Anarchism - theoretically impoverished?

[penguinfoot]

One issue I've been thinking about recently is whether the condition of theoretical impoverishment is a fair characterization of much of the anarchist tradition. By this I mean that Marxists have always sought to root their analysis of the possibility for revolutionary change in a body of social and political theory which explains the origins of the capitalist mode of production and the means by which capitalism produces the social and material forces that make a transition to an alternative kind of society possible (the identification of real possibilities for resistance and transformation alongside a basic recognition that human life is worth living and that there are some kinds of life that are more valuable and authentic than others being for Marcuse the factor that prevents social theory from disintegrating into idealism of a utopian kind - hence Marcuse's concern that a social theory is no longer possible under the conditions of late capitalism due to there no longer being any revolutionary social forces) such that Marx's theory of revolution is necessarily a historical one, or one rooted in an account of history, whereas the anarchist tradition seems to be limited to a certain set of aesthetics and a body of tactics, without a supporting theory of history or account of human nature. I think that this apparent theoretical impoverishment is one of the reasons why anarchists have so often found it difficult to identify the working class as the only social force that has the necessary discipline and strategic resources to bring about the overthrow of capitalism and emancipate humanity in the course of emancipating itself, and why anarchists have instead identified with other social forces in the belief that they possess equal revolutionary potential - the most obvious example being Makhno's identification with the peasantry and the contemporary anarchist movement's idealization of the Makhnovista experiment - or have identified with the working class only to the extent that it is the most suffering class, to paraphrase the Manifesto.

So - does anarchism lack a theory of history, and does this mean that anarchism is theoretically impoverished? or is there a hidden body of anarchist social theory that I've overlooked?

[The Feral Underclass]

is there a hidden body of anarchist social theory that I've overlooked?

Yes, it's called anarchism.

[penguinfoot]

Yes, it's called anarchism

That doesn't really answer the question of whether anarchism comprises a social theory, as distinct from just a vision of what the world should be like according to the individual. What's distinctive about a social theory is that it does not merely weigh the present society against alternative arrangements that are held to offer a better chance of human emancipation but that it provides an account of what forms of life humans should aspire to, by offering an account of human nature, and identifies the specific possibilities that exist for the improvement of human life and the specific ways of realizing those possibilities - in other words, it has to demonstrate that the established society has a given quality and quantity of resources, both in the form of material resources that raise the possibility of overcoming material scarcity and human or social resources that provide the means by which current structures of domination can be overcome, and that those resources can be used for the optimal development of the human individual, such that social theory abstracts from the actual organization and utilization of society's resources at the same time as showing that the alternative possibilities are within the reach of society as it currently exists.

As Marcuse puts it, "social theory is concerned with the historical alternatives that haunt the established society as subversive tendencies and forces". I'm not entirely convinced that the anarchist tradition fulfills these criteria and thus distinguishes itself from metaphysics because the anarchist tradition has yet to provide a theory of human nature or history - which are both essential for social theory because in order to justify an alternative vision you first have to point to the forces within the present society that make the realization of the alternative possible, including the origins and distinct features of those forces, and you also have to show why the alternative would better realize and promote those features that are inherent in human beings, and which encapsulate the good life. Maybe it would be better for us to begin the discussion by focusing on a distinct question: do anarchists think that the working class is the only class that can deliver revolutionary change, and if so, why?

[The Feral Underclass]

That doesn't really answer the question of whether anarchism comprises a social theory, as distinct from just a vision of what the world should be like according to the individual.

I suggest reading a book about anarchism.

You know, people come onto this forum routinely with these well thought out ideas and post up their criticisms. The problem is that you've forgotten to find out what anarchism is and what it stands for.

Malatesta, Bakunin, Kropotkin. Google them.

[F9]

Penquinfoot, before we start a theory discussion on Anarchism, you need to understand Anarchism first.Sadly from your posts, you are missing the whole point, and talking about something else, that you decided to call Anarchism, which in the end is far from real Anarchism.
Here, have a link of the best(for me) book someone could read to get introduction to Anarchism: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html

[penguinfoot]

I have actually read those authors, as well as secondary material like Guerin, and I hope some other people will join (or start!) the discussion soon. But I did follow your advice to some degree by looking at the Anarchist FAQ and seeing if there was anything there that could tell me about whether the anarchist tradition embodies assets like a theory of history and the other features that thinkers like Marcuse and Marx have seen as central to a social theory. Under the heading "Does anarchism "glorify values from the past"?" the very first thing that I was told was that "unlike Marx, anarchists did not think that capitalism was inevitable or an essential phase society had to go through before we could reach a free society". I think that, in key respects, this shows that the anarchist tradition ignores questions of history and is metaphysical in its basis because there were good reasons for Marx's view that capitalism is historically progressive compared to previous modes of production, keeping in mind that it was this position that underpinned his opposition to the "feudal" or "reactionary" socialists as well as his controversial positions in relation to India and other instances of pre-capitalist social formations being overturned by violent means - Marx is quite clear in the Manifesto and in other texts such as the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts that what makes capitalism progressive is that it is only under capitalism that the productive forces reach the level where the abolition of intense material scarcity becomes possible, and that the continued existence of material suffering under capitalism is not, in contrast to feudal and slave-based societies, because man is still dominated by the natural world and lacks the technical capacity to meet his needs, but rather because of the way that the forces of production are utilized, namely in the interests of profit rather than human need, and under an economic system that inevitably tends towards crisis, and involves humans being dominated by the products of their labour.

The anarchist rejection of capitalism as historically progressive and necessary - and by all means, prove me wrong if the Anarchist FAQ is not representative on this point - carries with it the implicit judgement that an anarchist society does not require the abolition of material scarcity and that you can have continued scarcity and subjection to the forces of nature without, in Marx's words, the revival of all the old crap - namely oppression and class division. This raises the question of whether it was possible to bring an anarchist society into being at each and every stage of history, and that the only thing stopping this from happening was the absence of the right ideas - rather than the absence of the necessary social forces, in the form of the working class, and a developed productive apparatus. There seems to be no other conclusion if you accept that only capitalism creates the possibility of socialism. The Anarchist FAQ actually makes it explicit that the anarchist tradition (or, to be fair, the writers of the FAQ) don't see anything special about the working class in the sense that they don't see the working class as a uniquely revolutionary force, in that they praise the fact that Proudhon's ideas reflected the interests of peasants and artisans, as well as "wage-slaves". This ignores what it is about the working class that makes it uniquely capable of achieving a classless society - namely the fact that its position in relation to the means of production and the processes of concentration and centralization that bring workers together into single units of production give it an interest in the collective rather than the individual ownership of property - and leaves anarchists without an answer in situations where the interests of the working class and peasantry clash, as during the course of the Russian Revolution.

