The Failure of Anarchism

[cullinane]

Without doubt we have seen a resurgence of anarchism over the past few years. A revolutionary force, arguably somewhat misguided, anarchists claim"absolute power corrupts absolutely". A call which will no doubt play
into the hands of bourgeois democrats everywhere. The modern anarchist movement has gained much publicity through the globalisation demonstrations.
Oddly for all their anti-imperialist rhetoric, they are very clear in their call for the end to the greatest anti-imperialist victories in the 20th century, such as Cuba, China and Vietnam. Anarchists for all their
anti-totalitarianism join with their world's imperialists in their anti Communist crusade. Anarchism is everywhere but at the same time, nowhere.
Politically it is and will remain inchoate and undeveloped.

Direct action, the synthesis of propaganda by deed has self destructive tendencies. The notion that one can set an example by throwing bricks at a police officer or destroying a McDonalds restaurant will inspire others by
your physical 'sacrifice' and 'moral victory' and lead to a mass movement is a poor argument. Indeed it is setting yourself up as an easy target for repression by the state's forces. This will hardly inspire the proletariat
who face factory exploitation on a daily basis. Without a program and a political vanguard party there is no revolutionary theory, only abstract rhetoric and moralism.

[SellasieI]

has anyone read the book from Berkman called "communist anarchism"?? I have just started to read it, and it is available online at www.ratm.com under reading matierials. You should check it out.

[libereco]

just because someone believes in anarchy as an ideal doesn't mean that he'll run around throwing bricks goddamnit.

you say the anarchists join the capitalists in fighting communism...well maybe fighting dictators or supression of the people?
by your argumentation you are joining the fascists in fighting anarchism right now....because you agree with them on ONE point.

[Guest]

Anarchy is the only way to be. BY following another party line as u seem to suggest in your last paragraph we will only get back to the same destructive state we live in now. a classless society can never be reached if their is someone that has power over another person, which a government or party would. who cares if anarchism is undevolped? that is much better because it can devlop during the times that really matter, afetr the revolution. if the people had just one they would not allow the vacuum of power to be filled by a counterrevoltuionary force so their is now need for a dictatorship of the porletariat. and lets look at the spanish revolution of 1936 that was predominantly anarchist and was very successful until it was all but crush by the stalinists. anarchy is the onyl way to be

[cullinane]

Dear comrades,
I do not wish to get into a theoretical debate about your beliefs on Anarchism. I respect your political stance. I am not calling for people to turn against anarchists, I respect their passionate convictions but I do not share their tactical and strategic theory on how to achieve power and their attitued towards the state. I don't agree with the positions you uphold in your post either, but I won't disregard them as I don't wish to draw us into battle over the Marxist/Anarchist question (although if you insist I will).
Your comments are a welcome counter piece to my post.
Thanks for the response.

[Guest]

wow no i dont want to get into a big areguement over it eaither, i am impressed a lot of people would have come back at me with another big arguement and then the whole thing is interminable. alirght cool

[Markxs]

anarchism hasnt failed the leaders in this world are the cause of much evil in this world. bin laden, bush, mao, fidel ?, with the exception of che because he staid humble to his ppl. ppl are easy to fall for power once they experienced some we must never let ppl fall for that so we need anarchism.

[ShadowOfGuest]

Cullinane, you just dont get it do you?
You can no more say all anarchists are brick throwing maniacs than you can say all communists are Stalinists, bit tashed megalomanical psychos.
The majority of Anarchists are pacifists, you just fall for the media's view point, one of concentration on a few tits who call themselves anarchist. You allow the media to control your mind, and besmirch a valid viewpoint.
And neither is Anarchism undeveloped, again, it is simply because you are not aware of something that you beleive it doesnt exist. There are many books on the subject.
Ghandi was himself an anarchist, and one of the most famous pacifists in history.

And lest we not forget, Dictatorship is inherently against communist ideals, but democracy is just as much so. Democracy is, after all, nothing more than a dictatorship of the majority over the minority. Anarchists no more join with Capitalists to fight communism than communists join with the taliban to fight the US. They are two distinctive groups of people, both of which dislike one another, to lump them in together in some kind of 'my enemies enemy is my friend' way is truly and monumentally foolish.

[cullinane]

Dear comrade,
Firstly, thank you for the reply. Its an interesting view point. However, I'd prefer if we can refrain from subjective remarks about what you assume about me.
Firstly I've studied anarchism for a period of a year, I've read widely from the origins of Proudhons thought, Bakunin, Goldman etc..etc..So I am of the opinion that I do understand the basic construct of libertarian socialism. I've studied it, and have come to my conclusions.
Secondly, I did not call anarchists "maniacs". You shouldn't make so many subjective assumptions about me and that you assume I except everything the media tells me. You must make distinctions between political theorectical statements that are meant to stimulate debate and personal viewpoints.
So what if Gandhi was an anarchist? Am I supposed to be impressed ?
My argument, which I don't intend to uphold as some monolithic axiom, is that anarchism as an actuality in its strategic praxis is not a successful struggle to address to a capitalist state, nor will it ever be, unless it addresses its failing points, its practice.
To address a mass movements failure as the fault of a particular "leader" as I believe Markxs says is entirely anti-materialistic and owes more to form of 18th century metaphysics than anything else. Its a historical simplicity. The fact that "people are easy to fall for power" is completely, an abstract synthesis of an deformed analysis. Kind regards,

[ShadowOfGuest]

lol
studied it for a year? whoop-ti-doo! you obviously learnt nothing in that year. anyway, onto another point:
You're saying anarchism is strategically inferior to socialism/communism eh?
Take a look at any movement which has had a political vanguard elite leading the masses towards the way. What's happened to them? they've become stalinist. They inevitably decide that the ultimate form of Communism is that which has one bloke at the top, and ignore the teachings of Marx about the stripping away of the state. I am sorry, but this is such a major and glaring strategic flaw that Communists MUST deal with before they can move on. There has to be some function by which this can be prevented, or the whole struggle is for nothing. You may be able to achieve success, but it is shortlived.

As for Anarchism's strategic failure, how would you go about explaining the current massive upsurge of support for it? Anarchist actions are happening world-wide, are you blind? progress is being made comrade, make no mistake about it.
There are several communes popping up to lead the way as an example.
Anarchism nearly won in France in 1968, and I am certain it will come that close to success again.

just you wait, anarchism is in a much better strategic position than communism right now, and i think it quite likely that the next leftist success in the world will be anarchist.

Not to in anyway say i am against communist successes, i am after all an Anarcho-Communist, but Communism has some major issues to address which it is simply failing to manage

[Moskitto]

Between a Central Government (Too much risk of Stalins) and Anarchy (too collapsable) I see a middle way. Council Communism.

Under council communism, The means of production is monitored by small councils (either democraticly elected or just open discussion groups) at a local level who discuss changes and set about the organization of those changes. They also look after things such as workers issues, working conditions.

Because power isn't concentrated in one council there is less risk of a Stalin coming along because the neighbouring councils can remove him.

[Valkyrie]

Mosketto:

In Counsil Communism is there a centralized government in addition to the small counsels?

[Moskitto]

That's a difficult question to awnser.

If there is a central government it should have no more power than the councils who should in turn have no more power than the people. Eg the central government should only have a role in organizing some policies which affect everyone.

However some would say that there should be no central government.

I would say that the central government should only have a small role and shouldn't be allowed to accumulate power.