Insurrectionary anarchism

[WilliamGreen]

Sometimes I see snips from Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei and FAI

They're statements are some of the best I've seen recently.

Anyone have more from them and or material they reference?

Thanks :)

[BIXX]

Are you trying to learn about Insurrectionary Anarchism (or Individualist Insurrectionary Anarchism), or about these groups? Cause while I know very little about these two groups, there are others who I do know more about, and also there are many good writings on theanarchistlibrary.com which contains almost every trend in anarchist thought.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I highly recommend seeking out the writing of Os Cangaceiros (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/os-cangaceiros-a-crime-called-freedom-the-writings-of-os-cangaceiros-volume-one), and the early work of Class War (http://libcom.org/tags/class-war) (before they became weird workerist social-dems-with-a-scary-anarchist-aesthetic).

I want to offer at this point that I wouldn't bother with, or would only very critically approach, Wolfi Landstreicher/Feral Faun. He's done some decent translations, but his own work is utter neckbeard angryman uncomfortably-rape-y garbage. When one gets into "individualist" writing, he's often a name that comes up, and he's pretty good at passing off some pretty reactionary shit on young white men with no feminist/anti-racist consciousness.

[WilliamGreen]

thanks guys, appreciate the references :)

as always TGDU your the best!

ES what other groups do you know of, I haven't heard too much from this side on organized groups apart from the few in greece

[Sasha]

At daggers drawn with the existent and the works by bonanno are insurectionary stuff that had the biggest influence on me.
The magazine Fire to the Prisons was pretty good to.

[Sasha]

At daggers drawn: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-at-daggers-drawn-with-the-existent-its-defenders-and-its-false-critics
Bonanno: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/authors/alfredo-m-bonanno
http://firetotheprisons.com/

[Sasha]

Also, more communisation theory than insurectionary but the invisible commitee and tiqun are also good to check out.

[BIXX]

thanks guys, appreciate the references :)

as always TGDU your the best!

ES what other groups do you know of, I haven't heard too much from this side on organized groups apart from the few in greece


Well, first off, I disagree with TGDU about Feral Faun/Wolfi Landstreicher. When I have more time I'll explain why.

The angry brigade provides some nice reading.

The invisible committee is to an extent good, but when I last read The Coming Insurrection some stuff kinda bothered me, but they aren't bad at all.

Bonnano is good IMO. He says some things I disagree with, and aren't entirely insurrectionary or individualist, but he's a good starting point.

But really, the best thing to do is look around on the anarchist library, you'll find more than I can remember.

What exactly are you referencing that you have problems with regarding Feral Faun, TGDU?

[Ele'ill]

i think tgdu just saw me thank your above post and decided to bring up feral faun/wl in a negative light as a passive aggressive thing towards me since i think we've had mini discussion/debates on it before where they got mad (it had nothing to do with 'rapey/racism/anti-feminism' stuff lol

[BIXX]

i think tgdu just saw me thank your above post and decided to bring up feral faun/wl in a negative light as a passive aggressive thing towards me since i think we've had mini discussion/debates on it before where they got mad (it had nothing to do with 'rapey/racism/anti-feminism' stuff lol


Personally, if there is anything that is like that I want to know, but I have not encountered anything like that. We will see though.

Feral faun has been great for me, personally.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The angry brigade provides some nice reading.

I'd second that. I'm not sure that they're insurrectionary or individualist ("Power to the people!"), but they are fucking great. There's a documentary about them, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4KAKcIC7uA), and their communiques are all available to read here (http://libcom.org/history/angry-brigade-documents-chronology).



The invisible committee is to an extent good, but when I last read The Coming Insurrection some stuff kinda bothered me, but they aren't bad at all.

Aye. Very communist - I'm quite fond of it. It's available here (http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/). Their also excellent Call is here (http://www.bloom0101.org/call.pdf), though, again, it may be insurrectionary, but is anything but individualist.


What exactly are you referencing that you have problems with regarding Feral Faun, TGDU?

Particularly the ideas he puts forward in the misleadingly titled pieces "Free Love" and "Beyond Feminism, Beyond Gender" (both included in "Against The Logic of Submission", available here (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wolfi-landstreicher-against-the-logic-of-submission)). The former is a paean to a notion of relationships grounded in a legalistic idealism wherein the "weak" are held at fault for their "weakness" - ie Women and their damn feelings keep getting in the way of Wolfi banging whoever he wants without any emotional responsibility in his relationships. It's vom-worthy. The latter fails to understand gender or feminism historically (and in their relationship to class, race, and the capital generally), and basically tries to pull a ridiculous gender-version of the "I don't see race! It's just a social construct!", the implications of which (ie misogyny) are pretty immediately apparent to anyone who actually has an interest in going "beyond gender".

