learning about anarchism

[L.A.P.]

I've been having an obsession with all the different currents of anarchism lately. I think Marxism has the best critique of class and economy but the gap for a theory on political strategy filled by Leninism is safe to conclude to be a dead end. I think anarchism is much more adequate in being the strategic companion to Marxism, although I still believe a dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary.

-I'm interested in the debate between platformism and insurrectionism
- the relation between anti-organizational forms of anarchism like insurrectionism and later forms like autonomism
- what really sets anarcho-communism apart from others variants of anarchism
- and most of all, what is the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and council communism? their notion of worker's councils and/or syndicates seem to be almost the same exact thing

thank you

[BIXX]

I've been having an autistic obsession with all the different currents of anarchism lately.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I believe this is ableist.


-I'm interested in the debate between platformism and insurrectionism

Platformism is a highly organized "anarchist" idea which was first developed by Makhno and co. Here is a link to it: http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/newplatform/org_plat.htm

It calls for a president, etc... Many insurrectionists consider it non-anarchist because it calls for a union president and other hierarchies (which Makhno was a fan of). Insurrectionists believe that platformism is not able to work (meaning it cannot bring in anarchism). It is a leftist ideology.

Insurrectionary anarchism has no definite beginning point, but it basically advocates small, informal affinity groups that dissolve whenever they want. The criticism against insurrectionalism is that it is ineffective. It is neither a leftist nor post-leftist ideology.


- the relation between anti-organizational forms of anarchism like insurrectionism and later forms like autonomism

Insurrectionalism advocates a certain type of un-organized forms of struggle. Autonomism is just about being autonomous. They don't necessarily relate or not relate to each other. You'll need to ask a more specific question.


- what really sets anarcho-communism apart from others variants of anarchism

Well, mainly the economy. Think about the difference between collectivism, communism, socialism, etc... And there differences. They transfer over to their anarchist variants.


- and most of all, what is the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and council communism? their notion of worker's councils and/or syndicates seem to be almost the same exact thing

I don't believe I'm the one to answer this question, but I have heard council communism is not necessarily anti-state.

[Skyhilist]

EchoShock did a good job of answering most of your questions, so I'll just answer the ones that I feel I can add to.


- what really sets anarcho-communism apart from others variants of anarchism

Well there are 4 main types of anarchism: anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, and mutualism.

Mutualism is not communist and has no goals of eliminating money. It's basically anarchism where the workers own the means of production but there is still a market that things get traded on.

Anarcho-collectivism involves the use of labor-credits, which is supposed to transition into a moneyless economy.

Anarcho-communism, unlike the latter types, proposes that after the revolution the shift be made immediately (or as quickly as practically possible) to a moneyless economy (e.g. a gift economy).

Anarcho-syndicalism is more of a style of organization and a strategy. It is compatible with all of the above types of anarchism and involves the working class organize into revolutionary unions to fight and discuss ideas that are structured from the bottom up and run democratically but also centralized in that they're meant to have largely coordinated mass movement.


-and most of all, what is the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and council communism? their notion of worker's councils and/or syndicates seem to be almost the same exact thing

Anarcho-syndicalists are not Marxists, but council communists are. Mostly what this boils down to are semantic differences. The workers councils proposed by councilists and the syndicates proposed by anarcho-syndicalists are structured somewhat similarly -- however, council communists often view the term "revolutionary unions" as somewhat of a contradiction, because they often feel that unions cannot be revolutionary since they're "bound to capital." So instead of calling it "revolutionary unions" (aka "syndicates") they general call what they want "workers' councils" instead. They also refer to society during the revolution as a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" because they are Marxists, while anarchists (including anarcho-syndicalists) reject this terminology. You'll find that the vast majority of differences between anarchists and council communists have to do with semantics -- both want similar things but use different words to refer to what they want (because evolved from Marxism and the other didn't). Also, council communists generally support parties that are supposed to encourage revolution but that then dissolve themselves when the revolution occurs and play no role as a "vanguard party". Support for these temporary parties is not inherent in anarcho-syndicalism.

[BIXX]

Anarcho-syndicalists are not Marxists, but council communists are. Mostly what this boils down to are semantic differences. The workers councils proposed by councilists and the syndicates proposed by anarcho-syndicalists are structured somewhat similarly -- however, council communists often view the term "revolutionary unions" as somewhat of a contradiction, because they often feel that unions cannot be revolutionary since they're "bound to capital." So instead of calling it "revolutionary unions" (aka "syndicates") they general call what they want "workers' councils" instead. They also refer to society during the revolution as a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" because they are Marxists, while anarchists (including anarcho-syndicalists) reject this terminology. You'll find that the vast majority of differences between anarchists and council communists have to do with semantics -- both want similar things but use different words to refer to what they want (because evolved from Marxism and the other didn't). Also, council communists generally support parties that are supposed to encourage revolution but that then dissolve themselves when the revolution occurs and play no role as a "vanguard party". Support for these temporary parties is not inherent in anarcho-syndicalism.

Personally I am neither a council communism nor an anarcho-syndicalist, but could the end goal not be different? Ie, an anarcho-syndicalist may be trying to usher in mutualism, whereas a council communist always is reaching for communism?

[Skyhilist]

Personally I am neither a council communism nor an anarcho-syndicalist, but could the end goal not be different? Ie, an anarcho-syndicalist may be trying to usher in mutualism, whereas a council communist always is reaching for communism?

Yes, that's possible. However the vast majority of anarcho-syndicalists are not mutualists and want communism. The distinction arising from a slim number of anarcho-syndicalists being mutualists is definitely not inherent, given that such a low percentage of anarcho-syndicalists hold such viewpoints.

[BIXX]

Yes, that's possible. However the vast majority of anarcho-syndicalists are not mutualists and want communism. The distinction arising from a slim number of anarcho-syndicalists being mutualists is definitely not inherent, given that such a low percentage of anarcho-syndicalists hold such viewpoints.

Ok. I guess I'd have to look more into council communism to understand why they seem to have almost no cross-over.

[d3crypt]

http://libcom.org/thought/council-communism-an-introduction

[Skyhilist]

Ok. I guess I'd have to look more into council communism to understand why they seem to have almost no cross-over.

It's mostly due to their anti-union history. Syndicalism seems to throw them off with the idea of revolutionary unions, because they don't believe this to be possible and therefore argue for the radically different (sarcasm) workers' councils instead. I wouldn't say this is all council communists though, some have (as Blake's Baby pointed out in another recent thread similar to this) had even an affinity for the IWW, which has close ties to syndicalism.

[d3crypt]

The IWW is cool, but it's not a union in the typical sense.

[The Idler]

Has the OP read An Anarchist FAQ by Iain McKay?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

[Skyhilist]

The IWW is cool, but it's not a union in the typical sense.

Yes of course not. Anarcho-syndicalists do not support unions that operate in "the typical sense" a strategy for revolution; only ones that are structured from the bottom up and have actual potential should the proletariat one day become class conscious.

[argeiphontes]

an anarcho-syndicalist may be trying to usher in mutualism, whereas a council communist always is reaching for communism?

Personally, I'm starting to think that mutualism should be considered a strategy to get to a transitional state before full communism. Since I also think that it's the social relations of production, and the harvest of surplus labor as profit, that are fundamental to capitalism, not commerce. Even if communism were never reached, mutualism is still a better society.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think the definition of "Autonomism" above is mistaken.
Generally, it refers to a variety of currents emerging out of the continental Europe after the New Left, particularly in 70s Italy (with Materialist Feminism and Workerism), and Germany/the Netherlands (particularly anti-state Marxian politics within among squatters and in the 80s anti-nuclear movements).

Geronimo's account in "Fire and Flames" is a good, highly readable starting point. I believe the entire book is available for download in .pdf format.

In terms of its differences with "insurrectionism" - autonomism tends to be coming from a marxian communist perspective, whereas most insurrectionism tends to come out of individualist anarchist currents.

That said, there is a strain of contemporary "insurrectionist" theory (e.g. The Invisible Committee, Institute for Experimental Freedom) that is much more indebted to autonomism and the "communization current" than it is to "insurrectionary anarchism". Generally this is considered "French" as opposed to the individualist "Italian" insurrectionism (Bonano, Wolfi Landstriecher, etc.)

[Hrafn]

Anarcho-syndicalists are not Marxists, but council communists are. Mostly what this boils down to are semantic differences. The workers councils proposed by councilists and the syndicates proposed by anarcho-syndicalists are structured somewhat similarly -- however, council communists often view the term "revolutionary unions" as somewhat of a contradiction, because they often feel that unions cannot be revolutionary since they're "bound to capital." So instead of calling it "revolutionary unions" (aka "syndicates") they general call what they want "workers' councils" instead. They also refer to society during the revolution as a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" because they are Marxists, while anarchists (including anarcho-syndicalists) reject this terminology. You'll find that the vast majority of differences between anarchists and council communists have to do with semantics -- both want similar things but use different words to refer to what they want (because evolved from Marxism and the other didn't). Also, council communists generally support parties that are supposed to encourage revolution but that then dissolve themselves when the revolution occurs and play no role as a "vanguard party". Support for these temporary parties is not inherent in anarcho-syndicalism.

Most anarcho-syndicalists I'm involved with would define themselves as Marxists. They read Marx, hold Marx study circles, and so on. Just so we're clear on that.

I would like to add that mutualism is inherently petit-bourgeois. That is all.