So, I'll ask again: do anarchists think that the working class is unique in being able to carry out a socialist revolution, and if so, why, with the recognition that the working class is a product of capitalist relations of production, and that recognition of the uniqueness of the working class therefore carries with it an acceptance of the historical necessity of capitalism?

[Tablo]

Penguinfoot, are you a troll? We have provided literary material that proves your understanding of anarchism is completely lacking in any basis. We have a deep history and a lot of theory. I can't take anything you're saying seriously.

[Forward Union]

I have actually read those authors, as well as secondary material like Guerin, and I hope some other people will join (or start!) the discussion soon. But I did follow your advice to some degree by looking at the Anarchist FAQ and seeing if there was anything there that could tell me about whether the anarchist tradition embodies assets like a theory of history and the other features that thinkers like Marcuse and Marx have seen as central to a social theory.

The problem with Anarchism, is that it is a term that has suffered quite severe abuse over the years. It's weakness has lead to an internalisation of these slanders, and the negative accusations have in some instances actually been taken on board by the Anarchists. Due to it's organisational weakness, from the 1950s onward (though the problems are well recorded as pre dating this era), Anarchism was infested with Radical Liberalism and Left Communism. Hence most of the Majour Anarchist organisations, like Solfed and the AF take up positions like Left Communist Anti-Unionism, as a reflexive "rejection" of Trotskyist organisational tactics.

But there are numerous strands of Anarchist theory and Praxis that do not fit into this prism, some being remarkably better, some far worse. In essence, when someone says they are an Anarchist, whatever comes out of their mouth next can be quite interesting to hear.

Now, because of its broad usage, Anarchism is hard to talk about in the way you suggest. I think, any serious anarchist would agree with Marx view of history to some extent. But that is by no means true of every anarchist.


I think that, in key respects, this shows that the anarchist tradition ignores questions of history and is metaphysicalExcept that Historical Materialism does not contradict Anarchism, and can be agreed by Anarchists (like myself)


The anarchist rejection of capitalism as historically progressive and necessary - and by all means, prove me wrong if the Anarchist FAQ is not representative on this pointThe Anarchist FAQ is just a book written by a person. It contains some very unusual statements like that. Which are not inherantly Anarchist. I agree that Capitalism was a progression from Feudalism, and most Anarchists I know do as well.


So, I'll ask again: do anarchists think that the working class is unique in being able to carry out a socialist revolution,On behalf of all Anarchists, yes.


and if so, why, with the recognition that the working class is a product of capitalist relations of production, and that recognition of the uniqueness of the working class therefore carries with it an acceptance of the historical necessity of capitalism?Not for me to answer because I think Capitalism is a necesary historical force.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So, I'll ask again: do anarchists think that the working class is unique in being able to carry out a socialist revolution

Yes or no. :D

I think the difficulty here is that "anarchism" is too general for what you are asking. It would be like saying do all socialists believe the working class is central. All Marxist socialist do, but not utopian socialists - many "marxists" don't either once you look at insurgent and rural or student uprisings that identified as "marxist" during the cold war or democratic-socialists who see reforms and politicians, not working class activity as the road to socialism.

[penguinfoot]

Except that Historical Materialism does not contradict Anarchism

I find that the problem with this is that it assumes that the materialist interpretation of history is just something that can be "tacked onto" anarchist practice and history when actually the political conclusions that you arrive at by following Marx's theory of history sit in tension with the history of anarchist politics. To take the most obvious example, if you accept as Marx did that there are certain things about the working class that make it a uniquely revolutionary force and that the peasantry is more likely to support individual and compartmentalized property (i.e. the continued existence of small-producer capitalism) due to the nature of the conditions in which peasants find themselves (namely, rural conditions where it is possible for the main means of production - land - to be divided up amongst a larger number of independent producers) then it seems hard to avoid the view that if a revolution under the leadership of the working class breaks out in a country where the working class occupies only a small part of the population and the subsequent events lead to open conflict between the working class and the peasantry, then Marxists should be willing to accept the use of force, intimidation, expropriation (and other forms of violence that we might prefer to avoid) against the peasantry if doing so is necessary to strengthen working class rule.

Yet one of the major manifestations of anarchism in the Russian context and even throughout the history of anarchism was a movement, the Makhnovists, that was rooted in the peasantry and was all about preserving peasant autonomy, including individual ownership of the land. I know referring to the Bolshevik tradition is quite risky so I'd add that Marx himself was clear on the working class exercising political authority over and above over social forces such as the peasantry in his comments on Statism and Anarchy, where he makes it explicit that the working class in power should avoid adopting measures that would directly threaten the interests of peasants (and thus cause them to hinder or wreck the revolution, which Marx says was what happened in France) like abolishing the right to inheritance, but that everything should also be done to prevent the resurgence of "small-holding property", and that it is ultimately the working class that takes these measures "as government". Is it possible to accept historical materialism as a theory but then take political positions that seem to be inconsistent with the basic conclusions of that theory?


many "marxists" don't either once you look at insurgent and rural or student uprisings that identified as "marxist" during the cold war or democratic-socialists who see reforms and politicians, not working class activity as the road to socialism.

Well, at the risk of sounding sectarian, there is good reason to question whether supporters of guerilla warfare, reformism, the student vanguard, and so on, have much to do with the revolutionary Marxist tradition. It is interesting, though, that when Marxists and revolutionaries have found themselves in conditions where the working class appears passive or where it is not easy to directly engage with workers, their frequent response has been to try and preserve the word of Marx's ideas by arguing that the proletariat and the working class are not the same thing and that what enables the self-emancipation of the proletariat is a political organization which has a proletarian political orientation, regardless of its actual social composition - this was the justification posed by both the Sierra guerillas in Cuba and the Chinese Communists, for example. In some sense it's the reverse of those such as Marcuse who openly and explicitly look to other social forces for revolutionary potential.

[Forward Union]

To take the most obvious example, if you accept as Marx did that there are certain things about the working class that make it a uniquely revolutionary force and that the peasantry is more likely to support individual and compartmentalized property (i.e. the continued existence of small-producer capitalism) due to the nature of the conditions in which peasants find themselves (namely, rural conditions where it is possible for the main means of production - land - to be divided up amongst a larger number of independent producers) then it seems hard to avoid the view that if a revolution under the leadership of the working class breaks out in a country where the working class occupies only a small part of the population and the subsequent events lead to open conflict between the working class and the peasantry, then Marxists should be willing to accept the use of force, intimidation, expropriation (and other forms of violence that we might prefer to avoid) against the peasantry if doing so is necessary to strengthen working class rule.

If the peasantry occupy a political position which thretains the survival of a Workers Society, be that Anarchist or otherwise. Then the pragmatic question is; do the workers use force in order to maintain the existence of the project, or do they accept defeat for the sake of a moral position.

