How Prominent is Anarchism in Greece? [Archive]

Omi

26th May 2010, 08:42

To answer a few of your questions:

Yes the anarchists are a big political force in Greece. They are very active both inside university organising and in workers struggles, which is why during the revolt of December 2008 very large sections of industries went on various kinds of wildcat strikes, and the HQ of the largest trade union was occupied by the radical wing of it's members for not supporting the uprising. The anarchists where a major force in organising and making these sorts of actions happen.

Secondly, the reason why you mostly hear about the KKE in this forum right now is because in Greece since the government planned the austerity measures, a very large portion of the population is involved in resistance against this. Now, many people from this forum shed their hopes on the KKE to take a vanguardist role in this struggle. The fact that the anarchists where the major force in creating the street-protest culture that now takes root in the rest of society, is vastly overlooked by these members. This is mainly due to sectarianism, and the will to ignore the reality of these Greek struggles. The KKE now spouts some pseudo revolutionairy slang, but once these protests fade away they will just as happily return to their conformist parliamentairy ways that they embraced long ago.

The question wheter Greece is in a revolutionairy situation? Well, no.
The road to revolution is very long, and because there is a period of intense class struggle right now is not a sign of nearing revolution per se. But, this period of intense class struggle is a wonderful opportunity for real revolutionairies to propagate the message of revolution. Not by trying to coup this movement and use it to inflate your organizations' membership, but by actively participating in this movement and show full solidarity with anyone in struggle right now.

If you are more interested in this struggle, I suggest you find a book called; We are an Image of the future, the Greek revolt of december 2008. It's printed by AK press and is written by the Void network, a global network of anarchists. This book examines the history of Greek struggles and revolutionairy milieu, and the buildup to the insurrection in 2008, about the insurrection itself, and examines the effect this has had upon greek society up untill december 2009.

FSL

26th May 2010, 18:34

Secondly, the reason why you mostly hear about the KKE in this forum right now is because in Greece since the government planned the austerity measures, a very large portion of the population is involved in resistance against this. Now, many people from this forum shed their hopes on the KKE to take a vanguardist role in this struggle. The fact that the anarchists where the major force in creating the street-protest culture that now takes root in the rest of society, is vastly overlooked by these members. This is mainly due to sectarianism, and the will to ignore the reality of these Greek struggles. The KKE now spouts some pseudo revolutionairy slang, but once these protests fade away they will just as happily return to their conformist parliamentairy ways that they embraced long ago.

You believe you know the reality of these greek struggles? Because it doesn't seem like it, honestly.

Charles Xavier

26th May 2010, 18:56

The working class has spoken, anarchism is for children.

bricolage

26th May 2010, 19:31

The working class has spoken, anarchism is for children.

You'd be funny if you weren't an idiot.

Omi

26th May 2010, 19:34

You believe you know the reality of these greek struggles? Because it doesn't seem like it, honestly.

I think I know a decent bit off it, and have talked to many people participating within it. Maybe you have another view over the events, which you should elaborate, but posts like this are not productive in any way. Are you denying the influence of anarchism in Greek society?

The working class has spoken, anarchism is for children.

Quit your patronising ageist bullcrap.

Fietsketting

26th May 2010, 20:02

The working class has spoken, anarchism is for children.

You talk like your still in 1917. Fail.

Ravachol

26th May 2010, 21:25

The working class has spoken, anarchism is for children.

That was so tremendously infantile i'm gonna thank you for that post, really.

FSL

26th May 2010, 22:44

I think I know a decent bit off it, and have talked to many people participating within it. Maybe you have another view over the events, which you should elaborate, but posts like this are not productive in any way. Are you denying the influence of anarchism in Greek society?

In recent strikes the anarchist block numbered a few thousand people, around 1,5k in the latest one and a bit more in the one before that, the one with the deaths. Of course, some anarchists might have been with their own unions but most of them were probably together. In one of their largest showings in the November 17th demo last year there was an anarchist block (actually 2 or 3 but anyway) with about 5 thousand people.

So that makes them more influential in greek society than danish anarchists are in Denmark but saying that the "protest culture" exists thanks to them, that's a giant leap.

They do gain a lot of airtime compared to others but that's mostly due to the more "graphic" ways they choose to manifest their anger.
Some of the largest anarchist "organizations" like antiauthoritarian movement remain relatively unkown to most of the population and have the dynamics of some small leftist parties.

The largest mass of anarchists are not organized even in the loosest form, which opens up space for a lot of youth (and I'm not stereotyping now, it happens) who lack any concrete ideology other than a desire to "stick it to the man".

"pseudo revolutionairy slang, but once these protests fade away they will just as happily return to their conformist parliamentairy ways"

And I'm sure you'd wish that the Bolshevicks and the communist parties that adopted Lenin's theory on revolutionary struggle were only "conformist parliamentary parties". But your wishes don't define reality, not in the tiniest bit.

Mitsos

26th May 2010, 22:54

it's getting bigger but not deeper.There are hundreds of small organizations,mainly locals but with very few members.their main political actions is to drink beers and smoke pott.and they go to protests. there is no connection among the workers struggle and the anarchists.it used to be one anarchist workers union but it dissapeard,mainly because it was forbidden for non-anarchist workers.:laugh:

You mostly hear them for rioting or for clashing with the police but you will never see them agitating in the street or a workers area or in a big bussiness.

