinary working people. Again, this comes back to what I said about about the insurrectos, bookchinites, individualists, primmies, etc. having no clue about class formation.

Also you have a mistaken conception of syndicalism if you think that we believe that it is solely through unions that a revolution is brought about. You make a common mistake of the "other" anarchists in sort of identifying libertarian syndicalism with some late 19th century or early 1900s version. Over time libertarian syndicalist socialism came to see the importance of struggles in the community...as with the neighborhood organizations and rent strikes in Barcelona in early '30s.

Nowadays WSA, which derives from the syndicalist tradition, tends to view working class struggle in intersectional terms. This means that non-class forms of oppression are seen as equally important. This is especially so since the working class is heterogeneous, and groups within it are subject to forms of oppression other than class, patriarchy, racism, homophobia. Hence the tendency nowadays is to see the basis of the social transformation in the development of an alliance of mass social movements, including the workplace based mass organizations, rooted in the working class majority. So grassroots syndicalism, as the development of a solidaristic and worker controlled and anti-capitalist form of unionism, is seen as part of this larger social movement context. but an intersectional analysis also means that, in looking at anti-patriarchy and anti-racism, that it's necessary also to focus on the situation of working class women, working class people of color.

This intersectional analysis is quite common within the working class struggle oriented social anarchist groups in the USA at present.

The Douche

19th March 2010, 03:47

almost every MLer says they are "communist" and Bookchin said he was an "anarcho-communist" and so on. This is mere rhetoric. The problem is that I've found that people can be entirely individualist in many of their ideas and their practices and still call themselves "communists." So I've concluded that "communism" doesn't mean anything.

The revolution in Spain would never had happened without decades of working class organizers explaing and developing an understanding that in a moment of opportunity it was necessary to seize the means of production, that this was a crucial initial step in the creation of a libertarian socialist society, and it wouldn't have happened at all without the mass involvement of workers in struggles that helped to develop an increasing revolutionary consciousness in masses of ordinary working people. Again, this comes back to what I said about about the insurrectos, bookchinites, individualists, primmies, etc. having no clue about class formation.

Also you have a mistaken conception of syndicalism if you think that we believe that it is solely through unions that a revolution is brought about. You make a common mistake of the "other" anarchists in sort of identifying libertarian syndicalism with some late 19th century or early 1900s version. Over time libertarian syndicalist socialism came to see the importance of struggles in the community...as with the neighborhood organizations and rent strikes in Barcelona in early '30s.

Nowadays WSA, which derives from the syndicalist tradition, tends to view working class struggle in intersectional terms. This means that non-class forms of oppression are seen as equally important. This is especially so since the working class is heterogeneous, and groups within it are subject to forms of oppression other than class, patriarchy, racism, homophobia. Hence the tendency nowadays is to see the basis of the social transformation in the development of an alliance of mass social movements, including the workplace based mass organizations, rooted in the working class majority. So grassroots syndicalism, as the development of a solidaristic and worker controlled and anti-capitalist form of unionism, is seen as part of this larger social movement context.

This intersectional analysis is quite common within the working class struggle oriented social anarchist groups in the USA at present.

I'm sorry if I misunderstand you, but is your main opposition to IA that you don't believe them when they say they are communists? You don't think insurrectionary anarchists want the community to control the means of production?

I think unionism (even if it is a red union) is a dead end. I don't think its the right tactic, you'll never convince me of it, but I agree, the social anarchist movement is branching out and recognizing that it needs to engage in the community not just the workplace, and if it becomes more confrontational then I think we can see a more unified and more coherent anarchism start to emerge.

black magick hustla

19th March 2010, 03:49

ive met quite a few anarchist, non-college type people.

there is a tendency towards lumpenization in that millieu though. its difficult to say, because the lumpenproletariat/proletariat line is sometimes pretty fluid and feeble. people working part time work, going through long seasons of unemployment, doing odd jobs, etc. i wouldnt say anarchists are generally middle class people. i think there is more middle classism in "marxism"than anarchism, especially because the latter is more attractive to intellectual types writing their sociology dissertation on adorno

black magick hustla

19th March 2010, 03:54

I would say insurrectionism is part of the communist tradition, whether we like it or not. the thing about insurrectionism is that it did not originate from splits of mass anarchist parties. it seems to me in general, it came from splits of "modernist"groups of the 60s who were heavily influenced by left communist tradtions. this is why cammatte is somewhat of a seminal guy for insurrectionary types. so its not just collectives springing out of nothing. there is definitely a sort of organic link to some of the "ultraleft"groupings in europe, especially france.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 03:55

I'm sorry if I misunderstand you, but is your main opposition to IA that you don't believe them when they say they are communists? You don't think insurrectionary anarchists want the community to control the means of production?

no. it's not a question of one's abstract view about some future utopia. it's about one's conception of the path to the creation of a libertarian socialist society (which, by the way, in the syndicalist view, does NOT mean that collectives or groups of workers have a collective property right over where they work...the aim is that all means of production are owned in common by the whole society).

as I keep repeating, it's about conception of the agency of revolution, and how that agent develops the mindset and capacity to liberate itself.

small highly radicalized groups going off doing their own thing in small group confrontations I see as substitutionist. I don't see it as contributing to class formation.

class formation is the process of the working class going from a class "in itself" -- an objective oppressed and exploited mass of people -- to a class "for itself" -- a class with the capacity to liberate itself and the growing aspiration to do so.

Part of that capacity is developing more widespread involvement in struggle, developing skills and confidence from winning and from the experience of running your own organizations, and also from organized efforts at popular education and building skills to organize in rank and file working people. Now, all of this comes through mass organizing and mass struggles, and also thru the work of revolutionary organizations (as far as popular education etc.).

the "other" anarchists seem to think of buiilding highly radicalized alternative spaces and collective projects, but which tend to be isolated from the mass of the people. cooperatives and collectives and stuff like that can't eliminate capitalism because it's not a real social counter-power of the working class. A social counter-power is developed in opposition, in confrontation, and this occurs in workplaces or in fights with government agencies (as over pollution, public services, etc) or with landlords, etc.

there is a certain tendency for the insurrectos to be spontaneists, imagining that the people are ready at all times to spontaneously rise up, if only the right spark is set. but no revolution is a purely spontaneous affair, but develops through the masses of the oppressed and exploited developing the capacity and aspiration to change things fundamentally. it takes organizing and preparation and movement building over a more or less protracted period for this to bear fruit.

The Douche

19th March 2010, 04:03

no. it's not a question of one's abstract view about some future utopia. it's about one's conception of the path to the creation of a libertarian socialist society (which, by the way, in the syndicalist view, does NOT mean that collectives or groups of workers have a collective property right over where they work...the aim is that all means of production are owned in common by the whole society).

as I keep repeating, it's about conception of the agency of revolution, and how that agent develops the mindset and capacity to liberate itself.

small highly radicalized groups going off doing their own thing in small group confrontations I see as substitutionist. I don't see it as contributing to class formation.

class formation is the process of the working class going from a class "in itself" -- an objective oppressed and exploited mass of people -- to a class "for itself" -- a class with the capacity to liberate itself and the growing aspiration to do so.

Part of that capacity is developing more widespread involvement in struggle, developing skills and confidence from winning and from the experience of running your own organizations, and also from organized efforts at popular education and building skills to organize in rank and file working people. Now, all of this comes through mass organizing and mass struggles, and also thru the work of revolutionary organizations (as far as popular education etc.).

the "other" anarchists seem to think of buiilding highly radicalized alternative spaces and collective projects, but which tend to be isolated from the mass of the people. cooperatives and collectives and stuff like that can't eliminate capitalism because it's not a real social counter-power of the working class. A social counter-power is developed in opposition, in confrontation, and this occurs in workplaces or in fights with government agencies (as over pollution, public services, etc) or with landlords, etc.

I don't really disagree with anything you're saying. I don't think IA really seeks to build ghettos (or isolated spaces/projects as you put it) I think it is just the nature of radical politics in a time of very low consciousness. Social anarchists are quite isolated as well, and sometimes your organizations make breakthroughs and sometimes ours do as well. I think in Greece we are seeing the social war really start to become the reality that many insurrectionaries like to pretend it is.

I don't want my organization to be isolated, but at the same time I don't want people to join my organization (I refer specifically to my crew, not RAAN itself). It was always our crews express goal not to recruit, but to encourage the formation of other crews in our area. Our goal is/was to see RAAN graffitti that we hadn't done, to encourage people to be active on their terms and based on their motivations, not look to us for leadership. But I think that desire was largely born out of our personal experiences on the left.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 04:07

it may not be your desire to be isolated, but then it is necessary to have a conception, a strategy, for getting out of isolation. most social anarchist groups in the USA are very new. except for WSA they've all been created in the past decade, and WSA has been completely rebuilt in the last few years, so it's largely new too, in terms of people. just saying you want more insurrecto groups isn't the same thing as having mass influence, which is what libertarian socialism needs to acheive.

now, our strategy is to be active within mass organizations and to help build mass organizations/struggles, such as building a tenants union, or organizing a grassroots union in an industry where one works, or developing an opposition group in a union to press for more worker control, more collective action, etc.

bcbm

19th March 2010, 19:24

it may not be your desire to be isolated, but then it is necessary to have a conception, a strategy, for getting out of isolation. most social anarchist groups in the USA are very new.

most insurrectionist "groups" are just as new, and are working out strategies to get out of isolation. i mean, what you said here:

Part of that capacity is developing more widespread involvement in struggle, developing skills and confidence from winning and from the experience of running your own organizations, and also from organized efforts at popular education and building skills to organize in rank and file working people. Now, all of this comes through mass organizing and mass struggles, and also thru the work of revolutionary organizations (as far as popular education etc.).

isn't so different from what the insurrectionists are doing, they are simply doing it without formal organizations.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 20:12

Part of that capacity is developing more widespread involvement me:
in struggle, developing skills and confidence from winning and from the experience of running your own organizations, and also from organized efforts at popular education and building skills to organize in rank and file working people. Now, all of this comes through mass organizing and mass struggles, and also thru the work of revolutionary organizations (as far as popular education etc.).
you:

Part of that capacity is developing more widespread involvement in struggle, developing skills and confidence from winning and from the experience of running your own organizations, and also from organized efforts at popular education and building skills to organize in rank and file working people. Now, all of this comes through mass organizing and mass struggles, and also thru the work of revolutionary organizations (as far as popular education etc.). isn't so different from what the insurrectionists are doing, they are simply doing it without formal organizations.

