Anarchism

[WilliamGreen]

I think I remember seeing another distinguished poster note something along similar lines and I want the topic to continue.

Has Anarchism simply become a methodology of sorts or is it still a viable force in the political spectrum.

[BIXX]

I think I remember seeing another distinguished poster note something along similar lines and I want the topic to continue.

Has Anarchism simply become a methodology of sorts or is it still a viable force in the political spectrum.

There are too many ways of looking at anarchism to answer this question definitively.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think anarchists continue to be a vibrant presence in social movements, whose interventions are, in some cases crucial. Taking the Quebec student strike in 2012 as an example, I think anarchists active within and outside of CLASSE involved in organizing helped lead the movement to far more ambitious goals, to confront ubiquitous racism and misogyny, and to push the envelope strategically. In "the streets" of course, anarchists were absolutely tactical leaders, pushing for occupations, initiating property destruction and fights with the police, and so on.
While I'm sure this is by no means universal, this closely parallels my experience with other struggles in Canada - the anti-war and anti-globalization movements in the early 2000s, various anti-poverty struggles, settler movements in solidarity with indigenous peoples, etc.

It's actually in terms of methodology that anarchists seem to be really lacking - often we/they seem to constitute primarily the avant garde of various movements dominated by liberals and reformists. While anarchist critique has helped to shape grassroots mobilizations in ways that, in my opinion, are extremely positive, we/they continue to be outflanked by NGOs, political parties, business unions and the like at crucial moments (see: the rentrée and election that ended the Quebec student strike). Something to consider.

[BIXX]

It's actually in terms of methodology that anarchists seem to be really lacking - often we/they seem to constitute primarily the avant garde of various movements dominated by liberals and reformists. While anarchist critique has helped to shape grassroots mobilizations in ways that, in my opinion, are extremely positive, we/they continue to be outflanked by NGOs, political parties, business unions and the like at crucial moments (see: the rentrée and election that ended the Quebec student strike). Something to consider.

I think that's because we don't do a very good job of convincing people that we aren't just violent assholes without reason. I mean, I have no problem with being violent, but without reason it is often useless.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think that's because we don't do a very good job of convincing people that we aren't just violent assholes without reason. I mean, I have no problem with being violent, but without reason it is often useless.

My experience tells me that, while that's certainly the media narrative about anarchists, it's not necessarily the perception of anarchists within movements. It seems to me that the moment where anarchists have trouble convincing people is w/r/t winning systemic change - ie people view anarchism as a tactic, rather than a strategy or a vision. As a consequence, the people who are with you at the blockade turn around and vote for the Parti Québécois.

[BIXX]

My experience tells me that, while that's certainly the media narrative about anarchists, it's not necessarily the perception of anarchists within movements. It seems to me that the moment where anarchists have trouble convincing people is w/r/t winning systemic change - ie people view anarchism as a tactic, rather than a strategy or a vision. As a consequence, the people who are with you at the blockade turn around and vote for the Parti Québécois.

Ah, that does make sense.

[Ele'ill]

i don't think people see 'winning systemic change' as being the same thing to begin with so their expectations of tactics match their expectations of strategy and vision which is usually the safe business route already mentioned and their end goal is so way off from radical that they actively fight against it and see it as being something they do not desire (and rarely understand). It is people seeing society as having gone 'awry' instead of being intentionally loaded and flawed.

[WilliamGreen]

I think anarchists continue to be a vibrant presence in social movements, whose interventions are, in some cases crucial. Taking the Quebec student strike in 2012 as an example, I think anarchists active within and outside of CLASSE involved in organizing helped lead the movement to far more ambitious goals, to confront ubiquitous racism and misogyny, and to push the envelope strategically. In "the streets" of course, anarchists were absolutely tactical leaders, pushing for occupations, initiating property destruction and fights with the police, and so on.
While I'm sure this is by no means universal, this closely parallels my experience with other struggles in Canada - the anti-war and anti-globalization movements in the early 2000s, various anti-poverty struggles, settler movements in solidarity with indigenous peoples, etc.

It's actually in terms of methodology that anarchists seem to be really lacking - often we/they seem to constitute primarily the avant garde of various movements dominated by liberals and reformists. While anarchist critique has helped to shape grassroots mobilizations in ways that, in my opinion, are extremely positive, we/they continue to be outflanked by NGOs, political parties, business unions and the like at crucial moments (see: the rentrée and election that ended the Quebec student strike). Something to consider.

Incredible post

[tuwix]

Has Anarchism simply become a methodology of sorts or is it still a viable force in the political spectrum.

Anarchism undoubtely is more viable than leninism stalinism, maoism, etc. Leninism stalinism, maoism has become corrupted and ultmately led to some form of capitalism. But form of anarchism was failing only b ecause of external intervention (Spain in 30, Ukraine of Makhno).

[argeiphontes]

What tuwix said. But even in contemporary times, what have non-anarchist leftists done recently? They elected Sawant but most people on this board don't even support that or consider it a step forward.

IMO the libsoc/anarchist idea of trying to create a new society within the old is the only reasonable way to proceed in the developed countries. There's no point in being stuck in other conceptions of socioeconomic revolution that don't make progress because of (imo) dogma or lack of taking hismat insights about class consciousness to their logical conclusions.

I would probably rant some more but I'm on my phone... Go anarchist bakeries and Mondragon! ;)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Incredible post

Hey just a tip - use the 'thanks' button instead of making a post like this - it clogs up the board a bit and is unnecessary.

[newdayrising]

Does "anarchism" still mean anything as far as specific politics go?
Is there really a common denominator between all different anarchist currents beyond a desire to get rid of the state?
I'm not talking about post-modern curiosities such as anarcho-capitalism or national-anarchism. Even if you only count "left wing" anarchism, does it still make sense to talk about it as one thing co
Insidering the incredibly different views and politics between the groups?
If it did become "a methodology of sorts", what is the method in question? If it is a "viable political force", what would be the politics that unite the different anarchist groups?

[WilliamGreen]

hmm that's a good point

i think in some sense true forms of anarchism have a shared "spirit"

Though I would have a hard time elaborating on that :P

[BIXX]

Does "anarchism" still mean anything as far as specific politics go?
Is there really a common denominator between all different anarchist currents beyond a desire to get rid of the state?
I'm not talking about post-modern curiosities such as anarcho-capitalism or national-anarchism. Even if you only count "left wing" anarchism, does it still make sense to talk about it as one thing co
Insidering the incredibly different views and politics between the groups?
If it did become "a methodology of sorts", what is the method in question? If it is a "viable political force", what would be the politics that unite the different anarchist groups?

Anarchism is not very specific, which is kinda what allows it to be anarchism (as long as your "anarchism" doesn't include hierarchies).

[argeiphontes]

The Relevance of Anarchism to Modern Society (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-the-relevance-of-anarchism-to-modern-society) (Sam Dolgoff.)

[newdayrising]

Anarchism is not very specific, which is kinda what allows it to be anarchism (as long as your "anarchism" doesn't include hierarchies).

So if I start a nationalist pro-market group that's non-hierarchical it's still anarchism and therefore part of the same current as an anarcho-communist group, "anarchism"?

Considering anarchism doesn't have it's own "Marx" like figure, a specific method or politics, does it make any sense to consider it a political current/family/movement in any significant way?

Isn't there too much emphasis on labels instead of actual politics?

I'm not saying people should abandon whatever kind of anarchism they happen to follow. Just don't artificially believe you're a part of something together because of a word, pay attention to the actual politics of each group and individual, not just what they say the are.

[BIXX]

So if I start a nationalist pro-market group that's non-hierarchical it's still anarchism and therefore part of the same current as an anarcho-communist group, "anarchism"?

Well, good luck with that, because markets and nationalism are inherently hierarchical.


Considering anarchism doesn't have it's own "Marx" like figure, a specific method or politics, does it make any sense to consider it a political current/family/movement in any significant way?

Well, for one, many anarchists consider people like Bakunin and Kropotkin as our answer to Marx (I disagree but whatever). Plus, we don't need to unite around a person- just like Marxism. Marxism isn't about Marx- it's about his thought. Anarchist is the same way- it's not about our figures, but our thought.

For example, there are actually and incredibly large amount of Marxists who have differing views that often contradict one another, many if them straying incredibly close to anarchism (so of them even are anarchist Marxists) to extremely authoritarian. In that regard, anarchism (not that ancap bullshit, I mean actual non-hierarchical anarchism) is more unified than Marxism.


Isn't there too much emphasis on labels instead of actual politics?

Depends on if you use then to mark your team or describe your politics.


I'm not saying people should abandon whatever kind of anarchism they happen to follow. Just don't artificially believe you're a part of something together because of a word, pay attention to the actual politics of each group and individual, not just what they say the are.

And I would say the same about Marxists. But you seem to think that problem doesn't occur with Marxists.

[newdayrising]

Well, good luck with that, because markets and nationalism are inherently hierarchical.
Some people believe otherwise. They actually justify separatism saying that it's "hierarchical" to make different nations mix with each other. I know they're lunatics, and get your point, but, playing the devil's advocate, one could say it's "hierarchical" for one to determine who's an anarchist and who isn't.
My point is that "hierarchical" means very little, and maybe it's not such a good idea to believe you're on the same boat because you're all "non-hierarchical".
Plus, objectively, there are anarchist groups who support national liberation movements, which are nationalist and hierarchical, albeit in a different manner that "national-anarchism" and things like that. Do you consider them to be anarchists?


Well, for one, many anarchists consider people like Bakunin and Kropotkin as our answer to Marx (I disagree but whatever). Plus, we don't need to unite around a person- just like Marxism. Marxism isn't about Marx- it's about his thought. Anarchist is the same way- it's not about our figures, but our thought.Of course, but since there's no coherent theory there's no way to really argue that an anarchist is anarchistically incorrect.


For example, there are actually and incredibly large amount of Marxists who have differing views that often contradict one another, many if them straying incredibly close to anarchism (so of them even are anarchist Marxists) to extremely authoritarian. In that regard, anarchism (not that ancap bullshit, I mean actual non-hierarchical anarchism) is more unified than Marxism.
And I would say the same about Marxists. But you seem to think that problem doesn't occur with Marxists.I don't know if it's "more unified" than Marxism, it would be kind of hard to measure. However, the point is, Marxists can, correctly or incorrectly use marxist theory to criticize each other and claim someone's not a marxist. First, because it's, at least in theory, based on a particular body of work (as well as a tradition of struglle, of course), and second because looking "hierarchical" is not really an issue. I suppose an anarchist would be "hierarchical" if they exclude other anarchists they don't agree with.
Marxists don't pretend to have anything in common with each other just because they use the same name. I believe anarchism kind of does. It's one of the things that drove me away from it.


Depends on if you use then to mark your team or describe your politics.Exactly, my point is that, by itself "anarchism" doesn't really describe any particular politics. "Non-hiearchical" and "anti-authoritarian" are at best philosophical principles that could maybe serve as a guide for forms of organization, but they're not politics. Groups organized under horizontal non-hierarchical forms could have all sorts of politics. And they do.
Not to mention informal leaderships and informal bureaucracy, which are very common in this kind of groups.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with anarchism per se. On the contrary, that are narchist groups and texts that are better than 90% of so-called "marxism". What I have a problem with is artificial unity based on things that mean very little instead of uniting over actual politics.

[BIXX]

What I have a problem with is artificial unity based on things that mean very little instead of uniting over actual politics.

Oh, I thought you were arguing a different point. I get that entirely. I don't really presume unity with anyone based off of what they tell me they are, rather what I perceive them to be.

[Glitchcraft]

Anarchism undoubtely is more viable than leninism stalinism, maoism, etc. Leninism stalinism, maoism has become corrupted and ultmately led to some form of capitalism. But form of anarchism was failing only b ecause of external intervention (Spain in 30, Ukraine of Makhno).
Yes because the 20 countries that invaded Russia during the civil war wasn't external intervention, the cold war, Afghanistan were not external interventions. Hardly any external force was ever used to bring down the USSR . How historically accurate of you.

[argeiphontes]

^ Excuses, excuses. It was Lenin who said that the USSR was state capitalist. They had the power to win against the White army and Makhno, but not to implement worker control of the means of production or substantive democracy? What does that have to do with Afghanistan, anyway, that was in the 80s. By then it was all over. I know people who lived in this system, and tuwix does too. Everybody was cheering when it collapsed, and for very good reasons.

You know what kind of state the workers would have really been eager to defend in the Cold War? One with worker control of the means of production and substantive democracy. Else it was all bitterness, cynicism, and propaganda. And that's not mentioning Stalin.

[The Feral Underclass]

To all the anarchists in this thread: What does anarchism have to offer the contemporary working class?

[argeiphontes]

^


A stateless, classless society without the private ownership of the means of production. I.e., eventual socialism.
Non-authoritarian worker-controlled structures that can be formed without waiting for world-wide revolution, and that don't involve discontinuity of making a living.
A non-collaborationist, anarcho-syndicalist, militant union.
Anarchism doesn't walk in the shadow of the Soviet Union's "communism."


Unfortunately, there's no good anarchist organization I've seen that isn't obsessed with ParEcon or that would also engage in electoral politics and unionism, which is what I'd like to see. I do like Lenin's opinion on electoral politics ;) A unifying three-pronged strategy could conceivably make some headway. It's too bad.

[The Feral Underclass]

^


A stateless, classless society without the private ownership of the means of production. I.e., eventual socialism.
Non-authoritarian worker-controlled structures that can be formed without waiting for world-wide revolution, and that don't involve discontinuity of making a living.
A non-collaborationist, anarcho-syndicalist, militant union.
Anarchism doesn't walk in the shadow of the Soviet Union's "communism."


I don't think that really answers my question. You've basically listed things that all communists advocate and said things that you want.

[argeiphontes]

Well, they offer many of the same things. (And I'm not the only one who wants those things.)

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, they offer many of the same things. (And I'm not the only one who wants those things.)

So in your view anarchism offers nothing but the same things that most communists want plus some organisational anachronism?

[argeiphontes]

So in your view anarchism offers nothing but the same things that most communists want plus some organisational anachronism?

Anarchists want a federal system of autonomous collectives. So there is a difference in the structure of the final society, but both want socialism of some type. There doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between anarchism and, say, council communism, though council communists may disagree.

I'd recommend this: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-the-relevance-of-anarchism-to-modern-society

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchists want a federal system of autonomous collectives.

Yeah, and?


So there is a difference in the structure of the final society, but both want socialism of some type. There doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between anarchism and, say, council communism, though council communists may disagree.

So what does anarchism offer the contemporary working class?


I'd recommend this: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-the-relevance-of-anarchism-to-modern-society

Yeah, I read it about ten years ago.

[La Comédie Noire]

They definitely escalate things wherever they go (in a good sense). But because this usually includes protests and local movements, it does little to no good whatsoever in the scheme of things and it's arguable whether anything of lasting influence has ever been done.

Certainly depressing, but unwarranted self importance is one of the biggest vices of the left.

[Ele'ill]

They definitely escalate things wherever they go (in a good sense). But because this usually includes protests and local movements, it does little to no good whatsoever in the scheme of things.

aren't local movements and other related things the actual scheme of things