If we understand Pesants not to be landowners but agricultrual workers however, their interests are not always going to be in clonflict with those of the Urban workers, rather the issue is that they don't have either the material drive, or means to actually carry out a complete revolution, capable of surviving a cold war situation with imperial powers. All these questions I put down to particulars which ought not be given universal answers by Ideologies. Rather we should agree on ideological pragmatism.


Yet one of the major manifestations of anarchism in the Russian context and even throughout the history of anarchism was a movement, the Makhnovists, that was rooted in the peasantry and was all about preserving peasant autonomy, including individual ownership of the land. Is it possible to accept historical materialism as a theory but then take political positions that seem to be inconsistent with the basic conclusions of that theory? The Makhnovists knew (or at least the leadership did) that their revolution would be doomed without the victory of the Urban workers. And were horrified when they got to kiev and found the state of the Anarcho-Syndicalist unions, which they had hoped to link up with. I'm not sure what more we could expect them to do.

[The Feral Underclass]

I have actually read those authors, as well as secondary material like Guerin

Can you then explain to me how you've come these conclusions?

[The Feral Underclass]

most of the Majour Anarchist organisations, like Solfed and the AF take up positions like Left Communist Anti-Unionism, as a reflexive "rejection" of Trotskyist organisational tactics.

Firstly the word "reflexive" doesn't mean what you think it means. Secondly, the idea that the AF defines itself specifically as an anti-Trotskyist organisation is just ludicrous. What this demonstrates is that you've never read or at least understood what the AF's position on unionism is. Our position against unions has nothing to do with Trotskyism in the first instance. We reject unions because they can never be a revolutionary vehicle for change. Our position is well documented in several pieces of literature. But not only that, all this simply is, is an excuse in which to defend the fact your organisation is quite willing to work with Trotskyists and use their tactics in your political activities: Namely the authoritarian tactic of entryism. Tactics, I might add, that have historically and consistently proven not to work.

[Forward Union]

The idea that the AF defines itself specifically as an anti-Trotskyist organisation is just ludicrous.

I didn't claim that the AF defined itself as anti-trotskyist. I defined it the AF's positions as anti-union, and associated this with left-communism. However, I'd rather debate the policy itself, than the box it may or may not fit into.


But not only that, all this simply is, is an excuse in which to defend the fact your organisation is quite willing to work with Trotskyists and use their tactics in your political activities: Namely the authoritarian tactic of entryism. Tactics, I might add, that have historically and consistently proven not to workOf course I am willing to work with Trotskyists, there is too much at stake not to. But, practically speaking, I think their organisational modes are destined to have as limited success as an Anarchist organisation based on equally partyist principals. While self described Anarchists have directly, very different political policies to Trotskyist ones, this ignores a unity of approach between them and Trotskyists that we ought to reject.

Both Partyist Anarchists (those which seek to build their own organisation) and Trotskyist Parties, misunderstand the current situation. No party or Federation are going to get particularly big unless it is off the back of an organised militant and concious working class. Thus we have to throw ourselves into building grassroots, non aligned organs of class power. That's something both Trotskyists and yourself both seem not to get. And I am sorry to say that this might require working with people who read different books about Kronstadt than us. In this regard I do think most Anarchists have more in common with Trotskyists than they care to admit, though I don't think this "omg you have something in common with a trot, stalinist" line of discussion is ever useful. It is at best pathetic and at worst fatally destructive, to refuse to work with other Socialists in building grassroots organs of class power, such as residents associations, Union branches or anti-cuts coalitions, or whatever.

Our comrade Becca put all this quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttwKkmxZdo&feature=player_embedded#at=118

Anyway this is an important discussion but seems to be off the original topic.

[Revolution starts with U]

Humans are individualist creatures that live in large groups and communities to support subsistence and accomplish tasks. For 100k+ years they progressed fairly rapidly considering the lack of standards of communication, and faster-than-walking travel. There is scant evidence of any sort of political or economic heirarchy.
The devolpment of agriculture rapidly progressed society by allowing settled developments. There was now more food than necessary, meaning people did not have to provide for themselves neccesarily, to survive.
Economic interest amongs early man, in order to grow and protect their wealth and power over society, conspired to sieze power of large territories begining an age of empire that rapidly spread across the world. The course of civilization has largely consisted of land and capital owners and their religous institutions struggling to maintain a grip over the free expression of homo sapiens.
The most flourishing eras of human prosperity seem to have a correlation with the amount of freedom common people are allowed to express; greece, rome, medieval arabia, enlightenment europe, democratic america, etc from a western perspective.
Man must consciously make the choice that he is free to express hmself and that him and all others should be garaunteed the right to housing, subsistence, education, and healthcare to protect and nurture that freedom.

Individual Collectivism, fostering true human potential.
Society of Matter, Light, Sound, and Choice
Copyright Adam Z 2010

Am I doing it right?... cuz I dont know the first thing about anarchist literature, that is just my personal belief :thumbup1:

[The Feral Underclass]

I didn't claim that the AF defined itself as anti-trotskyist.

Yes you did. It says it right there above. If you're going to make criticisms at least know what you're saying.


I defined it the AF's positions as anti-union, and associated this with left-communism. However, I'd rather debate the policy itself, than the box it may or may not fit into.

I can't believe I'm having to tell you what you said. :rolleyes:

You said that "...the AF take up positions like Left Communist Anti-Unionism, as a reflexive "rejection" of Trotskyist organisational tactics."

You said "reflexive", but what you clearly meant was that the AF have some kind of knee jerk reaction to Trotskyist organisational tactics resulting in our position against unions.

That's what you said. It's right there.

[Forward Union]

You said "reflexive", but what you clearly meant was that the AF have some kind of knee jerk reaction to Trotskyist organisational tactics resulting in our position against unions.

That's what you said. It's right there.

I do think that alot of left-communist positions are little more than a moralistic rejection of pragmatic polcies that are often called "trotskyist" or "stalinist" amongst other names, some of these positions are held by groups I have mentioned.

But I think the bigger issue is Partyism which I explored in my last post.

[Zanthorus]

I do think that alot of left-communist positions are little more than a moralistic rejection of pragmatic polcies that are often called "trotskyist" or "stalinist" amongst other names, some of these positions are held by groups I have mentioned.

On the contrary, I think those who take up positions which aren't left-com tend to use moralistic justifications, for example, on the whole 'right of nations to self-determination' business. We frequently hear the leftist hoardes on this board moralising about 'national opression' to justify the most blatant class collaboration. Come to think of it, your position on the unions as organs which can be won over to revolutionary positions is also class-collaborationist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

OP: Many anarchists embrace historical materialism as a method of viewing history. In addition, every one from Kropotkin to Fredy Perlman to Michael Taylor have tried their hand at analyzing the state (including quite a few who have been influenced by Marx)...I suggest that you might want to look a little harder before you start making blanket criticisms.