I was talking about developing the knowledge and skills and participation of ordinary working class folks. I wasn't talking only about internal education among an isolated, already radicalized and very small minority. The way we propose to do this is through our involvement in mass social organizations and mass organization building, as with building rank and file workplace groups and grassroots forms of unionism, or grassroots organizations in communities, such as tenant unions. And through organizing things like a Work People's College that ordinary working people can attend. This kind of organizing puts us in regular contact with people who are likely to not already accept our revolutionary ideas. So, how do you propose to do this?

Devrim

19th March 2010, 20:28

Could an admin split this, please?
Devrim

Devrim

19th March 2010, 20:37

Devrim, my experience in Israel is that the CP had a pretty impressive presence in the Palestinian working class, and still has some today,

The CPs have always had a very proletarian base in most countries, Spain being one of the few exceptions. Incidentally Marc Chirik, who was a founding member of the ICC, was also a founding member of the Communist Party of Palestine.

The Anarchists, on the other hand, are always middle class people.

I don't think there are any anarchist groups in Israel are there? I have heard of a single issue campaign group called 'Anarchists against the Wall', but it is not a political organisation.

The point is, these things change from place to place, even in the same country. It seems you're trying to bend the stick too far the other way, claiming that anarchism is more proletarian than Trotskyism, which frankly, isn't going that well.

These things do vary from country to country, but from my experience and observations across Europe and the Middle East, it is generally true, and obviously so.

Devrim

Devrim

19th March 2010, 20:54

It would be interesting to see your evidence for this. This somewhat chimes with my experience in the Party, although it's not the trend that has most impressed itself upon me. If anything, the thing that has struck me is that the Party is become more and more female. And more racially diverse. Although perhaps that is a function of your thesis about its large student composition.

I have no evidence at all. It is just the general impression I get when I visit the UK, and what people tell me. Also, I am looking back and comparing to the 80s, so while you talk about the change you have experienced. I am looking at a much longer period. I suppose it is a bit like when you don't see your cousins kids for a long time and it is really obvious that they have grown.

Although, I think you're missing an important point if you're trying to think about class composition in the context of contemporary Britain. That is, about half of young people in Britain are 'students' at one point.

Yes, access to higher education has massively increased internationally. If you talk about the leadership of the SWP though this doesn't really apply to them. When I was university age accses to further education was much more restricted. I didn't go. In fact nobody of my generation in my family went, though I now have nephews at university. The leadership of the SWP seems to be a little older than me; i.e. they were at university when it was a sign of real privilege.

That is, about half of young people in Britain are 'students' at one point. It is therefore a mathematical certainty that a large section, even a majority, of students at British universities today have working class or lower middle class backgrounds.

But if about half of people go to university that means that over half of the working class doesn't as obviously the upper and 'middle' classes are overrepresented. Look at your SWP branch and I would be really surprised if a majority didn't have degrees or weren't students. Then consider that university access has really changed, and some of the people in your branch must be older; i.e. went to university at a time when it wasn't that common.

Devrim

syndicat

19th March 2010, 21:05

College access is also something that would vary. in USA there are class differences about where people who go to college attend, and also whether they get 4 year degrees. Working class students are more likely to go to 2 year community colleges (which have programs for variouos skilled working class jobs) and a lot less likely to get a 4 year or higher degree. Children of the dominating classes are more likely to go to elite private 4 year colleges and high-end public universities. in fact well performing working class high school students often don't even go to community college.

For one thing, tuition prices have escalated very rapidly, and available scholarship funds have shrunk. Since Clinton era, most federal student aid goes to socalled "merit" scholarships which are based on test scores. And performance on standardized tests like SAT is notoriously class (and partially also race) biased. So "merit" scholarships go to the children of the affluent.

Impressions about the recent student protests, however, suggest the protestors are drawn more from the working class students, more seriously impacted by fee increases.

so even if a left organization recruits from students, it may be recruiting among working class students. WSA student members are of working class background, for example.

bcbm

19th March 2010, 21:48

I was talking about developing the knowledge and skills and participation of ordinary working class folks. I wasn't talking only about internal education among an isolated, already radicalized and very small minority.

neither was i, though i don't really view people as either "radical" or "ordinary."

So, how do you propose to do this?

talking to friends, coworkers and neighbors and figuring out how to build a material base for ourselves. paying attention to what is happening around us and looking for cracks we can exploit and break open. just because we're not building a formal organization and trying to attract members doesn't mean we aren't getting organized. we're just experimenting with other methods.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 22:01

i don't really view people as either "radical" or "ordinary."

the difference in political ambition and mindset and willingness to fight isn't going to go away because you choose to ignore it. in fact, ignoring it tends to mean, in practice, that anarchists relate mainly to other anarchists or people in activities of the already radicalized such as protest actions.

talking to friends, coworkers and neighbors and figuring out how to build a material base for ourselves. paying attention to what is happening around us and looking for cracks we can exploit and break open. just because we're not building a formal organization and trying to attract members doesn't mean we aren't getting organized. we're just experimenting with other methods.

yeah but notice that when you say "getting organized" you seem to be talking about yourselves, people who are fellow radicals. there's nothing here in what you say that addresses the huge task that faces us.

the mass of oppressed and exploited are millions, they are the majority of the society. they can only liberate themselves. how do they become active, acquire skills to organize others, acquire a sense of confidence in their abilities to change things, how do they acquire a more ambitious conception of change to seek? you don't really answer these questions, but they are absolutely fundamental.

bcbm

19th March 2010, 22:27

the difference in political ambition and mindset and willingness to fight isn't going to go away because you choose to ignore it. in fact, ignoring it tends to mean, in practice, that anarchists relate mainly to other anarchists or people in activities of the already radicalized such as protest actions.

i'm not ignoring it, but i don't think the categories you are using are as black and white as you imagine.

yeah but notice that when you say "getting organized" you seem to be talking about yourselves, people who are fellow radicals.

no, you're just imagining that is what i am talking about because it fits your already existing conception. or do you really believe all of my friends, coworkers and neighbors are "fellow radicals?"

the mass of oppressed and exploited are millions, they are the majority of the society. they can only liberate themselves. how do they become active, acquire skills to organize others, acquire a sense of confidence in their abilities to change things, how do they acquire a more ambitious conception of change to seek? you don't really answer these questions, but they are absolutely fundamental.

myself and most of the people i know are among those millions and we are trying to liberate ourselves by getting to know our community and starting to pursue a path out of capitalism. i think an early step in this is to establish a material base within our communities based around mutual aid. it's in the process of creating and expanding this that we (myself, "ordinary" people and "fellow radicals) will learn the skills and confidence we need to push further.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 23:36

me:

the difference in political ambition and mindset and willingness to fight isn't going to go away because you choose to ignore it. in fact, ignoring it tends to mean, in practice, that anarchists relate mainly to other anarchists or people in activities of the already radicalized such as protest actions.
you:

but i don't think the categories you are using are as black and white as you imagine.

The point is that they exist and are significant. As I said, it's necessary to address the question of class formation. How does the huge and heterogeneous working class develop increasingly a willingness to fight, confidence to do so, confidence in the ability to run their own organizations, develop fuller understanding of the system and a deeper ambition about the changes they want?

Right now a major problem with the American working class is its passivity. There haven't been riots and big strikes lately despite the unprecedented economic crisis and austerity.

Within working class communities there is a minority who are more active, engage in organizing, have ideas about ways forward. This layer is what both anarchists and Leninists call the "vanguard." Right now people in this layer often have merely liberal or reform oriented ideas, or still look to the Democrats. So how do we expand the numbers of people who are active, create new rank and file activists and organizers? How do people move to a more ambitious idea of the change they seek?

I believe this happens only through struggle, through more large scale participation, because power lies in numbers and through seeing gains being won, people gain more confidence. This is part of the process of class formation.

But you say syndicalism is "obsolete". So you write off the possibility of workplace resistance and struggle. How, then, are we ever to create an economy based on worker self-management?
me:

yeah but notice that when you say "getting organized" you seem to be talking about yourselves, people who are fellow radicals.
you:

no, you're just imagining that is what i am talking about because it fits your already existing conception. or do you really believe all of my friends, coworkers and neighbors are "fellow radicals?"

Unless you say how you're proposing to relate to people outside the radicalized minority and get them involved, I don't know if you do have any strategy for that.

myself and most of the people i know are among those millions and we are trying to liberate ourselves by getting to know our community and starting to pursue a path out of capitalism. i think an early step in this is to establish a material base within our communities based around mutual aid. it's in the process of creating and expanding this that we (myself, "ordinary" people and "fellow radicals) will learn the skills and confidence we need to push further.

well, I'm not sure what you mean by "mutual aid." Mutual aid between who and who? mutual aid in what form?

The Douche

19th March 2010, 23:50

RaÃºl Duke

19th March 2010, 23:50

College access is also something that would vary. in USA there are class differences about where people who go to college attend, and also whether they get 4 year degrees. Working class students are more likely to go to 2 year community colleges (which have programs for variouos skilled working class jobs) and a lot less likely to get a 4 year or higher degree. Children of the dominating classes are more likely to go to elite private 4 year colleges and high-end public universities. in fact well performing working class high school students often don't even go to community college.In my opinion, I put the working class both at Community College and, depending on costs, even in public 4 year university (although even in a public university I've met quite well-off people; also while community college is usually seen for the poor a few relatively well-off people have gone...at least in the case of Miami). Wealthy people to me seem to come from private universities. Outside of specific ideological organization, when I went to the last SFA (the student group associated with CIW) conference it had way too many people from private universities...(although I heard that the one before was different, the issue was that SFA wanted to attracted some environmentalists into the group by convincing them that workers are part of the whole sustainability thing).

syndicat

20th March 2010, 00:04

You think syndicalism is the only possible way to bring about revolution?

Syndicalism is necessary but not sufficient. there are various sites of class struggle, for example, a fight against a landlord, or a struggle of a public transit riders union, are class struggles, as is a fight of an environmental justice group in a community of color, such as against pollution by oil refineries or a proposal for a nearby waste incinerator.

Also, gender and race are also forms of oppression, and these intersect in the lives of working class people, both on the job and off the job. Police brutality in a community of color is also a working class issue.

But from my point of view what is critical is mass struggle and mass social movements & organizations that emerge in these various areas of struggle, and the development of greater class unity. There can't be class unity unless the ways that the various groups within the working class are oppressed are dealt with. There need to be venues where people from different backgrounds can come together, have a respectful diallogue, and understand each other better. Thus worker mass organization needs to also reflect the concerns of women, working class people of color, working class queer folk, etc.

A revolution can only happen through a broad social alliance of social movement mass organizations, including mass worker organizations. So the development of mass grassroots solidarity unionism is a part -- an essential part -- of the overall working class-based social alliance needed for a libertarian revolution to be feasible.