Their main support comes from school children, who want to take revenge for the murder of the 16year old or from students who want to play "seek and hide" with the cops or just clash with them.There are anarchist political forces more concentrated to the working class,trying to put up unions or trying to reach the mass movement but they get dissapproved from the "hardcore" anarchists or they fail to do it the correct way.

Ravachol

26th May 2010, 23:08

There are anarchist political forces more concentrated to the working class,trying to put up unions or trying to reach the mass movement but they get dissapproved from the "hardcore" anarchists or they fail to do it the correct way.

Such an insightfull analysis 'hardcore' anarchists, like it's a tendency :laugh: And what's the 'correct' way, if I might ask? :rolleyes:

FSL

26th May 2010, 23:15

Such an insightfull analysis 'hardcore' anarchists, like it's a tendency :laugh: And what's the 'correct' way, if I might ask? :rolleyes:

You're laughing now, if you were an anarcho-syndicalist in Greece you'd might have different feelings.

For example, one of the anarchist organizations that move beyond the law, the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire recently claimed they represent a new side of the anarchist movement that's anarcho-individualistic and nihilistic.
These people often speak of workers as if they were talking about trash because they're not revolutionary enough. In a previous statement they even said that the "marxist dogma" that speaks of revolutionary classes is akin to nazi racism.

I bet you'd love working with people like that, wouldn't you.

Ravachol

26th May 2010, 23:44

For example, one of the anarchist organizations that move beyond the law, the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire recently claimed they represent a new side of the anarchist movement that's anarcho-individualistic and nihilistic.

I'm well aware of the Blanquist-Stirnerite nature of "Conspiracy of Cells of Fire" and the influence the ghost of Stirner cum suis holds with certain strains of Insurrectionary thought. Doesn't mean the entire Anarchist movement are a bunch of anarcho-molotovist loons. It also doesn't mean CCF are more 'hardcore' Anarchist or whatever.

In a previous statement they even said that the "marxist dogma" that speaks of revolutionary classes is akin to nazi racism.

I've heard insane things coming from all political tendencies, from Stalinism to Trotskyism to 'Theory of the Offensive'-style Autonomism to Ultra-Gauche groups like Tiqqun. This doesn't say anything about 'Anarchism in Greece' as if it were a homogenous group. You take one example, CCF (which was criticised heavily by a large part of the anarchist movement, including the 'Flesh Machine' magazine and the anti-authoritarian movement) and elevate it to be the pinacle of Greek anarchism.

I bet you'd love working with people like that, wouldn't you.

No I wouldn't, but then again I wouldn't 'love' working with a lot of groups and individuals. I've also worked with groups and individuals belonging to a wide range of tendencies which I personally disagree with, ranging from supposed 'Stalinist' anti-revisionists to Insurrectionary Anarchists, all of whom have proven to be great and loyal comrades in struggle.

FSL

26th May 2010, 23:52

Doesn't mean the entire Anarchist movement are a bunch of anarcho-molotovist loons.

I'm pretty sure I never claimed they are. But because there are hardly any rules or obligations, a space does exist wthin the Anarchist movement where people like that can exist.

As for the being "more-hardcore-than-thou", it's their argument, not how I view things.

Ravachol

27th May 2010, 00:04

I'm pretty sure I never claimed they are. But because there are hardly any rules or obligations, a space does exist wthin the Anarchist movement where people like that can exist.

There's as much space in the Marxist-Leninist movement for Pol-Potist or mindless 'every opposition to AmeriKKKa is good, including Juche and Taliban' anti-impie positions. I also do not see how Anarchism does not have 'rules' or 'obligations', you're either in ignorance about Anarchist politics or you're observing a phenomenon and concluding that that's an intrinsically anarchist problem.

FSL

27th May 2010, 00:36

There's as much space in the Marxist-Leninist movement for Pol-Potist or mindless 'every opposition to AmeriKKKa is good, including Juche and Taliban' anti-impie positions. I also do not see how Anarchism does not have 'rules' or 'obligations', you're either in ignorance about Anarchist politics or you're observing a phenomenon and concluding that that's an intrinsically anarchist problem.

Actually no, since marxism-leninist parties can throw out any polpotist who tries to hijack it, unlike anarchism where behaviours like that are judged as authoritarian.

That's how there are no "loons" in a demonstration of tens of thousands organized by a communist party and many a loon in a smaller demonstration, that's organized by anarchists.

And that is an "intrinsically anarchist problem" at least judging from my experience with anarchism as I've seen it in Greece and based on the literature I've read.

Ravachol

27th May 2010, 01:05

Actually no, since marxism-leninist parties can throw out any polpotist who tries to hijack it, unlike anarchism where behaviours like that are judged as authoritarian.