Anarchism means different things to different people. In that sense, (I believe it was...?) Prairie Fire's comment about all anarchists being "rare and delicate flowers" is not without a good deal of truth, LOL. I prefer the word to describe my own political beliefs because I like anarchism's Janus-faced emphasis both on collective action and individual empowerment.

Oh, and Anarchism > The Frankfurt School

[Forward Union]

On the contrary, I think those who take up positions which aren't left-com tend to use moralistic justifications, for example, on the whole 'right of nations to self-determination' business. We frequently hear the leftist hoardes on this board moralising about 'national opression' to justify the most blatant class collaboration.

The removal of a territory from a national body, or the defeat of an Imperialist power in a war with a local ruling class, may or may not be beneficial for the Working class, as part of an overall strategic operation. That is something that, unlike dogmatists we are allowed to asses using facts and evidence. What is never useful is outright supporting or rejecting a said group based on a pre-set morality.


Come to think of it, your position on the unions as organs which can be won over to revolutionary positions is also class-collaborationist.


I look forward to reading your explaination.

[RED DAVE]

... the authoritarian tactic of entryism. Tactics, I might add, that have historically and consistently proven not to work.Watch your mouth unless you're ready to debate union strategy.

There is nothing at all "authoritarian" about entryism. (I assume you mean emembers of a revolutionary organization entering into the working class for political purposes.) You're engaged in political cursing here, not political analysis. And it is one of the few strategies that Marxists have in the US that actually works over the long term.

RED DAVE

[The Feral Underclass]

I do think that alot of left-communist positions are little more than a moralistic rejection of pragmatic polcies that are often called "trotskyist" or "stalinist" amongst other names, some of these positions are held by groups I have mentioned.

On what basis do you "think" this?


But I think the bigger issue is Partyism which I explored in my last post.

That's just made up gobble-de-gook, which is of no interest to me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Watch your mouth unless you're ready to debate union strategy.

Sorry, who are you?


There is nothing at all "authoritarian" about entryism.

Well I'm convinced. Tell me when the next paper sale is and I'll be there.


(I assume you mean emembers of a revolutionary organization entering into the working class for political purposes.)... And it is one of the few strategies that Marxists have in the US that actually works over the long term.

Entering a political organisation with the express intention of taking over the political and tactical nature of it, is by definition, authoritarian. I've been part of it and I've seen it in action. I know from experience what the consequences of this kind of tactic is.

And yeah, sure. It works for you, because you've successful managed to insidiously install your views over a political organisation.


You're engaged in political cursing here, not political analysis

You mean as opposed to what you're doing?

[Devrim]

I do think that alot of left-communist positions are little more than a moralistic rejection of pragmatic polcies that are often called "trotskyist" or "stalinist" amongst other names, some of these positions are held by groups I have mentioned.

The positions of the left communists on the trade unions date back about ninety years to the the second decade of the twentieth century, and before the German revolution. It is the position that was held by the left wing of the workers movement in Germany, including Karl Horner/Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, and Rosa Luxemborg.

Now you can argue that this position is wrong. To be honest you wouldn't be the first to say it, and it is a fair argument. However, I don't think it can be said that it is a 'reflexive' response to Trotskyism, as it is a position that the communist left has held since before Trotskyism existed.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

On what basis do you "think" this?

What, that left communism is moralistic? Let's take the "AGAINST THE NUM" strategy (If I dare give it credibility by calling it a strategy) during the miners strikes deployed by some left communists? The constant admition that their response to the Korean revolution would have been to say "fuck you" to everyone and go down in flames? I don't really know where to start.

BUT what I find hilarious, is the fact that you have decided to tackle me on this academic point about left communism and morality, essentially of no consiquence to anyone outside of this thread. Rather than the practical discussion regarding partyism. Im not sure if it's because you didn't understand it or if your politics are so dead end you've got nothing to add to the discussion.

[Forward Union]

Now you can argue that this position is wrong. To be honest you wouldn't be the first to say it, and it is a fair argument. However, I don't think it can be said that it is a 'reflexive' response to Trotskyism, as it is a position that the communist left has held since before Trotskyism existed.

I was refering to Anarchisms' adoption of Left Communist positions rather than the tendency itself. And actually I think adoption might be exagerating I think such comparisons are the result of coincidence.

But again, I would much rather debate the anti-union position held by TAT than it's political origins. Because even if my analysis was totally wrong, it wouldn't make anti-unionism any less absurd.

[Forward Union]

Entering a political organisation with the express intention of taking over the political and tactical nature of it, is by definition, authoritarian. I've been part of it and I've seen it in action. I know from experience what the consequences of this kind of tactic is.

But that's not what Entryism is. What if you get involved in say, the NSSN, a community campaing or any other group along these lines; with the express intention of keeping it democratic, giving it a revolutionary agenda, and preventing external political forces from diverting its energy into dead ends like the Campaign for a new mass workers party? Now tell me, in what way is that authorotarian? or perhaps it's not entryism in your book?

Either way, in such practice one will need to get their 'hands dirty' in a number of ways, ensuring voting blocks occor, preventing people from taking positions in the group, (perhaps by taking them yoruselves) etc etc. The point is these later questions are one of praxis, not ideology.

[The Feral Underclass]

What, that left communism is moralistic? Let's take their "AGAINST THE NUM" strategy (If I dare give it credibility by calling it a strategy) during the miners strikes? The constant admition that their response to the Korean revolution would have been to say "fuck you" to everyone and go down in flames?

That doesn't actually make any sense.


BUT what I find hilarious, is the fact that you have decided to tackle me on this academic point about left communism and morality, essentially of no consiquence to anyone outside of this thread. Rather than the practical discussion regarding partyism. Im not sure if it's because you didn't understand it or if your politics are so dead end you've got nothing to add to the discussion.

Firstly, this is a website designed for discussion, which by definition is academic.

Secondly, there is nothing about this "partyism" rubbish that would make for a legitimate, let alone interesting discussion. The whole idea is premised on an inaccuracy.

I'm not going to get dragged into a pointless back-and-forth with you. If you think our organisation is all about building its membership and self-perpetuity then think it. I don't give a fuck. Just as I don't give a fuck if your organisation wants to climb into bed with all and sundry to champion your dual power nonsense or whatever fad you people are into this week.

[The Feral Underclass]

But that's not what Entryism is. What if you get involved in say, the NSSN, a community campaing or any other group along these lines; with the express intention of keeping it democratic, giving it a revolutionary agenda, and preventing external political forces from diverting its energy into dead ends like the Campaign for a new mass workers party? Now tell me, in what way is that authorotarian? or perhaps it's not entryism in your book?