Fuck, I need to run. Fucking Christmas.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

i think tgdu just saw me thank your above post and decided to bring up feral faun/wl in a negative light as a passive aggressive thing towards me since i think we've had mini discussion/debates on it before where they got mad (it had nothing to do with 'rapey/racism/anti-feminism' stuff lol

Didn't even notice tbh. Anyway, whateves, I have no hard feelings. My best friend and I have more significant political disagreements - she's probably more irl insurrecto than anyone on this board. Actually, she helped write this (http://libcom.org/library/betrayal-critical-analysis-rape-culture-anarchist-subcultures), which is some pretty good feminist critique, y'know, for insurrectos. :p
For the record, I still generally think of you as an above-par poster.

[BIXX]

I'd second that. I'm not sure that they're insurrectionary or individualist ("Power to the people!"), but they are fucking great. There's a documentary about them, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4KAKcIC7uA), and their communiques are all available to read here (http://libcom.org/history/angry-brigade-documents-chronology).




Aye. Very communist - I'm quite fond of it. It's available here (http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/). Their also excellent Call is here (http://www.bloom0101.org/call.pdf), though, again, it may be insurrectionary, but is anything but individualist.



Particularly the ideas he puts forward in the misleadingly titled pieces "Free Love" and "Beyond Feminism, Beyond Gender" (both included in "Against The Logic of Submission", available here (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wolfi-landstreicher-against-the-logic-of-submission)). The former is a paean to a notion of relationships grounded in a legalistic idealism wherein the "weak" are held at fault for their "weakness" - ie Women and their damn feelings keep getting in the way of Wolfi banging whoever he wants without any emotional responsibility in his relationships. It's vom-worthy. The latter fails to understand gender or feminism historically (and in their relationship to class, race, and the capital generally), and basically tries to pull a ridiculous gender-version of the "I don't see race! It's just a social construct!", the implications of which (ie misogyny) are pretty immediately apparent to anyone who actually has an interest in going "beyond gender".

Fuck, I need to run. Fucking Christmas.


I'll look into that, and if I disagree I will respond soon.

[Ele'ill]

Could you give a more detailed analysis of actual pieces of the text where that happens? I did a brief google search (it has been a while since I read those texts) and it looks like it is a thing, but since you seem to have these ideas fresh I'd like it more if you could post about it

[WilliamGreen]

Echoshock I'm still curious about these other groups you mentioned hah

Are they post active groups or active like the greeke and italian I mentioned?

[BIXX]

Echoshock I'm still curious about these other groups you mentioned hah

Are they post active groups or active like the greeke and italian I mentioned?


Well, some are, some aren't. Neither really matters, unless you're looking for a history lesson, which is not my personal interest (I mean, some history is rad, but that's not why I read).

I am just gonna throw down a list of what I read and personally like:

Bonanno:

I know who Killed Chief Superintendent Luigi Calebresi

Armed Joy

Insurrectionalist Anarchism- Part 1

The Insurrectional Project

Let's Destroy Work, Lets Destroy the Economy

And anything else he has written, those are just my top recommendations.

Feral Faun/ Wolfi Landstreicher:

Anything, however, I think certain things (particularly the things TGDU brought up) might help to have a little guidance if you study them, as they can be easily misinterpreted by separating them from the rest of his theory, which is what a lot of people do. If you want help let me know.

Renzo Novatore:

I've never encountered anything I dislike by him, but I am no expert.

I'd recommend some Bruno Felipe, as well.

I think my main thing that will help you learn about ANY anarchism is writing your thoughts and having them critiqued.

[The Feral Underclass]

What do you aim to achieve from this exercise of learning about insurrectionary anarchism? Do you imagine it is going to provide you with a legitimate call to arms?

[bcbm]

my usual spiel:

murder of crows (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-a-murder-of-crows) and killing king abacus (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reocities.com%2Fkk_abacus%2F&ei=rxzGUfPmNITx0gGF3oB4&usg=AFQjCNFFrg3pauc3qcqjvG0k5CNJR4QJdg&sig2=7xXUoTu3dzS5UU_WzGMV6w&bvm=bv.48293060,d.dmQ) (useful introduction: some notes on insurrectionary anarchism (http://libcom.org/library/some-notes-insurrectionary-anarchism)) were good insurrectionary magazines from the late 90's, early oughts period of insurrectionary anarchism which was primarily influenced by some anarchists in the 70s and 80s, primarily italian(alfredo bonanno (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/authors/Alfredo_M__Bonanno.html)) but also some from the uk(insurrection magazine (http://325.nostate.net/?p=443)) and the eco/anti-civ discourse (do or die (http://www.eco-action.org/dod/index.html)) popular at the time.

a related development is an insurrectionary idea drawing more from left-communist/autonomist ideas and continental philosophy, primarily represented by tiqqun (https://tiqqunista.jottit.com/), the coming insurrection (http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/) and such.

at daggers drawn (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-at-daggers-drawn-with-the-existent-its-defenders-and-its-false-critics), as previously mentioned, is a good place to start
325 (http://325.nostate.net/) is a good insurrectionary anarchist website with news and a decent library
war on society (http://waronsociety.noblogs.org/) carries news for anarchists, mostly related to attacks
the institute for experimental freedom (http://www.politicsisnotabanana.com/) is more related to the tiqqun-type insurrectionaries but draws from all over


and for reference materials for the groups you mentioned, 325 is a good source.

[WilliamGreen]

What do you aim to achieve from this exercise of learning about insurrectionary anarchism? Do you imagine it is going to provide you with a legitimate call to arms?

It's a area of the movement that I think is overlooked and at this point an interest.

To your legitimate call of arms question I think that's a personal choice.

[WilliamGreen]

Well, some are, some aren't. Neither really matters, unless you're looking for a history lesson, which is not my personal interest (I mean, some history is rad, but that's not why I read).

I am just gonna throw down a list of what I read and personally like:

Bonanno:

I know who Killed Chief Superintendent Luigi Calebresi

Armed Joy

Insurrectionalist Anarchism- Part 1

The Insurrectional Project

Let's Destroy Work, Lets Destroy the Economy

And anything else he has written, those are just my top recommendations.

Feral Faun/ Wolfi Landstreicher:

Anything, however, I think certain things (particularly the things TGDU brought up) might help to have a little guidance if you study them, as they can be easily misinterpreted by separating them from the rest of his theory, which is what a lot of people do. If you want help let me know.

Renzo Novatore:

I've never encountered anything I dislike by him, but I am no expert.

I'd recommend some Bruno Felipe, as well.

I think my main thing that will help you learn about ANY anarchism is writing your thoughts and having them critiqued.


Awesome references again ES, Thanks :)

In regards to the post/active groups. I think it is good to note the historical groups to see what can be learnt and in regards to active groups to help get them some spotlight. Media attention/recognition can do a lot of help when it comes to groups.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

To your legitimate call of arms question I think that's a personal choice.

Don't encourage him.

As to the OP, nothing to add really, bcbm and Mari3l posted a lot of good shit. Aside from maybe reading some Bakunin and Most in addition to everything mentioned.

[Ele'ill]

I'm going to suggest doing a forum search for insurrectionary, insurrectionist, insurrection, and the other text/person(s) mentioned in this thread. There are a lot of threads on the topic. Also check out the user groups on the forum under community as there's some discussion on there. You'll also pick out rather quickly the various users who are influenced by [email protected] theory and you can see what they post about.

[BIXX]

Awesome references again ES, Thanks :)



In regards to the post/active groups. I think it is good to note the historical groups to see what can be learnt and in regards to active groups to help get them some spotlight. Media attention/recognition can do a lot of help when it comes to groups.


Well, that also depends on if that group wants a spotlight. Not saying you shouldn't do what you can to help, I just want to make sure anyone who considers helping them figures out what help they'd want.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's a area of the movement that I think is overlooked and at this point an interest.

What have you found that is of particular interest?


To your legitimate call of arms question I think that's a personal choice.

My question was directed specifically at you.


Don't encourage him.

Trying to avoid interrogation of motives is a dangerous precedent to set for yourself.

[BIXX]

Don't encourage him.

As to the OP, nothing to add really, bcbm and Mari3l posted a lot of good shit. Aside from maybe reading some Bakunin and Most in addition to everything mentioned.


I disagree about Bakunin. As far as anarchists go I think he is kinda lame.

[The Feral Underclass]

I disagree about Bakunin. As far as anarchists go I think he is kinda lame.

What are your reasons for thinking this?

[Sasha]

Hey TAT, play nice or don't play at all, your not the Spanish inquisition, Verbalwarning...

[The Feral Underclass]

I didn't mean to come across like that, I am genuinely interested in the answers. I'm trying to have a conversation and understand people's positions. People need to stop interpreting my posts as aggressive.

[Sasha]

Maybe take the effort of making your sentences a bit longer and throw in some "may I ask", "my own opinion is" and such. It helps.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Trying to avoid interrogation of motives is a dangerous precedent to set for yourself.

Please don't put me in the comfy chair. :crying:


I disagree about Bakunin. As far as anarchists go I think he is kinda lame.

The fuck? How? He was kind of a badass.

[BIXX]

The fuck? How? He was kind of a badass.




What are your reasons for thinking this?


I guess it's not so much that's he's lame, as he actually has written a lot that I love, I just feel there are MANY MANY better anarchists than he.

I would slap him for some things, hug him for others. Still, I would hardly consider him an insurrectionary anarchist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Alright, so, this is for the folk who wanted me to lay out the misogyny in "Against The Logic of Submission". I confess, my reading of Landstreicher isn't comprehensive, and it's possible that he's since become critical of the perspectives he expresses here - I haven't seen anything that would make me believe that though. Anyway, let's start with how Wolfi sees women:

[. . . U]p to now, men have been granted more leeway in asserting their will within these roles than women, a reasonable explanation for why more anarchists, revolutionaries and outlaws have been men than women. Women who have been strong, rebellious individuals have been so precisely because they have moved beyond their femininity.
These two sentences speak volumes about where Wolfi is coming from. Not only does he subscribe to a history wherein the ranks of women rebels have been thinned to the point of constituting a minority, but affirms that, in fact, rebellion itself is "beyond" femininity. Of course, what is implicit here is that rebellion only "counts" when it is comprehensible within a patriarchal framework. This is the same sort of understanding that coded black slaves in America as lazy, stupid, and animalistic, rather than as revolutionary. Interestingly, Wolfi doesn't really grapple with race except to make facile comparisons with gender, and acknowledge (without understanding) its relationship to historical violence, but I digress.
Anyway, there are some more warning signs which indicate the "depth" of Landstreicher's grasp of gender:

Sexuality is an essential expression of individual desire and passion, of the flame that can ignite both love and revolt.
Oh, it is? Good to see that some serious investigation preceded your publishing yourself on this matter, buddy!
Wolfi imagines an ahistorical sexuality, which is essential to the individual, and precedes gender. Of course, such an understanding precludes any attempt to understand the relationship between patriarchy and sexuality, and, of course, between gender and sexuality. It is in this context which Wolfi's conception of "Free Love" is particularly horrifying:

One of the most significant obstacles presently facing us in this area is pity for weakness and neurosis. There are individuals who know clearly what they desire in each potential loving encounter, people who can act and respond with a projectual clarity that only those who have made their passions and desires their own can have. But when these individuals act on their desires, if another who is less sure of themselves is unnerved or has their feelings hurt, they are expected to change their behavior to accommodate the weakness of this other person. Thus the strong-willed individual who has grasped the substance of free love and begun to live it often finds herself suppressed or ostracized by his own supposed comrades. If our aims are indeed liberation and the destruction of the logic of submission in all areas of life, then we cannot give in to this.
So, having coded feminity as weak and nuerotic, and having coded patriarchal sexuality as essential and therefore beyond critique, Wolfi goes on to tell us that those who are negatively impacted by patriarchal sexuality are themselves at fault. That he opportunistically drops a "she" pronoun to shield himself from criticism at this juncture is entirely transparent in the context of his broader understanding of women, gender, and sexuality. ie What he means, implicitly is "she-who-behaves-like-a-man" by which he de facto means "he".
Of course, subjecting a man's activity to serious analysis of this type is a no-no in Wolfi's world:

If one has the bad fortune of being “white” and “male” (even if one consciously rejects all the social constraints and definitions behind such labels), then he is required to accept the judgment of “non-whites” and “females” about the significance, the “real” unconscious motivations of his actions. To do otherwise would constitute arrogance, a lack of consideration and an exercise of “privilege”. The only outcome I can see from such a way of dealing with these matters (and it is certainly the only outcome I have ever seen) is the creation of a bunch of shy, yet inquisitorial mice tip-toeing around each other for fear of being judged, and just as incapable of attacking the foundations of this society as they are of relating to each other.
Again, Wolfi attempts a simple rhetorical bait-and-switch here, where the scare-quotes around "white" and "male" are actually meant to suggest the non-existence of patriarchy and white supremacy. Neither patriarchy nor white supremacy really exist as material realities in Wolfi Landstreicher's America, where one can simply "consciously reject" them. If only "non-whites" and "females" could stop emasculating revolutionaries by talking about privilege!

I could keep going, but I'm sure you all see my point. Landstreicher reproduces the absolute worst thinking of the old left, painting it over with a cheap "anarchist" top-coat. While the rhetoric is superficially different than the old "The Workers!(tm)"-meaning-white-men, Wolfi's "individualism" carries with it that same history of supremacist attitudes and self-serving "me as the revolutionary subject" thinking.

[The Feral Underclass]

I just feel there are MANY MANY better anarchists than he.

People whose views find their basis in Bakunin's ideas.


I would slap him for some things, hug him for others.

What specifically do you find disagreeable?


Still, I would hardly consider him an insurrectionary anarchist.

You're talking about a man who famously jumped from a train to help organise a village that had begun an insurrection against the town government; a man who participated and fermented insurrections across Europe, including in Dresden and Prague, for which he was arrested and served an 8 year prison sentence in the infamous Peter-Paul Fortress. This is the man who conceived the idea of small affinity groups acting to forward the ideas of insurrection; a man who stood with the nihilists in their actions against the Russian aristocracy when others abandoned them.

Bakunin dedicated his entire life, his entire being, forsaking his health, his family and his freedom to the principles and action of insurrection. He was more of an insurrectionist than any of these so called anarchists that pass themselves off in Western Europe and America and did more for the cause of anti-state socialism than any of them combined.

[WilliamGreen]

ES I tried to give you more rep points for your comment about helping groups in ways that really do help but I already have given you too much Lol

TAT no worries man I'd love to fill you in.

I think there is something to be said about actual "action" I know I am being loose when I define that but I think that's probably the most honest way to approach it.

Sometimes I look at the large networks of Platformist, etc. groups and to be honest no body knows a thing about them. Then I look at when someone does any kind of thing being as small as putting a banner up on the busiest tunnel and or posters that rise up when shell gas guys are talking and then you get people talking, discussing, etc. And I think enough of that kind of action may in fact create momentum.

Education though in my own personal view is the most important.

Umm when it comes to legitimacy i was being open when I said that is a personal motivation. Everyone reads the times a bit different and what is justifiable for one may not be for another. I'm not even sure language can really capture how experience and history help form a persons rationale when it comes to perception. Sorry I know that's kinda vague.

Thanks Mari3l for the search advice. Thanks Pyscho for the great moderation and keeping this chat going.

And 325 was an awesome site :)

Look forward to hearing more from you guys!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Umm when it comes to legitimacy i was being open when I said that is a personal motivation. Everyone reads the times a bit different and what is justifiable for one may not be for another. I'm not even sure language can really capture how experience and history help form a persons rationale when it comes to perception. Sorry I know that's kinda vague.

On those themes, there's a somewhat rambling reflection on The Angry Brigade by John Barker, who served several years for his role in the Brigade, here (http://libcom.org/library/review-angry-brigade-vague-book-barker).

More interestingly, and certainly in clearer terms, there's a reflection by a member of Os Cangaceiros here (http://www.revoltagainstplenty.com/index.php/archive-global/58-os-cangaceiros.html). It might interest you particularly, W. Green, as it was written "[To] be of some use to others willing to engage in some kind of similar practical dissent."

[WilliamGreen]

TGDU - Thanks :)

It would be nice to have such groups in the west today.

[Ele'ill]

I want to reply to TGDU's take on WL's texts but I am too wasted right now. Just wanted to book mark this spot cause I didn't forget about it or anything (i almost replied but i reread everyting and it didn't ake any sense at all it was like birds just talking a lot)

[WilliamGreen]

Lol drink water!

you'll thank me tomorrow

[Ele'ill]

there is no tomorrow

[Yuppie Grinder]

bakunin is cool but my favorite anarchist to actually read is malatesta
dude is angry that's some punk as fuck political theory right there

[BIXX]

I want to reply to TGDU's take on WL's texts but I am too wasted right now. Just wanted to book mark this spot cause I didn't forget about it or anything (i almost replied but i reread everyting and it didn't ake any sense at all it was like birds just talking a lot)


I'll beat you to the punch maybe!

[BIXX]

bakunin is cool but my favorite anarchist to actually read is malatesta
dude is angry that's some punk as fuck political theory right there


Malatesta later turned to platformism which I think it total shit though.

[The Feral Underclass]

Malatesta later turned to platformism which I think it total shit though.

No he didn't...

Where are you reading your history, lol.

[BIXX]

No he didn't...

Where are you reading your history, lol.



But all this is perhaps only a question of words.

In my reply to Makhno I already said: "It may be that, by the term collective responsibility, you mean the agreement and solidarity that must exist among the members of an association. And if that is so, your expression would, in my opinion, amount to an improper use of language, and therefore, being only a question of words, we would be closer to understanding each other."

And now, reading what the comrades of the 18e say, I find myself more or less in agreement with their way of conceiving the anarchist organisation (being very far from the authoritarian spirit which the "Platform" seemed to reveal) and I confirm my belief that behind the linguistic differences really lie identical positions.

Pulled this from Wikipedia cause too lazy to find the original. This was in the section "Malatesta's shift to agreement" in the platformism article.

Where are you reading your history?

[The Feral Underclass]

Pulled this from Wikipedia cause too lazy to find the original. This was in the section "Malatesta's shift to agreement" in the platformism article.

I'm sorry, this is bullshit. I don't even know what I'm supposed to be looking at and you haven't even cited it. I've been to the wikipedia page and that quote isn't even on there...

Please provide the proper source and link to it. Don't make claims if you're too lazy to substantiate them.


Where are you reading your history?

I'm certainly not taking it from Wikipedia.

[The Feral Underclass]

Right, I've finally tracked down the quote. The entire entry is:


While such criticisms indicated a direct rejection of the Platform's proposals, others seem to have arisen from misunderstandings.

Notably, Malatesta initially believed that the Platform was "typically authoritarian", and "far from helping to bring about the victory of anarchist communism, to which they aspire, could only falsify the anarchist spirit and lead to consequences that go against their intentions".[21]

However, after further correspondence with Makhno—and after seeing a platformist group in formation—Malatesta concluded that he was actually in agreement with the positions of the Platform, but had been confused by the language they had used:

"But all this is perhaps only a question of words.

In my reply to Makhno I already said: "It may be that, by the term collective responsibility, you mean the agreement and solidarity that must exist among the members of an association. And if that is so, your expression would, in my opinion, amount to an improper use of language, and therefore, being only a question of words, we would be closer to understanding each other."

And now, reading what the comrades of the 18e say, I find myself more or less in agreement with their way of conceiving the anarchist organisation (being very far from the authoritarian spirit which the "Platform" seemed to reveal) and I confirm my belief that behind the linguistic differences really lie identical positions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism

That is taken from a text called On Collective Responsibility (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/mal_rep3.htm)


I have seen a statement by the Group of the 18e where, in agreement with the Russians' "Platform" and with comrade Makhno, it is held that the "principle of collective responsibility" is the basis of every serious organization.

I have already, in my criticism of the "Platform" and in my reply to the open letter directed to me by Makhno, indicated my opinion on this supposed principle. But as there is some insistence on an idea or at least an expression which would seem to me to be more at home in a military barracks than among anarchist groups, I hope I will be permitted to say another few words on the question.

The comrades of the 18e say that "communist anarchists must work in such a way that their influence has the greatest probabilities for success and that this result will not come about unless their propaganda can develop collectively, permanently and homogeneously". I agree! But it seems that that is not the case; since those comrades complain that "in the name of the same organization, in every corner of France, the most diverse, and even contrary theories are spreading". That is most deplorable, but it simply means that that organization has no clear and precise programme which is understood and accepted by all its members, and that within the party, confused by a common label, are men who do not have the same ideas and who should group together in separate organizations or remain unattached if they are unable to find others who think as they do.

If, as the comrades of the 18e say, the UACR [2] does nothing to establish a programme which can be accepted by all its members and permit it to be able to act together in such situations as may present themselves, if, in other words, the UACR lacks knowledge, cohesion or agreement, its problem is this, and nothing will be remedied by proclaiming "collective responsibility" which, unless it means the blind submission of all to the will of some, is a moral absurdity in theory and general irresponsibility in practice.

But all this is perhaps only a question of words.

In my reply to Makhno I already said: "It may be that, by the term collective responsibility, you mean the agreement and solidarity that must exist among the members of an association. And if that is so, your expression would, in my opinion, amount to an improper use of language, and therefore, being only a question of words, we would be closer to understanding each other."

And now, reading what the comrades of the 18e say, I find myself more or less in agreement with their way of conceiving the anarchist organisation (being very far from the authoritarian spirit which the "Platform" seemed to reveal) and I confirm my belief that behind the linguistic differences really lie identical positions.

But if this is the case, why persist in an expression which serves only to defy clarification of what was one of the causes of the misunderstanding provoked by the "Platform"? Why not speak as all do in such a way as to be understood and not create confusion?

Moral responsibility (and in our case we can talk of nothing but moral responsibility) is individual by its very nature. Only the spirit of domination, in its various political, military, ecclesiastical (etc.) guises, has been able to hold men responsible for what they have not done voluntarily.

If a number of men agree to do something and one of them allows the initiative to fail through not carrying out what he had promised, everyone will say that it was his fault and that therefore it is he who is responsible, not those who did what they were supposed to right up to the last.

Once again, let us talk as everyone talks. Let us try to be understood by everyone. We may perhaps find ourselves in less difficulty with our propaganda.

Please explain to me how that is Malatesta becoming a Platformist...Where in that text does it show that he embraces platformism? Malatesta "more or less" agreeing with the principle of collective responsibility doesn't make him a platformist.

Anarchists don't even understand their own history.

[BIXX]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism#Malatesta.27s_Shift_to_.22Agreement.22

But maybe a link to where I got it is too complicated for you. Another tip: google "Malatesta Platformism" and it will show up with the Wikipedia article, with a sub link saying "jump to Malatesta's shift to agreement".

That's the link I pulled it from, now I'll go look for the primary source.

Oh here!

http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/mal_rep3.htm

In this piece he begins with a critique, but then turns around and says that the only disagreements might be in word choice.

[The Feral Underclass]

In that letter he makes a criticism of both an organisation and the way in which platformists conceptualise it, but goes on to say he "more of less" agrees with the position of collective responsibility based on what he describes as a poorly articulated definition.

Now, I am a platformist. "More or less" agreeing with the principle of collective responsibility does not make you one. If you can find me a text from Malatesta in which he embraces the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, then I will be happy to accept my mistake.

[BIXX]

And now, reading what the comrades of the 18e say, I find myself more or less in agreement with their way of conceiving the anarchist organisation (being very far from the authoritarian spirit which the "Platform" seemed to reveal) and I confirm my belief that behind the linguistic differences really lie identical positions.

I think you overlooked this part.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think you overlooked this part.

He's talking about collective responsibility. The letter is entitled, On Collective Responsibility, because that is what he is talking about. You need to read the paragraph in context of the whole letter, instead of just cherry-picking that which is convenient to your position.

As a platformist, I have no problem with claiming Malatesta as one of us, but it would be dishonest and factually inaccurate. He was not a platformist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Malatesta was critical of the Platform throughout, pretty much. Most of the anarchists of that era were, including Rocker, who used his position within the IWA to campaign against it. That's significant because Rocker was more syndicalist-oriented than Malatesta was, and one would think would be more inclined to be sympathetic towards an "anarchist party".


But, when I see that in the Union that you support there is an Executive Committee to give ideological and organisational direction to the association I am assailed by the doubt that you would also like to see, within the general movement, a central body that would, in an authoritarian manner, dictate the theoretical and practical programme of the revolution.

If this is so we are poles apart.

Your organisation, or your managerial organs, may be composed of anarchists but they would only become nothing other than a government. Believing, in completely good faith, that they are necessary to the triumph of the revolution, they would, as a priority, make sure that they were well placed enough and strong enough to impose their will. They would therefore create armed corps for material defence and a bureaucracy for carrying out their commands and in the process they would paralyse the popular movement and kill the revolution.

That is what, I believe, has happened to the Bolsheviks.

http://libcom.org/history/malatesta-anarchist-revolution-polemical-articles-1924-1931

That sounds pretty critical. And it was written in December 1929, about two years before he died. The authors of the book Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism also made no mention whatsoever of Malatesta supporting the platform, and you can bet your ass they would have if he had shown any inclination of meaningful support, dirty platformists that they are.

[BIXX]

Ok, I concede. I granted the one piece, "OCR", too much relevancy.

[bcbm]

yeah dont try to sully malatesta's good name

[The Feral Underclass]

yeah dont try to sully malatesta's good name

Hey! What's your beef?

[CyM]

I can't believe I walked into a thread where I agree with TAT :p

Anyways, this thread reads a lot like a reading list, and is not at all interesting to someone who is not an anarchist.

Could we perhaps get an actual discussion going on Insurrectionary Anarchism?

Like, what it is, why you prefer it to Platformism for example, or Anarcho-Syndicalism, etc...

I think TAT's questions are correct, because they are a road towards opening up an actual discussion we can all learn from, rather than just "have you read this? It's quite good" as you sip your tea.

Please take my snark with a grain of salt :)

[Ele'ill]

I can't believe I walked into a thread (again) where I agree with CyM.

I appreciate the challenges it presents to conventional organization / related demands that come from it.

[bcbm]

Hey! What's your beef?

the platform

[The Feral Underclass]

the platform


You don't think there is anothing of value in that document?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[The Feral Underclass]

I appreciate the challenges it presents to conventional organization / related demands that come from it.


Would you mind expanding on what you mean by this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[bcbm]

You don't think there is anothing of value in that document?


i'm sure there are some things of value and i wish those who want to organize along such lines the best of luck, but i don't think they'll find a great deal of success.

[Ele'ill]

Would you mind expanding on what you mean by this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Are you familiar with criticisms of traditional methods of organizing and movement building?

[The Feral Underclass]

i'm sure there are some things of value and i wish those who want to organize along such lines the best of luck, but i don't think they'll find a great deal of success.


What does success look like and how does the platform prevent it?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[The Feral Underclass]

Are you familiar with criticisms of traditional methods of organizing and movement building?


Very possibly. I would be interested to see what you have to say though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[CyM]

People are being incredibly vague, though this is a good start.

Can we get some more details, cause at the moment it seems like a discussion between people "in-the-know", and the rest of us are clueless.

[Os Cangaceiros]

People are being incredibly vague, though this is a good start.

Can we get some more details, cause at the moment it seems like a discussion between people "in-the-know", and the rest of us are clueless.

When the platform (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1000) was released it was criticized by many in the anarchist community as essentially taking the organizational forms of the Bolsheviks and transposing them unto the anarchist movement, hence the term "Bolsheviks in black". The impetus for the platform was understandable, though. Traditional symmetric military struggles which are fought with battalions of soldiers and artillery and all that are usually won with a disciplined and hierarchical military force, something which is damn near impossible to reconcile with anarchist principles, although that didn't stop some people like Makhno and later Durruti from trying. So you essentially had this situation of Makhno and Arshinov being involved in the direction of a (not inconsequential) body of armed soldiers and a propaganda organ operating through Nabat, and it looks more and more like a situation of "creeping centralism". I think it's really that experience which spawned the platform.

I've read the platformist arguments of a line of continuation from Bakunin's "Alliance" all the way to the Organizational Platform, but I'm not particularly convinced about that (although I do think that Bakunin was basically a "vanguardist", for practical purposes, even if he wouldn't admit it as many words). I think it's more useful just to look at the platform as something particular to the Makhnovist situation. I can't think of many other good examples of something akin to the Organizational Platform except for the ideology of the Friends of Durruti group, which was, again, born out of a war. I think that either some French or Argentine anarchists also wrote something that was influential in platformism but I can't remember what it was.

Anarchism has always had a dual emphasis on individual autonomy and collective struggle, which is why these questions are often debated so strongly within the tradition. They're not easy questions to resolve because a society which completely subsumes individual autonomy to some sort of collective will isn't any place I'd want to live, but at the same time decisions need to be made which often affect large amounts of people, and I don't think there's a perfect way to make these decisions which are simultaneously effective and fit comfortably within the anarchism paradigm.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As far as modern day struggles and organizational forms go, it is very difficult for me to conceive of a revitalized anarchist movement in the present day of the kind that would be necessary for something like "platformism" to have a real impact (because platformism really needs the kind of theoretical clarity that libertarian communism provides in order to "steer" the larger worker's movement in the right direction, a la the FAI in Spain). I think that the basic questions anarchism raises like questions over power and individual autonomy and class will continue to be relevant going into the future, but anarchism as an explicit political philosophy isn't something I see coming back on a significant scale any time in the near future.

[The Feral Underclass]

I've read the platformist arguments of a line of continuation from Bakunin's "Alliance" all the way to the Organizational Platform, but I'm not particularly convinced about that (although I do think that Bakunin was basically a "vanguardist", for practical purposes, even if he wouldn't admit it as many words).

I don't think Bakunin would have particularly cared about the term vanguardist. I don't imagine he would have shied away from it. But there is a continuation from Bakunin's conception of minority political organisations into modern day platformism, contemporarily called specifism.

The minority political organisation is really in the traditon of Bakunin and the platform. Within this conception, it really confuses me when people say things like bcbm's comments. A proper Bakuninist minority political organisation has never existed, not in the last 150 years, so I don't see how it could have failed. If people want to criticise the concept of political minority organisations then they should make that criticism, but it would be wholly theoretical.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Personally I wouldn't be one to criticize "vanguardism", at least in the most abstract sense of the term. I think there will always be a segment of the working population which will have a more combative or insurrectionary sentiment as opposed to the broader working class in general, and that's something I'm willing to acknowledge (and it's also something that Malatesta acknowledged in his debate with Pierre Monatte). The concept of the "vanguard party" is another issue, and one that is more problematic for me, if for no other reason than the rather troubled historical legacy of such political parties, the despotism and reformist tendencies cloaked under the pretense of "scientific socialism", etc. (All of which Bakunin predicted)

[WilliamGreen]

I can't believe I walked into a thread where I agree with TAT :p

Anyways, this thread reads a lot like a reading list, and is not at all interesting to someone who is not an anarchist.

Could we perhaps get an actual discussion going on Insurrectionary Anarchism?

Like, what it is, why you prefer it to Platformism for example, or Anarcho-Syndicalism, etc...

I think TAT's questions are correct, because they are a road towards opening up an actual discussion we can all learn from, rather than just "have you read this? It's quite good" as you sip your tea.

Please take my snark with a grain of salt :)

This is a good thought. I would be interested to hear from the Platformists why they chose that stance rather than an insurrectionary one or what place they believe insurrectionary anarchism could play in the movement.

It might be interesting to get all the different branchs and subsets in here. Turn this into a big anarchist debate hah ;)

[WilliamGreen]

People are being incredibly vague, though this is a good start.

Can we get some more details, cause at the moment it seems like a discussion between people "in-the-know", and the rest of us are clueless.

Yah that's how I'm feeling. Can people include more details rather than speech that is only define able to those in the scene.

[WilliamGreen]

Os Cangaceiros

Would you say that you think the value than of anarchists is just to provide critique to the larger movements in the left?

And how do you see this being done, by both literary essays and urban styled attacks like the FAI?

[Brognor]

I have some books from Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei and FAI and other Insurrectionary stuff but they are in greek, sorry, I'm not sure I know the titles in english :(