ISO on anarchism

[syndicat]

you can listen to the ISO's discussion on anarchism from the chicago socialist conference here:

http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/anarchism


What you'll notice here is certain things that I find generally characteristic of ISO's rhetoric in relation to the libertarian left. First, the focus on lifestylist anarchism, insurrectos, and on young people with little real understanding of the theory or history of social anarchism. Thus they will focus on substitutionist or adventurist behaviors, dumpster diving, Crimethinc style anarchism, and the like.

In this talk the presenter does sort of differentiate this from the historic mass/class struggle anarchism, the sort of anarchism that built syndicalist unions, the anarchism of the Spanish revolution etc. But the actual politics of this latter form of anarchism are never discussed. One person in the audience pointed out that no organizations were discussed. Now obviously if you want to build a strawman, it's a lot easier if you don't have to talk about actual organizations. For example, the only class struggle anarchist group mentioned was Four Star Anarchist Organization in Chicago but only to quote them criticizing adventurist anarchists who get into trouble trashing property, and then expect others to spend time bailing them out, defending them, etc, how this is unproductive, a drain on the movement etc.

The Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences and the groups who attend them are not discussed nor is their politics discussed. NEFAC was mentioned in passing and the book Black Flame -- a defense of mass/class struggle anarchism -- was mentioned as an "exciting" develolpment, but, again, without really going into what the politics are. I suppose I should regard this as a good thing, in that it will mean they aren't training people to debate actual libertarian socialists of the organized working class oriented variety.

[Raúl Duke]

you can listen to the ISO's discussion on anarchism from the chicago socialist conference here:

http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/anarchism


What you'll notice here is certain things that I find generally characteristic of ISO's rhetoric in relation to the libertarian left. First, the focus on lifestylist anarchism, insurrectos, and on young people with little real understanding of the theory or history of social anarchism. Thus they will focus on substitutionist or adventurist behaviors, dumpster diving, Crimethinc style anarchism, and the like.

In this talk the presenter does sort of differentiate this from the historic mass/class struggle anarchism, the sort of anarchism that built syndicalist unions, the anarchism of the Spanish revolution etc. But the actual politics of this latter form of anarchism are never discussed. One person in the audience pointed out that no organizations were discussed. Now obviously if you want to build a strawman, it's a lot easier if you don't have to talk about actual organizations. For example, the only class struggle anarchist group mentioned was Four Star Anarchist Organization in Chicago but only to quote them criticizing adventurist anarchists who get into trouble trashing property, and then expect others to spend time bailing them out, defending them, etc, how this is unproductive, a drain on the movement etc.

The Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences and the groups who attend them are not discussed nor is their politics discussed. NEFAC was mentioned in passing and the book Black Flame -- a defense of mass/class struggle anarchism -- was mentioned as an "exciting" develolpment, but, again, without really going into what the politics are. I suppose I should regard this as a good thing, in that it will mean they aren't training people to debate actual libertarian socialists of the organized working class oriented variety.

I think they do this for opportunistic reasons.

They present the "bad" side of anarchism so to putt-off their audience from anarchism and thus, in a sense, render anarchism off as an ideological competitor for new adherents.

The way it's presented is so to create a slippery-slope if you question about it. They'll say to genuine anarchists "oh we are only saying bad things about those 'lifestylists' so don't complain to us" but obviously their omission of mass/class struggle anarchism is so to present a sort of strawman for those who aren't well-acquainted to anarchism by giving an impression that anarchism is all about those "bad" stuff.

Also, why do some of these Leninist orgs bother giving presentations or pamphlets on anarchism?

[graymouser]

In my relatively brief time in the ISO (several years ago now) we did have a discussion of anarchism, and it focused on the old IWW. The ISO critique of the IWW at least as it was presented in the Philly branch was that it was a mistake to combine trade-union tasks (organizing the workers) and political tasks in a single organization because it required workers to be revolutionary before mobilizing them at all. I believe that's roughly the actual ideological critique that they present of anarcho-syndicalism.

In the Leninist left there is some degree of respect for working class anarcho-syndicalists of the old IWW school, but not for the modern social anarchists. IMO that's about correct, and it's something that serious libertarian socialists need to figure out.

[syndicat]

In the Leninist left there is some degree of respect for working class anarcho-syndicalists of the old IWW school, but not for the modern social anarchists. IMO that's about correct, and it's something that serious libertarian socialists need to figure out.

no, frankly it's something i don't give a shit about....until there is an articulated argument worth responding to, whch i've not seen coming from the Leninist left lately. actually, i'll have to give credit to the International Bolshevik Tendency (if I have their name right) in that they did a pamphlet specifically critiquing platformism, which I thought was respectable.


In my relatively brief time in the ISO (several years ago now) we did have a discussion of anarchism, and it focused on the old IWW. The ISO critique of the IWW at least as it was presented in the Philly branch was that it was a mistake to combine trade-union tasks (organizing the workers) and political tasks in a single organization because it required workers to be revolutionary before mobilizing them at all. I believe that's roughly the actual ideological critique that they present of anarcho-syndicalism.



they didn't discuss this at all in the presentation, except to allude to criticisms they had of anarcho-syndicalism.

the sort of argument you allude to, which I'm familiar with, has been used for years by Leninists to justify "boring from within."

now, it's true that many present-day American anarchists don't have any clue about the problem of class formation. if one takes this seriously, then there is the question of how the working class becomes revolutionary. the way we deal with that in my organization is to look at intermediate forms of authentic forms of mass organization, the ways in which worker-controlled forms of organization are important to development of class consciousness and so on. so we would look at militant minority forms of organization such as rank and file groups or grassroots workers centers, or worker-controlled independent unions with a militant and solidaristic, anti-racist politics, even if not overtly "revolutionary".

more generally, the type of view you allude to is characteristic of one type of anarcho-syndicalism. but within the libertarian left there is a concept of "dual organizationalism", that the role of a revolutionary organization and a mass organization are not the same, and this is the perspective of my group, tho we're revolutionary syndicalist. this was implicit in the distinction between FAI and CNT in the Spanish revolution or in the World War 1 era anarchist movement in Italy (UA vs USI).

[this is an invasion]

I love how there is a dichotomy made between class struggle anarchists and insurrectionary anarchists. And how "lifestylists," insurrectos, and crimethinc anarchists are all lumped together.


Fucking stupid. I really shouldn't be surprised that the same tired old arguments are still being tossed around as if they actually mean anything.

[ChrisK]

Having been a member of the ISO, I can say that they do show a good deal of respect to the old IWW, but they have serious problems with lifestylists. Also, they have had bad experiences with working with Anarchist organizations (every memeber with five years experience has a "horror story" about working with them) and many that I knew had formerly been anarchists.

To be honest, their public critiques of Anarchism focus on youth anarchist movements and not actual organizations. I think they ought to present a more systematic critique of Anarchism, but I definatly agree with what they say about lifestylism.

[syndicat]

yeah, but what are these "anarchist organizations"? there were several ex-anarchists in the audience for the talk i linked above. they seemed to refer to loose local collectives or things like spokescouncils and the parephenalia of consensus and all that...not features of the organized class struggle anarchist left. my group makes decisions by majority vote. the requirement of unanimity of decision was brought into the movement from the Quakers in the '70s/80s period and is sometimes justified through individualist anarchist arguments, whereas it is rejected by social anarchism historically.

in regard to the distinction the ISO presenter made between lifestylists, primies, insurrectos, individualists etc and traditional working class oriented social anarchism, we make the same distinction, so i don't disagree about that.

[this is an invasion]

Having been a member of the ISO, I can say that they do show a good deal of respect to the old IWW, but they have serious problems with lifestylists. Also, they have had bad experiences with working with Anarchist organizations (every memeber with five years experience has a "horror story" about working with them) and many that I knew had formerly been anarchists.

To be honest, their public critiques of Anarchism focus on youth anarchist movements and not actual organizations. I think they ought to present a more systematic critique of Anarchism, but I definatly agree with what they say about lifestylism.

The argument against "lifestylists" is completely irrelevant. Because either "lifestylists" are completely and utterly out of the picture (in which case we can just ignore them because they don't do anything), or they are actually engaged in political work (in which case we should be critiquing the work they do).

The fact of the matter is, Anarchism represents a major force within the American Left, regardless of how many chapters ya'll ISO people have or whatever. Anarchists are continuing to grab headlines and get attention. So until people can formulate decent critiques that aren't focusing on accusations of lifestylism and stem from actual understandings of anarchism, ya'll are just going to look like a bunch of fools.

[this is an invasion]

in regard to the distinction the ISO presenter made between lifestylists, primies, insurrectos, individualists etc and traditional working class oriented social anarchism, we make the same distinction, so i don't disagree about that.
Well, it's incredibly stupid and shows a clear lack of understanding to not only group all of those people together as if they all share some sort of common ground, and as if all insurrectionary anarchists and insurrectionary groups have no relevance or interest in class struggle.

[syndicat]

well, i recently had a very unpleasant encounter with some insurrectos here in California. people involved in the anti-cuts movement who use the mindless slogan "occupy everything, demand nothing." what is the point to this? is the assumption that the masses are champing at the bit to revolt and seize the means of production? a person would have to be out of their everluvin mind to think such a thing here in the USA. moreover, in my observation people like this have no idea whatever as to how the mass of the people might move or evolve in their thinking and mindset towards greater critique of the system, greater belief in the ability of the working class to change things, that is, to move towards a higher level of class consciousness.

the mass of the people are not going to be drawn to follow the example of some kid who throws a rock through a bank window. i was present in my working class neighborhood when a throng of several hundred of these people marauded through tossing news boxes into the streets. everyone was puzzled, What the heck was that about? they'd done no local propaganda, had no base in the community. did they chose a working class neighborhood as an exercize in slumming or what?

class struggle is a mass, collective phenonenon. so how does it occur? and how does it develop? I've not seen any evidence that insurrectos have given much thought to this. many anarchists think only in terms of one-off "actions". they don't think about the morer protracted process of movement building, of patiently getting people involved, for example if you're trying to organize people at work or whatever. this requires building actual organizations that have an ongoing existence.

insurrectos are in principle opposed to this. they only favor ad hoc comings together for "actions".

[ChrisK]

yeah, but what are these "anarchist organizations"? there were several ex-anarchists in the audience for the talk i linked above. they seemed to refer to loose local collectives or things like spokescouncils and the parephenalia of consensus and all that...not features of the organized class struggle anarchist left. my group makes decisions by majority vote. the requirement of unanimity of decision was brought into the movement from the Quakers in the '70s/80s period and is sometimes justified through individualist anarchist arguments, whereas it is rejected by social anarchism historically.

I've moved since then, so I don't actually know. You could be right in what your saying. But in my conversations with one member, I learned that he had been an anarcho-syndicalist who found the leninst critique to be convincing enough to join the ISO. My guess is that he was in the IWW.

However, many of the horror stories do deal with they seemed to refer to "loose local collectives or things like spokescouncils and the parephenalia of consensus and all that", so you are very right here. They could have had a very shallow experience with Anarchism.

[Wanted Man]

All "critiques of anarchism" on leninist websites are invariably shitty hatchet jobs. Their aim is to keep their own members from seriously investigating anarchism and to try and persuade the less secure anarchists. I say this as part of an M-L organisation that has other things to worry about than criticising caricatures of anarchism.


Having been a member of the ISO, I can say that they do show a good deal of respect to the old IWW, but they have serious problems with lifestylists. Also, they have had bad experiences with working with Anarchist organizations (every memeber with five years experience has a "horror story" about working with them) and many that I knew had formerly been anarchists.

If the ISO are anything like their ideological examples in Europe, the rest of the left will probably have five "horror stories" after one year of experience with them.

[ChrisK]

The argument against "lifestylists" is completely irrelevant. Because either "lifestylists" are completely and utterly out of the picture (in which case we can just ignore them because they don't do anything), or they are actually engaged in political work (in which case we should be critiquing the work they do).

The fact of the matter is, Anarchism represents a major force within the American Left, regardless of how many chapters ya'll ISO people have or whatever. Anarchists are continuing to grab headlines and get attention. So until people can formulate decent critiques that aren't focusing on accusations of lifestylism and stem from actual understandings of anarchism, ya'll are just going to look like a bunch of fools.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/03/anarchism.pdf

http://www.isreview.org/issues/24/anarchists_spain.shtml

http://www.isreview.org/issues/34/emmagoldman.shtml

Not saying these are perfect, but knock yourself out.

[syndicat]

of course, the thing about the IWW is that it isn't a political organization. It claims to be a union...and does have a few campaigns that are legitimate union organizing efforts these days, like Starbucks Workers Union. but it has no campaign or orientation to, say, community organizing or developed perspectives on non-class forms of oppression. in other words, it doesn't have the sort of overall perspective that revolutionary organization such as NEFAC or WSA would have.

so a person whose only experience is with IWW has had no experience with a class struggle anarchist political organization. now, it's very understable that this should be so. of the organizations that attend the Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences, only one (WSA) has been around longer than 10 years. Most have only been around for less than five years.

[syndicat]

in regard to the ISR article on Spain, I have a refutation of part of its argument and of various other ISO critiques (as articulated in columns by Paul Damato):

http://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/socialanarchismvsleninism.htm

the author of the ISR piece on Spain doesn't really understand Spanish anarcho-syndicalism, despite all the books he skimmed thru. for example he continues the traditional trotskyist fabrication that they were against the working class taking power. Confuses opposition to a party taking state power with the working class taking economic and political power, which, in the anarcho-syndicalist view, is not the same.

[ChrisK]

of course, the thing about the IWW is that it isn't a political organization. It claims to be a union...and does have a few campaigns that are legitimate union organizing efforts these days, like Starbucks Workers Union. but it has no campaign or orientation to, say, community organizing or developed perspectives on non-class forms of oppression. in other words, it doesn't have the sort of overall perspective that revolutionary organization such as NEFAC or WSA would have.

so a person whose only experience is with IWW has had no experience with a class struggle anarchist political organization. now, it's very understable that this should be so. of the organizations that attend the Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences, only one (WSA) has been around longer than 10 years. Most have only been around for less than five years.

Thank you for the information. Like I said, it's very likely that the ISO has very limited experience with Anarchist organizations.

[MarkP]

The Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences and the groups who attend them are not discussed nor is their politics discussed. NEFAC was mentioned in passing and the book Black Flame -- a defense of mass/class struggle anarchism -- was mentioned as an "exciting" develolpment, but, again, without really going into what the politics are. I suppose I should regard this as a good thing, in that it will mean they aren't training people to debate actual libertarian socialists of the organized working class oriented variety.

I'm no fan of the ISO, but this criticism is silly at best or narcissistic at worst.

The ISO argues against the politics of the amorphous and incoherent anarchoid milieu because it's a milieu of some size that they rub up against. They see it a pool of potential recruits and, more negatively, as a pole that could be attractive to their own, often not very politically consolidatedm membership.

They discuss the IWW in its heroic period and the Spanish revolution because these were important parts of the past of the radical left.

They don't discuss the politics of NEFAC or the WSA or the Four Star Anarchist Organisation because they don't regard such organisations as significant, either as rivals on the left or as a part of wider political life. They also don't write polemics against the Workers International League or Spark or other similarly small far left currents within the Trotskyist family, for exactly the same reasons. They don't see any purpose in devoting time and energy to debating the views of tiny rival sects.

There's a certain arrogance to that. 800 members or whatever the ISO have represents a tiny and irrelevant number in the greater scheme of things. But there's also a lot of sense to it as an approach.

If the WSA ever become a serious force in the arenas the ISO works in, or if it develops a large but politically flabby following, the ISO will no doubt churn out arguments aimed at it. When the largest of these class struggle anarchist organisations has a few dozen members they won't bother. And really, who can blame them. They don't talk about your politics because they don't take your politics seriously and don't think you matter.

[this is an invasion]

well, i recently had a very unpleasant encounter with some insurrectos here in California. people involved in the anti-cuts movement who use the mindless slogan "occupy everything, demand nothing." what is the point to this? is the assumption that the masses are champing at the bit to revolt and seize the means of production? a person would have to be out of their everluvin mind to think such a thing here in the USA. moreover, in my observation people like this have no idea whatever as to how the mass of the people might move or evolve in their thinking and mindset towards greater critique of the system, greater belief in the ability of the working class to change things, that is, to move towards a higher level of class consciousness. First post to actually say something legitimate. The slogan "occupy everything. demand nothing" is simple. It means that we should be taking over space, and not trying to reason with or dialogue with power. No one is under the assumption that we are in a period of time where the working class will revolt, but we do want to push everything in that direction. The use of the slogan was a experiment with trying to push the struggle outside of the university, and past the limits of single-issue reforms like the budget cuts.


the mass of the people are not going to be drawn to follow the example of some kid who throws a rock through a bank window. i was present in my working class neighborhood when a throng of several hundred of these people marauded through tossing news boxes into the streets. everyone was puzzled, What the heck was that about? they'd done no local propaganda, had no base in the community. did they chose a working class neighborhood as an exercize in slumming or what? There is more to insurrection than throwing a rock. I do agree that a lot of North American insurrectionary anarchists fetishize the attack aspect of insurrection without any attempt at building sustainable projects. It seems that they, as well as you, do not see that these sorts of things are not exclusive. We can fuck shit up as well as build things.

If you're referring to the march that happened in the Mission after the Anarchist Cafe before the last Anarchist book fair, you're sort of blowing things out of proportion. If you're talking about something different than I apologize.


class struggle is a mass, collective phenonenon. so how does it occur? and how does it develop? I've not seen any evidence that insurrectos have given much thought to this. many anarchists think only in terms of one-off "actions". they don't think about the morer protracted process of movement building, of patiently getting people involved, for example if you're trying to organize people at work or whatever. this requires building actual organizations that have an ongoing existence.

insurrectos are in principle opposed to this. they only favor ad hoc comings together for "actions".
The last sentence is just not true at all. Maybe you should check at the things Modesto Anarcho has done.

I agree with your first sentence entirely. And I ask the same questions, as do insurrectionary anarchists. Everything insurrectionary anarchists do around the world are experiments in order to answer those questions. Outside of America, IAs have been somewhat successful at building movements (especially in Greece and to a lesser extent Chile - I believe. Not entirely sure about the situation in Chile, but they do have some crazy anarchists). The problem I think American IA's have, and this is shared by social anarchists such as yourself, is that they believe there is a dichotomy between organizing and attack.

I do, however, agree with IAs that the more rigid organizations like NEFAC are somewhat irrelevant to modern struggle. But I am not discounting things such organizations bring to the table (NEFAC has a wonderful piece called the Workplace papers that I think are entirely relevant to every working class anarchist regardless of what tendency they adhere to).

[this is an invasion]

http://www.isreview.org/issues/03/anarchism.pdf

http://www.isreview.org/issues/24/anarchists_spain.shtml

http://www.isreview.org/issues/34/emmagoldman.shtml

Not saying these are perfect, but knock yourself out.

I'll try to get around to these soon.

[syndicat]

If the WSA ever become a serious force in the arenas the ISO works in, or if it develops a large but politically flabby following, the ISO will no doubt churn out arguments aimed at it. When the largest of these class struggle anarchist organisations has a few dozen members they won't bother. And really, who can blame them. They don't talk about your politics because they don't take your politics seriously and don't think you matter.

actually 50 to 70 members would be the largest groups, and maybe 400 in all the orgs, who work together. but, sure, i understand your point. but in that case why discuss or mention class struggle anarchism at all if it's irrelevant? it's not just that they didn't mention particular orgs but that they didn't really talk about the politics even tho that was the ostensible theme of the workshop. now, of course, that's up to them, and I can fully understand not discussing it at all. WSA generally doesn't bother talking about trotskyism. We only talk about a Leninist org if there is some particular event or situation where it would be relevant. we do critique Leninism in general sometimes and of course what we say would be fair game for that reason.

but as long as ISO do choose to talk about class struggle anarchism, then it is fair game to point out the inaccuracies and fallacies of what they say.

[syndicat]

If you're referring to the march that happened in the Mission after the Anarchist Cafe before the last Anarchist book fair, you're sort of blowing things out of proportion.

nope. i'm referring to an earlier demo in the Mission in 2005, at the time of the G8. as to the event you refer to, I was there also. i thought it was really pretty stupid dumping news boxes in the front of Muni buses...thus impeding proletarians who use the bus. i had no problem with taking the street for an improptu march, but i also think it was entirely meaningless.

[syndicat]

First post to actually say something legitimate. The slogan "occupy everything. demand nothing" is simple. It means that we should be taking over space, and not trying to reason with or dialogue with power. No one is under the assumption that we are in a period of time where the working class will revolt, but we do want to push everything in that direction. The use of the slogan was a experiment with trying to push the struggle outside of the university, and past the limits of single-issue reforms like the budget cuts.


okay, so, in other words, you agree it was a mistake. as to the rest of your post, I don't think you've said anything.

[this is an invasion]

okay, so, in other words, you agree it was a mistake.

No. I think you're asking something legitimate. I agree with the slogan. I don't see why any anti-authoritarian would disagree with it.


as to the rest of your post, I don't think you've said anything.

Of course you don't.

[syndicat]

No. I think you're asking something legitimate. I agree with the slogan. I don't see why any anti-authoritarian would disagree with it.

saying we should make no demands is nonsensical. if you have done any organizing, articulating demands occurs around various grievances that people have, and which motivate their involvement. that's because people have goals when they engage in action.

so consider a newspaper where i worked in the production department and was organizing. we had a variety of beefs. there was a production artist who was HIV positive and we thought the company was going to fire him. so, one of our demands was that they not fire him or hire a replacement for him. People were paid very poorly. So one of our demands was that they pay us more, and lower management's salaries if they have to to pay us more. articulating these demands was part of the process of getting people together, having meetings of coworkers and so on.

your slogan would have been meaningless to my coworkers.

but, look, i don't want to get into another pissing match with insurrectos. from my point of view, they're irrelevant.

[bcbm]

from my point of view, they're irrelevant.


actually 50 to 70 members would be the largest groups, and maybe 400 in all the orgs, who work together.
.

[syndicat]

yeah, bcbm, this seems to be about the closest you can get to a coherent argument.

[this is an invasion]

saying we should make no demands is nonsensical. if you have done any organizing, this occurs around various grievances that people have, and which motivate their involvement.

so consider a newspaper where i worked in the production department and was organizing. we had a variety of beefs. there was a production artist who was HIV positive and we thought the company was going to fire him. so, one of our demands was that they not fire him or hire a replacement for him. People were paid very poorly. So one of our demands was that they pay us more, and lower management's salaries if they have to to pay us more. articulating these demands was part of the process of getting people together, having meetings of coworkers and so on.

your slogan would have been meaningless to my coworkers.

but, look, i don't want to get into another pissing match with insurrectos. from my point of view, they're irrelevant.

God. It's not dogma, bro.

The slogan was for the student movement.

I don't know how you can say that IAs are irrelevant when it's clear you've never taken the time to try to understand what they're about. And when it's clear that you're deliberately trying to recreate the (false) dichotomy between organizing and attack.

[this is an invasion]

nope. i'm referring to an earlier demo in the Mission in 2005, at the time of the G8. as to the event you refer to, I was there also. i thought it was really pretty stupid dumping news boxes in the front of Muni buses...thus impeding proletarians who use the bus. i had no problem with taking the street for an improptu march, but i also think it was entirely meaningless.

You sure it was the same event? Because, that is not what happened. Newspaper boxes were thrown in the street, but there were no buses around.

[syndicat]

The slogan was for the student movement.


and it makes no sense for the student movement. students have to take into consideration things like developing alliances with campus workers and broadening the struggle to alliances with people involved in cuts in other areas, such as the fights currently going on in LA and Bay Area against transit cuts. your slogan doesn't relate coherently to this.

you've had the opportunity here, and so have others, to lay out some coherent perspective, if you want to, same as me or anyone else. I've taken a look at things like "Coming Insurrection" and some things in the Cimethinc journal and some other stuff. But I don't really have the patience for it because it seems to me to be completely wrong-headed.

in other words, you assume i have reason to examine these ideas in depth. what little i've seen gives me no such reason. and when i criticize based on what i have read, then I'm told that is unrepresentative or "I don't understand." but it's your obligation to make your perspective clear.

when it comes to their critique of things like consensus, individualism and insurrectos, this is where I'm often inclined to agree with the ISO.

[bcbm]

you've had the opportunity here, and so have others, to lay out some coherent perspective, if you want to, same as me or anyone else.as i recall (though you seem not to judging by your quip) we have had a fairly long discussion about insurrectionist ideas in the past, though it was nearly impossible to communicate anything with you.


I've taken a look at things like "Coming Insurrection" and some things in the Cimethinc journal and some other stuff. But I don't really have the patience for it because it seems to me to be completely wrong-headed.tci and crimethinc are completely different things. crimethinc is very critical of insurrectionary anarchism.

[this is an invasion]

and it makes no sense for the student movement. students have to take into consideration things like developing alliances with campus workers and broadening the struggle to alliances with people involved in cuts in other areas, such as the fights currently going on in LA and Bay Area against transit cuts. your slogan doesn't relate coherently to this.

you've had the opportunity here, and so have others, to lay out some coherent perspective, if you want to, same as me or anyone else. I've taken a look at things like "Coming Insurrection" and some things in the Cimethinc journal and some other stuff. But I don't really have the patience for it because it seems to me to be completely wrong-headed.

in other words, you assume i have reason to examine these ideas in depth. what little i've seen gives me no such reason. and when i criticize based on what i have read, then I'm told that is unrepresentative or "I don't understand." but it's your obligation to make your perspective clear.
lol crimethinc has nothing to do with insurrectionary anarchism. They've even written things talking shit on IA. They too try to recreate the dichotomy between organization and attack.

And yes, the slogan makes perfect sense. The university plays a certain role within capitalism as a factory that recreates social relationships. Instead of trying to protect this, or demanding reforms which aren't even entirely realistic, we should be taking space.

[syndicat]

crimethinc is very critical of insurrectionary anarchism.

they've apparently gone back and forth. they had an issue a couple years ago that was positive about it. of course it's always open to you to point to other things you think are more exemplary. it's not my obligation to do this.


we have had a fairly long discussion about insurrectionist ideas in the past.



yeah, and it was like trying to get a grip on mud.

[Weezer]

[off topic]An anarchist friend of mine is in an ISO chapter at his college campus.[/off topic]

[bcbm]

they've apparently gone back and forth. they had an issue a couple years ago that was positive about it. of course it's always open to you to point to other things you think are more exemplary. it's not my obligation to do this.

murder of crows 1 and 2 are worth checking out. a lot of new tiqqun translations are coming out, which aren't really insurrectionary anarchist texts but there is some overlap. read any bonanno?


yeah, and it was like trying to get a grip on mud.

everybody else seemed to grasp it, not sure what's going on with you.

[syndicat]

The university plays a certain role within capitalism as a factory that recreates social relationships. Instead of trying to protect this, or demanding reforms which aren't even entirely realistic, we should be taking space.

this is a meaningless sentence. what does "taking space" mean? what is the point?

the entire schooling system plays a certain role within capitalism, of sorting the population by class and layer within the class, and funneling them into respective positions in the class scheme. so people at the very top go to the private Ivy league schools, people in top management or high end professions go there if they can or to PhD granting public unis, and then next down the ladder you have the state colleges that train lower level elements of the bureaucracy and various skilled working class people like school teachers. and then below them you have the community colleges which have internal "tracking" systems like high school and the lower track funnels people into various working class jobs, maybe more skilled ones. And then low tracks in high school aim at total obedience, preparing people for totally deskilled, low wage jobs.

now given this, what should be our stance towards it? we can see things that would need to change for a society where the working class would be empowered. everyone should have equal access to the means to develop their potential.

but in fact there are reforms that we could demand that are worthwhile and point in that direction, like making all higher education open enrollment, eliminating tuition and fees, eliminating tracking in high school, equalizing funding between schools and so on.

moreover, there are various fights that take place around these areas all the times. and for example teachers in primary and secondary education could work to develop alliances with working class parents around things like universal pre-school, smaller class sizes, enriched education for all students, and so on.

through struggles around actual aims at present movements get developed, people get involved, people learn about the system, people develop skills as activists and organizers, they learn how to run democratic organizations and meetings, and so on. and these things are in fact part of the process of class formation.

but, to repeat, i have no interest in debating insurrectos.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's a whole lotta irrelevance goin' on in this thread.

But I guess that's not suprising seeing as how it's about the ISO.

[/trollish sectarian remark]

[MarkP]

actually 50 to 70 members would be the largest groups, and maybe 400 in all the orgs, who work together. but, sure, i understand your point. but in that case why discuss or mention class struggle anarchism at all if it's irrelevant?

50 members is a few dozen!

They mention "class struggle anarchism" out of completeness, and more importantly to emphasise how wide and incoherent anarchism is. Also, you provide a few handy quotes to use against the anarchists they are actually interested in. A few mentions doesn't amount to much, and that's precisely because they don't think that you amount to much.

Seriously. To the ISO you are of as much interest as any other sectlet of a few dozen, Anarchist, Trotskyist, Stalinist or other. Which is to say little to none.

It's irritating to be treated in that way by a group which in the greater scheme of things is also small and marginal, but there are degrees of smallness and degrees of marginality. There is nothing in it for them, so they won't engage seriously with your politics.

In the English speaking world, the largest Trotskyist outfits tend to be a lot bigger than the largest local class struggle anarchists. The ISO is 10 to 20 times the size of the largest us CSA organisation. Until that changes the only people who are going to spend a lot of effort on polemics against class struggle Anarchists on the Trotskyist left are the groups which are even smaller than you are. It's not an anarchist/trotskyist thing, it's just the ecosystem of the left at work - small groups attack larger ones, not the other way around unless there's some exceptional reason. They have a reason to rip into the wooly anarchoid milieu, they don't have a reason to pay attention to you.

[syndicat]

In the English speaking world, the largest Trotskyist outfits tend to be a lot bigger than the largest local class struggle anarchists. The ISO is 10 to 20 times the size of the largest us CSA organisation. Until that changes the only people who are going to spend a lot of effort on polemics against class struggle Anarchists on the Trotskyist left are the groups which are even smaller than you are. It's not an anarchist/trotskyist thing, it's just the ecosystem of the left at work - small groups attack larger ones, not the other way around unless there's some exceptional reason. They have a reason to rip into the wooly anarchoid milieu, they don't have a reason to pay attention to you.

I understand perfectly. At the same time, as I say, any critiques they come up with are fair game. I don't care about their critiques of the primmies, individualists or insurrectos, since I often agree with them in that regard. But for example ISR has run articles on the Spanish revolution and so it's fair game to reply to it, if I were to do so. In reality what I prefer to do, is not reply to them specifically, but to lay out my own analysis and then mention certain general lines of critique common to trots or other leninists, which will include the kind of argument their ISR article uses.

as to the small size of the class struggle anarchist milieu, well, that's our problem.


They mention "class struggle anarchism" out of completeness, and more importantly to emphasise how wide and incoherent anarchism

yeah, and that's called guilt by association. it would be sort of like me ciritiquing ISO by talking about Pol Pot or Enver Hoxha.

[MarkP]

I understand perfectly. At the same time, as I say, any critiques they come up with are fair game.

Yes, of course they are fair game.

And it even makes sense from the point of view of class struggle anarchists to critique the ISO's views - they represent a relatively large body of people reasonably close to your politics, with a lot of unconsolidated members who joined because it was the most visible radical thing around. Just don't expect them to reply seriously - to them you are a mosquito not a predator.


as to the small size of the class struggle anarchist milieu, well, that's our problem.

Yes. It certainly is.


yeah, and that's called guilt by association. it would be sort of like me ciritiquing ISO by talking about Pol Pot or Enver Hoxha.

It isn't as if eliding the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism for polemical purposes is an approach to argument entirely unknown in Anarchist circles, you know.

I'd actually agree with you that arguing against class struggle anarchists by dwelling on the sins of other anarchists would be a similarly dishonest way of arguing. But in fact that aren't actually doing that. They aren't arguing against class struggle anarchists at all, fairly or unfairly. They are arguing against the woolly anarchoid milieu and you are just a handy source of putdowns against their actual targets.

[Homo Songun]

"Occupy Everything, Demand Nothing" and related slogans were used by anarcho-LARPers pretending they are French Situationists. Vegan burritos all around

[bcbm]

but, to repeat, i have no interest in debating insurrectos.

clearly.

[JacobVardy]

the requirement of unanimity of decision was brought into the movement from the Quakers in the '70s/80s period and is sometimes justified through individualist anarchist arguments, whereas it is rejected by social anarchism historically.

The Quakers i know object to anarchist use of consensus. For them consensus is a spiritual ritual, their form of communion. For anarchists to use it for secular purposes is a blasphemy. My understanding was that consensus came from anarcho-feminism. It was used to limit macho bullies and as part of the philosophy of "the masters tools will not bring down the masters house."

[syndicat]

Quakers were involved in the antiwar and antinuke movements in the '70s/80s. They argued that majority vote was "violence" against the individual. There was also a form feminism of the '70s era called "radical feminism" that was against formal organization...the sort of feminism criticized by Jo Freeman's essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness", and this may be the type of feminism you are referring to. but in the peace and antinuke movement it was the quakers and pacifists who were the main advocates. see the pamphlet "Blocking Progress" by Howard Ryan. i'm referring to the USA here. it may have been different where you are.

[ContrarianLemming]

what's ISO's relationship with crimthInc?

[redasheville]

As a member of the ISO, I will say that Syndicat's criticisms are fair enough. It is true that there is a "unbridgeable chasm" between various strands of anarchism (one of anarchism's weaknesses IMO) and this should be acknowledged. It should also be acknowledged that the link above is one talk given by one member of the ISO. And while it is informed by the ISO's politics, it is hardly the last word on our positions on anarchism (we don't really have a position on anarchism actually, except for the fact that we aren't anarchists). It wouldn't have been the talk I would have given.

However, the anarchists that we encounter in our movement work are overwhelmingly some stripe of insurrection/lifestyle/po-mo/"occupy everything" type. And it is a fact that the majority of young radicalizing people that are attracted to anarchism are not beating down the door to join the WSA (though given the alternatives, I wish they would!). So it is fair enough that it is this type of anarchism that we chose to focus on in our discussion of anarchist politics. Syndicat is absolutely correct in saying that we are putting out material that is open to debate, disagreement and discussion.

I would encourage Syndicat to come to our conference in Oakland next month and raise these points in person. I think he/she would add a lot to any of our discussions.

[redasheville]

what's ISO's relationship with crimthInc?

I used to go to Zegota & Face Down In Shit shows in high school.

[ContrarianLemming]

However, the anarchists that we encounter in our movement work are overwhelmingly some stripe of insurrection/lifestyle/po-mo/"occupy everything" type.I always get this, all the anarhcists i meet are teens type argument, really, people, not only are you american, the home of lifestylism, but personal experiance should never be used for proper opinion.

I liek your avatar btw :)

[syndicat]

And it is a fact that the majority of young radicalizing people that are attracted to anarchism are not beating down the door to join the WSA

no doubt. but when they wish to get more serious about politics as they learn more...? of the more than a dozen groups (regional federations or local collectives) at the Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences only 2 have existed for more than 5 years. so class struggle anarchism has been growing rapidly. most of WSA's current membership have joined in the past few years.

[redasheville]

no doubt. but when they wish to get more serious about politics as they learn more...? of the more than a dozen groups (regional federations or local collectives) at the Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences only 2 have existed for more than 5 years. so class struggle anarchism has been growing rapidly. most of WSA's current membership have joined in the past few years.

That's great. I think that groups like NEFAC and WSA can and will contribute positively to the fight for a better world.

[redasheville]

I always get this, all the anarhcists i meet are teens type argument, really, people, not only are you american, the home of lifestylism, but personal experiance should never be used for proper opinion.

I liek your avatar btw :)

Well it wasn't an argument or an opinion (proper or otherwise). It was a simple statement of fact.

I like your avatar too, but the colors are off ;-)

[ContrarianLemming]

Well it wasn't an argument. It was a simple statement of fact.

There you go again, fact, you present your experiance as if it applies to the wide movement.
In my "experiance" all anarchists are class war anarchists: see how useful that is?

[redasheville]

There you go again, fact, you present your experiance as if it applies to the wide movement.
In my "experiance" all anarchists are class war anarchists: see how useful that is?

Dude, go back and read my post again.