Either way, in such practice one will need to get their 'hands dirty' in a number of ways, ensuring voting blocks occor, preventing people from taking positions in the group, (perhaps by taking them yoruselves) etc etc. The point is these later questions are one of praxis, not ideology.

Spoken like a true Trot.

[Forward Union]

So, nothing to add then. Quel Supris

[The Feral Underclass]

So, nothing to add then. Quel Supris

Nothing to add to what? Your uninformed attacks of the AF's positions on unionism? Your inaccurate understanding of the AF's purpose? Your historically inaccurate characterisation of left-communism? Your defence of Trotskyist tactics?

You've pretty much said it all

[Forward Union]

Nothing to add to what? Your uninformed attacks of the AF's positions on unionism? Your inaccurate understanding of the AF's purpose? Your defence of Trotskyist tactics?

You've pretty much said it all

Well you claim innacuracies without citing them. Misuse the word Trotskist all over the shop, and all with your embarasing over-use of offensive tone. Which im not sure if is for an internet persona you hope to maintain or because you're genuinly incapable of proper discussion. Statements like "spoken like a true trot" adds nothing to the discussion, but unlike other people here who may simply retort in kind, I can see the bigger point which is that it clearly isn't intended to. Hence Im not really going to bother with you anymore. If you want to enter the grown up world of proper discussion do so.

[black magick hustla]

FU what you are doing is what most anarchists actually do in the US and what a lot of leftists have been doing for a century. you make it seem as you have this big fucking novel theory but in reality all that professional activism and single issue campaign shit you are involved to was already been tried to death by people who called themselves communists that had like decades of age over you. and you know what, we arent an iota near revolution.

whatever you and your tiny platformist do is completely irrelevant, and you are not going to change the course of history by sheer willpower.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well you claim innacuracies without citing them. Misuse the word Trotskist all over the shop, and all with your embarasing over-use of offensive tone. Which im not sure if is for an internet persona you hope to maintain or because you're genuinly incapable of proper discussion. Statements like "spoken like a true trot" adds nothing to the discussion, but unlike other people here who may simply retort in kind, I can see the bigger point which is that it clearly isn't intended to. Hence Im not really going to bother with you anymore. If you want to enter the grown up world of proper discussion do so.

Debating with you is a colossal waste of time. I'd rather just make fun of you.

[Forward Union]

FU what you are doing is what most anarchists actually do in the US and what a lot of leftists have been doing for a century. you make it seem as you have this big fucking novel theory but in reality all that professional activism and single issue campaign shit you are involved to was already been tried to death by people who called themselves communists that had like decades of age over you. and you know what, we arent an iota near revolution.

Misnomer. All strategies we come up with or tendencies we identify with can be fitted with some previous attempt in history, which, by virtue of the existence of the discussion didn't work out. Most of what I have been refering to isn't explicitly Platformist either, rather I have been suggesting an approach based on an analysis of what works, as opposed to a pre set ideological framework which is unbending.

On the plus side I think the original poster has a rather candid answer to his question :lol:

[black magick hustla]

Misnomer. All strategies we come up with or tendencies we identify with can be fitted with some previous attempt in history, which, by virtue of the existence of the discussion didn't work out.
I dont think my viewpoint is a matter of strategy or not. My point is that working class militancy is what makes communist orgs strong, it is not necessarily the cadre. What you want to do is change through the willpower of a few militants the course of history, and that doing all this stuff you are doing which every left group in existance does, you are getting near to that. At the very most, you are just part of an activist ghetto that is completely irrelevant to people-s lives. In the 68, workers orgs grew not because of iron disciplined militants, but because the class in general made an appearance in the stage of history.

[Forward Union]

What you want to do is change through the willpower of a few militants the course of history,

No. That is exactly not what I am getting at. I want to see built large mass organs of class power, such as union branches, residents associations and coalitions. These vast, "non political" organisations will change the course of history, not me, you, or our tiny political groups. This is why I am in staunch opposition to Partyism on behalf of any group. But where these types of formations exist they're often not up for the job, In terms of being undemocratic, or tied to useless political agendas, at this point. Some are doing well and others need significant fixing, and it is up to us me and you, as working class militants to do our best to see their success in the coming years - not our parties of federations or our philosophical standpoint.

That's not to say that explicit political organisations do not have a role. But to begin setting them up now is to get the horse before the cart.


workers orgs grew not because of iron disciplined militants, but because the class in general made an appearance in the stage of history.Oh right. Ok, I'll just sit about and wait for that.

[RED DAVE]

Watch your mouth unless you're ready to debate union strategy.
Sorry, who are you?A revolutionary Marxists with about 50 years of experience, much of it involving unions and "entryism." (By the way, we usually call it "entrism.")


There is nothing at all "authoritarian" about entryism
Well I'm convinced. Tell me when the next paper sale is and I'll be there.Instead, perhaps you might try getting a union job and working inside the union. Unless, of course, you already have such a job and you're already doing union work. That's entrism.


(I assume you mean emembers [sic] of a revolutionary organization entering into the working class for political purposes.)... And it is one of the few strategies that Marxists have in the US that actually works over the long term
Entering a political organisation with the express intention of taking over the political and tactical nature of it,Whoa, Comrade, let’s look at your definition. First of all, I’m talking about unions. I said that in my first paragraph, quoted above. Now, if you want to call a union a “political organization,” you can make a case, but that’s another discussion. It just might be that we’re talking about two different things, and you misread my post.


is by definition, authoritarian. I've been part of it and I've seen it in action. I know from experience what the consequences of this kind of tactic is.If you mean what was once called “raiding,” in which members of one group join another to dominate it or rip off its member ship, I would agree that it’s rarely defensible, but to call it “authoritarian” is political cursing. If the organization is democratic, and the group that’s “coming in” makes its goals known, then I don’t see the justification for the term.


And yeah, sure. It works for you,
because you've successful managed to insidiously install your views over a political organisation.I have no idea what you’re talking about.


(You're engaged in political cursing here, not political analysis
You mean as opposed to what you're doing?Yes. I’m trying to analyze the content of your post. You’re just screeching.

[B]RED DAVE

[bricolage]

I want to see built large mass organs of class power

These vast, "non political" organisations will change the course of history, not me, you, or our tiny political groups.Well sure I agree with you here however the problem is over...


union branches, residents associations and coalitions.Which could easily be seen as something other than 'organs of class power'.

That's not to say that explicit political organisations do not have a role. But to begin setting them up now is to get the horse before the cart.Which is why you are in an explicit political organisation now right?

Additionally I'd saying trying to properly set up the 'non political' organisations now is also the horse before the cart, these organisations will come about as of struggle when and where it happens, those that exist now exist with the confined of the capital-state paradigm, they are largely destined towards co-option and reformism.

[The Feral Underclass]

A revolutionary Marxists with about 50 years of experience, much of it involving unions and "entryism." (By the way, we usually call it "entrism.")
As each decade's gone, have you been telling yourself "maybe this time?" Your age and experience clearly hasn't taught you the concept of "flogging a dead horse".


Instead, perhaps you might try getting a union job and working inside the union. Unless, of course, you already have such a job and you're already doing union work. That's entrism.I was in a union. I did "union work". It was utterly pointless and a complete waste of energy.


Whoa, ComradeFirstly, I'm not your comrade...


I said that in my first paragraph, quoted above. Now, if you want to call a union a “political organization,” you can make a case, but that’s another discussion. It just might be that we’re talking about two different things, and you misread my post.
...Secondly, I don't think it's relevant what the nature of the political organisation is.


If you mean what was once called “raiding,” in which members of one group join another to dominate it or rip off its member ship, I would agree that it’s rarely defensible, but to call it “authoritarian” is political cursing.I don't know what you used to call it back in 1947 but in the UK in 2010, we call it entryism. And if you think "authoritarian" is cursing, then you're going to have problems.


If the organization is democratic, and the group that’s “coming in” makes its goals known, then I don’t see the justification for the term.Of course not. One needs to justify it some how. If your goal is to dominate/control an organisation then you do nothing to advance class consciousness, you simply advance your organisations power.


I have no idea what you’re talking about.
No?

[Forward Union]

Which could easily be seen as something other than 'organs of class power'.

Well, lets be very clear here, an RMT union branch, like, let's say the finsbury park branch, is incredibly militant and has a large level of autonomy in the organisation which does a good job of supporting it. Regardless of ones thoughts on the RMT, this situation empowers the workers there, and many have adopted full on revolutionary positions. Other Union branches, of other unions activly promote partnership, and neo liberalism. So we can't sum these things up in any particualr way.

Unions are a shell of what they should be, and where they are not organs of class power, where they are run by management or the Labour party, it is our duty as militant workers to turn them into democratic, revolutionary bodies, free from political agendas. Even if people like TAT consider this "authorotarianism"


Which is why you are in an explicit political organisation now right?
Not one which is partyist at least.


Additionally I'd saying trying to properly set up the 'non political' organisations now is also the horse before the cart, these organisations will come about as of struggle when and where it happens, those that exist now exist with the confined of the capital-state paradigm, they are largely destined towards co-option and reformism.And I will take a step in your direction and say that in some places it's not worth trying to save a Residents association which may have become a Tory biscuit club, but better to start again from scratch. But that's not always the best option, we just have to make good judgements.

I'm not saying that Unions are organs of class power, they're not, but they are a prototype and it's much more plausable to fix them than build a whole new workers movement from our tiny fringe clubs.

Organisations will turn up and are urning up about all the time. We have to be stuck into them.

[syndicat]

one of the major manifestations of anarchism in the Russian context and even throughout the history of anarchism was a movement, the Makhnovists, that was rooted in the peasantry and was all about preserving peasant autonomy, including individual ownership of the land.

This is simply not true. modern socialist anarchism came into existence via the federalist or libertarian socialist tendency in the first international. that movement advocated unions as instruments for workers to use in the revolutionary process, that is, the emphasis was on the working class as an agent of revolution. in countries where capitalist development has not destroyed the peasantry, the peasants, as immediate producers, have often been held to be a "popular class" that can also be part of a revolutionary alliance with the working class.

It's inaccurate to say that the peasants in Russia owned the land as individuals, as if this was in a capitalist sense. In reality the peasant council distributed most of the land to families based on the number of mouths to feed...larger the family, more acres of land. This collectivist character of the Russian peasnt tradition was why Marx came to the view towards the end of this life that the peasant council could be a building block of socialism in Russia.

It's also simply not true to describe the "Maknovschina" as a "peasant movement." The Markhno-lead army was set up by a People's Congress...there were a series of them in eastern Ukraine. Peasant communities, soviets, and unions were alll represented at these conferences. The army was accountable to a council elected by those congresses, which had a variety of Left political tendencies on it...Makhno's Nabat federation, maximalists, syndicalists, Left SRs, and even a Bolshevik party rep at one point.

When the Marknovist army was demobilized in 1921, the government kept records on how much land each fighter owned. The majority owned no land at all. This is because they were either landless farm laborers or urban workers. You say Makhno was "peasant identified". He may have personally identified with the local peasant culture, but his father was a landless farm laborer (hired by landowners), and Makhno himself was a foundry worker and president of a branch of the Russian metal workers union.

This sort of "anarchism vs marxism" debate is probably going to end up being sectarian and not very useful. Why? Because the terms "anarchism" and "Marxism" are very vague. they each cover a wide variety of viewpoints.

One difference of course is that "Marxism" is defined in relation to the writings of one man. Anarchism doesn't define its politicsl that way. Also, there is a distinction between a politics and theoretical ideas used to defend or work out that politics. Various aspects of Marxism, as a set of ideas, has influenced libertarian socialist political activists and organizing.

The majority tradition in anarchism from the first international on always saw the proletarian class as the agency of social transformation. but the working class cannot become a potential agent of libertarory revolution unless it develops an internal alliance among the various oppressed groups that compose it. Just referring to class alone is not sufficient for this...it can...and did...lead to "class only" approaches that did not pay enough attention to the oppression of women and people of color or oppressed national groups.

[commiepunk]

Unions are a shell of what they should be, and where they are not organs of class power, where they are run by management or the Labour party, it is our duty as militant workers to turn them into democratic, revolutionary bodies, free from political agendas. Even if people like TAT consider this "authorotarianism"
Why? What's the point of doing that?

Surely our duty as militant workers is to try to organise workers beyond the trade union form.

[RED DAVE]

Note to The Anarchist: You're a perfect example of the theoretical impoverishment of anarchism: all stance and mouth; no positions or practice. No use debating you: it's like debating one of my conures. They like to fly around flapping their wings, and every once in awhile they squawk.

You're right; we aren't comrades considering your abusive, no-nothing approach to politics.

RED DAVE

[Revolution starts with U]

I like to consider myself an anarchist in theory, and a social democrat in practice. I hold that anarchy and communism require a new man, and that social democracy is, so far, the best way to create that new man.
Revolutionary in thought while I wait, reformist in the mean-time.... i guess?

[The Feral Underclass]

Note to The Anarchist: You're a perfect example of the theoretical impoverishment of anarchism: all stance and mouth; no positions or practice. No use debating you: it's like debating one of my conures. They like to fly around flapping their wings, and every once in awhile they squawk.

What precisely is it I'm supposed to be debating? I have offered a position (not to you I might add). You disagreed with it, I disagreed back. There was really nothing in what you said that I could expand on. What more do you want?

If you want to learn about the practice I adhere to and am part of, then the best way to find out would be to ask. I don't tend to go into discussions listing my activist accomplishments.


You're right; we aren't comrades considering your abusive, no-nothing approach to politics.

You should try and learn - in your old age - that disagreeing with you is not the definition of having a "no approach to politics".

[Forward Union]

Surely our duty as militant workers is to try to organise workers beyond the trade union form.

Thats just a piece of rethoric that doesn't contain an actual position I can respond to. Either you're suggesting that the Trade Union structure isn't capable of conducting class struggle? which I agree with at the current point but am not sure what conclusions you have made... Or you're suggesting that because they are not a basis for a communist society that we can't use them. Which is a rather surrealist statement, like saying that because a Car isn't a Theme Park I can't use it to drive there.

Trade Unions are the key point of departure for all class struggle politics. Socialism and Anarchism are both proposals for the direction a class concious and militant working class should move in. And was written at a time of hightened class struggle. Today in the UK that isn't the case, and we really have to go back and re-empower the working class, by giving it bodies through which it can fight back. Not just unions, but also community groups.

Without an organised, strong,. and empowered (through democracy) working class our proposals on what they ought to be doing are as effective as a very nice board game strategy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Thats just a piece of rethoric that doesn't contain an actual position I can respond to.

That's because you have no ability to think outside the trade union/state structures format. The idea that workers can set up their own groups to resist is totally alien to you.

[el_chavista]

does anarchism lack a theory of history, and does this mean that anarchism is theoretically impoverished?Anarchism is the revolution in practice. The case of the few factories seized in Venezuela was an action of the workers alone, without the help of any theory or political party. Why workers and labor unions in Russia didn't oppose to the capitalist restoration? What theory and party was worth for?

[Forward Union]

That's because you have no ability to think outside the trade union/state structures format. The idea that worker can set up their own groups to resist is totally alien to you.

Aight I'll like, expand my mind maan and totoally see wht u mean

[this is an invasion]

Aight I'll like, expand my mind maan and totoally see wht u mean
Don't strain yourself too much

[Forward Union]

Don't strain yourself too much

Don't worry I've always been a fond believer of the maxim that 'one should be open minded, but not so open minded that ones brain falls out'

[The Feral Underclass]

Aight I'll like, expand my mind maan and totoally see wht u mean

No you won't. You'll continue chipping away at failed strategies, propagating warn out ideas until you get old, get disillusioned and become a fucking liberal. Just like all the other fringe nutters who think they've got a great idea, but are actually just re-inventing a very old, boring, flawed wheel.

The idea of you expanding your mind is about as likely as me becoming a lover of vagina.

[black magick hustla]

No. That is exactly not what I am getting at. I want to see built large mass organs of class power, such as union branches, residents associations and coalitions. These vast, "non political" organisations will change the course of history, not me, you, or our tiny political groups. This is why I am in staunch opposition to Partyism on behalf of any group. But where these types of formations exist they're often not up for the job, In terms of being undemocratic, or tied to useless political agendas, at this point. Some are doing well and others need significant fixing, and it is up to us me and you, as working class militants to do our best to see their success in the coming years - not our parties of federations or our philosophical standpoint.

That's not to say that explicit political organisations do not have a role. But to begin setting them up now is to get the horse before the cart.


Those are not workers'organizations though. They are organs of the state. You might as well try to democratize the state.

The organs of the working class are the strike committees, assemblies,and soviets, which emerge when the class emerges from history and has very little to do with the agency of a few militants. They are not the permanent economic organs of the state, and they generally arise in stark opposition to the state. These are not organs that are "democratized" by a few anarcho or communist dopey dudes.



Oh right. Ok, I'll just sit about and wait for that.
:rolleyes: it would prolly be as effective as what you are doing right now. at the very least you could be drinking beer and playing videogames rather than going into union meetings nobody gives a shit about

[bricolage]

Pretty much agree with what maldoror said but I'd also add that what you call 'non political' organisations are rarely thus. For example you mention the NUM but you'd have to be pretty naive to believe Scargill didn't have a political agenda and see the NUM as a political vehicle, his quite open Stalinist views and work in the SLP is testament to this.


I'm not saying that Unions are organs of class power, they're not, but they are a prototype and it's much more plausable to fix them than build a whole new workers movement from our tiny fringe clubs.
I think this is a strawman, those who say the unions can not be organs of class power don't in turn say their political organisations can take this role. Like was said, it is the strike committees, the workplace occupations, the councils that can only take this role, political organisations can only really serve the role of spreading ideas.

And as an end point I don't really think the AF is any more or less partyist than L&S.

[RED DAVE]

No you won't. You'll continue chipping away at failed strategies, propagating warn out ideas until you get old, get disillusioned and become a fucking liberal. Just like all the other fringe nutters who think they've got a great idea, but are actually just re-inventing a very old, boring, flawed wheel.

The idea of you expanding your mind is about as likely as me becoming a lover of vagina.So what are you actually doing these days, no-comrade, besides running your mouth?

RED DAVE

[fa2991]

I don't see why it has to be a matter of Marxist Social Theory vs. Anarchist Social Theory as the OP suggests. Personally, my anarchism is little more than Marxism with a different conception of the dictatorship of proletariat.

[Forward Union]

Those are not workers'organizations though. They are organs of the state. You might as well try to democratize the state.

No they are not organs of the state. They are organs of class power which have been co opted. Now, you can take the line that we ought to re-invent the wheel and build new indipendent syndicalist unions but that view fails to explain why the same problems wont arise again. Or if it does, it's proposals would be better suited to trying to break the link with the state or other political agendas.


The organs of the working class are the strike committees, assemblies,and soviets,

Which dissapear as quickly as they emerge, 'leaving little or no trace' and the next generation of militants with the mammoth task of starting all over again. We need permenant bodies of class struggle. Not whimsical flash in the pan hohas.


it would prolly be as effective as what you are doing right now. at the very least you could be drinking beer and playing videogames rather than going into union meetings nobody gives a shit about

Yea man. Union meetings are so like. Boring.

[Forward Union]

Pretty much agree with what maldoror said but I'd also add that what you call 'non political' organisations are rarely thus.

Hence I myself put it in ' '. I mean non political in the way the IWW is non political.


For example you mention the NUM but you'd have to be pretty naive to believe Scargill didn't have a political agenda and see the NUM as a political vehicle, his quite open Stalinist views and work in the SLP is testament to this.

Of course. Even more reason for us to be involved.


I think this is a strawman, those who say the unions can not be organs of class power don't in turn say their political organisations can take this role.

No. What they attempt to do is take over the Unions and use them as tools in political campaigns. The Socialist Party for example wants to use them to form a New mass Workers Party, and activly try to co opt them for this cause. But it's a complete misallocation of efforts. Even if they did take all the unions over, they would be building a mass workers party with 15% of the working class (which is what Union density is at now) a 15% which is not well organised, or particularly class concious.

Other political Anarchist groups like Solfed Propose taking people "beyond" traditional union structures and just having massive assemblies. But people haven't even got to the "Union" bit yet.


And as an end point I don't really think the AF is any more or less partyist than L&S.

Well you would need to quantify that before I could respond.

[Devrim]

Which dissapear as quickly as they emerge, 'leaving little or no trace' and the next generation of militants with the mammoth task of starting all over again. We need permenant bodies of class struggle. Not whimsical flash in the pan hohas.

There are two things about this, one is that there is no alternative. permanent unitary organisations of the class will, when the class is not revolutionary, not be revolutionary, and when the class is not fighting, not fight.

It isn't something that can be changed by tiny groups willing it to be so, and the fact that communists are tiny groups today is also related to the level of class struggle.

The second is that as the rate of class struggle intensifies, there will be less and less time i.e. not a generation between the appearance of these types of organisations.


Yea man. Union meetings are so like. Boring.

Yes, in my experience they are, and also particularly poorly attended.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

There are two things about this, one is that there is no alternative. permanent unitary organisations of the class will, when the class is not revolutionary, not be revolutionary, and when the class is not fighting, not fight.

Not revolutionary in terms of action. Fine. That isn't a problem. It can't be fixed, though I think that at this point in time, the material conditions for a militant working class exist, but the political vaccume left by the absense of the left is at best allowing Neo-Liberal policy to roll back decades of working class victories, and at worst being filled by far right groups. In such an instance we have to build actual class power, not political factions.


The second is that as the rate of class struggle intensifies, there will be less and less time i.e. not a generation between the appearance of these types of organisations.Not sure I follow sorry,

[bricolage]

No. What they attempt to do is take over the Unions and use them as tools in political campaigns. The Socialist Party for example wants to use them to form a New mass Workers Party, and activly try to co opt them for this cause.
I assumed as this whole discussion seems to be largely between anarchists and left communists we were talking about anarchist and left communist strategies. But yes of course various Trotskyist attempts at co-option are pointless, ignoring the unrevolutionary nature of those organisations they may be trying to co-opt.


Other political Anarchist groups like Solfed Propose taking people "beyond" traditional union structures and just having massive assemblies. But people haven't even got to the "Union" bit yet.And I'm sure we could jump the union bit too...

What I was trying to get at is the possibility of working class struggle (and the organisations that it will result in) happening beyond union structures. The strike committees, occupations, councils that are proposed and the rejection of unions as a bridge to this do not result in, as you say, small groups of militants bringing about a revolution.


Well you would need to quantify that before I could respond.Well both try to get new members. Maybe you'd have to clarify why you think the AF is partyist and L&S is not, to me it seems if one is the other is, if one is not same applies.

[Devrim]

Not revolutionary in terms of action. Fine. That isn't a problem. It can't be fixed, though I think that at this point in time, the material conditions for a militant working class exist, but the political vaccume left by the absense of the left is at best allowing Neo-Liberal policy to roll back decades of working class victories, and at worst being filled by far right groups. In such an instance we have to build actual class power, not political factions.

But that is the problem. Small political groups can not build class power. Thinking that you can is exactly what voluntarism is.

After the terrible years which were the nineties, the last decade has seen an increase in class combativeness, small, but obviously there in comparison with the nineties. This is despite the political vacuum created by the 'absence of the left'.

Currently on an international level we are seeing an intesification of struggle. Again it is important to keep this in perspective. Class struggle is not at the levels that it was in the 1980s, let alone the 1970s. However, there is an intensification despite what you call "the absence of the left".

Currently the media in the UK seems to be predicting a new wave of struggle. Even the Police Federation warned about it. These struggles will happen with or without small groups "building class power" as you put it.

Now in these struggles the apparatus of the unions will play a reactionary role. All of the historical appearance of the working class points towards this. This doesn't mean that we won't hear leftist rhetoric from the leaders of these unions or the political groups that support them. Ultimately though when push comes to shove, the unions will play a role, either consciously or unconsciously of holding back the struggle, and those who know talk of 'building the unions' will be forced to play that role, or stand against them.


Not sure I follow sorry, You talked about there being "a generation between the appearance of these types of organisations". My point was as the class struggle intensifies the time between there appearance will be less and less, and workers will develop the experience of these forms of organisation. To cite a very small example from my personal experience, during the wildcat strikes of the 80s in the Post Office it became common for postmen to decide on strikes in mass meetings. This is a tradition that today has mostly been lost, but throughout the 80s it was maintained. As the class struggle intensifies and struggles become more frequent, the experience with the class of these forms of organisation will grow, and not wait until the 'next generation' when it is called upon again.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

So what are you actually doing these days, no-comrade, besides running your mouth?

RED DAVE

If you want to have a conversation with me, then adopt a less patronising tone.

[Kuppo Shakur]

TAT, what's that last word in your avatar?
(Off-topic, because this thread's topic sucks)

[crashcourse]

The opening question to this thread is poorly posed and itself theoretically impoverished, like asking "is Marxism authoritarian?" or "is Marxism determinist?" There are many, many theoretically impoverished anarchists. There are determinists and there are authoritarians who are Marxists. None of that is interesting, and none of these should form the basis for abstractions and generalizations. Unless of course the point is simply to draw lines in the sand and get into silly squabbles. If we take a historical perspective then we see that anarchism and Marxism are diverse political traditions, rife with disagreements and with positions that are anti-working class. If we take a more fine-grained view -- if our unit of analysis is smaller than the entire tradition of anarchism or marxism, and we look for example at specific time periods, or organizations, or positions, or writers, then there's more still of interest to discuss. Like the debates on this thread about unions.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I must say, this is definitely an entertaining debate to watch. A debate between Anarchists & ISO members. For once, I'm going to have to side with the Anarchists, because, although I disagree with lines of Anarchism, people like Penguinfoot, as pointed out by many others here, fail to understand the common ideal theory behind Anarchism.

[syndicat]

I think the difficulty here is that "anarchism" is too general for what you are asking. It would be like saying do all socialists believe the working class is central. All Marxist socialist do,

I don't think all Marxists do. did the Chinese Communist Party in 1949 or the Vietnamese Communists hold such a view? No. did the Cuban Communists in the '60s hold such a view? No.

[BeerShaman]

I don't think all Marxists do. did the Chinese Communist Party in 1949 or the Vietnamese Communists hold such a view? No. did the Cuban Communists in the '60s hold such a view? No.
Respect!:thumbup1: