Anarchism and the struggle against racism and white supremacy

[Let's Get Free]

Written by black anarchist Lorenzo Komboa Ervin


The Anarchist and other anti-authoritarian forces are currently in
"ghettos" which are almost all-white, all youth-oriented, all middle-class,
and generally disconnected from the surrounding communities (many of which
are majority African or Hispanic). This cannot be allowed to go on if
anti-authoritarian politics are to become a real force in North American
social life. We must become more ethnically diverse, more action-oriented,
and more community based--if we are serious about a struggle for a social
revolution on this continent. My idea is for the creation of an
Anti-Authoritarian Network of Community Organizers (AANCO), a "united
front" of all those Anarchist forces who think we must build a broader,
more militant movement, which includes "ordinary" people and deals with the
revolution of everyday life. We need a movement of more than "punks",
college youth, or even like-minded Anarcho-activist types in another narrow
"federation".

AANCO is a worker/student/youth alliance; a direct action community based
organization to fight the crippling of capitalism: economic exploitation,
unemployment, homelessness, poverty, police brutality, racism and other
ills of a system in decline. We want to build a movement of thousands--and
ultimately millions--of persons to resist this corrupt system and fight for
a better life, which can only come with a new society.

We believe the old radical Left and syndicalist ideals of the "industrial
working class" grouped into large work sites serving as a revolutionary
class vanguard is outdated, and that the structure of capitalism has
produced a new class of "super-poor" persons who are marginalized and
divorced from any hope of gainful employment under this system. AANCO
believes that because of structural unemployment, caused by automation,
corporate downsizing, de-industrialization and a host of other factors, the
primary site of struggle has now shifted from the workplace to the
community. In fact, we believe that it is in the cities themselves where we
can build a movement to overthrow capital. But while we fight back against
the capitalist state, we must build a new counter-culture and new community
institutions.

We also believe poverty has become "racial-ized" in this country, with
millions of Black and other people of color bearing the brunt of the
current capitalist depression, and now constituting the majority of the new
poor and homeless. Because we recognize that this poverty is no "accident"
and does not hit everyone equally, but is rather a class and race
phenomenon, we realize that we need a Poor Peoples' Survival Movement which
unites the poor of all races, but especially the non-white communities in a
fightback movement. In that sense this movement would "fight racism", while
understanding that fighting racism is more than counter-mobilizations
against the Klan or Nazis, because white supremacy is more than a fascist
vanguard. All the institutions of capitalism are racist, and white
supremacy is an intrinsic part of the ideological and socio-economic
foundations of this system. So we have to fight to destroy the system
itself in order to truly destroy racism. White people must help fight for
the rights of people of color--on the job, on the campuses, and in the
community, and not passively allow the "white power" state to destroy them
with government "anti-crime" programs, "weed and seed", "commmunity
policing" and other repressive initiatives. The state has always depended
on the white population to be accomplices to its criminal activities, AANCO
says NO!

The Poor People's Survival Movement would be a program started by AANCO,
(which is primarily a group of Anarchists and anti-racist activists), and
supported by the Federation of Black Community Partisans, Roots of
Resistance, and a number of local groups in the communities, on college
campuses, in prisons, in workplaces and other institutions all over N.
America. PPSM is a direct action movement of the poor, which will take over
abandoned housing for homeless persons, engage in mass urban squatting,
sit-ins at welfare offices and government buildings, and other acts of
civil disobedience. However, although all of these examples are
non-violent, this is not a pacifist organization; we expect to see food
riots, street fighting, general strikes and ultimately social revolution
break out. We support all of this as leading to our freedom.

The most important objective of our work now is designed to build
revolutionary dual power institutions in the community to counter
capitalist state power and begin to constitute an infrastructure for
Anarchism and freedom. Whether we call it a "workers council", "peoples'
assembly", "community-economic workshop or other neighborhood
self-governing structure, these local institutions could unite into
national and international federations to destroy capitalism and the
institution of the nation-state. The local groups would be autonomous, but
united in free association on a larger scale. This idea of the self
sufficient "eco-city" and the bioregional federation is no pipe dream of
mine; many are starting to realize that it can be built under today's
conditions. In fact, I believe that we must start building a commune now
which exists in the belly of the living capitalist beast, that covers the
U.S., Northern and Latin America, and stretches to fit the rest of the
world. This intercommunalism is the way forward.

So, where do we start? I think we should begin now in a realistic way in
our own communities to break out of the Anarchist ghetto, and establish a
social revolutionary movement which cannot be ignored and cannot be
resisted. A movement which can become a real force in people's lives. Let
us make it happen. Please join the Anti-Authoritarian Network of Community
Organizers, and help us build the Poor Peoples' Survival Network.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A lot of what's written there is true. The American anarchist scene is disproportionally white, young, and better off than the most disadvantaged groups in this country. (I actually don't think that the "young" part is that big of a negative, but whatever) This is an affliction that relates to the entire Left, though, not just anarchists.

But the main problem with this article is that it brings absolutely nothing new to the table. The notion that the anarchist ghetto's demographics need to change is hardly new...I mean, isn't that why APOC was founded? The notion that "The most important objective of our work now is designed to build revolutionary dual power institutions in the community to counter capitalist state power and begin to constitute an infrastructure for Anarchism and freedom" is one that dates all the way back to Proudhon ("society is producing it's own organism, slowly and silently")

The idea of using communities as a weapon against capitalism (instead of focusing mostly on workplaces) is not new at all, either, it's been promoted by anarcho-communists for a long time.

I guess I just don't see why what's proposed above would amount to anything more than another irrelevant anarchist sect.

[Jimmie Higgins]

First, I support moves to try and organize revolutionary forces - particularly for an outward dirrection attempting to link revolutionary politics to the class in an organic way. Second, I definately think that the radical left has to particularly link revolutionary politics to the struggles of the oppressed and marginalized (and this is not just an "anarchist issue", but more general than that). So in these ways, I think this is good in beginning a discussion about these things.

However, I think there are some political assumptions that are sort of self-limiting for the ambitiousness of this statement.


We believe the old radical Left and syndicalist ideals of the "industrial working class" grouped into large work sites serving as a revolutionary class vanguard is outdated, and that the structure of capitalism has produced a new class of "super-poor" persons who are marginalized and divorced from any hope of gainful employment under this system. AANCO believes that because of structural unemployment, caused by automation, corporate downsizing, de-industrialization and a host of other factors, the primary site of struggle has now shifted from the workplace to the community. In fact, we believe that it is in the cities themselves where we can build a movement to overthrow capital. But while we fight back against the capitalist state, we must build a new counter-culture and new community institutions.

To take this one on first, I think there is a bit of a straw-man about anarchist and marxist groups who have oriented specifically on the working class at workplaces. While there have been groups who may have fetishized workers, I think for the most part the understanding of revolutionaries with this orientation is that workers have an inherent power at the workplace because of their position. I don't think this means that we should only foucs there, not at all, but ultimately this is a strong weapon against the capitalists that also potentially holds the key to working class self-emancipation by taking the ability to produce everything in society into our own hands.

So ultimately, the idea that the workplace is just one site among others for the class struggle (it certaintly is on one level as struggle happens in many ways, not just the workplace - but it isn't the same in the sense of the potential inherent power that these struggles have) would cause a revolutionary movement to come into problems. For one thing, social struggles often also lead to increased workplace struggles - this dynamic happened in the 60s and it happened in Egypt where a social uprising also led to political and economic strikes. So in short the idea that the workplace is "antiquated" is impressionistic IMO, but understandable impressionism because we've been living in a pretty low-time for workplace struggles.

But on a more immediate level I think this understanding would conflict with their desire to create a more broad movement of the oppressed and marginalized.