Wolf Larson

20th March 2010, 01:45

People should actually understand anarchism before trying to criticize it. Don't just regurgitate Marx and Lenin's slander which was written down out of anger at anarchists for not playing along with the hierarchical bullshit. In reality much of what Bakunin said was spot on. History has shown us who was right. Having that said Marx and Engels were geniuses and in their time had no equals. Marx's critique of capitalism was a game changer- the plan of action is where anarchists and Marxists differ. And Lenin did in fact veer away from some of what Marx envisioned and proved Bakunin right. Anytime Marxists pull that lumpenproletariat bullshit I know immediately they're Leninists. Other more libertarian Marxists are indeed correct to throw around the other label in regards to Proudhon spewing petty bourgeois ideology. I reject much of Proudhons ideas but am aware he was an important part in the formation of modern anarchism. Proudhon wasn't necessarily an anarchist himself. Sooo I can ignore the petty bourgeois slander at times as there was truth to that in regards to Proudhon but the lumpenproletariat slander would probably warrant a broken jaw if we were in the same room. Or a laugh at your expense depending on my mood. Online I'd be forced to have you prove your point by focusing on anarchist philosophy. Something I'm sure anyone who throws around that label knows nothing about. It was simply slander born out of the anger Marx was feeling at the time. It was based in frustration not facts.

bcbm

20th March 2010, 21:33

But you say syndicalism is "obsolete". So you write off the possibility of workplace resistance and struggle. How, then, are we ever to create an economy based on worker self-management?

i never said syndicalism is obsolete, nor do i write off any possibilities. i support syndicalists in doing what they're doing, platformists in their projects and the insurrectionaries as well. i think anarchists approaching the struggle for communism from a variety of angles and strategies is a good thing.

Unless you say how you're proposing to relate to people outside the radicalized minority and get them involved, I don't know if you do have any strategy for that.

i've already said how- by talking to them. most people i interact with are not part of any radicalized minority.

well, I'm not sure what you mean by "mutual aid." Mutual aid between who and who? mutual aid in what form?

i mean mutual aid in the sense most anarchists use it. mutual aid between community members- the friends, neighbors and coworkers i mentioned earlier. i think it can take a number of forms, material, physical and emotional support.

syndicat

21st March 2010, 00:42

bcbm

21st March 2010, 00:56

I talk to my neighbors and the store clerks all the time. that's not assisting in orgainzing people into movements and struggles or particpating in struggles with coworkers, neighbors etc. But change in consciousness comes only through participation in struggle.

are you being purposefully obtuse? i'm not talking about some small talk with people i bump into on the street.

myself and most of the people i know are among those millions and we are trying to liberate ourselves by getting to know our community and starting to pursue a path out of capitalism. i think an early step in this is to establish a material base within our communities based around mutual aid. it's in the process of creating and expanding this that we (myself, "ordinary" people and "fellow radicals) will learn the skills and confidence we need to push further.

syndicat

21st March 2010, 03:47

are you being purposefully obtuse? i'm not talking about some small talk with people i bump into on the street.

i'm not a mind reader. "talking" doesn't tell us much of anything. you've not mentioned any mass struggle or mass organizing or mass organization participation and/or development that you support, are engaged in or favor, or that other insurrectos do. nor have I seen them talk about this.

bcbm

21st March 2010, 18:15

i'm not a mind reader. "talking" doesn't tell us much of anything. you've not mentioned any mass struggle or mass organizing or mass organization participation and/or development that you support, are engaged in or favor, or that other insurrectos do. nor have I seen them talk about this.

i think working to establish concrete projects with others in the community to develop a material base is a pretty substantial undertaking. simultaneously, but especially once that has been established, i think we can open up and support ever increasing fronts- workplace struggles, tenant struggles, and so on.

syndicat

21st March 2010, 19:01

i think working to establish concrete projects with others in the community to develop a material base is a pretty substantial undertaking.

what does "material base" mean here? also, who are these "others"? on what basis are they assembled?

as I see it, what needs to happen is that libertarian socialists need to sink roots in workplaces and particular working class communities, and be involved in creating or working within unions and tenant organizations and environmental justice organizations and other organizations of struggle. through one's participation and developing influence, and being a voice for rank and file control and militancy, we can develop a social base for our ideas.

as to what you mean by a "material base," i'm mystified.

bcbm

21st March 2010, 19:08

what does "material base" mean here?

overlapping networks of shared material support- food, transportation, child care, skilled trades, that sort of thing.

also, who are these "others"?

are you sure you aren't being purposefully obtuse?

on what basis are they assembled?

as working people struggling to improve our material conditions.

as I see it, what needs to happen is that libertarian socialists need to sink roots in workplaces and particular working class communities, and be involved in creating or working within unions and tenant organizations and environmental justice organizations and other organizations of struggle. through one's participation and developing influence, and being a voice for rank and file control and militancy, we can develop a social base for our ideas.

cool, go for it.

syndicat

21st March 2010, 19:51

overlapping networks of shared material support- food, transportation, child care, skilled trades, that sort of thing.

uh, is this another way of saying that you're looking for a job? does "material base" mean "finding a way to make a living"?

It's of course true that all working class people are all the time trying to do these things, that is, to survive, get around, raise their kids. but doing that is not building a revolutionary movement or a movement of resistance to the domination and exploitation by capital & the state.

I've tried to figure out what you, as an "insurrectionary anarchist", propose to do to build a movement of resistance among the oppressed and exploited, and it's been like pulling teeth to get anything out of you.

bcbm

21st March 2010, 20:39

uh, is this another way of saying that you're looking for a job? does "material base" mean "finding a way to make a living"?

if you don't understand what i mean, you could just ask.

It's of course true that all working class people are all the time trying to do these things, that is, to survive, get around, raise their kids. but doing that is not building a revolutionary movement or a movement of resistance to the domination and exploitation by capital & the state.yes, but these things are typically done in some sort of isolation. what i am talking about is communizing resources and supporting each other directly through mutual aid. this improves the quality of all of our lives and provides one collective point of organization from which, i think, we can begin to pursue other collective projects and struggles.

I've tried to figure out what you, as an "insurrectionary anarchist", propose to do to build a movement of resistance among the oppressed and exploited,i appreciate the insurrectionary anarchist (why the quotation marks?) perspective, but i don't identify as one.

and it's been like pulling teeth to get anything out of you. i'm sorry you don't seem to understand what i am saying, but i've been completely up front and open with my explanations, even when you seem to be not following the conversation at all. hardly "pulling teeth."

syndicat

21st March 2010, 20:58

yes, but these things are typically done in some sort of isolation. what i am talking about is communizing resources and supporting each other directly through mutual aid. this improves the quality of all of our lives and provides one collective point of organization from which, i think, we can begin to pursue other collective projects and struggles.

I still don't understand what you have in mind or how exactly this is relevant to developing mass resistance and self-organization, a working class counter-power to the system.

The society is not going to transformed by forming living collectives or cooperatives, if that's what you mean. These are destined to apply only to a small minority of the population.

Your statements are extremely vague. that's why it is hard to figure out what you have in mind.

bcbm

22nd March 2010, 19:11

I still don't understand what you have in mind or how exactly this is relevant to developing mass resistance and self-organization, a working class counter-power to the system.

what i am talking about is self-organization undertaken by workers and their allies in a community context where instead of organizing a union or whatever, we're organizing a means to improve our material conditions by pooling our resources. this helps mass resistance by helping us learn how to act collectively as a community and truly support each other, establish a (however small) counter-structure to capital's domination and provide a working model that can be easily spread. i think learning to support each other is especially important because this will be the basis for other struggles- in the workplace, against landlords, against development projects, in defending what we've constructed.

syndicat

22nd March 2010, 19:38

again, your language is vague so I don't really know exactly what you have in mind. worker cooperatives are an extremely small part of the workforce and destined to remain so. so few workers will have that experience. not sure what else you might be talking about.

counter-power means an organization that is directed against, or challenges, those who have power over us in some way, such as a tenants organization, a union, struggles of enviro justice groups against pollution, a public transit riders group fighting the government agency that runs it, things like that.

bcbm

22nd March 2010, 19:58

i'm not talking about starting a business. i don't even know how you could get that impression. i am talking about building a community based on mutual aid. i don't know how to make this any clearer.

counter-power means an organization that is directed against, or challenges, those who have power over us in some way, such as a tenants organization, a union, struggles of enviro justice groups against pollution, a public transit riders group fighting the government agency that runs it, things like that.

building a community of people who support each other and can therefore challenge landlords, bosses, etc, etc sounds about right.

syndicat

22nd March 2010, 20:01

bcbm

22nd March 2010, 20:47

i've been saying exactly what i am proposing for two pages.

Ravachol

22nd March 2010, 21:15

overlapping networks of shared material support- food, transportation, child care, skilled trades, that sort of thing.

uh, is this another way of saying that you're looking for a job? does "material base" mean "finding a way to make a living"?

What I think bcbm is referring to might bear some resemblance to modern-day Bourse du Travail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourse_du_Travail), which had deep roots in Syndicalism.

Given that the "will to revolution" arises from material conditions and we form our subjectivities and attachment to revolutionary practice through struggle in a communal sense, 'material bases' providing material needs to the working class might be the seeds of the Syndicalist notion of a 'new society in the shell of the old'.

I think, as I've stated earlier in the Nihilist Communism group, this is pretty close to Autonomist Marxism as well, where the working class, through struggling for it's autonomy and improving it's material conditions outside and against capital's continued assaults, develops it's own organisations which serve the dual purpose of weakening capital's hold over the working class through it's institutions and binding the working class to a pro-revolutionary mass movement.

