Moving anarchism beyond the subculture

[Tiktaalik]

Hey all, I've been involved in the anarchist movement for a few years and I've started to become conscious of what I think is a serious problem.

That problem is punk.

Now don't get me wrong, I love punk music. Punk made me appreciate myself, it gave me goals, it shaped my outlook. But I find it to be a subculture that traps anarchism. I find that many people figure punk and anarchism are one and the same, and aren't as serious about their politics as they claim. It's a facade. The same people talking about how anti-sexist they are can end up being someone who emotionally and physically abuses women. It reduces anarchism to a social club, where there is a certain dress code and if you know the right people, you're in.

While punk is cool and all, there is a clear line between that subculture and anarchism. I am not interested in appealing to only angry (predominately) white kids who want to wear patches. If they want to be anarchists, that's cool, but so many of them think they do but aren't serious about their politics or revolutionary. It bothers me that certain aspects of the social desert of capitalist life are revered as virtues. Take dumpster-diving, for instance. I will dumpster-dive when I don't have money/can't get food. But I don't think it's a behavior that should be held up to be some sort of virtue, I want a world where people don't have to eat out of the fucking trash. I don't like being poor, I don't like being dirty and wearing tattered clothes. I feel that a lot of young folks may have their hearts in the right places, but they view anarchism as an adventure, as part of their punk identity. And that's an issue.

Its troubling to see that many of these folks also move out of the areas they come from. Instead of organizing the folks in their own communities, they come to the city and act like they know what's what, and expect everyone to be cool with a bunch of goofy looking kids who can barely interact with anyone outside their scene.

I hate the fact that the whole punk scene pushes anarchism into an insular bubble. Granted, I think anarchism is growing, but it is still confined to its place within the social landscape, appealing to disenfranchised teenagers and 20-somethings.

Anyone else tired of this dynamic?

Anarchism needs to be a movement, not a subculture.

[ZombieGrits]

I was stuck in that kind of poseur-anarchism for quite some time... luckily I took a bit of time to get to know the actual ideology, which led to my dumping the punk aesthetic altogether.

There needs to be a disassociation of anarchism as an ideology from anarchism as a subculture. If you want to squat and dumpster-dive, that's cool, but don't go about saying that that's anarchism.

Now that I've said exactly the same thing you have :D; I can't really think of any way to go about fixing this... meh

[Zanthorus]

Here's a thought: Organise. Ignore the subculturalists, they're mostly irrelevant. Get together some other serious anarchists and start a collective or something and do community organising, distribute leaflets, get involved in workplace activism and generally present an image to people of anarchists as a group that advances their interests.

[Invincible Summer]

What really turned me off from Anarchism (other reasons aside) was actually just what you're talking about. Around here, I couldn't associate with other Anarchists without them laughing cuz I'm a uni student, not "freegan," and not into squatting.

There is almost no "real" Anarchist scene around here.


But I'm not sure how to deal with this problem. Possibly getting over the Anarchist phobia of organizations and developing groups that actually have a coherent goal and idea of what Anarchism entails, in order to create a better definition of Anarchism as an actual political current, and not just some subculture that smashes shit and eats out of dumpsters.

[Zanthorus]

Possibly getting over the Anarchist phobia of organizations and developing groups that actually have a coherent goal and idea of what Anarchism entails, in order to create a better definition of Anarchism as an actual political current, and not just some subculture that smashes shit and eats out of dumpsters.

I would like to note that apart from me the three posters so far appear have been from america which would explain a lot since I think this anti-organisational trend is primarily a problem in the american anarchist movement where there is no real coherent nationwide anarchist organisation to advance a consistent anarchist line. This is not to say that the "smashing shit and eating out of dumpsters" style anarchism doesn't exist elsewhere but that I've not seen any european anarchists for example complain about anti-organisationalism in my time on this board. This leads me to believe the problem is not with the anti-organisationalists per se but really the lack of any organised alternative. Elsewhere noone seems to complain about any percieved anarchist "phobia of organisations" because, well, they have anarchist organisations.

So, as I said above, the answer is not to sit around whining about the anti-organisationalists. The answer is to ignore them and organise yourselves.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hey all, I've been involved in the anarchist movement for a few years and I've started to become conscious of what I think is a serious problem.

You've been involved in the anarchist movement for a few years and you're starting to realize that the anarchist movement by-and-large is a ghettoized subculture? :blink:

I wouldn't say that the "crusties" are the reason that anarchism is isolated, either. This may come as a complete shock to certain Leninists who like to classify anarchism as a movement dominated by dumpster diving crusties, but the suprising truth* is that most of those folks don't actually identify themselves as anarchists. They have about as much knowledge of anarchist history, theory and praxis as the average person who sees a news report one night about "anarchists" disrupting the G20.

*From my experiences in the United States. I don't pretend to know what it's like in other nations.

[Across The Street]

OP: "Its troubling to see that many of these folks also move out of the areas they come from. Instead of organizing the folks in their own communities, they come to the city and act like they know what's what, and expect everyone to be cool with a bunch of goofy looking kids who can barely interact with anyone outside their scene."

This is why I never left my hometown, I feel I can be much more useful to those who I grew up with and the people who live in the same community as me. As much as I detest a lot of the things that go on around where I live, I don't want to abandon this place for some other shithole. I'm tired of it too, and I used to be really into punk rock, but like everything else it seems to have gone down the road of irony, self-loathing, and disaffection. Most people seem not to give a shit about anything that doesn't affect people who think like they do, everyone else might as well be cannon fodder, and, at least among the people I know anarchism is about encompassing a sizable variety of different beliefs, one of the strengths of the spirit of Anarchism if you ask me. I'm not sure what can be done about it either. Let's spread some propaganda

[syndicat]

These problems have been around as long as i have been, and I've been involved in radical politics since the '70s.

Subcultural identification also goes hand in hand with an individualist and anti-organizationalist interpretation of anarchism, in my experience. Fear of having an organization where you have defined roles, a bylaws so everyone knows how things are decided, writing down decisions so we know what was decided, electing people to carry out a task so that they are accountable, having a chair of a meeting so it's not a free for all where the more assertive win.

organization is critical because that's how you make use of the power of numbers. fear of organization is self-defeating.

I don't know how many flakes I've known who call themselves anarchists but can't be counted on to do what they say they will or even show up on time to meetings.

These are characteristics incompatible with a serious revolutionary politics, in my opinion.

organization can be as simple as a reading group, or it can be getting involved in an organization that exists, if it's open to democratic participation. workplace and community organizing need to be a top priority but I say this because these fit into a strategic conception of social change. so one has to figure out how one thinks society is going to change, how the working class is going to liberate itself, etc.

[Tiktaalik]

I'm not talking in terms of organization, necessarily. There are plenty of organizations in the American anarchist culture and though there are few solid national networks, I don't think that's the problem (though I do think groups need to have a statement of purpose and distribute their propaganda far and wide).

It's that these organizations get created around a certain aesthetic and a lot of people make judgement calls based around this aesthetic. People will think a normal-looking person is a cop, for instance. Or will assume the smelly mofo wearing tight black pants and black hoodie with patches is automatically a cool guy. And they won't associate with people who don't look like that, or if they do, it's often a group of white 20-somethings thinking that they need to organize a group of people they have little to no relationship with (for instance, white anarchists moving into the ghetto and trying to organize black folk instead of working in solidarity with existing groups and organizing their own neighborhoods).

[Boru]

This is a problem with the entire far-left in many countries if you ask me..

They look inwards, have poor initiative and innovation, no common sense.
Feck knows I see it in Ireland all the time..

[syndicat]

well, I don't share your view as far as the adequacy of the organizations and organizational forms that exists. far too many think that an ongoing formal organization isn't needed. a "network" is not an adequate form of organization.

but, yes, it goes beyond that.

I also think part of the problem is not having a developed class struggle conception. I've found insularity seems to come with having failed to think through what would be required for the working class to have a movement that could challenge the dominant classes. This would mean that an alliance would have to be developed among the subgroups that make up the working class, throughout the country, and even internationally. Thinking that through hopefully means that one sees the need of people from different backgrounds being able to talk to one another respectfully.

Also, I find that anarchists usually haven't thought hardly at all about the process that Marxists call "class formation" -- the process by which the working class goes from being a class "in itself" -- an objectively oppressed group -- into a "class for itself" -- a class with the abilities, organizational strength and aspiration to fundamentally change things. This isn't going to happen overnight but through people being drawn into struggles, in workplaces, against landlords, or against government agencies around public services or other things. It also means that popular education has to be an important part of the mix, as through things like a working people's college.

There is also often a failure to appreciate the different roles for different kinds of organizations, such as poltical organizations and mass organizations such as tenant organizations, worker unions, etc.

And there is also the failure to think about the need to develop a political movement that is inter-generational, so that it can accommodate active involvement at different phases in a person's life. This in itself will force an organization to work away from a subcultural bias.

I've written a piece about anarchist political organization here:

http://www.zcommunications.org/anarchism-class-struggle-and-political-organization-by-tom-wetzel

[chaotic]

You are right. Nobody takes anarchism seriously, rather they see it as a just another counterculture.

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

The real problem is streetpunk, the real hardcore punks aren't really a problem. But any asshole with a casualties T-shirt considers himself an anarchist because they have a "Fuck you" attitude. Chaos punks are to anarchists as neo-nazi's are to skins. I think the manipulation of chaos punks could be a virtue though because although they don't have any real political motivations. They like to destroy shit for fun. I mean if you organize these band of retards into groups and educate them a little, they would be your front liners.

If you want your local mayor's office burned down, riot incinuated, or just a shitload of looters who better to do it than a band chaos punks?


Either that or the theory could completely backfire and bite everyone in the ass.


Rebellion is on the clearance rack, and sales are going up.

[Foldered]

Chaos punks are to anarchists as neo-nazi's are to skins.
Very accurate.


I think the manipulation of chaos punks could be a virtue though because although they don't have any real political motivations. They like to destroy shit for fun. I mean if you organize these band of retards into groups and educate them a little, they would be your front liners.
Hopefully that's how it would work. I think it would be a pretty difficult task, but a beneficial one, nonetheless.

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

It wouldn't be as difficult as you would think, I use to be one of those "kids".

The only reason they don't know, is because access to real anarchist information is restrictive, and it's so widely popularized that anarchy is just total chaos.

If people took the time to educate these kids it would DEFINATELY be a super plus.
Most people just like to call them posers and pass them off. But it's a hard life, what are ya gonna do?

[gorillafuck]

I mean if you organize these band of retards into groups and educate them a little, they would be your front liners.
Political movements shouldn't be led by bands.

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

Political movements shouldn't be led by bands.
Not as in musical group. Band as in "Band of brothers"

Think gangs.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Not as in musical group. Band as in "Band of brothers"

Think gangs.

Like the Black Panthers?

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

I was thinking more sub-divisions.

A room full of chaos punks, efficiency does not make.

[Jazzratt]

I don't think I've ever met a "chaos punk" type anarchist. Most people I've met that are anarchists have been fairly 'normal' looking men and women. While it's true that the plural of anecdote is not data I think it's enough in the absence of hard data to conclude that this is a problem that is perhaps blown out of proportion. Sure sometimes people hear "anarchist" and think "punky twat" but they can and do leave those preconceptions behind pretty quickly.

[Devrim]

I hate the fact that the whole punk scene pushes anarchism into an insular bubble. Granted, I think anarchism is growing, but it is still confined to its place within the social landscape, appealing to disenfranchised teenagers and 20-somethings.

None of the anarchists I know are at all part of this subculture. In fact, most of the anarchists I know are workers in their 40s, but then that is probably because I fit into the same demographic. I think that it says more about your social circle than anarchism in general.

Devrim

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

When people hear anarchy they think one of two things. The joker, or teens who listen to bad music and hate their parents (or something along those lines.)

Anarchy has now been predispositioned to be known as a synonym for chaos.

[Andropov]

This is a problem with the entire far-left in many countries if you ask me..

They look inwards, have poor initiative and innovation, no common sense.
Feck knows I see it in Ireland all the time..
Its far from exclusive to the far-left in Ireland.
Look at the Barstool Republican scene, possibly he biggest Political poser group in Ireland, Republican Lifestylists.

[fionntan]

I blame the sex pistols ...Bastards And Crass..

[syndicat]

Anarchy has now been predispositioned to be known as a synonym for chaos.

it was already a word for chaos and disorder in the mid-19th century, before the existence of anarchism as a modern political movement.

[Os Cangaceiros]

it was already a word for chaos and disorder in the mid-19th century, before the existence of anarchism as a modern political movement.

Yep.

From Anarchy: A Beginner's Guide:


Even after the mid-nineteenth century when the label was first adopted as an affirmation of belief, anarchy was used in political debate to ridicule or denounce ideas perceived to be injurious or dangerous. For example, in a seventeenth-century defence of absolute monarchy, Sir Robert Filmer treated calls for limited monarchy as calls for anarchy. In general usage the term is commonly used to describe fear and dread. The ‘great Anarch!’ in Alexander Pope’s The Dying Christian to his Soul is the ‘dread empire, Chaos!’ that brings ‘universal darkness’ to bury all. The eighteenth-century philosopher Edmund Burke considered anarchy as the likely outcome of the brewing American conflict and identified freedom as its cure. From his rather different political perspective, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley drew on ‘anarchy’ to describe the violent duplicity of government, yet like Burke he still conceived the term in a wholly negative sense to describe disorder and injustice. Writing in the nineteenth century, the social critic John Ruskin aptly captured the common view: ‘[g]overnment and co-operation are in all things the laws of life; anarchy and competition the laws of death’. This conception was the very reverse of Proudhon’s.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

You can't consider the state of the anarchist movement in isolation from the state of the class struggle as a whole. At the moment, after more than three decades of more-or-less continuous defeat, the state of organised working-class resistance in general is pretty shit, so you can't expect the most militant section of the working-class movement (that's us, or at least it's meant to be) to be faring much better. If conditions change, and we start seeing more wildcat strikes, workplace occupations, riots, etc, and anarchists get actively involved in them, I don't think many people will care either way about what a tiny subculture does or looks like; if we don't see that general upsurge in militancy, or it happens but anarchists don't get involved in it, then we're fucked no matter how we dress or what music we listen to.

[Boru]

Its far from exclusive to the far-left in Ireland.
Look at the Barstool Republican scene, possibly he biggest Political poser group in Ireland, Republican Lifestylists.

True that.