This is actually untrue, depending on the Anarchist tendency. Anarchism isn't about "EVERYBODY DO WHAT YOU WANT BRAH, IMMA SMOKE THE REEFER". There are mutually agreed upon core positions (or in the case of Platformists, a mutually agreed upon programme), otherwise any anarchist movement could degenerate into authoritarianism or god knows what kind of reactionary shithole. The 'space' you where referring to implied 'space' in the broad anarchist movement, just as there is still 'space' for Pol-Potists in the broad Marxist-Leninist movement. It isn't like the organised Anarchist organisations offer 'space' to Stirnerite positions.

And that is an "intrinsically anarchist problem" at least judging from my experience with anarchism as I've seen it in Greece and based on the literature I've read.

Far from it. Insurrectionary anarchists (who actually have consistent politics) or Anarcho-Molotovists (for lack of a better word to describe them) wouldn't even bother joining an organised Anarchist group, let alone 'hijacking' it. There is no reason why an Anarchist organisation is intrinsically more prone to this kind of behavior. Many Marxist-Leninist organisations in the past have equally degenerated in Blanquist adventurism, from later RAF generations to 17 November in Greece. How is that any different from the situation with CCF?

Omi

27th May 2010, 18:31

In recent strikes the anarchist block numbered a few thousand people, around 1,5k in the latest one and a bit more in the one before that, the one with the deaths. Of course, some anarchists might have been with their own unions but most of them were probably together. In one of their largest showings in the November 17th demo last year there was an anarchist block (actually 2 or 3 but anyway) with about 5 thousand people.

So that makes them more influential in greek society than danish anarchists are in Denmark but saying that the "protest culture" exists thanks to them, that's a giant leap.

They do gain a lot of airtime compared to others but that's mostly due to the more "graphic" ways they choose to manifest their anger.
Some of the largest anarchist "organizations" like antiauthoritarian movement remain relatively unkown to most of the population and have the dynamics of some small leftist parties.

The largest mass of anarchists are not organized even in the loosest form, which opens up space for a lot of youth (and I'm not stereotyping now, it happens) who lack any concrete ideology other than a desire to "stick it to the man".

"pseudo revolutionairy slang, but once these protests fade away they will just as happily return to their conformist parliamentairy ways"

And I'm sure you'd wish that the Bolshevicks and the communist parties that adopted Lenin's theory on revolutionary struggle were only "conformist parliamentary parties". But your wishes don't define reality, not in the tiniest bit.

About the figures: I have heard differing storys about this, but the amount of anarchists blocks on demonstrations do not really account for the size of a movement. In holland we have a very small movement indeed, and about the largest anarchist block we manage would be around 300 people max. Several blocks of thousands of anarchists is pretty big, and should not be underestimated.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was not trying to state that the anarchists where the reason the ''protest culture'' existed, as in, that Greece workers stand up to their government and in the place I live they don't. What I meant by protest culture, is how protests are generally held, and what influence the police has in this, the shape a protest takes, etc. What I meant by this statement was that I think the anarchists take a crucial role in the offensive nature of Greek protests, and the way that the police is held at bay most of the time. If it where not for the anarchists that took to the streets en masse in december 2008, and during the university struggles for the past 20 years, the protests you see today wouldn't nearly be as militant as they are now. This is subject to speculation ofcourse.

Most anarchists are organised though, mainly in the so called affinity group structure. This structure embodies most of the insurrectionairy milieu, and is a very tight and effective organisation method. This is why anarchists where already attacking police stations and banks across the country during december 2008, nearly half an hour after the teen was shot. Even before the police where briefed, or had any clue what was going on. The communication and infrastructure actually was way faster and effective that the state itself, which tells something about the dedication and revolutionairy potential of this part of the movement.

And finally, whats wrong with teens desiring to ''stick it to the man''? Better that they decide rebellion is more important than video games and TV. I started out as ''anarkiddie'' myself, scribbling circled A's in public toilets. This doesn't exclude the possibilty of this generation growing up to be sincere revolutionairys.

FSL

27th May 2010, 19:18

About the figures: I have heard differing storys about this, but the amount of anarchists blocks on demonstrations do not really account for the size of a movement. In holland we have a very small movement indeed, and about the largest anarchist block we manage would be around 300 people max. Several blocks of thousands of anarchists is pretty big, and should not be underestimated.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was not trying to state that the anarchists where the reason the ''protest culture'' existed, as in, that Greece workers stand up to their government and in the place I live they don't. What I meant by protest culture, is how protests are generally held, and what influence the police has in this, the shape a protest takes, etc. What I meant by this statement was that I think the anarchists take a crucial role in the offensive nature of Greek protests, and the way that the police is held at bay most of the time. If it where not for the anarchists that took to the streets en masse in december 2008, and during the university struggles for the past 20 years, the protests you see today wouldn't nearly be as militant as they are now. This is subject to speculation ofcourse.

Most anarchists are organised though, mainly in the so called affinity group structure. This structure embodies most of the insurrectionairy milieu, and is a very tight and effective organisation method. This is why anarchists where already attacking police stations and banks across the country during december 2008, nearly half an hour after the teen was shot. Even before the police where briefed, or had any clue what was going on. The communication and infrastructure actually was way faster and effective that the state itself, which tells something about the dedication and revolutionairy potential of this part of the movement.