I think this ties in perfectly with the Syndicalist community-organizing practices of old.

syndicat

22nd March 2010, 21:18

i've been saying exactly what i am proposing for two pages.

for two pages you've slithered around, refusing to specify anything that you advocate or would organize for. meanwhile, I've mentioned a large variety of potential concrete organizing and areas of struggle. work place organizing, tenant organizing, enviro justice organizing, workers centers that fight cases of wage theft and the like.

if you want to develop alternative institutions, there are a variety of options here,too, such as building worker cooperatives. for the past 9 years I've been building and working in a community land trust, which organizes with tenants to convert apartment buildings to cooperatives, to ensure affordability of housing.

these things I've listed are all examples of being concrete about what one has in mind. this is what you've refused to do. you've refused to mention anything concrete.

for all too many American "anarchists" their "stance" is just to be part of some scene or subculture. this won't change jack shit.

bcbm

22nd March 2010, 21:37

for two pages you've slithered around, refusing to specify anything that you advocate or would organize for.

i get the impression that you have been assuming the worst about my intentions and what i am trying to say from the beginning of this conversation, which isn't really doing anything for it. like i said, if you don't understand what i am saying, try asking some specific clarifying questions, there's no need to be hostile.

if you want to develop alternative institutions, there are a variety of options here,too, such as building worker cooperatives.

when you thought i was talking about worker cooperatives two posts ago you seemed pretty dismissive of the idea.

these things I've listed are all examples of being concrete about what one has in mind. this is what you've refused to do. you've refused to mention anything concrete.

refusal would imply a conscious decision to not talk about anything "concrete," which is not the case at all. i thought i was being concrete, but apparently not enough.

what i am talking about is working people struggling to support themselves pooling their resources for the benefit of all involved. for instance, some might have gardens or access to land or animal products, others might know a skilled trade like plumbing or carpentry or some form of vehicle repair, there might be doctors or dentists, some people might have time to make available for child-care, etc. i'm interested in getting together with all these people and figuring out how we can support each other and, as ravachol nicely puts it, weaken capital's hold over us through its institutions. if we can figure out ways to begin supporting each other outside of capital (to whatever extent that is possible), i think we're staking a stronger position for ourselves and in the process of weakening one area of control we'll begin to look for more areas to attack and weaken, perhaps even through the creation of the organizations you mention.

for all too many American "anarchists" their "stance" is just to be part of some scene or subculture. this won't change jack shit.

who said it would?

syndicat

22nd March 2010, 23:53

i get the impression that you have been assuming the worst about my intentions and what i am trying to say from the beginning of this conversation, which isn't really doing anything for it.

nope. I just don't understand you.

what i am talking about is working people struggling to support themselves pooling their resources for the benefit of all involved. for instance, some might have gardens or access to land or animal products, others might know a skilled trade like plumbing or carpentry or some form of vehicle repair, there might be doctors or dentists, some people might have time to make available for child-care, etc. i'm interested in getting together with all these people and figuring out how we can support each other and, as ravachol nicely puts it, weaken capital's hold over us through its institutions. if we can figure out ways to begin supporting each other outside of capital (to whatever extent that is possible), i think we're staking a stronger position for ourselves and in the process of weakening one area of control we'll begin to look for more areas to attack and weaken, perhaps even through the creation of the organizations you mention.

are you talking about people doing work for others for free? do you expect a lot of that to occur? when do people have the time? and is this going to be purely private friendship networks or is it going to be something open and public? how is this supposed to be organized on a large scale? is this just among some already radicalized milieu?

moreover, I don't see what this has to do with changing the society or developing collective working class counterpower.

people do in fact arrange various forms of sharing when poverty forces them to. for example, when jobs are scarcer or rents are higher, people will share flats together. you seem to have the view that this needs to be organized by politically motivated people somwhow. I find this idea really puzzling. if you're engaged in this, it seems this would be only within your own social network...unless there is some sort of larger public organizing. and since these may be people who think like you, it seems to me this is likely to be some sort of isolated sub-cultural phenomenon.

More to the point, I don't see why you think this has to happen *before* we do actual mass organizing, such as workplace, tenant and other forms of organizing I mentioned. at what level of "resource sharing" do you start to do organizing? and how would you tell when the required level of resource sharing has occurred?

the reason I find this quite puzzling is that historically this is not the way social anarchists or libertarian socialists think of social change. historically it's always been a case of doing mass organizing. So we try to form workplace committees or build unions, or we try to organize people to fight the landlord, and so on.

Eastside Revolt

23rd March 2010, 02:00

i can't respond to either Leo or cmoney because their posts are basically assertions without argument.

As to what "anti-organizationalism" means, from the social anarchist point of view, I think I explained that. Lack of ongoing formal organization, no defined roles so people can't be held accountable, "tyranny of structurelessness", informal hierarchies, "consensus decision making" and other defects. This approach simply can't scale up to the kind of movement on a grand scale that is required to pose a serious challenge to the capitalist system.

It's an approach I can't take seriously for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons being that they have no concept whatsoever of class formation, of how the mass of the oppressed and exploited move from being, as Marx said, a "class in itself" to being a "class for itself," that is, a class with the mindset and skills and organizational capacity to fundamentally challenge the dominating classes. Hence their lack of orientation to mass organization building, lack of appreciation for rootedness in mass social movements and their organizations.

If you look at writings of anarchists in the classical period, you can find both socialist and individualist statements. Anarchism, considered as a whole, contains inconsistencies within it. Since the world war 1 era, I think there has been an evolution in the thinking of various libertarian socialists towards being clearer about things like the need for a disciplined revolutionary organization and for the aim of a libertarian socialist revolution to be the construction of popoular power, a form of governance, to replace the state. A continuing theme, however, continues to be the emphasis on the mass self-managed organizations. If the liberation of the oppressed & exploited is the work of the oppressed themselves, then it is through the development of their social counterpower that they develop the capacity to do this. In more recent decades the emphasis has been not only on the workplace organizations, but also on various kinds of community organizations and sites of struggle as well. Class/mass struggle takes place against employers but outside the workplace as well.

"social anarchism" or "class struggle anarchism" or "libertarian socialism" are phrases by which the advocates of organizational mass struggle-oriented social anarchism try to differentiate themselves from the disfunctional elements of the anarchist milieu.

In a world with diverse needs and experiences of oppression, one can’t simply theorize and organize a “movment on a grand scale”.
This “classical social anarchism” you describe, lacks the fluidity that is required to include anti-colonial, and anti-patriarchal elements of the struggle. We steer clear of mass organization because it has shown itself time and time again as a means by which our struggles can be co-opted and sold out. Organizations work best when they serve a particular purpose, and deal with particular issues that affect their membership. Long standing institutions have a way of becoming disconnected from emerging struggles, far more disconnected than the “anti-organizational” elements you speak of.
If the struggle for anarchy, or libertarian communism is one that intends to abolish domination, and exploitation in all it’s potential forms, then it is not the skill, and mindset we lack, but the empowerment. We do not intend to “organize” a movment that replaces the machanisms of the state, and the capitalist modes of production, we wish to destroy them and create something entirely diifferent.
“Informal hierarchies” happen just as easilly in highly structured, and organized environments. The problem there is that they are much more difficult to remove, privelidge can’t be dealt with in a sterrile environment lacking the personal bonds that are required to counter the dominant patterns in a persons behavior.

syndicat

23rd March 2010, 02:37

This “classical social anarchism” you describe, lacks the fluidity that is required to include anti-colonial, and anti-patriarchal elements of the struggle.

maybe, maybe not. but libertarian socialism is a political tendency that has developed over time. the left in general back in the late 1800s didn't yet have an adequate grasp of either structural gender inequality or structural racism. it's taken some time to develop a better understanding, mainly through the activism and struggles of those affected by these forms of oppression. the more recent development of intersectional analysis, originally developed by black socialist-feminists, has influenced libertarian socialism/social anarchism. libertarian socialism isn't class reductionist, but recognizes the various oppressions that apply to groups who make up the working class -- women, queer folk, various communities of color, oppressed nationalities. but it isn't possible for capitalism to be overthrown without the coming together, the developing of active alliances of the social movements of the oppressed, into a working class based alliance that can fundamentally challenge the dominating classes and their institutions.

If the struggle for anarchy, or libertarian communism is one that intends to abolish domination, and exploitation in all it’s potential forms, then it is not the skill, and mindset we lack, but the empowerment. We do not intend to “organize” a movment that replaces the machanisms of the state, and the capitalist modes of production, we wish to destroy them and create something entirely diifferent.

Your statement is self-contradictory. You say that skill and mindset is not what we lack but empowerment. But empowerment presupposes the development of the capacity for liberation. And that is precisely the relevant skills and mindsets. You say that you wish to "create something entirerly different" than the state and capitalist modes of production but then say you're not for a movment that replaces them...a direct self-contradiction.

Informal hierarchies can only be avoided when people who do tasks for us within the movement are elected, given mandates, and kept accountable. We need to explicitly work to develop skills and knowledge in as many of the rank and file of the oppressed as we can. Informal hierarchies develop when people who have certain bits of skill or knowledge or charisma or whatever use that as a lever to enhance their own influence.

black magick hustla

23rd March 2010, 02:52

i think syndicalism today is kindof of a dead-end. i mean, "syndicalist" groups are too small to be considered unions, so they seem to me they are just leftist "parties".

i think syndicalists should stop worrying about building mass unions until there seems to be a general feeling that this is a wortwhile avenue. i mean, the only "mass" anarchosyndicalist orgs are spanish ones, and the only reason is because they splitted from gigantic ones.

syndicat

23rd March 2010, 04:31

i think syndicalism today is kindof of a dead-end. i mean, "syndicalist" groups are too small to be considered unions, so they seem to me they are just leftist "parties".

There are different interpretations of what syndicalism is. I'll explain the way Workers Solidarity Alliance views it. Libertarian syndicalism is a strategy for anti-capitalist revolution, based on the idea that the working class can only libertate itself through its own efforts, so it needs its own mass movment that it controls. Nowadays, being intersectional (i.e. seeing groups in the working class being at the intersection of various forms of oppression), we see grassroots workplace organization as a part of a larger social movement alliance based on the working class that would be needed to be able to challenge the dominating classes for control.

The development of class solidarity in practice, and of grassroots forms of workplace organization that workers control, are part of the process of the working class developing the capacity to free itself. This would mean that there would need to come into existence grassroots worker organization on a large scale, linked into an alliance.

We don't think it is feasible to form "the" organization that would be the means to emancipation at present. This develops as class formation develops. But there are ways to work at this at present, that is, to develop more direct, organized forms of struggle...such as grassroots worker-controlled "solidarity unionism", independent "militant minority" groupings in contexts where the bureaucratic unions are in place, grassroots worker centers.

i think syndicalists should stop worrying about building mass unions until there seems to be a general feeling that this is a wortwhile avenue. i mean, the only "mass" anarchosyndicalist orgs are spanish ones, and the only reason is because they splitted from gigantic ones.

Workers need to organize themselves in order bring to bear the force of numbers against the dominating classes. As part of the process of class formation, building mass organizations workers control is part of the process whereby workers gain confidence in their ability to run organizations themselves. A revolution will never happen spontaneously. There has to be a process of development of capacities, skills, knowledge, confidence and a mindset favoring more ambitious change, and a willingness to fight. And developing organizations workers control now contributes to that process.

at the same time, we also think libertarian socialists need to develop a horizontally disciplined revolutionary organization, and try to sink roots in workplaces and community struggles, as part of this process of encouraging effective and worker-controlled mass organization.

We don't advocate forming tiny, highly ideologized "unions" that have no actual union reality.

Eastside Revolt

23rd March 2010, 06:13

Your statement is self-contradictory. You say that skill and mindset is not what we lack but empowerment. But empowerment presupposes the development of the capacity for liberation. And that is precisely the relevant skills and mindsets. You say that you wish to "create something entirerly different" than the state and capitalist modes of production but then say you're not for a movment that replaces them...a direct self-contradiction.

The definition of empowerment is one thing we dissagree on. Empowerment in my mind, is the realization that we can attack the system. Empowerment is not building the organizational skill to be slaves to a different sort of planned economy. We intend to create something entirely different from the state, as in, no more beauracracies to decide for us, whats best for us. We also intend to create something entirely different from the current capitalist modes of production, as in, no more massive resourse extractrion, to be used for consumption and the continuation of production. No more destruction of the land. No more destruction of our relationships through economic circumstance.

Which brings me to the other point about fluidity. How do you expect to have the fluidity required to include those who's survival and way of life are not based in industrial production, when you whole idea around empowerment is one that simply mimics the current industrial forms of porduction?

Rhetoric under the banner of an organization can be very fluid, just look at liberal politics, but that doesn't change the day to day realities of assimilation, patriarchy, and genocide.

black magick hustla

23rd March 2010, 06:27

There are different interpretations of what syndicalism is. I'll explain the way Workers Solidarity Alliance views it. Libertarian syndicalism is a strategy for anti-capitalist revolution, based on the idea that the working class can only libertate itself through its own efforts, so it needs its own mass movment that it controls. Nowadays, being intersectional (i.e. seeing groups in the working class being at the intersection of various forms of oppression), we see grassroots workplace organization as a part of a larger social movement alliance based on the working class that would be needed to be able to challenge the dominating classes for control.

The development of class solidarity in practice, and of grassroots forms of workplace organization that workers control, are part of the process of the working class developing the capacity to free itself. This would mean that there would need to come into existence grassroots worker organization on a large scale, linked into an alliance.

We don't think it is feasible to form "the" organization that would be the means to emancipation at present. This develops as class formation develops. But there are ways to work at this at present, that is, to develop more direct, organized forms of struggle...such as grassroots worker-controlled "solidarity unionism", independent "militant minority" groupings in contexts where the bureaucratic unions are in place, grassroots worker centers.

I think the problem arises in that you think today there can be such thing as a worker's union. I don't think this is the case. The IWW, for example, is a leftist organization and the few times it acts as a union, it does exactly the same thing as any other yellow unions.

Workers need to organize themselves in order bring to bear the force of numbers against the dominating classes. As part of the process of class formation, building mass organizations workers control is part of the process whereby workers gain confidence in their ability to run organizations themselves. A revolution will never happen spontaneously. There has to be a process of development of capacities, skills, knowledge, confidence and a mindset favoring more ambitious change, and a willingness to fight. And developing organizations workers control now contributes to that process.

This is not done by a few anarchist militants though. THe working class is capable of organizing itself, as shown in history. Whether through mass assemblies, or soviets. What you are proposing is the old 19th century model of mass social democratic parties, which had their own schools, their own unions, etcetera. I don't think this is possible any more, as all massive organizations are integrated to the state.

at the same time, we also think libertarian socialists need to develop a horizontally disciplined revolutionary organization, and try to sink roots in workplaces and community struggles, as part of this process of encouraging effective and worker-controlled mass organization.

We don't advocate forming tiny, highly ideologized "unions" that have no actual union reality.
I think this is better.

syndicat

23rd March 2010, 07:28

I think the problem arises in that you think today there can be such thing as a worker's union. I don't think this is the case. The IWW, for example, is a leftist organization and the few times it acts as a union, it does exactly the same thing as any other yellow unions.

This point of view is completely defeatist. It's an example of why I'm not a left-communist. Class formation is a protracted process, and creation of worker mass organizations and their struggles are part of this process.

This is not done by a few anarchist militants though. THe working class is capable of organizing itself, as shown in history. Whether through mass assemblies, or soviets. What you are proposing is the old 19th century model of mass social democratic parties, which had their own schools, their own unions, etcetera. I don't think this is possible any more, as all massive organizations are integrated to the state.

No. We're not proposing a political party. You're quite confused. We do propose working people's schools, an organized means of transmission of history and learning about how to organize, development of needed skills. The working class doesn't acquire capacity in a purely spontaneous fashion.

The Douche

23rd March 2010, 13:03

This point of view is completely defeatist. It's an example of why I'm not a left-communist. Class formation is a protracted process, and creation of worker mass organizations and their struggles are part of this process.

The day to day function of a union is to fight for reforms and worker's rights under capitalism. So even if your union ultimately calls for the destruction of capitalism, its praxis is still to work with the capitalists. If the WSA organized shops it would still be fighting for better conditions/pay. Ultimately unions are reformist, even if they have revolutionary rhetoric and membership. This is undeniable because they do actually act to get reforms.

bricolage

23rd March 2010, 13:42

Is not the issue with unions that to become a union they have to ask within the confines of legality and the state, so even radical syndicalist union could not organise a sympathy strike as this is illegal. In contrast informal and decentralised workplace organisations are not bound by the laws of the state and can ask as it best for the workers interests. I think it is also unwise to understate the power of co-option, the CNT was anarcho as fuck and it joined the state, it's hard to see how acting with or within the state structure can aid its destruction. We need to be looking for beyond these established paradigms and asserting agency in less traditional means.

That being said unions are still a 'good' thing, they get gains for workers that would not exist without them and it's foolish to ignore them in their entirety. I suppose you need to be working within them to split them so as to engage others and at the same time seeking to build alternatives outside of them. This isn't a very original idea though.

black magick hustla

23rd March 2010, 15:09

No. We're not proposing a political party. You're quite confused. We do propose working people's schools, an organized means of transmission of history and learning about how to organize, development of needed skills. The working class doesn't acquire capacity in a purely spontaneous fashion.

I know what syndicalists think they propose. However, it is exactly what I said, mass social democratic parties. What is the difference?

syndicat

23rd March 2010, 18:29

The day to day function of a union is to fight for reforms and worker's rights under capitalism. So even if your union ultimately calls for the destruction of capitalism, its praxis is still to work with the capitalists. If the WSA organized shops it would still be fighting for better conditions/pay. Ultimately unions are reformist, even if they have revolutionary rhetoric and membership. This is undeniable because they do actually act to get reforms.

Again, a self-defeating point of view. People learn through becoming active and engaging in struggle. There will never be, and cannot be, a purely spontaneous revolution, because the working class has to develop its skills to run its own movement, its self-confidence, its belief in its ability to run things, its knowledge of the system, and developing critique of the system, and belief in an alternative. People are motivated to learn, and have the practical experience needed to learn, through doing, through participation in struggles.

But as this protracted process gets going the class does not already have a revolutionary consciousness or the other skills and mindset it needs to have the capacity to liberate itself. Where does this come from if not from the sort of protracted process I have just described?

Mass organizations and mass struggle are the field of struggle and school of hard knocks through which this transformation takes place.

Self-managed mass organizations are a bridge from the relatively conservative or undeveloped consciousness of today to the revolutionary consciousness of the future. Partly through the process I described above, but also because they provide a venue where revolutionaries, who have a more ambitious agenda for changing society, can connect to the grievances and situations of ordinary working class people, and develop also personal relationships with more people and act as a catalyst in the process described above.

the revolutionaries are also equally important, as they provide some of the class memory and provide an analysis and critique of the system, but they need a way to connect with broader members of the working class or else they are isolated and their knowledge is sterile. thus when you say:

This is undeniable because they do actually act to get reforms.

you condemn yourself to sterility and irrelevance.

WSA is not a union or mass organization in embryo but a revolutionary political organization. We believe there is a role for both kinds of organization, the mass organization and the revolutionary political minority. But it is thru the mass movement that the working class develops the capacity to liberate itself, it is not thru actions of radicalized minorities, which would be a substitutionist concept.

The process of class formation through mass struggle does evolve in the course of struggles over changes that are less than total. That is, it is a reforming practice, but not reformist. Whether an approach to fighting for reforms is reformist or not depends on the way this is carried out. If it is proposed to lobby politicians, or elect people to government office, or engage in narrow collective bargaining through paid union staffs separated from the rank and file, that is a reformist method, because it will not tend to have the effect on working class consciousness that is required for class formation.

syndicat

23rd March 2010, 18:35

Is not the issue with unions that to become a union they have to ask within the confines of legality and the state, so even radical syndicalist union could not organise a sympathy strike as this is illegal.

unions engage in illegal actions all the time. for example, when UE members in Chicago at Republic Doors & Windows locked themselves in and seized the workplace, this was an illegal action. the degree to which workers will engage in actions against the law will depend on their sense of what they can get away with, how much social power they have at that time, the general level of oppositional activity going on in society, and the degree of rank and file control in the union.

the bureaucracy in trade unions will tend to prevent such actions from occurring. so you're confusing a union -- a mass organization -- with a bureaucracy. typical ultra-left mistake. you make pronouncements of what is true for all time without taking into consideration the characteristics of the period or the particular balance of power or character of organizations.

in regard to the CNT, the proletarian revolution in Spain wouldn't have happened at all without decades of organizing through libertarian unionism. as to why the CNT ended up joining the Republican State, I've discussed this on several threads. this is one of those cases where the revolutionaries within the mass organization have certain responsibilities and things can depend on how they are organized or not. A traditional weakness of anarchism was not being clear enough about the need to consolidate a revolution through a unified social power of the working class. The so-called "anarcho-Bolsheviks" (as they were called by their anarchist opponents) in the CNT had a strategy for building direct worker power in society, replacing the state, but they didn't win out in the internal debates in the union federation.

bcbm

25th March 2010, 04:46

are you talking about people doing work for others for free?
no i am talking about people supporting each other.

do you expect a lot of that to occur?and you said you aren't assuming the worst?

when do people have the time?you believe people have enough time to form formal organizations and partake in them, but they don't have the time to experiment with mutual aid?

and is this going to be purely private friendship networks or is it going to be something open and public?everything for everyone.

how is this supposed to be organized on a large scale?i think it will start small and develop organically as it grows.

is this just among some already radicalized milieu?i've already answered this question.

moreover, I don't see what this has to do with changing the society or developing collective working class counterpower.by experimenting with this sort of support we can build a skeleton of a "new world in the shell of the old." it also strengthens bonds between working people who may not have otherwise interacted and allows us to expand the conversation on how to get out of capitalism, not to mention freeing up more time and other resources for projects beyond surviving.

people do in fact arrange various forms of sharing when poverty forces them to. for example, when jobs are scarcer or rents are higher, people will share flats together.yes, but this is on an extremely limited scale. i want to generalize that condition and see if we can't use it to our advantage.

you seem to have the view that this needs to be organized by politically motivated people somwhow. not really. most of the people i've been talking about organizing with aren't what i would describe as "politically motivated people."