To have a broad movement organizing the "precarious" workers or unemployed runs into a problem that one of the main demands for people in this position historically has been to become more stable working class people! So this runs into a problem of reformism if too broad on the one hand, "just being a sect of anarchists" on the other if demands are ideologically supressed. A likly 3rd alternative could be what many anarchists have been trying which is more like direct mutual aid or things like that - "building class counter-cultural institutions". I think this would go a long way potentially to helping fufil the desire to have a link between radical politics and oppressed communities, but there is also a reformism kind of danger there too which goes back to the first options I suggested. The mutual aid could become a sort of institutionalized charity if it's not attached to a bigger strategy (so it becomes like a Christian program for homeless people, just with better politics and aestics) or if there is an insistance on linking this to anarchist direct political action, then it could be narrowing again because just because someone likes how you organize in the community, doesn't mean they are necissarily going to be down for revolution.


This idea of the self sufficient "eco-city" and the bioregional federation is no pipe dream of mine; many are starting to realize that it can be built under today's conditions. In fact, I believe that we must start building a commune now which exists in the belly of the living capitalist beast, that covers the U.S., Northern and Latin America, and stretches to fit the rest of the world. This intercommunalism is the way forward.So going off the points I made about the first quote, this is where these ideas IMO run into problems in the long-run. The US state wouldn't allow the slightest hint of the above to begin to perculate before they would attempt to crush it. A working class that has been organized as an alternative commune would be that: an alternative, but not a opposition capable of defending itself from a coordinated attack by the US on various little urban comunal zones. The black power groups of the 60s are modest, the strikes of the 1930s are modest compared to a big working class commune and the state came down on them hard.

[black magick hustla]

it's pretty convenient to state anarchist groups are white cuz' they don't push more for some shitty identity politics nonsense (which is untrue, anarchists try really hard to be inclusive about races i think). Anyway, anarchism is disproportionately white for probably very structural reasons and is not something that can be "willed out" just by sheer desire. anyway radicals being relatively better off than others is really nothing new. even when there were mass communist organizations, the main cadre was generally made of at least of "skilled workers" which were better off than the rest. i do think there is a problem with a lot of radical groups being sociologically middle class though.

It is pretty much an american problem though. There are a ton of anarchists in mexico for example, and most of them come from the popular, working class neighborhoods.

[ed miliband]

also, it just seems "anarchism" in this case is basically just panther-style community organising or something.

[cynicles]

Is it just me or is every other article written by a leftist always include some spiel about some stereotype about the left being some big problem. Are we just fabricating our own strawmen to waste time on now instead of doing something of substance? Reading articles from the 60s to now there is always something about how the left is too focused on the workplace and not enough on community but honestly, watching activism in the real world this doesn't appear to be the case. I think this cottage industry of leftist article writers and bloggers are just finding way to waste time and make excuses for failing to execute ideas successfully at this point.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

^WHERE IS THE LEFT!?

Turning incredibly separate groups into monoliths since 1871.:laugh:

[cynicles]

That's another thing that confuses me, the discourse of politics, especially in america where people think communism is extreme liberalism.

[hetz]

Anyway, anarchism is disproportionately white for probably very structural reasons and is not something that can be "willed out" just by sheer desire.Why not elaborate on these "very structural reasons"?
Is what Lenin wrote on "Western" ( and Russian ) anarchism a hundred years ago not true even today, namely that it is in general a petty-bourgeois trend?
This article seems to suggest that indeed is the case, at least in the US.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why not elaborate on these "very structural reasons"?
Is what Lenin wrote on "Western" ( and Russian ) anarchism a hundred years ago not true even today, namely that it is in general a petty-bourgeois trend?
This article seems to suggest that indeed is the case, at least in the US.


As we have said, Marxists accuse the Anarchists of being petty bourgeois. Using the term in its modern sense, it makes Marx look ridiculous. Marx was distinguishing between the bourgeois (with full rights of citizens as employers and merchants) and the minor citizens-i.e. self-employed workers. When Marx refered to the Anarchists being "petty bourgeois" he was expressing something that was happening, especially after the breaking up of the independent Communes of Paris and Barcelona, and the breakdown of the capitalist economy, in his day. But, with the change of meaning, to think of today's Anarchists as frusterated bowler-hatted bank managers turning to violence because they've been forced into industry is straining one's sense of the absurd.


...all Marxist-Leninists have a seemingly contradictory criticism of Anarchists, namely "they are petty bourgeois".

This leads them into another difficulty: how can one reconcile the existence of anarcho-syndicalist unions with "petty bourgeois" origins-and how does one get over the fact that most Marxist-Leninists of today are professional ladies and gentlemen studying for, or belonging to, the conservative professions? The answer is usually given that because Anarchism is "petty bourgeois" those embracing it, "whatever their occupation or social origins", must also be "petty bourgeois"; and because Marxism is working class, its adherents must be working class, "at least subjectively". This is a sociological absurdity, as if working class meant an ideological viewpoint. It is also a built-in escape clause.

Sums it up pretty well. The classical Marxist use of "petite bourgeoisie" in relation to anarchism was refering to the destruction of the artisan worker (such as the Jura clockmakers). Some big dummies in today's era continue to use it in a stupid way, though.

[ed miliband]

Why not elaborate on these "very structural reasons"?
Is what Lenin wrote on "Western" ( and Russian ) anarchism a hundred years ago not true even today, namely that it is in general a petty-bourgeois trend?
This article seems to suggest that indeed is the case, at least in the US.

the "anarchism is a petit-bourgeois trend" thing is tired old bullshit that wasn't true then and isn't true now. basically it's a good way to smear anarchism by pretending it's not moved on from proudhonian mutualism and we want everyone to own their own small business and get $£$ from a 'people's bank' or something nuts like that. also, you can get extra points by finding out some of the horrible shit proudhon said and pretending it has any relevance to modern anarchism.

i think anarchist demographics can partially be explained by the fact so many anarchists come out of the punk subculture ghetto which is predominantly white. it's certainly an issue, but luckily the punks are starting to dwindle.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I am white, but I am of proletarian origin!
The notion that you need to be of middle class origin to be inteligent is not true, I am the proof of that. To think that some people don't understand anarchism, or any other political theory you are teaching, because they are not as inteligent as you is also not true. Those revolutionaries who do not educate the people near them are not accomplishing their duty. Educating people is necessary, and should be a priority, it is even more important than action. Educating creates revolutionaries, acting creates publicity (sometimes bad publicity), and agitating does nothing. Unfortunately I do not live in one of those neighborhoods where the really poor live, but I see much potential there, the problem is if you are not born there, or you haven't been living there for a while, they will not listen to you.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

also, it just seems "anarchism" in this case is basically just panther-style community organising or something.

And what is wrong with that? Huey was a pretty good theorist.

[ed miliband]

And what is wrong with that? Huey was a pretty good theorist.

with all due respect to mr huey and the nice work i'm sure the panthers did, i don't think it challenges capital or has anything to do with communism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I actually don't think that Huey Newton contributed anything of value, theoretically. Just warmed-over anti-imperialist Leninism which was common as mud at that time.

[ed miliband]

who was the panther who thought rape was a revolutionary act?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Eldridge Cleaver, I believe. A real wing-nut, that one. Went through some interesting phases in his life.

[Let's Get Free]

Yeah, he was really good at saying inflammatory things.

[Conscript]

how can one reconcile the existence of anarcho-syndicalist unions with "petty bourgeois" originsThe same way some 'socialists' reconcile ideas of co-ops and worker-owned capital, explicitly or not, with working class rule, communism, and 'receiving the full value of your labor'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The same way some 'socialists' reconcile ideas of co-ops and worker-owned capital, explicitly or not, with working class rule, communism, and 'receiving the full value of your labor'.

Stupidly?

[Ostrinski]

Cleaver also became a born again Christian and conservative republican. They can have him as far as I'm concerned :sleep:. Not only did he say rape could be a revolutionary act he was a rapist himself. Scum.

[black magick hustla]

Why not elaborate on these "very structural reasons"?
Is what Lenin wrote on "Western" ( and Russian ) anarchism a hundred years ago not true even today, namely that it is in general a petty-bourgeois trend?

i don't think anarchists are "petit bourgeois" or whatever. most anarchists i know are either students or autididact dudes that work some minimum wage shitjob. they are definitely sociologically middle class though, as in, they aren't "red necks", "blue collar", or something like that

[cynicles]

i don't think anarchists are "petit bourgeois" or whatever. most anarchists i know are either students or autididact dudes that work some minimum wage shitjob. they are definitely sociologically middle class though, as in, they aren't "red necks", "blue collar", or something like that
Something has always made me think that a lot of the people who call themselves rednecks aren't actually working class.

[helot]

Oh i do enjoy being called petit bourgeois. It's a nice change from being called a scrounger due to precariousness.

[Rugged Collectivist]

i don't think anarchists are "petit bourgeois" or whatever. most anarchists i know are either students or autididact dudes that work some minimum wage shitjob. they are definitely sociologically middle class though, as in, they aren't "red necks", "blue collar", or something like that

How can you be middle class if you're working some minimum wage shit job? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How can you be middle class if you're working some minimum wage shit job? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious.

I think there's a distinction to be drawn between middle class in a certain sociological sense, as relates to values, education, social connections, rituals, norms, etc., and middle class economically. Further, I'd say that "middle class" in economic terms is a rather convoluted thing in the context of the imperial metropole, where the old "industrial worker" who was seen as the active subject in communist transformation is actually the materially well-off beneficiary of class peace.
In any case, I'll refer to myself as an example. While at this point my parents are by no means doing especially well economically, and my sister and I are, respectively, a long-term bartender and a chronically unemployed contract worker / musician / burger-flipper, we have certain advantages in terms of middle-class social capital. All of us have "ins" within institutions of power, have the ability to pass ourselves off as "respectable," "trustworthy," etc. My sister has a university degree, and I attended university for a year; this means we have access to certain jobs, reflects a certain set of acquired skills (a high level of literacy, for example). Crucially, none of us are "racialized" (beyond rare occasions being read as Amerindian), which is intertwined with class in North America in a very serious way (dig Sakai if you haven't).
As such, while my annual income hovers slightly below the poverty line, I'm by no means as precarious as I appear in totally numerical terms, or in terms of being an A&W employee, because of a qualitative class factor.
Make sense?

[Raúl Duke]

How can you be middle class if you're working some minimum wage shit job? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious.

I'm oddly reminded by the people I've met in Ft.Myers.

Most of them come from what would be considered, at one point, a "middle class" existence. However, as they became adults and live on their own they basically work crappy wage jobs, live in a slummy part of town, and most that I know are like into punk and such. I wouldn't say they're exactly sociologically middle class per se but more in the sense that since they grew up in a middle class existence that influenced them probably towards a different direction than those with a more poorer upbringing.

These kinds of young people, when we had Occupy going around and so people were more open to "talk politics," were quite receptive to the radical anti-capitalist perspective and some even to anarchism itself (I've heard a few call themselves as such, although not sure how much they know about anarchism but at least I can perceive they don't see it as some capitalist libertarian crap).


Is what Lenin wrote on "Western" ( and Russian ) anarchism a hundred years ago not true even today, namely that it is in general a petty-bourgeois trend?
This article seems to suggest that indeed is the case, at least in the US.

~

In my opinion, the Marxist sympathizers I've met in real life are more "petit-bourgeois"-like than any anarchist sympathizer I've met: from, whether formerly or usually still currently, a middle class background, white, goes to college (more so than the anarchist), very academic (more so than the anarchist).

The kind of people I've described above (who are receptive to anti-capitalism and even certain radical notions like revolution and overthrow of capitalism), despite their former middle class background, seems more conscious of their working class status and thus see themselves as part of the proletariat more so than the Leninist sympathizers (usually students from the Philosophy department and its fellow travelers) I've met in Florida who so far has viewed themselves in a more substitutionalist light. Of course, all anecdotal (and limited, Florida has a thread-bare radical presence) but than again it probably has more weight than some observation made in the early 20th century in another country.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm oddly reminded by the people I've met in Ft.Myers.

Most of them come from what would be considered, at one point, a "middle class" existence. However, as they became adults and live on their own they basically work crappy wage jobs, live in a slummy part of town, and most that I know are like into punk and such. I wouldn't say they're exactly sociologically middle class per se but more in the sense that since they grew up in a middle class existence that influenced them probably towards a different direction than those with a more poorer upbringing.

These kinds of young people, when we had Occupy going around and so people were more open to "talk politics," were quite receptive to the radical anti-capitalist perspective and some even to anarchism itself (I've heard a few call themselves as such, although not sure how much they know about anarchism but at least I can perceive they don't see it as some capitalist libertarian crap).
~
In my opinion, the Marxist sympathizers I've met in real life are more "petit-bourgeois"-like than any anarchist sympathizer I've met: from, whether formerly or usually still currently, a middle class background, white, goes to college (more so than the anarchist), very academic (more so than the anarchist).

The kind of people I've described above (who are receptive to anti-capitalism and even certain radical notions like revolution and overthrow of capitalism), despite their former middle class background, seems more conscious of their working class status and thus see themselves as part of the proletariat more so than the Leninist sympathizers (usually students from the Philosophy department and its fellow travelers) I've met in Florida who so far has viewed themselves in a more substitutionalist light. Of course, all anecdotal (and limited, Florida has a thread-bare radical presence) but than again it probably has more weight than some observation made in the early 20th century in another country.

In terms of people who are attracted to socialist vs. anarchist politics - if we group them broadly and by who identified with these terms I doubt it would be all that different: a borad group of "anarchists" who are not revolutionaries, or at least aren't serious about it, with a core of people who are really dedicated to working class self-emancipation (and other gravitational pulls that could lead to actually counter-revolutionary positions when push comes to shove). If we broadly group "socialists" then again, there is a core of people dedicated to working class self-emancipation and then a much broader level of "reformists" and "social-democrats" who are not revolutionaries; and then also other gravitational pulls towards things I don't think would help revolution and could lead to counter-revolutionary positions when push comes to shove.

So IMO talking about "working class" forces on the current radical left, won't really tell us much about anything because there is an absense of radicalism in the working class in general. So if some Communist Party somewhere organized a workplace and suddently gained 100 new radical unionists to their group, it wouldn't really say much about their overall politics and ideology, other than that they were able to help workers organize and were able to attract them to their party. Afterall, I think the CPs often played a directly counter-revolutionary role - and yet in many places they did have the vast majority of revolutionary working class people in their organizations.

In Occupy there was a definate mix and people calling themselves anarchist had a range of actual politics from revolutionary to Ron Paul with different aestetics. Seriously, I was redbaited by someone in Occupy who said they were an anarchist and that anarchism meant a world like our own, but with no taxes! Other anarchists had been defending the other person in the arguement until that point just because she said she was an anarchist and apparently I'm just a terrible authoritarian. Of course this is a rare anecdote IMO - what I would call "liberal" or "middle class" anarchism was much more commonly represented as various "lifestyle" trends, which I think is analogous to Democratic-Socialism for anarchist thought - except it's reform without the state, rather than reform through the state. There were anarchists of various backgrounds too - pretty much the whole spectrum. While there were many anarchists who are definately workers, a lot of the "non-leading" anarchists in the movement though were grad students or even instructors. But even then, some of the grad-students had a pretty good focus on working class anarchism whereas there were others with many "academic" po-mo anarchist conceptions that are currently trendy among those circles.

As far as the "class character" of socialist/anarchist ideology. Again, I think this has less to do with adherents than with the social circumstances of how these ideas developed. I think "Socialism" broadly definately has a petty-bourgoise component and this is represended first by the "middle class" utopian/rational socialism and then by various reformist (and I'd argue ultimately Stalinist) trends. Marxism itself is "socialism" influenced and drawn to working class struggle IMO - not that there haven't been moves away from this by Marxists. Like borad socialism, I think anarchism also has a petty-bouroise early incarnation. Proudhon I think is an example of this - and generally a traddition within anarchism stemming from resistance by skilled artisans (petty-bourgeois) and pesants and intellectuals to the rise of capitalism - specifically industrial capitalism. The petty-bourgoise influence in Marxism around the same time, led to the right-wing socialists cozying up to the trade union beurocracy (petty-bourgoise).

IMO Bolshevism and Anarcho-Syndicalism are the working class-influenced responces to growing middle-class rule of the radical movements and both sought to both connect the radical movements to working class struggle while trying to organizationally protect against the pull of middle class (reformist) tendencies.