Anarchist Mass Organization in The U.S.

[Stand Your Ground]

Over 150 years of the anarchist theoretical and organizing tradition have passed, yet anarchist influence in the United States is practically non-existent. In some local contexts, we do see occasional anarchist influence, but in a nationwide context anarchists are practically irrelevant.
There has been a conversation brewing for a few years among some anarchists. This conversation has moved forward specifically in a grouping of organizations that have come together in recent years around the Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences. Since the first Class Struggle Anarchist Conference in New York City in 2008, it’s been increasingly clear that these different organizations have a great deal of agreement and could be strengthened by unification into a nationwide anarchist organization.
In anticipation for an upcoming conference of these organizations that intends to found this single, nationwide organization, this article is an effort to bring together the many arguments for why such an organization is desirable. More than that, I hope to show the inspirational possibilities of such an organization in the broader anarchist movement, so that this organization can take off after its founding.

http://redandblack.rocus.org/?p=72

[Sasha]

even while i reject organizational structures (excluding certain basis-democratic topic-based infrastructures & affinity style groups) more power to them if thats their thing.

[The Idler]

Shouldn't this be in upcoming events?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Platformism will not solve the problems of anarchism's irrelevance

[Luc]

sweet, looks interesting is there anything like this in Canada?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Platformism will not solve the problems of anarchism's irrelevance

Speaking badly of anarchism will not solve the problem of communism's unpopularity.

And anarchism is not irrelevant! What makes you think that?

[hetz]

There's no such thing as anarchist mass organizations anywhere in the world anymore, except maybe the CNT in Spain.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The topic is about anarchism in the USA. I live here so I can confirm that yeah, it's pretty irrelevant.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The topic is about anarchism in the USA. I live here so I can confirm that yeah, it's pretty irrelevant.

Ever heard of americentrism?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Ever heard of americentrism?

This thread is about Anarchism in the US. A thread about an American situation should focus on America, duh.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

This thread is about Anarchism in the US. A thread about an American situation should focus on America, duh.

Even the fact that many users from the usa don't say where they are from, or say something like "a hole in the ground", is evidence of americentrism.

But you are right, this thread is about an organisation in the USA.

[Ravachol]

Revolutionary politics in general are pretty irrelevant (in the grand political context, not to individuals or small groups perhaps). That's no more than logical in a non-revolutionary period.

And, as Psycho said, good for them. I genuinely hope they can get some interesting experiences and interventions out of the project. I don't think it'll matter that much (my misgivings about platformism, or syndicalism for that matter, aside) as the 'organisational problem' is not solved through finding the correct form (whether found in 'getting our forces together', 'centralism' or 'decentralization') from which the content will spring. That's putting the cart before the horse. But yeah, best of luck to those involved :)

[Q]

I think the article linked in the OP makes a lot of correct and crucial arguments about why unity is needed. If successful, members of the diverse Marxist sects could perhaps learn from it and themselves jump over their own shadows.

That being said, I think the text misses the crucial point of programme: What is the basis of this unity project? What is the common strategic trajectory that describes our journey from here to working class power and to communism beyond? A programmatic document furthermore would help to pin the organisation in that any leadership can be made answerable to the membership for any opportunist moves.

So, this is what I would call a partyist project and I warmly welcome the initiative for that reason, but it is still somewhat 'proto' and we'll need to see how it develops.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

even while i reject organizational structures (excluding certain basis-democratic topic-based infrastructures & affinity style groups) more power to them if thats their thing.


Revolutionary politics in general are pretty irrelevant (in the grand political context, not to individuals or small groups perhaps). That's no more than logical in a non-revolutionary period.

And, as Psycho said, good for them. I genuinely hope they can get some interesting experiences and interventions out of the project. I don't think it'll matter that much (my misgivings about platformism, or syndicalism for that matter, aside) as the 'organisational problem' is not solved through finding the correct form (whether found in 'getting our forces together', 'centralism' or 'decentralization') from which the content will spring. That's putting the cart before the horse. But yeah, best of luck to those involved :)

^This, I really like the idea. Putting aside my own positions on various things, I like the idea because we saw how Occupy just blew up overnight, I personally think a lot more people, particularly the younger generations are more aware, familiar, etc. in general with Anarchism. I'd even be willin to participate.

[Ravachol]

I think the article linked in the OP makes a lot of correct and crucial arguments about why unity is needed. If successful, members of the diverse Marxist sects could perhaps learn from it and themselves jump over their own shadows.


And this hasn't been tried before? Besides most sects,

a) sometimes diverge on crucial matters which would make 'unity' a complete and utter farce in anything but name

b) are numerically so insignificant that even unity won't matter that much



That being said, I think the text misses the crucial point of programme: What is the basis of this unity project? What is the common strategic trajectory that describes our journey from here to working class power and to communism beyond? A programmatic document furthermore would help to pin the organisation in that any leadership can be made answerable to the membership for any opportunist moves.


Do you truly believe this? How have programmatic documents prevented such a thing in the past? What use is programmatism in an era where it has become structurally impossible to conquer a stable ground for the proletariat? (never mind the fact that working class affirmation is problematic from a communist perspective in the first place)

[thriller]

The Constitution section doesn't strike me as anarchist when it comes to membership. It seems more like a socialist party structure rather than a mass anarchist organizing group.

[Os Cangaceiros]

^This, I really like the idea. Putting aside my own positions on various things, I like the idea because we saw how Occupy just blew up overnight, I personally think a lot more people, particularly the younger generations are more aware, familiar, etc. in general with Anarchism. I'd even be willin to participate.

I think that Occupy Wall Street was a lot different than any group such as this (prospective) group, though. OWS was a broad loose collection of people, it didn't have an official ideology so people could project whatever beliefs they had unto it. It simply represented a broad opposition to the status quo and that's why you had everyone from liberals to libertarians to communists and anarchists interacting with it.

I could easily imagine something like that happening again. Transforming that into a rigid, structural form such as a communist party or an "anarchist party", though? I honestly can't imagine that happening in the USA.

[Ottoraptor]

The Constitution section doesn't strike me as anarchist when it comes to membership. It seems more like a socialist party structure rather than a mass anarchist organizing group.

I noticed this too. Reading the document made me think of a lot of leninist/kautskyite concepts of mass partyism and struck me as odd for anarchists. I guess it just shows that I've been out of the anarchist loop for too long or that I talk to too many anarchist-communists who might as well be ultra-left marxists. I think I missed this part in the document, but which anarchist groups will be merging?

[bcbm]

The Constitution section doesn't strike me as anarchist when it comes to membership. It seems more like a socialist party structure rather than a mass anarchist organizing group.

sounds pretty standard for platformist groups to me

[Raúl Duke]

I always thought a more regional basis (think like NEFAC) would have been more "doable" but if they can pull this off more power to them.

Although I don't see how exactly this will solve US anarchism's problems, yet I guess I could say it may provide the means or make it easier to do so.

But it depends on how you frame the problem. A lot of organizations seem very recruitment-minded and tbh I can only forsee all pro-rev ideologies to be fringe until the "eve" of the revolution. Also so far a lot of these kinds of organizations are very "activist" orientated, going to symbolic protests and demos mostly. What I'm more concerned at this point is not exactly "spreading the ideologies" to the masses but to help foment more militancy among people whether they wanna do a wild-cat strike, fight tuition increases, or whatever.

[Grenzer]

History seems to be pretty clear that people will only be turned towards revolution under certain situations. Voluntarist organizations will desperately seek to increase their membership through any means, usually by taking up shitty bourgeois politics, but the fact is that:

1. Given the present conditions, it is impossible to build a large "fighting propaganda group " that is genuinely revolutionary.
2. Given the very, very unlikely situation that such a thing could be built, it's very questionable whether it could have any meaningful impact on its own.

It is a mistake(and even reactionary to a degree) to just look to the movements of the past and mechanically apply them to the situation of today. The mass movements of the late 19th and early 20th century are gone, and such things are no longer possible or even desirable since they were ultimately shown to have their foundations on sand.

Though one of the important things to stress is that it's not like these people are "wrong" and we're "right" in the sense that one must just plug in the right formula to achieve success and become relevant; it's about realizing that ultimately no matter what we try to do, there are big limits on what activists can do, so shit like reformism, nationalism, and anti-imp might as well be tossed even if that means a smaller member base(as if it was relevant anyway).

Ravachol also brings up a good point in that most peoples' conception of communism seems to involve a generalization of the proletarian condition rather than its abolition, but that's opening another can of worms.

[Traveller]

Any news?They said on the anarkismo that they will have a conferance at february. Whats are the developments?

Altough,I am not an anarchist,I am intrested about the movements current situation in the US.

[Owl]

Even if the result is a platform group, organizing the left is almost necessary in this country; if only to give it a voice. We really don't have any significantly influential leftist group - the closest things would be Occupy and the DSA - and one can only hope the anarchists can change that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would see this as a positive development for US anarchism. It may not solve some of the larger issues with a disconnect between consiousness and action in the US and lack or organization among the class, but it could help with some subjective issues in anarchist circles. One criticism I have of US anarchism is that there is a tendency (I think due to a lack of struggle for so long) to organize in an apolitical way, around tactics or as small affinity groups. This makes it harder for militants to learn and build off of struggles because people just "do thier thing". More coordination and cooperation would necissarily mean having to evaluate actions and ideas more collectivly which could help the radical movement in the US make some advances from the place it's at now.