I find this idea really puzzling. if you're engaged in this, it seems this would be only within your own social network...unless there is some sort of larger public organizing.my social network connects me to people who have their own social networks, who know people who have their own social networks... etc. i think there will be larger public organizing as well.

and since these may be people who think like you, it seems to me this is likely to be some sort of isolated sub-cultural phenomenon.i think i've addressed this.

More to the point, I don't see why you think this has to happen *before* we do actual mass organizing, such as workplace, tenant and other forms of organizing I mentioned.i don't. you can organize however you want, whenever you want. for me, i am more interested in this and would like to pursue it. and i believe i said somewhere those efforts could exist simultaneously.

the reason I find this quite puzzling is that historically this is not the way social anarchists or libertarian socialists think of social change. indeed.

Ramon Mercador

25th March 2010, 05:50

Anarchists are absolutely bourgeois and counterreovlutionary. However at least they are honest about this unlike Trotskyites who prentend to support Lenin.

Long live Stalin

PRC-UTE

25th March 2010, 08:19

I think that discussing the class composition of anarchism or Marxism or Trotskyism or Maoism is pretty irrelevant; it's usually a way for people to attack each others' tendencies without really addressing their ideas.

While I agree with the sentiment of the latter, I think the thinking in the former is a core problem with the far left, at least in the English speaking world. Demographics are pretty important at any time, and in revolutionary moments they are decisive.

Ravachol

25th March 2010, 12:22

An interesting article I stumbled upon recently relates quite well to this subject (http://www.anarchistischegroepnijmegen.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Love-and-Rage-Demise-of-the-Beehive-Collective-Infoshops-aint-the-revolution.pdf).

It's a small article on the Beehive collective and some thoughts about 'alternative instutitions'. Whilst I'm, as i've stated earlier, a fierce proponent of this model of 'bases of material support', the article notes, as do I, that without a dedicated revolutionary movement with clear revolutionary goals counter-institutions are easily co-opted by capital, either through the ever-present reproduction of it's logic or a simple lack of revolutionary goals.

As is the case with the mutualism, where co-ops start to develop highly capitalist traits and eventually degenerate into full-blown capitalism, many counter-institutions will do as well if they aren't put in a revolutionary context.
We must consider that any institution of the working class and any network of material support still operates inside capitalism. This means it will, to an extend, reproduce capital's logic. In order to prevent being infected by capital and rendered a harmless 'alternative', the counter-power institutions will have to minimise the reproduction of capital's logic and steer towards clear revolutionary goals.

This clearly resembles the syndicalist problem of a purely Syndicalist union without a revolutionary political movement/group to prevent a descend into reformism.

Material bases are, in my eyes, still crucial to the movement and ought to be the starting points of a new movement, seeds for revolutionary growth (not only in the sense of the accumulation of revolutionaries, but also in the sense of weakening capital's grip). As usual, a dual movement is needed here.

bricolage

25th March 2010, 15:59

unions engage in illegal actions all the time. for example, when UE members in Chicago at Republic Doors & Windows locked themselves in and seized the workplace, this was an illegal action.

Yes but isn’t that just union members engaging in illegal activity not the union. You say we can’t confuse the mass organisation with the bureaucracy but at the same time we can’t just say odd members here are the union either. For example I’m sure some Labour party members marched against the Iraq war but that doesn’t change the fact that the Labour party supported it. What you are talking about doesn’t need a union structure to take place and can just as easily, maybe more easily, take place without it. To the extent that we can talk about ‘the union’ it has to be of its unified voice and action, it just so happens such voice and action is more often than not hijacked by bureaucrats and opportunists and turned against the ordinary members.

syndicat

25th March 2010, 18:14

me:

do you expect a lot of that to occur.
you:

do you expect a lot of that to occur?
and you said you aren't assuming the worst?

It's not about people's motives. I'm pointing out that you're talking about forms of individual life-style (such as intentional communities) or organizing among a tiny radicalized subculture, or so it seems.

What I'm doubting is that large numbers of people will be involved or that it will have any effect.

You've still not clearly explained who exactly is supposed to be engaged in this "mutual aid," how it is organized or spread, or what sorts of activities you have in mind exactly.

The point to formal organizations of workers in workplaces or tenants and so on, is that they are a means to draw in people to participate as equals in a struggle. It's about the development of counter-power to employers, landlords, and so on.

[QUOTE]how is this supposed to be organized on a large scale?
you:

i think it will start small and develop organically as it grows.

you're evading the question again, as you've done for a long time now. i'm beginning to doubt you know what you're talking about. I want you to give concrete examples. Your language is too vague to know what you have in mind.

by experimenting with this sort of support we can build a skeleton of a "new world in the shell of the old." it also strengthens bonds between working people who may not have otherwise interacted and allows us to expand the conversation on how to get out of capitalism, not to mention freeing up more time and other resources for projects beyond surviving.

It won't be "building a new world in the shell of the old" if only a small minority is involved, and it won't be doing this if the organizations in question have no power to change the society. The slogan about "building the new society in the shell of the old" was coined by the IWW...in referring to grassroots solidarity unionism, as a means of wokring class counter-power to the employers, in the workplaces.

yes, but this is on an extremely limited scale. i want to generalize that condition and see if we can't use it to our advantage.

how?

The only way working class consciousness changes is if they have the experience of developing collective power, which comes from counter-power...collective activity and self-organization in struggle against the employers or landlords or others with power over us. From developing organizations such as grassroots unions or tenant unions people gain a sense of having some power to change things, and break through their passivity and fatalism.

"alternative instiutions" aren't a form of counter-power.

syndicat

25th March 2010, 18:22

Yes but isn’t that just union members engaging in illegal activity not the union.

No. it was the union. a video of the occupation shows the staff organizer there with the workers. it was supported by the union organization.

in a grassroots union there isn't the sort of differentiation between members and an isolated paid bureaucracy that exists in many unions.

You say we can’t confuse the mass organisation with the bureaucracy but at the same time we can’t just say odd members here are the union either. For example I’m sure some Labour party members marched against the Iraq war but that doesn’t change the fact that the Labour party supported it. What you are talking about doesn’t need a union structure to take place and can just as easily, maybe more easily, take place without it.

no it can't. if you think otherwise, you need to give examples. there are examples one could point to of workers engaged, for example, in local wildcat strikes that are not formally organized. I once participated in an action of this sort. but we were crushed...we were all fired. because of isolation, which is what happens in such cases.

To the extent that we can talk about ‘the union’ it has to be of its unified voice and action, it just so happens such voice and action is more often than not hijacked by bureaucrats and opportunists and turned against the ordinary members.

This is the voice of despair. the implication of your words is that a workers revolution is not possible. no such revolution could possibly occur as some spontaneious unorganized thing.

bcbm

25th March 2010, 21:09

I'm pointing out that you're talking about forms of individual life-style (such as intentional communities) or organizing among a tiny radicalized subculture, or so it seems.

yes, you've pointed that it seems that way to you in almost every post and in almost every post i have replied that i am not talking about that at all.

What I'm doubting is that large numbers of people will be involved or that it will have any effect.

this is always a possibility.

You've still not clearly explained who exactly is supposed to be engaged in this "mutual aid," how it is organized or spread, or what sorts of activities you have in mind exactly.

i've explained who is "supposed" to be engaged. i don't have a clear explanation of how it will be organized or spread yet, because these are just some ideas some of us are thinking and talking about and looking to move forward on in the near future.

you're evading the question again, as you've done for a long time now.

yes, i am sitting over here full of secret machinations to refuse and evade your questions. what a devil i am.

I want you to give concrete examples. Your language is too vague to know what you have in mind.

what's the point of imagining concrete examples of how this would be organized at a large scale when it currently doesn't exist on a small scale, but only as an idea for an experiment somewhere in the midwest? i prefer to take things one step at a time.

It won't be "building a new world in the shell of the old" if only a small minority is involved

the only one who talks about a "small minority" being the only people involved is you.

and it won't be doing this if the organizations in question have no power to change the society.

i think this project can offer some power by breaking the reproduction of capital in our everyday lives in minor ways- relying on each other, instead of on capitalist institutions.

how?

i think it will spread and generalize if it is successful as a conscious means to improve our immediate material conditions, rather than simply undertaken out of desperation.

The only way working class consciousness changes is if they have the experience of developing collective power, which comes from counter-power...collective activity and self-organization in struggle against the employers or landlords or others with power over us. From developing organizations such as grassroots unions or tenant unions people gain a sense of having some power to change things, and break through their passivity and fatalism.

"alternative instiutions" aren't a form of counter-power.

i think the construction of "alternative institutions," if that's what you want to call it, is a form of collective activity and self-organization in struggle. the struggle is against the social and material conditions imposed on us and their reproductive effect.

syndicat

25th March 2010, 22:40

what's the point of imagining concrete examples of how this would be organized at a large scale when it currently doesn't exist on a small scale, but only as an idea for an experiment somewhere in the midwest? i prefer to take things one step at a time.

that's fine. in that case you can describe the steps.

the only one who talks about a "small minority" being the only people involved is you.

apparently not as just above I quoted you as saying that it's just some small steps you have in mind at present. if you want to claim that it could be a mass phenomenon you're talking about, you need to explain what sort of activity this would be and how it could becoime a mass phenomenon.

i think this project can offer some power by breaking the reproduction of capital in our everyday lives in minor ways- relying on each other, instead of on capitalist institutions.

capital reproduces itself through the actual power that the dominating classes exert on the job and elsewhere, and the effects this has on the consciousness and circumsances of working class people. how would what you do challenge that? you're also not said what this "project" is.

i think it will spread and generalize if it is successful as a conscious means to improve our immediate material conditions, rather than simply undertaken out of desperation.

how? I keep asking you that question and you keep evading the question. when I say you are evading the question, I'm not saying you're a "devil" or are engaging in "secret machinations". Rather, I think a revolutionary point of view needs to be articulated and argued for...and this is what you are refusing to do.

i think the construction of "alternative institutions," if that's what you want to call it, is a form of collective activity and self-organization in struggle. the struggle is against the social and material conditions imposed on us and their reproductive effect.

Your language of "activity against the sociall and material conditions" is vague and ambiguous. we live in a society where the majority are subordinated by existing companies and state institutions. counter-power develops in direct struggles against these forms of power. Your vague talk about "activity against social and material conditions" doesn't cut it.

nuisance

26th March 2010, 00:34

Ever feel like you're hitting your head against a brick wall?

bcbm

26th March 2010, 02:18

that's fine. in that case you can describe the steps.

i think you really missed the point of what i was saying there. there are no steps, this isn't a five year plan. its something a number of us are talking about, here and elsewhere. it's a new project for us, so we're still figuring out just how to get started. there's no blueprint, just an idea we're still in the process of exploring and elaborating. once we start putting it into practice we'll see what happens and re-evaluate and strategize as necessary.

apparently not as just above I quoted you as saying that it's just some small steps you have in mind at present.

did your organization come in to existence as a mass organization, or as a small minority?

if you want to claim that it could be a mass phenomenon you're talking about, you need to explain what sort of activity this would be and how it could becoime a mass phenomenon.

capital reproduces itself through the actual power that the dominating classes exert on the job and elsewhere, and the effects this has on the consciousness and circumsances of working class people. how would what you do challenge that?

capital reproduces itself in our day to day existence and interactions as well- buying food, paying for day care, going to the hospital, etc. what i am talking about is coordinating with others in my area to disrupt some of these daily reproductions with communist alternatives. we want to find collective means to address getting food, taking care of our families and ourselves and other day to day issues.

you're also not said what this "project" is.

you've got to be fucking kidding me.

how?

if we can find successful ways to improve our material conditions, it seems to me this will attract the interest of others just through word of mouth and more so if we try to actively spread it by talking to more people and groups and figure out how we can work together. by addressing the problems we face collectively, we're strengthening our ties to each other and weakening the hold of at least some institutions over our lives. we can use this collective strength to start examining other spheres in which that hold can be weakened and eventually destroyed.

Your language of "activity against the sociall and material conditions" is vague and ambiguous.

capitalist society is built upon social atomization. our problems all become individual and the solutions to them become equally individually. i want to start examining our day to day problems from a collective standpoint and look for collective solutions, which i think is best epitomized by mutual aid ("a voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit").

syndicat

26th March 2010, 04:00

okay, I give up. i can't get you to say what it is you propose or how this might lead to more opposition. I conclude you don't really have a revolutionary perspective on a path for fundamental change.

there are various things that pass for "anarchism" in the USA that I think are pretty useless. I was giving you the opportunity to explain yourself in a way that others might understand, but you either can't or won't.

Jacobinist

26th March 2010, 05:44

I think anarchists are always the intelligent proletarian. They know Kapitalism when they see it (and yes kid-o's, just SLAVING AWAY for the state isn't much of an existence either). Anarcho-Capitalism is lame, and has been largely discredited.

Put it this way, if the banks didnt have the government to steal from when they ruin the economy (every so often) capitalism would collapse. If the state didnt build the roads, or other massive infrastructure, or provide 'security' capitalism would have no 'market' to work its greedy hand on. Kapitalism and the State cannot exist without one or the other. They are 2 heads of the same monster, the bourgeois.

nuisance

26th March 2010, 14:21

okay, I give up. i can't get you to say what it is you propose or how this might lead to more opposition. I conclude you don't really have a revolutionary perspective on a path for fundamental change.
Well after this repetitive discussion, I think you're the only one who hasn't been able to actually grasp anything which BCBM has repeatably asserted, pretty comprehensibly aswell.
Yes, not all parts are explicitly clear but that is covered as the stated activities are in the context of 'experimentation' with different methods based around social relationships, hence they are ever changing to conditions, and obviously what works, and cannot be encapsulated in some neatly packaged box that you seem to crave, actually no, a neatly packaged box that you need.
You may conclude that this isn't revolutionary but I'd say that practicing new methods in the social struggle to try and exploit the conditions that other organisation has failed to, is a fuckload more revolutionary than sticking to the old tried and failed organisations based upon dogma, that you advocate as revolutionary.

there are various things that pass for "anarchism" in the USA that I think are pretty useless. I was giving you the opportunity to explain yourself in a way that others might understand, but you either can't or won't.
No, you've just displayed an amazing lack of basic comprehension. So, mad props to BCBM for not having run out of paitence with earlier.

syndicat

26th March 2010, 20:32

nuisance

26th March 2010, 20:42

I think an orientation to small groups working on their collective living arrangements is lifestylist and has nothing whatever to do with revolutionary politics. but, then, I don't have a high opinion of much that passes for "anarchism" in the USA. indeed this is why I call myself a "libertarian socialist" or a syndicalist, and not an "anarchist."
:rolleyes:
You're the only one who has spoken about small groups, no one else. What's this about living arrangements?
What BCBM said, was about creating ties with those around us, friends, co-workers, neighbours and so on. This is not about remaining in small groups, it's about building and expanding informal networks- relationships with people based upon mutual aid/benefit.
It doesn't matter what you call yourself, this isn't about forcing your political affiliations upon others but instead finding out what your community lacks and uniting to provide it and exploiting kinks in the system to further the group. This will be building community empowerment and breeds resistance and the apparatus to exist.

syndicat

27th March 2010, 04:37

finding out what your community lacks and uniting to provide it

okay, you're doing a survey, then, hmm? if it's not just your circle of friends -- people who are likely to think like you -- are you going to go door to do or how are you going to find this out?

suppose you find out that high rents are sucking down half of people's income, people are being forced to live in crowded situations. what then? what would you do about it?

What if you find out there's lots of old lead paint flaking off in apartments with kids? Lead is destructive to their mental development. What then?

There are ever so many issues that affect people in working class communities. How do you go about doing something about it?

In order to defend people's "material living circumstances", often a struggle is necessary. So what exactly is this "material base" you're supposed to be building up? You going to found some nonprofit service organization? or what?

bricolage

27th March 2010, 16:46

No. it was the union. a video of the occupation shows the staff organizer there with the workers. it was supported by the union organization.

Fair enough then, I don't know the case.

in a grassroots union there isn't the sort of differentiation between members and an isolated paid bureaucracy that exists in many unions.

What is there though that stops the grassroots union becoming just like the other unions, by being a union and by being forced to operate within the confines of capital/the state surely the door is very open for co-option?

no it can't. if you think otherwise, you need to give examples. there are examples one could point to of workers engaged, for example, in local wildcat strikes that are not formally organized. I once participated in an action of this sort. but we were crushed...we were all fired. because of isolation, which is what happens in such cases.

At the same time how many times have workers been on strike and found themselves fighting against both the bosses the unions. Some of the most intense forms of struggle in the UK recently (Visteon occupation/Vestas occupation etc) happened without unions and often specifically against them. I remember reading a pamphlet about the factory councils during biennio rosso which happened both without the unions and in the face of their collaboration, same could be said about May '68. I'm sure there are many more examples.

Working beyond unions and agitating within them shouldn't have to mean, like you, say isolation, it's quite possible to link up wide ranging struggles through solidarity networks that operate outside of the confines that unions are forced to obey by.

Once again I'm not saying unions are enemies, they are flagrant necessities in the present and attacks on them surely set any form of resistance back many years. That being said I do not think they can constitute, at least not on their own, revolutionary bodies and it is necessary to look beyond them too. Especially as the union cannot work beyond the workplace and social relations extend far beyond the shop floor.

This is the voice of despair. the implication of your words is that a workers revolution is not possible. no such revolution could possibly occur as some spontaneious unorganized thing.

I have never said a workers revolution is not possible. Nor have I ever shunned organisation.

The Douche

27th March 2010, 17:16

Dude, BCBM, how did you endure this conversation?

nuisance

27th March 2010, 18:00

okay, you're doing a survey, then, hmm? if it's not just your circle of friends -- people who are likely to think like you -- are you going to go door to do or how are you going to find this out?
Seriously, how did you meet people, do you have any friendship group or communicative skills? It's about building ties or building up relationships through an undertaking, not expecting people to come to your formal organisation that exists outside of them or most likely doesn't even have a presence in their communities and consequently their lives.

suppose you find out that high rents are sucking down half of people's income, people are being forced to live in crowded situations. what then? what would you do about it?
Form resident associations that have the ability to go out on strike and other forms of action to counteract the problem. It's ultimately about the residents bringing forward the ideas and actions that they feel at ease with and progressing as an organised community.

What if you find out there's lots of old lead paint flaking off in apartments with kids? Lead is destructive to their mental development. What then?
What's the relevance of these questions? You are being completely ridiculous, of course the things that groups could do would within the remit of thing that they could actually do and hope to advance to tackle other problems. Why is this so hard to comprehend? And what would be your organisations solution to such a problem.

There are ever so many issues that affect people in working class communities. How do you go about doing something about it?
From building relationships and conversing? Establishing the necessary groups and networks to tackle the problem that arise? Is this not implicit? Y'know, attempting to fulfil those roles that your organisations have repeatebly failed at doing?

In order to defend people's "material living circumstances", often a struggle is necessary. So what exactly is this "material base" you're supposed to be building up? You going to found some nonprofit service organization? or what?
:blink:
This just doesn't deserve a reply.

syndicat

27th March 2010, 20:08

barabbas:

What is there though that stops the grassroots union becoming just like the other unions, by being a union and by being forced to operate within the confines of capital/the state surely the door is very open for co-option?

Again, this is a counsel of despair. Why bother doing any organizing if all organizations are inevitably bound to become bureaucratic? In fact there is no such inevitability. It depends upon the particular circumstances, such as the overall level of contestation in society, the presence of numbers of revolutionaries who are a voice for rank and file self-management in the organization and so on.

At the same time how many times have workers been on strike and found themselves fighting against both the bosses the unions. Some of the most intense forms of struggle in the UK recently (Visteon occupation/Vestas occupation etc) happened without unions and often specifically against them. I remember reading a pamphlet about the factory councils during biennio rosso which happened both without the unions and in the face of their collaboration, same could be said about May '68. I'm sure there are many more examples.

In the past, in both the world War 1 era and in the '60s, there was the "unofficial" shop stewards movement in UK, based on shop stewards councils and general meetings of workers, independent of the trade union bureaucracy. This was the source of aq lot of the worker militancy of that era. Eventually in the '70s the shop stewards organizations were bureaucratized but only after a conscious effort of employers to encourage centralization and creation of paid positions.
cmoney:
Dude, BCBM, how did you endure this conversation?

Apparently you only talk to people who already agree with you. Why am I not surprised?

pirate:
Seriously, how did you meet people, do you have any friendship group or communicative skills? It's about building ties or building up relationships through an undertaking, not expecting people to come to your formal organisation that exists outside of them or most likely doesn't even have a presence in their communities and consequently their lives.

Doesn't sound to me like you have much mass organizing experience. If you don't have an explicit orientation to break out of your everyday circle of acquaintances, you will tend to be having these conversations with people who (1) are likely to be of the same age as yourself, (2) depending on where you are, may be mainly people who look like you, (3) if you're a student, are likely to be only fellow students, and so on.

Mass organizing needs to be based on some kind of strategizing where you ask, where are the people affected by this issue or this social fault line? If you rely on spontaneous meetings of people in daily life, you're going to skew who you are conversing with.

me:
suppose you find out that high rents are sucking down half of people's income, people are being forced to live in crowded situations. what then? what would you do about it?
you:

Form resident associations that have the ability to go out on strike and other forms of action to counteract the problem. It's ultimately about the residents bringing forward the ideas and actions that they feel at ease with and progressing as an organised community.

Good. Now you're talking about mass organization and mass struggle. But this also requires some concerted effort to break out of your own social circle. If you live in a large apartment complex, it would mean trying to approach, or contact as many tenants as possible, to organize the whole building. This requires concerted effort and strategizing.

me:
What if you find out there's lots of old lead paint flaking off in apartments with kids? Lead is destructive to their mental development. What then?

you:
What's the relevance of these questions? You are being completely ridiculous, of course the things that groups could do would within the remit of thing that they could actually do and hope to advance to tackle other problems. Why is this so hard to comprehend? And what would be your organisations solution to such a problem.

This is something around which you can organize in a neighborhood. I'm asking because some of you were saying you're supposed to have these unstructured hap-hazard conversations with this, that and the other person you meet in your daily life and find out what their problems are and maybe talk about ways to deal with them. So, i'm asking about how you would go about it. This has to do with organizing.

But getting any sort of answer out of you is like pulling teeth.

Now, it's only fair that I give my own example. In my neighborhood there was a vast epidemic of evictions in the late '90s. I didn't have to go out and do a survey to know a major threat that working class people here were worried about. There were various marches, building occupations, weekly assemblies of a local campaign to fight this, and so on that took place.

Some of us formed a community land trust to work with tenants to convert their buildings to housing cooperatives. This is an example of organizing to deal with a "material problem" that faced a lot of people. So far we've worked with one group of tenants to convert their apartment building to a self-managed coop, we're working with two more.

But to get people to support this, or even believe in the idea, took about four or five years of organizing...giving endless presentations of our proposal, going out to community groups of all kinds in various working class neighborhoods, church groups, tenant groups, etc.

The community land trust is a small membership organization with maybe 125 members. There are member assemblies, at least once a year, sometimes more often. Every year at an assembly a committee of the members is elected who organize the work during the course of the year, and there are other member committees to do various things. The member committee basically administers the organization and now is assisted by two part-time staff who mainly do workshops to train residents on how to self-manage their buildings or oversee rehab work by contractors.

The Douche

27th March 2010, 20:34

Apparently you only talk to people who already agree with you. Why am I not surprised?

I kept up with this thread after I stopped posting. I watched BCBM say the same things to you over and over, and you misunderstand/misrepresent them each time. You have a flawed understanding of IA and you refuse to hear anybody out, and make foolish attempts at reinforcing your incorrect ideas.

syndicat

27th March 2010, 23:20

You have a flawed understanding of IA and you refuse to hear anybody out, and make foolish attempts at reinforcing your incorrect ideas.

My translation: you can't explain your ideas to people who are not a part of your own milieu.

bricolage

28th March 2010, 03:12

barabbas:Again, this is a counsel of despair. Why bother doing any organizing if all organizations are inevitably bound to become bureaucratic? In fact there is no such inevitability. It depends upon the particular circumstances, such as the overall level of contestation in society, the presence of numbers of revolutionaries who are a voice for rank and file self-management in the organization and so on.
Nothing is inevitable but certain organisations, based upon their nature and the position they occupy in the social strata are much more prone to co-option than others. Political parties and trade unions are prime examples of organisations, based upon the fact they have to play by the 'rules of the game', that are prone to such co-option. The entirety of labour history illustrates this.

In the past, in both the world War 1 era and in the '60s, there was the "unofficial" shop stewards movement in UK, based on shop stewards councils and general meetings of workers, independent of the trade union bureaucracy. This was the source of aq lot of the worker militancy of that era. Eventually in the '70s the shop stewards organizations were bureaucratized but only after a conscious effort of employers to encourage centralization and creation of paid positions..
Well I don't know about the details of this, I'm not actually even sure if it addressed my point that mass struggles such as May 68 and the councils during biennio rosso happened with unions and were then forced to defend themselves against the very same unions.

bcbm

28th March 2010, 04:05

My translation: you can't explain your ideas to people who are not a part of your own milieu.

i talk to people outside of my "milieu" about these things fairly frequently and they don't seem to have much trouble understanding. maybe it is easier to talk to people who don't already have some ideological bone to pick and therefore project whatever they want to see onto the conversation?

Across The Street

28th March 2010, 04:12

this really was an excellent thread, unfortunately i read the whole damn thing

syndicat

28th March 2010, 04:58

i talk to people outside of my "milieu" about these things fairly frequently and they don't seem to have much trouble understanding. maybe it is easier to talk to people who don't already have some ideological bone to pick and therefore project whatever they want to see onto the conversation?

easy if you don't talk about organizing or revolutionary politics.

bcbm

28th March 2010, 05:07

easy if you don't talk about organizing or revolutionary politics.

thank you for proving my point.

syndicat

28th March 2010, 05:18

Thank you for proving my point.

We will never be able to build a movement for mass liberation without actually arguing for liberatory politics, for a critique of the present system and an alternative to it, without the building of mass organizations that that provide a field for self-organization and self-learning of large numbers of ordinary working class folks. Bakunin would totally understand what I'm talking about.

bcbm

28th March 2010, 05:35

Thank you for proving my point.

what point? i think anyone who has been following this thread already understands that you believe your ideology is the only possible path towards liberation. when you can't imagine that anyone talking about ideas that don't fit exactly with your ideology can be talking about "organizing or revolutionary politics," you're proving my point that the problem in this conversation is you, not the clarity of what is being said.

for my part, i haven't argued against your methods. quite the opposite, in fact. i simply don't believe there is only one strategy to liberation and want to experiment with other possibilities.

Bakunin would totally understand what I'm talking about.

i doubt it, he's a corpse.

syndicat

28th March 2010, 06:47

I understand that you think liberatory ideas are irrelevant, hence your derogatory term "ideology". But my interpretation of that is that you abandon liberatory politics and mass organizing. If I were to organize a union at a workplace, i would talk about the issues that coworkers have and about unionism, not "ideology", but yet in talking about unionism I am talking about a kind of politics. I've done actual workplace organizing you know, and have built an actual grassroots union on one occasion. I think we need a kind of mass organization that addresses the situation that the working class faces in general, not just in this or that workplace, that is inspired by radical ideas.

To be frank, I don't think you have a revolutionary point of view. But this is my opinion concerning a lot of what passes for socalled "anarchism" in USA. Hence i see your sort of viewpoint as largely irrelevant in an historical sense.

me:
Bakunin would totally understand what I'm talking about.

you:
i doubt it, he's a corpse.

You're being an ass of course. I meant, obviously, if he were alive.

bcbm

28th March 2010, 07:30

i must be a masochist for continuing this conversation, but here we go...

I understand that you think liberatory ideas are irrelevant

i'm really baffled at what i have said that lead you to "understand" that. i'm extremely interested in liberatory ideas and how to enact them in the real world, as i believe my entire participation in this thread suggests.

hence your derogatory term "ideology".

what? i'm using ideology in the "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group," sense, referring to anarcho-syndicalism in this case. how is that derogatory?

But my interpretation of that is that you abandon liberatory politics and mass organizing.

yes, because you imagine your ideology as the end-all, be-all of liberatory politics and mass organizing but it isn't.

I've done actual workplace organizing you know

so have i and i am talking with co-workers about organizing at my new job.

I think we need a kind of mass organization that addresses the situation that the working class faces in general, not just in this or that workplace, that is inspired by radical ideas.

you've mentioned this once or twice and, like i said, i am not discouraging your efforts at all. i'm just interested in examining other ways our class can collectively address the situation it faces.

To be frank, I don't think you have a revolutionary point of view. But this is my opinion concerning a lot of what passes for socalled "anarchism" in USA. Hence i see your sort of viewpoint as largely irrelevant in an historical sense.

that's nice.

syndicat

28th March 2010, 07:40

yes, because you imagine your ideology as the end-all, be-all of liberatory politics and mass organizing but it isn't.

well, it's revealing that you say this as I haven't talked about "ideology." seems to reflect your view that we don't need to talk about our critique of capitalism, and educate about the possibilities of an alternative, or strategize collectively about how to change things.

at least you say "our class" and I will give you credit for that.

but the real problem with this whole conversation is that you've not said anything.

bcbm

28th March 2010, 08:02

well, it's revealing that you say this as I haven't talked about "ideology."revealing in what way? you espouse anarcho-syndicalist ideas as a member of an anarcho-syndicalist organization and deny any revolutionary potential to ideas that don't fit within that mold. in short: an ideology.

but the real problem with this whole conversation is that you've not said anything. several other members seem to disagree. and really you sum up the problem by proving my point, again:

seems to reflect your view that we don't need to talk about our critique of capitalism, and educate about the possibilities of an alternative, or strategize collectively about how to change things.please point out anywhere i have expressed this view you attribute to me.

let me save you some time: you aren't going to find such a view expressed anywhere. probably the exact opposite. and that is the problem- you're projecting your ideological bias over everything i say, leading to wild misinterpretations and even totally fabricated nonsense like the above, finally concluding that i must not have said anything. we might as well be doing "who's on first?"

elf

28th March 2010, 09:34

Ravachol

28th March 2010, 15:31

Let me, an interested observer jump in for a minute. bcbm proposes community organising as one part of a broader struggle against capitalism. syndicate rejects this, proposing that only work place based organising can bring about the revolution. Is this correct?

Highly doubt it, I assume Syndicat, being an Anarcho-Syndicalist (as am I) espouses organising outside of the workplace as well. Syndicalism has opposed narrow 'workerism' most of the time.

Let me try again. bcbm proposes community organising as one part of a broader struggle against capitalism. syndicate, for some reason, thinks that bcbm is proposing something that will never go anywhere because it does not involve mass organising. bcbm struggles to understand why syndicate thinks that the proposal does not involve mass organising, when it obviously does.

Am I correct?

I think it's a bit of a misunderstanding between bcbm and Syndicat.

To me it seems bcbm is arguing for more informally organised networks of inter-class solidarity on material grounds to conquer labour's autonomy against capital, possibly in a mass-oriented fashion. Syndicat seems to warn for the potential dangers of narrow 'alter-institutions' not tied to a mass-movement rooted in clear liberatory politics. I don't think both are mutually exclusive actually. While I espouse a mass-struggle oriented movement with clear liberatory politics and a counter-power rooted in the desire for class autonomy, I don't think loose networks of 'alter-institutions' are going to harm that as long as they are rooted firmly in the struggle against capital and don't get co-opted by capital's logic. A heterodox approach might work I guess.