And finally, whats wrong with teens desiring to ''stick it to the man''? Better that they decide rebellion is more important than video games and TV. I started out as ''anarkiddie'' myself, scribbling circled A's in public toilets. This doesn't exclude the possibilty of this generation growing up to be sincere revolutionairys.

I did say that anarchists in Greece are a bigger in comparison to most other countries. But then so are communists.

The "clashes" with police are probably a result of actions from anarchists, whether this demonstrate militancy and thus help or not, can be a point of debate.

There's nothing wrong with simply wanting to "stick it to the man". But it is not revolutionary politics. I'm sure people who were watching TV as teenagers might also someday want better a better life.
A problem starts to exist when the line between anarchists and lifestylists starts to blur with everyone being somewhere in the middle.

Delenda Carthago

27th May 2010, 19:20

Conspiracy of Cells of Fire and their new "tedency" are getting everyday more and more isolated from the rest of anarchist space.

On the other hand,anarchosyndicalism is getting bigger and bigger.

Ravachol

27th May 2010, 19:31

And finally, whats wrong with teens desiring to ''stick it to the man''? Better that they decide rebellion is more important than video games and TV. I started out as ''anarkiddie'' myself, scribbling circled A's in public toilets. This doesn't exclude the possibilty of this generation growing up to be sincere revolutionairys.

This, while I think motivation grows from material conditions I do believe activists motivated by Idealist reasons, however infantile those might seem at first, can indeed mature. I mean, I started out as an ultra-individualist Stirner and Nietzsche fanboy wanting to "stick it to the man", not really caring about anything else. Wanting to "stick it to the man" however is usually rooted in something as well, genuine discomfort with the way society operates under Capitalism.

Omi

27th May 2010, 19:31

I did say that anarchists in Greece are a bigger in comparison to most other countries. But then so are communists.

The "clashes" with police are probably a result of actions from anarchists, whether this demonstrate militancy and thus help or not, can be a point of debate.

There's nothing wrong with simply wanting to "stick it to the man". But it is not revolutionary politics. I'm sure people who were watching TV as teenagers might also someday want better a better life.
A problem starts to exist when the line between anarchists and lifestylists starts to blur with everyone being somewhere in the middle.

Ok, what are we talking about now, I am getting confused: Rioters without ideology, teenagers wanting to stick it to the man, or lifestylists? Because these are very different phenomena and have very differing causes and aims.

FSL

27th May 2010, 19:55

Ok, what are we talking about now, I am getting confused: Rioters without ideology, teenagers wanting to stick it to the man, or lifestylists? Because these are very different phenomena and have very differing causes and aims.

To me, being on the outside, they all look too much alike. But then again I see no huge difference between them and football hooligans so I could be wrong.

Conspiracy of Cells of Fire and their new "tedency" are getting everyday more and more isolated from the rest of anarchist space.

On the other hand,anarchosyndicalism is getting bigger and bigger.

This is an improvement, but their "tendency" still seems dominant. Or more noisy at least.

Omi

27th May 2010, 20:15

FSL

27th May 2010, 20:42

I suggest you invest less of your time attacking the different tendency's in society you do not like, and more time investigating the causes and effects of these tendency's and how to reach out to these parts of our class clearly more attracted to anarchism (in whatever way you wish to define it) than marxism-leninism.

To not see the difference between lifestyle anarchism and football hooliganism is a clear sign that you understand even a little of neither and my advice is to talk about things you do understand, be that things you know even a little about or politics which I'm sure you are very familiar with and well informed.

Admittedly, in my experience people identifying with ''marxism-leninism'' are much more informed about politics and economics than some anarchist currents you all despise so much. I give you that. But that doesn't mean you can go around attacking anarchists on stereotypes most of them do not adhere to.

There are much bigger parts of the working class attracted to bourgeois parties -millions- compared to those that turn to anarchism. Also, I consider voting for a bourgeois party once every 4 years and then spending the rest of your time cursing them for not looking out for you, a more interesting, more prevalent and more important phenomenon.

In other words, I'm not interested as much in "investigating" all the little things that could attract someone to this or that anarchist tendency because most workers are not anarchists but conservatives. That is a bigger problem, quantitatively and qualitatively.

Now, on lifestyle anarchism per se. I'm not sure whether in your mind that's simply smoking weed, squatting and punk music or what. Lifestyle anarchism I guess does include all that in some degree but its main point, at least here, is being involved into clashes. Many don't hold any huge ideological interest and think they are solely defined by these actions. So people can masquerade as revolutionaries by showing up once in a blue moon -whenever there is a rally preferably that hey can use as a sanctuary- and let some steam off. This adrenaline rush and the sense of accomplishment and recognition to a loosely defined "circle" that follows is what makes anarchism attractive to some of the people involved (I'm not implying that all those who get involved into clashes do it for these reasons). This isn't so much different to beating someone up for the club you support.
I agree there are social causes for this kind of behaviour but I don't see how these are fundamentally different to the causes of other somewhat similar actions.

Omi

27th May 2010, 20:51

Ravachol

27th May 2010, 21:07

And you turn down those millions of conservative voters just because they vote for much more reactionary bullshit than the anarchists you speak of? No you don't.

This. As a Syndicalist I'm a staunch supporter of organising around economic issues that are at the direct root of the class struggle and inserting 'politics' (in the Idealist sense) in and during that friction through the way we struggle and through education.

This is forgiveable though, I too think all marxist-leninist are pol pot supporters and for installing totalitarian dictatorships all around the globe just for the lulz.

If only good ol' Pol Pot knew how many times he was referenced on this here board :laugh:

Jolly Red Giant

27th May 2010, 22:00

As a Syndicalist I'm a staunch supporter of organising around economic issues that are at the direct root of the class struggle and inserting 'politics' (in the Idealist sense) in and during that friction through the way we struggle and through education.
I know it is not the topic for this thread - but I would like to address the issue of syndicalism.

Unfortunately, in revolutionary situations syndicalism has shown to be bankrupt and incapable of developing the workers revolution.

One of the best known syndicalists was James Connolly who brought syndicalism from the USA to Ireland in 1909 and with James Larkin built the Irish workers movement on the basis of syndicalism. Between 1918-1922 Ireland was in a period of revolutionary upheaval - and I am not talking about nationalist revolutionary upheaval but socialist upheaval. Right throught this four year period Ireland was ripe for socialist revolution - the workers movement had independent organisations from nationalism built on syndicalism and had the power to achieve a socialist revolution. Syndicalism failed abysmally. Time and time again during this period the Irish working class stood at the edge of socialist revolution and time and again the syndicalists failed to lead the movement forward. The Irish revolutionary movement during this period demonstrates as well as any other - and better than most - the inability of syndicalism to achieve a workers revolution and the crying need for the building of a vanguard party.

Ravachol

27th May 2010, 22:55

I know it is not the topic for this thread - but I would like to address the issue of syndicalism.

Unfortunately, in revolutionary situations syndicalism has shown to be bankrupt and incapable of developing the workers revolution.

One of the best known syndicalists was James Connolly who brought syndicalism from the USA to Ireland in 1909 and with James Larkin built the Irish workers movement on the basis of syndicalism. Between 1918-1922 Ireland was in a period of revolutionary upheaval - and I am not talking about nationalist revolutionary upheaval but socialist upheaval. Right throught this four year period Ireland was ripe for socialist revolution - the workers movement had independent organisations from nationalism built on syndicalism and had the power to achieve a socialist revolution. Syndicalism failed abysmally. Time and time again during this period the Irish working class stood at the edge of socialist revolution and time and again the syndicalists failed to lead the movement forward. The Irish revolutionary movement during this period demonstrates as well as any other - and better than most - the inability of syndicalism to achieve a workers revolution and the crying need for the building of a vanguard party.

You take one example, Connolly (who was a Revolutionary Syndicalist yes but not an Anarcho-Syndicalist by any means) and extrapolate the failure to achieve revolution to some intrinsic property of Syndicalism in-itself.
Taking that line, I can do the same with Trotskyism (or any other tendency for that matter) which hasn't been able to lead a successfull working-class revolution anywhere so far. The failure of Connolly and Revolutionary Syndicalism in Ireland is by no means intrinsic to Syndicalism as a theory and as a practice.

Secondly, I'm not an exclusive Syndicalist at all. If anything, I argue in favor of Heterodox revolutionary leftism, taking cues myself from tendencies as varied as Autonomist Marxism, Nihilist Communism, Council Communism and, at times, Situationism. I favor a synthesis of theory and practice in the struggle for anarchist communism. Also, you're not really expecting me, as an Anarchist, to argue in favor of a vanguard party are you? :confused: Whilst I am willing to accept the Operaist concept of 'party' as the combined bottom-up self-organs of the working class, it's organic 'party', it's hardly consistent with Anarchism to argue in favor of a vanguard party in the traditional Leninist sense (no offense, just difference of opinion).

Os Cangaceiros

27th May 2010, 23:05

You take one example, Connolly (who was a Revolutionary Syndicalist yes but not an Anarcho-Syndicalist by any means)

What do you see as the difference between Anarcho-Syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism? I only ask because Black Flame (you've mentioned that book here before, and I've read it and like it as well) puts people like Connolly and De Leon in the same generalized current as Bakunin.

I personally don't see a tremendous deal of difference between Connolly and, say, Pelloutier, other than the self-applied "anarcho" label.

Ravachol

27th May 2010, 23:09

What do you see as the difference between Anarcho-Syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism? I only ask because Black Flame (you've mentioned that book here before, and I've read it and like it as well) puts people like Connolly and De Leon in the same generalized current as Bakunin.

Well, Revolutionary Syndicalism is within the 'broad anarchist current' in the sense that the practice of Revolutionary Syndicalism comes really close to Anarchist ideas. It does, however, deviate at several points. DeLeonism's stressing of the necessity of participation in bourgois parliamentary elections obviously differs from the Anarchist point of view. Connolly seems to change his mind on this subject in different writings, though I recall him mainly arguing in favor of a Revolutionary Socialist parliamentary party. Whilst their Syndicalist practice can be considered to lie inside the 'broad Anarchist tradition', their conception and implementation of the 'party' differs. The Operaist conception of the 'organic party' is closer to Anarchism in that respect.

Os Cangaceiros

27th May 2010, 23:19

Well, Revolutionary Syndicalism is within the 'broad anarchist current' in the sense that the practice of Revolutionary Syndicalism comes really close to Anarchist ideas. It does, however, deviate at several points. DeLeonism's stressing of the necessity of participation in bourgois parliamentary elections obviously differs from the Anarchist point of view. Connolly seems to change his mind on this subject in different writings, though I recall him mainly arguing in favor of a Revolutionary Socialist parliamentary party. Whilst their Syndicalist practice can be considered to lie inside the 'broad Anarchist tradition', their conception and implementation of the 'party' differs. The Operaist conception of the 'organic party' is closer to Anarchism in that respect.

Yeah, I knew about DDL's endorsement of parliamentary tactics, which is why I'm skeptical of him being in the "broad anarchist tradition". Obviously I think that it's a bankrupt tactic that no one with anti-authoritarian politics should support.

Syndicalist unions like the IWW rejected parliamentarism, though, which makes me think that they're about as close to anarchism as you can possibly get without being "anarchist".

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

28th May 2010, 00:10

The working class has spoken, anarchism is for children.

You are quite possibly the most boring person on here.

Delenda Carthago

28th May 2010, 00:38

What Would Durruti Do?

28th May 2010, 10:28

this is an invasion

28th May 2010, 10:48

I don't think it's entirely right to judge a movement strength on numbers alone. If a thousand anarchists can shut a city down, or parts of a city down, then I think they are pretty strong. If a group of people can successfully pull off multiple occupations and defend spaces then I would say they are pretty strong.

It's awesome that the KKE can bring out thousands and thousands of people, but what are all these people doing?

Don't let the armchair revolutionaries here at RevLeft get you down comrade. Obviously the only people with any semblance of knowledge on the subject are those who are a part of it.

Excellent advice.

28th May 2010, 12:42

The working class has spoken, anarchism is for children.
Sectarianism is for dogamatic pricks like yourself, see what I did there?

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

28th May 2010, 13:26

Sectarianism is for dogamatic pricks like yourself, see what I did there?

The funny thing is that if I were to say something like "The working class has spoken, Leninism is for children." he'd call me a sectarian - like anyone who has the nerve to venture an opinion on Nepal/his particular party etc that isn't entirely positive.

28th May 2010, 13:29

The funny thing is that if I were to say something like "The working class has spoken, Leninism is for children." he'd call me a sectarian - like anyone who has the nerve to venture an opinion on Nepal/his particular party etc that isn't entirely positive.
He's dogmatic, I told you.

Jolly Red Giant

28th May 2010, 14:21

Connolly seems to change his mind on this subject in different writings, though I recall him mainly arguing in favor of a Revolutionary Socialist parliamentary party. Whilst their Syndicalist practice can be considered to lie inside the 'broad Anarchist tradition', their conception and implementation of the 'party' differs. The Operaist conception of the 'organic party' is closer to Anarchism in that respect.
Connolly was a marxist - he didn't argue in favour of a Revolutionary Socialist parliamentary party - he argued in favour of the establishment of a broad left party operating as the political wing of the trade union movement. He also founded and participated in a revolutionary party (the SPI) although he didn't establish it as a vanguard party.

In regards the syndicalism - it was the primary driving force behind the organisation of workers in trade unions as advocated by both Connolly and Larkin. It was for this reason they organised the ITGWU as the One Big Union - a single union encompassing all workers. For both - revolutionary movements would come from and be organised through the unions with the political organisations playing a secondary role. During the period 1918-1922 Ireland stood at the presipice of revolution on more than one occasion - all that was required was for a vanguard party to step in and play a leadership role. Syndicalism dictated against a vanguard party playing this role (no such party existed in Ireland despite the leading Marxist organisers in the ITGWU forming the Revolutionary Socialist Party in 1919) - syndicalism failed abysmally at facilitating / leading the Irish working class to revolution.

Taking that line, I can do the same with Trotskyism (or any other tendency for that matter) which hasn't been able to lead a successfull working-class revolution anywhere so far.
Trotskyism has never been in a situation where it had the potential to lead a revolution as syndicalism has - there is a massive difference between never having had the opportunity - and - having socialist revolution staring you in the face and not being able to recognise that it was begging you to lead it.

The failure of Connolly and Revolutionary Syndicalism in Ireland is by no means intrinsic to Syndicalism as a theory and as a practice.
an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory - syndicalism failed the test.

Secondly, I'm not an exclusive Syndicalist at all. If anything, I argue in favor of Heterodox revolutionary leftism, taking cues myself from tendencies as varied as Autonomist Marxism, Nihilist Communism, Council Communism and, at times, Situationism. I favor a synthesis of theory and practice in the struggle for anarchist communism.
Seems like there is more than a little confusion there. :confused:

Ravachol

28th May 2010, 17:22

Connolly was a marxist - he didn't argue in favour of a Revolutionary Socialist parliamentary party - he argued in favour of the establishment of a broad left party operating as the political wing of the trade union movement.

Which is exactly what a Revolutionary Socialist party is in the DeLeonist conception.

stood at the presipice of revolution on more than one occasion - all that was required was for a vanguard party to step in and play a leadership role.

I hardly doubt it. Again, you keep pointing to the failure of this SPECIFIC instance of Syndicalism (of a variety which I don't even argue in favor of) and then extrapolate it to Syndicalism in general. That's a logical fallacy.

Trotskyism has never been in a situation where it had the potential to lead a revolution as syndicalism has

If I were to mount a petty sectarian attack I'd say "and why do you think that's the case? :rolleyes:". But I've met plenty of Trotskyists with more solid analysis than simply pointing to failed experiments and yelling "LULZ SYNDICALISM FAILS REVOLUTION 4 EVAH".

an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory - syndicalism failed the test.

This sentence doesn't even make any sense in the context of what I said. What I said was: that the failure of Syndicalism (of a variety I'm not endorsing) in Ireland isn't INTRINSIC to Syndicalism in general.

Seems like there is more than a little confusion there. :confused:

Nah, it just goes to show how ill-informed you are about the inter-relatedness of these tendencies and how your dogmatism is more of a joke than anything else. Say what you want about them but I've met plenty of "Stalinists" far less sectarian and dogmatic than you.

Palingenisis

28th May 2010, 18:05

Nah, it just goes to show how ill-informed you are about the inter-relatedness of these tendencies and how your dogmatism is more of a joke than anything else. Say what you want about them but I've met plenty of "Stalinists" far less sectarian and dogmatic than you.

"Stalinists" are less dogmatic and sectarian than trots and also our organizations tend to be a lot less authoritarian.

Proletarian Ultra

28th May 2010, 20:46

You mostly hear them for rioting or for clashing with the police but you will never see them agitating in the street or a workers area or in a big bussiness.

Since a big portion of that "rioting" has been physically defending migrant workers' housing from police and neonazi aggression, it might be worthwhile to reconsider that statement.

There's as much space in the Marxist-Leninist movement for Pol-Potist or mindless 'every opposition to AmeriKKKa is good, including Juche and Taliban' anti-impie positions.

Hey! I take personal offense. Thought we weren't supposed to be having a tendency war here?:D

Palingenisis

28th May 2010, 21:06

Since a big portion of that "rioting" has been physically defending migrant workers' housing from police and neonazi aggression, it might be worthwhile to reconsider that statement.

The CWI is against rioting per se.

I appreciate anarchists defending squats (having had to squat in the past not through personal chioce but need) and beating up fascists. Anarchists do a lot of good and to deny it and label them all middle class is untrue aswell as stupidly counter-productive.

Wolf Larson

28th May 2010, 21:49

The working class has spoken, anarchism is for children.

Vanguard parties are for children. Don't you think it a bit patronizing to assume the working class needs an "enlightened minority" to guide and lead us? The soviets were doing just fine before Lenin shat on the situation. Which revised version of history do you propagate? Because in reality, the Bolsheviks have shown themselves to be enemies of the people.

Jolly Red Giant

28th May 2010, 23:45

I hardly doubt it. Again, you keep pointing to the failure of this SPECIFIC instance of Syndicalism (of a variety which I don't even argue in favor of) and then extrapolate it to Syndicalism in general. That's a logical fallacy.
I am not pointing to a specific example - but one example - and this particular example I have detailed knowledge of.

If I were to mount a petty sectarian attack
Please don't let me stop you

What I said was: that the failure of Syndicalism (of a variety I'm not endorsing) in Ireland isn't INTRINSIC to Syndicalism in general.
And again I said - it is but one example

Say what you want about them but I've met plenty of "Stalinists" far less sectarian and dogmatic than you.
In fact the most dogmatic people I have met tend to be anarchists (followed very closely by Maoists)

"Stalinists" are less dogmatic and sectarian than trots and also our organizations tend to be a lot less authoritarian.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Charles Xavier

29th May 2010, 17:08

Vanguard parties are for children. Don't you think it a bit patronizing to assume the working class needs an "enlightened minority" to guide and lead us? The soviets were doing just fine before Lenin shat on the situation. Which revised version of history do you propagate? Because in reality, the Bolsheviks have shown themselves to be enemies of the people.
If you check your history books the Soviets were about to be attacked by the Provisional Government with armies.

gorillafuck

29th May 2010, 19:42

This is an improvement, but their "tendency" still seems dominant. Or more noisy at least.
FSL, what do you think of anarchosyndicalists/non-"post left" anarchists in your country?

FSL

29th May 2010, 21:47

FSL, what do you think of anarchosyndicalists/non-"post left" anarchists in your country?

There are very few that I'm aware of (at least compared to the "anarchist mass") mainly working in businesses like restaurants where labor laws are absent. They and the communist party obviously don't work together but they're hardly a problem to us and we're hardly a problem to them.
This past month anarchists were protesting at a restaurant after someone was fired without an excuse and the boss moved to a "lock out". There were favourable articles in the party's paper and some actions by PAME that were probably seen as "meddling" by them or some of them.

In any case, the "post-left" anarchists as you call them are the ones that are really venomous towards communism and the party, often not distinguishing themselves for the worst conservatives when talking about it.They're the nihilistic ones. With people that are participating in the class struggle I can't have any complains, even if I still think they're wrong about a million other things.

Ravachol

30th May 2010, 20:04

I am not pointing to a specific example - but one example - and this particular example I have detailed knowledge of.
(..)
And again I said - it is but one example

You really fail to get to point do you? Care to point out how this failure is intrinsic to Syndicalism?

In fact the most dogmatic people I have met tend to be anarchists (followed very closely by Maoists)

First I'm "confused" and adhere to too many tendencies, then I'm dogmatic :rolleyes: You're a Joke.

Tiktaalik

31st May 2010, 07:35

Sad for me to say it,but anyone who acts like anarchist space in Greece only riots and nothing else,is an enemy just like a cop or a fascist.I am not taking it anymore from anyone to reproduce the media stereotype that anarchists are just some bums who just go out,riot and then drink beers in Exarheia.There has been put lots and lots of work in many ways to be underested,specialy by people from the "left".

Word bro! Keep up the good work! Solidarity forever!

An awesome thing about the Greek situation is that y'all actually do commit acts of violence and stand by them, instead of here where you have anarcho-pacifists saying "we're not violent" and a bunch of middle-class Leftist progressives and "radicals" towing the cops and corporate media's line calling us violent thugs without ideology.

It's completely appropriate to attack the institutions that destroy the my life and so many millions of lives and make it as clear as possible why they need to be attacked. Anything that attacks the ruling class is something we should all vocally support. It's a fucking shame that there is such a current of leftist sympathy with the ruling class that whenever someone tries to break out of the protest-as-usual method, you have an army of leftists and self-proclaimed revolutionaries like the Lenin-loving maggots on this forum who will be the first to join the corporate propaganda's denunciation of you. I am not naive enough to believe that broken windows are inherently revolutionary or even appropriate in some cases, but they are a strategy.

And to the moron who posted "anarchism is for children," go sell some newspapers and talk to an actual worker about how awesome your vanguard party is, I'm sure they'll sign up right away.

Honggweilo

1st June 2010, 01:04

And you turn down those millions of conservative voters just because they vote for much more reactionary bullshit than the anarchists you speak of? No you don't.

And the way you describe the anarchist milieu in Greece does not in any way match my personal experiences, experiences of friends of mine who went to Greece, studied there, or any anarchist from Greece, let alone other Greeks who I have met. Maybe your analysis says more about your view of anarchism on general than the actual reality.

This is forgiveable though, I too think all marxist-leninist are pol pot supporters and for installing totalitarian dictatorships all around the globe just for the lulz.

I guess the conclusion here is that the truth lies in the middle. Contemporary anarchism, like here, is plagued with lifestylist tendencies (which all genuine activists agree on) and infact are barely distinguisable from football hooliganism ( also supported by the fact that alot of lifestylists in the dutch AFA are infact real thrillseaking football hooligans from some firms seeking to extend that into politics). I dont really blame FSL for concentrating on the masses instead of learning about the internal squables in the anarchist milieu in greece, and instead focussing on the majority of the working class. I still staunchly support the KKE's massline and the rational organising of the workingclass without overexagerated optimism as a firm unified movement, without degenerating into reformism. And i do get tired of some of the sensationalists unconditionally praising "acts of violence" as revolutionairy, and dismissing any critique on their strategy as "pacifist state loving leninist maggots", while we are in the frontline of the struggle.

That said, a intentional gross generalization of the anarchist left by some ML'ists here (not FSL btw) does require nuanciation. Petit-bourgeois anarchist currents like primitivism, post-left nihilism, and even some ellements of ultra-left insurrectionism dont have my sympathy. But alot of genuine platformist, syndicalists, autonomous marxist, ect do have good analyses sometimes, and in the way of tactics and struggle dont even differ from us that much. Most of them hold a mass line, some form of horizontal vanguardism, and dont hold utopian unrealistic tactics and practical work (non-sectarian working with mass organisations, even some prominent union cadres here). They even some justified critiques on decentralization, and culture. For example, the KKE somestimes has the tendency to hold some conservative social values of the working-class as justified ( i.e homophobia, although the KKE isnt homophobic, it is frowned upon, in contrast to other genuine MLíst parties in europe, like spain, italy and portugal). Also, alot of communist parties were founded by anarcho-syndicalist circles with social-democratic parties, or as the political branch of anarcho-syndicalist unions (like portugal).

But as with us there are alot of unfounded contemporary generalized stereotypes and bloated historical grudges on both that hold back cooperation. Also the class atagonisms and homogenous state of the blocks make these accusations on both sides alot more intense. I suggest to judge people/movements case to case, and not in a generalized fashion. In the MLíst milieu, as well as in the anarchist milieu, there are tendencies that directly/indirectly align with the ruling class, wether it be through petit bourgeois lifestylism and utopian ultra-leftism, or through revisionism and reformism.

So can we pl0x agree on the fact that we are all doing it "for the lulz", and make out :rolleyes: