Some questions about anarchism

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What are the main contemporary anarchist schools of thought or tendencies? Who are the main or most popular contemporary anarchist thinkers? I don't mean the "classics", Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Maltesta, etc. but who is popular today?

As I understand its common for anarchists, unlike socialists, to join several organisations. Are anarchist organisations based or organised by theoretical orientation? What are the main anarchist groups, in the US and elsewhere? I'm familiar with NEFAC but that's about it.


What exactly is a platformist? My understanding its an anarchist who believes in the need for a vanguard organisation. Who are the main platformist theoreticians?

Are their any anarchists who like Lenin and or Trotsky or is that an oxymoron?

"Lifestylism" is usually used as a pejorative. Are there people or theories that regard lifestylism as a revolutionary strategy?

What are the popular or useful anarchist forums, websites,hard copy journals, or blogs? Is infoshop well regarded these days? How about Indymedia?

Anarchists and the ISO/UK SWP seem to have a traditional dislike for one another. Why is this? I don't want a flame war, to paraphrase Bud Struggle, I don't have a dog in this race, but I'm asking in a "spotterly" sense.

Why did/does anarchism in countries like Spain, Greece, maybe Italy, France and Argentina achieve a mass base but not in the US or UK?

Sorry for so many questions.

[syndicat]

What are the main contemporary anarchist schools of thought or tendencies? Who are the main or most popular contemporary anarchist thinkers? I don't mean the "classics", Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Maltesta, etc. but who is popular today?

Contemporary anarchism doesn't group itself around particular "thinkers." It's not like Marxism in that way. You would need to look at the particular organizations and their particular outlook. (Exceptions in the American context might be Bookchin and his various followers, and John Zerzan and "Green Anarchy" AKA primitivism, but both are minority tendencies.)




As I understand its common for anarchists, unlike socialists, to join several
organisations.

Yes, this is called "dual-card" membership. In my organization, WSA, we have members who also belong to NEFAC or Amanecer or Miami Autonomy & Solidarity. This happens because there isn't a really strong national organization in the USA or Canada. WSA -- the largest group and the only national one -- has been rebuilding and has increased its membership, but hasn't yet developed a lot of strong chapters. The other organizations are local collectives or regional organizations (such as NEFAC, or Union Comuniste Libertaire in Quebec).



Are anarchist organisations based or organised by theoretical orientation?


There are probably various local collectives that I don't know about. But for the groups I know about the answer is "yes."


What are the main anarchist groups, in the US and elsewhere? I'm familiar with NEFAC but that's about it.

Largest group and only national one is Workers Solidarity Alliance. This organization comes from the anarcho-syndicalist tradition but is "dual organizational", and is thus similar to NEFAC in that way. "Dual organizationalism" means we recognize a role for a political organization based on tighter political agreement, as well as mass organizations -- such as grassroots unions, industry based networks of militants (e.g within the business unions), grassroots workers centers, various kinds of community organizations such as tenant groups, environmental justice groups etc.

Dual carding is a peculiarly American thing, I think, and is less likely in Europe where a longer history of political organization development means the differences in the tendencies has often hardened more, and the different organizations have different lines.

Other groups: Amanecer (especifista federation with two groups in Bay Area), Miami Autonomy & Solidarity (not explicitly anarchist but believes in tight organization, dual organizationalism, close to platformism), Buffalo Class Action (platformist), Four Star Anarchist Organization (Chicago platformist organization), Wild Rose (in Iowa).

"Especifismo" refers to the particular form of dual organizationalism developed by South American social anarchists, especially the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU), which was a large organization in the period up to the imposition of the military dictatorship. They had many members in unions and had played a role in the formation of the National Workers Convention (CNT) and were represented on its national committee. In the anarchist world a political organization is called a "specific" organization because it is organized around a specific ideology. Especifismo, like platformism, is a libertarian communist tendency with an orientation to the development of mass movements/mass organizations that develop organically through the participation and control of the members/participants.

Dual organizationalism, however, was not invented by the platformists or especifistas, but has a history in Spanish and Italian anarchism from the earlier 20th century (e.g. FAI & CNT). WSA is dual organizational but does not identify as "platformist."

Other tendencies are followers of Bookchin's social ecology (Cindy Milstein and Brian Tokar are two spokespeople for this viewpoint), the "Crimethink" tendency with their jounral "Rolling Thunder" (sometimes characterized as lifestylist but I find them a bit vague, they are not dual organizational as they don't operate with a clear orientation to mass organization building as far as I can see), there are "insurrectionary anarchists" (I think the group Modesto Anarcho Crew probably fall in this tendency).

the insurrectionary and lifestylist anarchists tend not to have a dual organizational point of view because they have a more spontaneist conception of the revolutionary process and tend to be against ongoing formal mass organization. I would call them "anti-organizational" but they'd dispute that because they have a concept of "informal" organization, such as people coming together for a meeting on the spot or coming together in an action.

Bookchin had abandoned a class struggle perspective in favor of a vague appeal to people as citizens or around certain general anarchist ideas. Cindy Milstein's little book "Anarchism & Its Aspirations" is a good summary of this kind of perspective.

"Green anarchy" associated with John Zerzan is another tendency. "Fifth Estate" newspaper used to be associated with this tendency but I think they moved in a different direction nowadays. I haven't read FE lately so i can't characterize their current viewpoint.

Another magazine is "Anarchy:A Journal of Desire Armed." Seemed to me to be sort of cross between lifestylism, "Green anarchy" and "post-left" anarchism.

"Post-left" anarchism tends not to be too visible since, as far as I know, they don't get involved in mass struggles. They are a peculiarly American brand in that they are so fixated on anti-communism and alienated from social movements that they criticize "the left" in general. But these people are relatively few in number.




What exactly is a platformist? My understanding its an anarchist who believes in the need for a vanguard organisation. Who are the main platformist theoreticians?

Platformism derives from the "Platform of the General Anarchist Union" -- an organizational proposal written in 1926 by a group of Russian exiles that included Nestor Makhno and Peter Arshinov. They argued that the anarchists were defeated in the Russian revolution in part due to fragmentation and the lack of a cohesive, well-organized political formation to be an influence for libertarian Left ideas within the various mass organizations/struggles.

Platformist groups today are those grouped around the website anarkismo.net. they also have periodic meetings, so they are a quasi-international. Two other anarchist internationals are the International of Anarchist Federations (IFA), and the International Workers Association (IWA or AIT). but these two internationals have no sections in North America. (WSA used to be the U.S. section of the IWA.) The Spanish CNT is the largest section of the IWA.




Are their any anarchists who like Lenin and or Trotsky or is that an oxymoron?

yes, that would be self-contradictory.




"Lifestylism" is usually used as a pejorative. Are there people or theories that regard lifestylism as a revolutionary strategy?

yes, there are anarchists like this. but they're not well organized. Crimethink has been categorized this way, but they've been apparently evolving and I don't know them well enough to characterize them.


What are the popular or useful anarchist forums, websites,hard copy journals, or blogs? Is infoshop well regarded these days? How about Indymedia?


Northeastern Anarchist just came out with a new issue. That's the NEFAC print magazine. Amanecer has had 1 issue so far of their paper "Especifista". The Crimethink people put out "Rolling Thunder."

WSA has a webzine: ideasandaction.info

A new blog is this:

http://recompositionblog.wordpress.com/

People involved in this are part of IWW, i think.

Also, some anarchists, such as the people at this blog, have relationship with certain libertarian Marxist groups, such as Gathering Forces and Advance the Struggle. But I believe these groups aren't Leninists.




Anarchists and the ISO/UK SWP seem to have a traditional dislike for one another. Why is this? I don't want a flame war, to paraphrase Bud Struggle, I don't have a dog in this race, but I'm asking in a "spotterly" sense.

ISO/UK SWP have a long track record of writing dishonest articles about anarchism. They pick the worst tendencies they can find in anarchism and then use a broad brush to critique all the libertarian Left with criticisms of that particular tendency. A classic strawman fallacy.



Why did/does anarchism in countries like Spain, Greece, maybe Italy, France and Argentina achieve a mass base but not in the US or UK?


In the U.S. the revolutionary left in general has been weak historically. There was a large anarchist/libertarian socialist organization in the 1870s-80s, the International Working People's Association, with about 20,000 members, and it was the dominant influence in Chicago unions at time of the great national general strike of May 1, 1886. but they were subject to huge repressive violence of the state, four of their leading spokespeople were hanged. American social anarchism didn't really recover from that until roughly the late 1990s.

Also, the factors that have weakened solidarity and socialism in the USA -- such as racism, ethnic conflict -- have made development of revolutionary libertarian socialist politics difficult. Other period during which libertarian socialism grew quite a bit was in the form of syndicalism through the IWW in the World War 1 era. But that also was subject to hysterical counter-attack, repressive laws, etc.

The anarchists in the IWW also failed to develop a separate national political organization, which weakened their ability to deal with the sort of circumstances that arose in the '30s upsurge. In other words, they did not have a "dual organizational" perspective.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Thanks, its appreciated.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'd say that the two most significant (alive) thinkers in contemporary anarchism today are Noam Chomsky and Alfredo Bonanno. I view them as representing the two main divergent currents of anarchism today.

I'll write more when and if I feel like it.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'd say that the two most significant (alive) thinkers in contemporary anarchism today are Noam Chomsky and Alfredo Bonanno. I view them as representing the two main divergent currents of anarchism today.
I wouldn't classify Chomsky as an anarchist thinker, and nor, if I recall correctly, does he. He's a prominent proponent of anarchism, certainly, but by his own admission his contributions to anarchist thought are minimal at best.

[syndicat]

Bonano i think of as an insurrectionist.

Chomsky used to call himself an "anarchosyndicalist sympathizer." but his more recent apologetics for the Hugo Chavez regime put him outside the anarcho-syndicalist tradition, which advocates liberation and workers management of production achieved through a grassroots mass movement from below, not thru some military strongman and his associates running a state.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I wouldn't classify Chomsky as an anarchist thinker, and nor, if I recall correctly, does he. He's a prominent proponent of anarchism, certainly, but by his own admission his contributions to anarchist thought are minimal at best.

Ah, but I never said that he was...I said that he was one of the more significant thinkers in contemporary anarchism, though. Just as (for example) Sorel was a significant thinker in the anarchist current a hundred years ago, despite not being an anarchist himself. I think Chomsky is a liberal, personally, albeit a fairly radical one, when compared to most liberals.

Anyway, Chomsky I think exemplifies the "anti-authoritarian" strain firmly rooted in the industrial revolution, labor movement, Enlightenment endorsing, modern philosophy-style anarchism. Bonanno on the other hand represents the more post-modern, insurrectionary, anti-syndicalist, more pro-direct action/"revolutionary violence" form of anarchism that's popular within certain segments of the libertarian left today (although his work is also heavily steeped in Marxian concepts related to the proletariat & class).

[Jose Gracchus]

In the U.S. the revolutionary left in general has been weak historically. There was a large anarchist/libertarian socialist organization in the 1870s-80s, the International Working People's Association, with about 20,000 members, and it was the dominant influence in Chicago unions at time of the great national general strike of May 1, 1886. but they were subject to huge repressive violence of the state, four of their leading spokespeople were hanged. American social anarchism didn't really recover from that until roughly the late 1990s.

What? Did you mean 1890s?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Alright, I'll try and give some of these other questions a shot.


What are the main contemporary anarchist schools of thought or tendencies?

I'd classify the contemporary schools along these lines:

1) Post-Modern, Philosophical & Individualist Anarchism (Thinkers: John Purkis & James Bowen, Richard Paul Wolff) - This isn't really all that relevant to this discussion, so I won't go into it that much. Heavily influenced by Deleuze, Lyotard, Stirner, etc. Not a lot of relevance for communism as a political project, although personally I like Stirner.

2) Insurrectionary Anarchism (Thinkers: Alfredo M. Bonanno) - IA wasn't always like it was now. A long time ago IA was all about Emile Henry or Mario Buda blowing up stuff. Now it seems to be heavily indebted to flowery communiques and post-modern philosophy. Still, it has it's adherents, probably most notably in Italy & Greece. Interestingly enough, most of the people I've talked to who could be classified this way consider themselves to be communists, not anarchists, first and foremost. Alfredo Bonanno is by far the most interesting and important figure here.

3) Organized Anarcho-Communism/Anarcho-Syndicalism (Thinkers: Noam Chomsky, lol) - OK, so Noam isn't some kind of anarcho-syndicalist militant. I can't really think of anyone else, though. This one should need any explanation. The anarchists on this site are usually some shade of this.


As I understand its common for anarchists, unlike socialists, to join several organisations. Are anarchist organisations based or organised by theoretical orientation?

There are organizations of course that are oriented around a specific set of ideas...NEFAC, for one. And of course dual unionism exists...the groups affiliated with the IWA identify with this tactic, if I'm not mistaken, as well as several other revolutionary syndicalist groups.


What are the main anarchist groups, in the US and elsewhere? I'm familiar with NEFAC but that's about it.

WSA, NYMAA and NEFAC are the only ones I know of in the USA, and NYMAA may be defunct by now. In England I know of AFed and SolFed, in Sweden there's SAC, the IWA of course has chapters in various countries, there's a Russian anarcho-syndicalist group (although I can't recall the name), Zabalaza in South Africa, the Spanish CNT still exists, etc. Of course there's also more loosely affiliated organizations of anarchists, some of which are involved in violent, criminal activity, like the Informal Anarchist Federation in Italy, or some of the groups in Greece, although I'm not sure if they really consider themselves to be "anarchists", per se.


What exactly is a platformist? My understanding its an anarchist who believes in the need for a vanguard organisation. Who are the main platformist theoreticians?

A centralist tendency within libertarian communism. Not, I repeat NOT, a seperate ideology within anarchism...it's merely a tactic. It was originally developed by Makhno and Arshinov. It argued for a disciplined libcom movement that was to be guided by a platform of specific positions. It was criticized by many anarchists at the time, including Volin, Malatesta, Maximoff, and Rudolf Rocker (who used his position in the IWMA to oppose it).

"Towards a Fresh Revolution" by the Friends of Durrutti is also considered to be in the platformist tradition, I guess.


Are their any anarchists who like Lenin and or Trotsky or is that an oxymoron?

I can't really think of any, honestly.


"Lifestylism" is usually used as a pejorative. Are there people or theories that regard lifestylism as a revolutionary strategy?

People make waaaay to much of a big deal out of "lifestylism". Most of the people who would be considered "lifestylists" on this board don't even really consider themselves to be anarchists.


What are the popular or useful anarchist forums, websites,hard copy journals, or blogs? Is infoshop well regarded these days? How about Indymedia?

IMO, the two anarchist resources that entertain me the most are FTTP ("Fire To The Prisons") and anarchistnews.org. I know that people like syndicat will probably disagree, but whatever. LOL. It's not like I agree with everything that's published in FTTP or posted on @news anyway. Anarkismo is alright too I guess. Some interesting commentary here (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/tracker) too.


Anarchists and the ISO/UK SWP seem to have a traditional dislike for one another. Why is this? I don't want a flame war, to paraphrase Bud Struggle, I don't have a dog in this race, but I'm asking in a "spotterly" sense.

can't comment here, dunno nothin' bout it.


Why did/does anarchism in countries like Spain, Greece, maybe Italy, France and Argentina achieve a mass base but not in the US or UK?

Hmm, well, syndicalist unions with a fairly libertarian character were at one point pretty big in the USA, but they weren't explicitely anarchist. Nevertheless, there was anarchist influence in them, and (I would guess) in UK trade unions as well. But I'm not sure why anarchism didn't take ahold in the USA the way it did in some other countries, although as was previously mentioned, state repression didn't help matters.

[hatzel]

People have covered most of the issues pretty well, but lifestylism hasn't been covered all too greatly. So I'll try to mention something about it...as could maybe be expected, it's far more common amongst individualist anarchists than it is amongst 'communalist' anarchists. I generally steer clear of most American individualism, not least because, ever since Tucker, they seem to have had very vague ideas, if any, about how (or even if) any revolution will take place. I feel they're more content to just wait for somebody else (namely, organised communalist anarchists) to do that, and, if nobody does, just hope that at some point in the next few hundred - perhaps even thousand - years there will just be some kind of social evolutionary change, the state will collapse by itself, something like that. I wouldn't be surprised if lifestylists adhering to such an ideology might see their idea turned into a pejorative. However, it needn't necessarily be so...

When it comes to individualism in Europe, where it's seemingly more likely to be insurrectionist, or actually make some claims on being revolutionary, lifestylism is somewhat different. To just...summarise, the logic behind this whole idea is that the 'true' anarchist (I think I'm quoting from pretty much every lifestylist ever, I'm not necessarily claiming myself that these anarchists really are 'true' anarchists) doesn't wait until a post-revolutionary society to free themselves. That is to say, anarchism is for them a state of mind, the outlook of somebody who acknowledges no external authority over themselves. In such case, lifestylism is merely the realisation of anarchism on a personal level in the pre-revolutionary society. That is to say, it is a means to make of oneself an 'Übermensch' or 'Einzige' or 'Eigene' or 'Anarch' or whichever word you want to use to describe the sovereign individual, who is defined entirely by their essentially egoist outlook.

Whether than constitutes a 'revolutionary strategy', as per your original question, is debatable. It isn't necessarily a revolutionary strategy in as much as it feels that, by just living like this or that, the whole capitalist system will just crumble into nothing or anything like that. It does, however, argue that living in an anarchistic fashion 'primes' people for an anarchist society, and may make individuals more likely to take part in a revolution so as to ensure their complete liberation.

Still, though, its primary motive is to develop a sense of freedom within the individual for the sake of developing the individual, and nothing else. Most such anarchists would agree with Albert Libertad, who claimed that "[f]reedom is a force that one must know how to develop within the individual; no one can grant it"; what we call 'lifestylism', then, is merely the autonomous, self-driven development of personal freedom, without waiting for a revolution to come and try to furnish the individual with freedom. Perhaps, we could say, it's about putting in the ground work, the foundations, before any revolution. One should remember that it doesn't exclude any revolutionary activity; Libertad was actively involved in plenty of insurrectionist activity, and (quite unlike many American individualists) wasn't averse to organising, as long as this organisation was in the individual interest. He wasn't just sitting around developing his own sense of personal freedom and considering that adequate.

Having mentioned Libertad, I feel that the most suitable proponent of so-called 'lifestylism' to bring out would be Émile Armand. His essay Anarchist individualism as a life and activity (http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individualist-anarchist/library/emile-armand/life-activity.html) might outline the points better than I have, and there is very little in there that modern day 'lifestylists' would disagree with. You might also be able to find some of his writings on free love, nudity, all that kind of stuff, which should outline the use or worth or significance of such 'lifestylist' activities. I think I've rambled enough about it already! :lol:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Thanks for the answers.


What? Did you mean 1890s?

He may have meant the anti-globalisation movement of the 90s and Seattle. My understanding is that US anarchism was at something of an ebbfor much of the 20th century, the lerft being dominated by the SP and CP, with a few exceptions.

Patterson, New Jersey had a large Italian-American anarchist community up until around the late 1940s.. Barre, Vermont (near were I used to live) had a large, predominately Italian socialist/communist/anarchist movement around the early 1900s.. The main Catholic church, St. Monica's, supposedly was blown up 9 times by anarchists, although I haven't found documentation.



One hundred years ago, an Italian immigrant, reviled by the Justice Department as the most dangerous man in America, lived in Barre.
Although a fugitive, his neighbors found him generous, public-spirited, and a strident advocate for the working-class. Arguably, the most important anarchist in America in the early 20th century, Luigi Galleani came to central Vermont in 1903 to evade an arrest warrant and stayed to earn recognition as an incendiary voice in revolutionary thought through the publication of his radical newspaper, Cronica Sovversiva.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Labor_Party_Hall

Local history they don't want you to know.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

^ I read about that somewhere. I think it was the (semi-reactionary) book There is Power in a Union, but my mind is fuzzy.