interesting quote from Malatesta about the Bakuninists in the International

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why try to conceal certain truths now that they are in the domain of history and can serve as a lesson for the present and future? We, who were known in the International as Bakuninists and who were members of the Alliance made loud outcries against the Marxists because they tried to make their own particular programme prevail in the International. Yet, setting aside the question of the legality of their methods, which is fruitless to dwell upon now, we did just what they did; we sought to make use of the international for our own party aims.

I thought that this was somewhat interesting. "The Alliance" that he refered to was an anarchist/revolutionary syndicalist-oriented group that replaced Bakunin's "International Brotherhood" in the late 1860's. Bakunin of course is commonly derided (unfairly) by many Marxists due to his comments about a hundred or so committed revolutionaries directing the storm of revolutionary tensions within the European continent...to me that always sounded like, I dunno, a vanguard of sorts, but anyway. Bakunin also commented that the Alliance was a


powerful but always invisible revolutionary association [that will] prepare and direct...the invisible pilots guiding the revolution...the collective dictatorship of all our allies.

These quotes are taken from "Black Flame", and the authors point out that the harsh repression that anarchists were facing around that time meant that clandestine activities were important (something that the Communist League appreciated). But I do think that certain statements anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin have made in regards to "libertarian organization" raise some interesting questions in regards to anarchist vs. Leninist/"vanguardist" methods, especially when one considers the historical examples of anarchists directing organizations from within, such as the Spanish FORE and later the CNT (through the FAI).

I'm actually not too sure where I'm going with this, lol. I guess I just wanted to start a discussion about early anarchist organization and the similarities (or lack thereof) to Marxist methods. I've often been of the opinion that there's less of a difference than people think, at least in regards to issues like the state and "dictatorship"...one could plausibly argue that anarchist governed Ukraine was a "state" if one really wanted to, and anarchists wrote frequently about authoritarianism and the dangers of dictatorship while they killed rich people and wrote literature encouraging attacks against the state and capital.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

This thread either seems jumbled, or I'm seriously that tired, but if I'm reading this right, I'll comment:

I think a lot of the problem is that people (looking at you, Marxists) confuse decentralization with isolationism. Let's remind ourselves of what the systems look like (The first being advocated by ML, the 2nd by anarchists)

http://cffn.ca/img/articles/Centralized-Decentralized-And-Distributed-System.jpg

The issue is how much of a decentralized system do we advocate? (This is actually a topic my IWW local discussed at the last GMB meeting)
It was Foster and Ford who suggested that in syndicalism unions, bureaucratization can be avoided if paid officials can be kept at a bare minimum, and those who are paid are kept at such a low-salary that it's only desirable to the most dedicated of the union. As for decentralization, people in my local were complaining how long it took for the GHQ to respond to certain things, such as the official charter for our GMB. It's understandable, because there's only one guy on the payroll, along with volunteers, so it's bound to happen to have some delays; however, the amount of time was beyond ridiculous. An idea came up that we start creating solidarity networks in the region (Great Plains/Midwest) so that things could become accomplished quicker without having to always resort to waiting on the General Secretary-Treasurer. So I guess this would be one increase in decentralization, however a few members suggested that if we continue our consistent growth, paid officials/organizers should be happening (a hot topic of anarchism I suppose, just depends how many).

A decentralized, not isolated, vanguard is okay in my opinion. It just depends how decentralized/centralized we are, and how the vanguard operates.

Or I may have read your thread wrong and you can ignore this post.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for the pics. I like a fourth option: a web model combining a distributed network with a center.

[Tim Finnegan]

http://cffn.ca/img/articles/Centralized-Decentralized-And-Distributed-System.jpg
What's the difference between B and C? It seems to me that they're essentially the same system, i.e. decentralised, just with a different arrangement. I mean, I'm guessing that B is intended to represent something more spontaneous and ad hoc than C is, but is that supposed to represent a fundamentally different model, or just variants within a range?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

What's the difference between B and C? It seems to me that they're essentially the same system, i.e. decentralised, just with a different arrangement. I mean, I'm guessing that B is intended to represent something more spontaneous and ad hoc than C is, but is that supposed to represent a fundamentally different model, or just variants within a range?
Yes, you have a point. They're both decentralized, just with different operations/arrangement, I suppose. I think B would be a vague representation of how syndicalist unions work, whereas C could be a representation of how Kropotkin imagined society. He advocated self-sufficiency, but IIRC, for when certain things weren't possible, reliance on your neighboring communities would provide and seek help (rather than a power-limited center a.k.a. figure B)
This is just my interpretation, C is kind of scary to look at.

Thanks for the pics. I like a fourth option: a web model combining a distributed network with a center.
Honestly, I was thinking the same. I think that may be more relevant than C.

[RedGrunt]

Ya, B and C are definitely the same(c is just proportioned equally), and I concur c+strong center.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The problem of the vanguard has been gone into by all conscious revolutionaries past and present. They fear its dangers and try to see what causes it and how to eliminate it or attenuate its effects.


The problem is far more serious for anarchists. They do not accept the political expedients that other revolutionaries end up justifying in their haste to take power.

All the same, anarchists also end up producing vanguards but they are careful not to call them such, a word they detest. But we have no fig leaf with which to cover up reality, and if this includes structures that are the same or similar to those of the authoritarians, it is pointless to try to conceal the fact simply by using different words.




.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ya, B and C are definitely the same(c is just proportioned equally), and I concur c+strong center.

Compared to "verticalism" and "horizontalism," call c+strong center "diagonalism."


I thought that this was somewhat interesting. "The Alliance" that he refered to was an anarchist/revolutionary syndicalist-oriented group that replaced Bakunin's "International Brotherhood" in the late 1860's. Bakunin of course is commonly derided (unfairly) by many Marxists due to his comments about a hundred or so committed revolutionaries directing the storm of revolutionary tensions within the European continent...to me that always sounded like, I dunno, a vanguard of sorts, but anyway.

Bakunin was one of the earliest examples of political activists who gave "factionalism" (as opposed to tendencies, platforms, currents, etc.) the bad rep it so deserved later and so deserves today. :)