Debate on the Organisational Platform

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 14, 2007 06:47 pm
He's probably one of the most significat Libertarian-communists in human history.
In what capacity? A military one?


His politics were Libertarian-communist, his practice was libertarian communist, his contributions to anarchist theory (The Organisational Platform)...

That's clearly a matter of contention.


...have had massive effects of the direction of the movement up to the present day.

The Platform has been, arguably, the most divisive document within the class-struggle anarchist movement since its creation.


It does little more than expose your complete lack of undertanding of both Anarchist thoery

Again, it is arguable that the Platform is in many ways contrary to anarchist belief. Obviously it has taken on a form that has integrated itself into the class-struggle milieu, but it has many flaws and at times contradicts the purpose of anarchist organisation.

In some ways it has a purpose, but it is a dangerous method of organising that I, and the vast majority of the anarchist communist movement around the world, reject.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 14, 2007 06:03 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 14, 2007 06:03 pm) In what capacity? A military one?
[/b]
In several capacities.


That's clearly a matter of contention.

The Platform has been, arguably, the most divisive document within the class-struggle anarchist movement since its creation.

No doubt about it. It's a controversial document, that has been widely debated, and opposed by various anarchists since it's publication. But, rather than get into a debate over whether or not the platform is good or bad, we can both agree that it is within the sphere of libertarian-communist thought, and very much a part of the theory. I would certainly value many of it's arguments. Though I do not agree entirely with the document.


In some ways it has a purpose, but it is a dangerous method of organising that I, and that vast majority of the anarchist communist movement around the world, reject.

And perhaps that's why we're in the mess we are in today. I mean, read the opening lines of the platform (emphasis added);

"In every country the anarchist movement is represented by local organisations with contradictory theory and tactics with no forward planning or continuity in their work. They usually fold after a time, leaving little or no trace"

"...There can be no doubt, however, that this disorganisation has its roots in a number of defects of theory, notably in the distorted interpretation of the principle of individuality in anarchism, that principle being too often mistaken for the absence of all accountability"

Ring any bells?

Whether you agree with Makhnos conclusions in the platform or not, these are very real problems with our movement, even today. As for your signature;


[email protected] to Malatesta

Your denial of collective responsibility strikes me not only as without basis but dangerous for the social revolution, in which you would do well to take account of experience when it comes to fighting a decisive battle against all our enemies at once. Now my experience of the revolutionary battles of the past leads me to believe that no matter what the order of revolutionary events may be, one needs to give out serious directives, both ideological and tactical. This means that only a collective spirit, sound and devoted to anarchism, could express the requirements of the moment, through a collectively responsible will. None of us has the right to dodge that element of responsibility.

Actually, I'd rather not debate the platform in this thread. And regret responding to you, because you probably will (and rightfully so) want to respond to this post, so, if ya do continue with the debate I will split this thread, and move it to practice. I wont delete what I have written, because that seems a waste.

Also, if you want to argue your corner, you might be interested in a similar debate started by an Anarchist you know well from Reading, over on libcom;here (http://libcom.org/forums/organise/accountability-democracy-and-authority-anarchism?page=0#comment-191251)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+May 14, 2007 07:16 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ May 14, 2007 07:16 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 14, 2007 06:03 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 14, 2007 06:03 pm) In what capacity? A military one?
[/b]
In several capacities. [/b]
Such as...?



That's clearly a matter of contention.

The Platform has been, arguably, the most divisive document within the class-struggle anarchist movement since its creation.

No doubt about it. It's a controversial document, that has been widely debated, and opposed by various anarchists since it's publication. But, rather than get into a debate over whether or not the platform is good or bad, we can both agree that it is within the sphere of libertarian-communist thought, and very much a part of the theory.

I don't necessarily accept that.



Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
In some ways it has a purpose, but it is a dangerous method of organising that I, and that vast majority of the anarchist communist movement around the world, reject.

And perhaps that's why we're in the mess we are in today. I mean, read the opening lines of the platform (emphasis added);

"In every country the anarchist movement is represented by local organisations with contradictory theory and tactics with no forward planning or continuity in their work. They usually fold after a time, leaving little or no trace"

I have often argued in several large anarchist meetings that there is an incoherency of ideas. This particular notion is not a 'Platformist' one, it's simply reality.

However, dealing with that problem by contradicting anarchist principles and creating more political authority is not the solution.

In contemporary times this issue is down to the fact that many anarchists do not have a clear class struggle analysis and often oppose organisation altogether. 'Centralising', for want of a better word, political methods is actually utterly pointless in regards to dealing with this. The Anarchist Federation for example already has a clear and specific class analysis, so what point would there be in creating this "collective responsability".

The platform is redundant on many levels. Most notably because, whether you or I like it or not, the anarchist movement is split and the platform can only regulate a political movement through consent and as most anarchist don't adhere to it there really is little point in hailing it as significant.

The political unity of the anarchist movement is only going to be achieved through debate. The only way we can move forward is by accommodating each others politics and working together in a united way, while continuing to allow each organisation to act autonomously. That's what will happen in any case.

It's a theoretical debate and that debate must continue to exist, regardless of this platform. Dissent is an integral part of democracy and without it we are doomed to repeat history.


"...There can be no doubt, however, that this disorganisation has its roots in a number of defects of theory, notably in the distorted interpretation of the principle of individuality in anarchism, that principle being too often mistaken for the absence of all accountability"

I totally accept that there is a confusion of anarchist belief, but I don't see a justification for re-using Bolshevik methods of organisation to counter it.


Whether you agree with Makhnos conclusions in the platform or not, these are very real problems with our movement, even today.

The solution is debate, not authority.


[email protected] to Malatesta
Your denial of collective responsibility strikes me not only as without basis but dangerous for the social revolution, in which you would do well to take account of experience when it comes to fighting a decisive battle against all our enemies at once. Now my experience of the revolutionary battles of the past leads me to believe that no matter what the order of revolutionary events may be, one needs to give out serious directives, both ideological and tactical. This means that only a collective spirit, sound and devoted to anarchism, could express the requirements of the moment, through a collectively responsible will. None of us has the right to dodge that element of responsibility.

The idea that one person or a group of people know exactly what needs to be done for everyone is decidedly anti anarchist and simply untrue.


Also, if you want to argue your corner, you might be interested in a similar debate started by an Anarchist you know well from Reading, over on libcom;here (http://libcom.org/forums/organise/accountability-democracy-and-authority-anarchism?page=0#comment-191251)

His reactions are totally justifiable. I was with him in the Dissent Meetings two years and it was very frustrating to realise that there was no clear, strong anarchist analysis.

Unfortunately there will always be anarchists who oppose class struggle - there always has been - but that does not mean that class struggle anarchist movements will not grow organically when the time is right for that to happen. Once it has there will be political unity among the [majority] of anarchists, workers, students etc.

We do not need to enforce our ideas on people in such an authoritarian method in order to achieve our goals. This is precisely why anarchism became what it did in the first place.

In any case, I'm sure I'll have plenty of time to debate the platform with him when I see him in Germany.

There was this, however:


You
And I'd also like to add that this "distorted interpretation of the principle of individuality" has been made 100x worse by firstly; the punk scene, secondly our phobia of working with the media,

The punk scene is a massive source of inspiration for many young people and is an integral part of the anarchist milieu. It is unorganised, I accept, but it is a vibrant, diverse and incrediby radicalised scene. It simply needs to be politicised more. This is specifically something Sheffield AF are going to be trying to do.

It's incredibly patronising to suggest that it is a "phobia" of the media. Anarchist aren't scared of the media, we simply accept that it is specifically designed to propogate ruling class ideas and has not and never will portray anarchism in its true sense.


and (in reference to mayday) masking up on peaceful demos shouting "fuck order"[/

Can you elaberate on why this is necesarily a bad thing? Firstly, it's a security issue and secondly, what's wrong with shouting 'Fuck Order'?

Sometimes, I sense the SWP woud be a better forum for your ideas :P

[syndicat]

i don't define myself as a "platformist" partly because i see a certain fetishizing of the platform's formulas, which impedes continual development of our ideas.

However, i've always believed in the necessity of a horizontally disciplined activist organization, to pool resources to be able to effectively argue for our ideas within the working class, and to facilitate working together on practical organizing projects. flakiness of anarchists in the USA is a sign of lack of seriousness, and we'll never amount to anything without seriousness and commitment and a willingness to work together cooperatively.

my own political group, WSA, adheres to the "dual organization" concept, as do the platformists, that is, recognizing a role for both the mass organizations (unions and so on) and the specific organization (organized by agreement with a specific political perspective). but we don't call ourselves "platformists".

I don't agree with the loosey-goosey synthesist concept of an organization where there is no requirement of a common program or orientation on which the group is working. but I don't interpret unity of a group as requring the ridiculous pretense that all members think exactly alike, like a granite block, in public.

i think some delegation of responsibility or "authority" is inevitable and necessary, as when a group of workers elect a shop steward, and a council of stewards, or when we elect someone to be a treasurer to maintain a bank account, a secretary to answer correspondence and keep minutes of meetings (so we know what was decided, in case disputes arise as to what we decided), a president or chairperson to chair meetings.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 06:42 pm
Such as...?


I don't necessarily accept that.

Well, why not? I mean, it's clear that you object to the platform. But that doesn't mean it's not part of the Libertarian-Communist political fabric as it were. I mean, I have objections to parts of council communism, syndicalism, and other theories and ideologies that fall under the banner of "libertarian communist"


However, dealing with that problem by contradicting anarchist principles and creating more political authority is not the solution.

From what I understand of the platform, it doesn't seek to create political authority, not illegitimate authority anyway. As Bakunin said "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought! In the case of boots, I defer the authority of the bootmaker!" and “The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognised them as such" in other words, not all authority is illegitimate. Especially not democratic, collective authority. Or that that of an accountable representative.


The Anarchist Federation for example already has a clear and specific class analysis, so what point would there be in creating this "collective responsability".

Because if people don't do things they're supposed to, nothing happens. Perhaps this is less true in the Anarchist Federation, as there are only a few certain duties that simply have to be carried out, and are. It's unusual for the entire organisation to plan a single action. Mainly because it couldn't.

And even something like getting a member into the group can be like climbing a mountain of laziness. But this isn't a gripe at anyone, simply an observation, certainly, other groups are worse.

But in local groups, as Gerrard says on libcom, there's simply no accountability, and as such, things don't get done. We're not a revolutionary movement, we're a political interests/discussion club.


The political unity of the anarchist movement is only going to be achieved through debate. The only way we can move forward is by accommodating each others politics and working together in a united way, while continuing to allow each organisation to act autonomously. That's what will happen in any case.

This I agree with, and one of my biggest problems with the Platform is the call for ideological purity in any anarchist organisation. Though Makhno did say that, rather than have an anarchist group that accommodates say, primitivists and communists, there should be one separate body for each. They'd achieve more separately. But should by all means work together on some issues. I think the Zapatistas 6th declaration provides some interesting ideas on the topic.


It's a theoretical debate and that debate must continue to exist, regardless of this platform. Dissent is an integral part of democracy and without it we are doomed to repeat history.

Platformism isn't about obedience, it's about collective responsibility, but responsibilities and duties would be planed and decided democratically. I have no problem with electing a foreman if it makes people do shit, and he follows a democratically decided mandate.


The punk scene is a massive source of inspiration for many young people and is an integral part of the anarchist milieu. It is unorganised, I accept, but it is a vibrant, diverse and incrediby radicalised scene. It simply needs to be politicised more. This is specifically something Sheffield AF are going to be trying to do.

Well, I won't get into a debate about Punk and Anarchism anymore as it is now because we already have enough to debate :lol:


It's incredibly patronising to suggest that it is a "phobia" of the media. Anarchist aren't scared of the media, we simply accept that it is specifically designed to propogate ruling class ideas and has not and never will portray anarchism in its true sense.

This hasn't been my experience of the media.


Can you elaberate on why this is necesarily a bad thing? Firstly, it's a security issue and secondly, what's wrong with shouting 'Fuck Order'?

Sometimes, I sense the SWP woud be a better forum for your ideas :P

cheeky git! :wub: As for masking up, the police will be able to pull you out of a crowd anyway so it's not to avoid being identified, and secondly, Fascists are going to do bugger all with a picture of you - so I fail to see the justification.

What the masks do very well, is scare every normal working class lad and lass a mile away!

Fuck order? I love order - and I think the state perpetuates chaos and war, that's the message I want to get across.

[Chicano Shamrock]

The punk scene might be the worst thing to happen to anarchism. Especially the Sex Pistols. It turned anarchism from an idea of freedom to a bunch of rowdy kids breaking shit for no reason. At least in the publics eye. I was discussing this with a friend at work about how the sex pistols ruined the word anarchy with their drug adiction, murdering and chaos. Someone else came over and said "what are you guys talking about". I said anarchism. They said "Like Sid Vicious". Then I turned to my buddy and said "see".

RAAN has a nice article about scenism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+May 14, 2007 10:39 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ May 14, 2007 10:39 pm)
The Anarchist Tension
However, dealing with that problem by contradicting anarchist principles and creating more political authority is not the solution.

From what I understand of the platform, it doesn't seek to create political authority... [/b]
Yes it does. It specifically wants to create political authority by creating 'collective responsibility' and maintaining that responsibility through managerial organs, designed with the sole purpose to ensure that this political authority is adhered to.


As Bakunin said "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought! In the case of boots, I defer the authority of the bootmaker!" and “The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognised them as such" in other words, not all authority is illegitimate.

You have profoundly misunderstood or misquoted him.

First of all, the authority Bakunin talks of in the first quote is authority as in: I'm an 'authority' on boots and boot making. This figure of speech is very different to actual authority i.e. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

No one has that "right" except those individuals involved in a specific group in a specific locale. Having an organisation that has Aim's and Principles is one thing, but each Federation should be allowed to pursue those aims & principles in whatever way they choose.

Secondly, you omitted the second part of the second quote. The full quote is: "The Liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognised them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatsoever, divine or human, collective or individual."



The Anarchist Federation for example already has a clear and specific class analysis, so what point would there be in creating this "collective responsibility".

Because if people don't do things they're supposed to, nothing happens.

And there is absolutely no authority legitimate enough to coerce or force people to do something.

If there is something that people are "supposed to do" and do not do it, then there is an inherent problem with the nature of that person commitment to what they are doing. Perhaps it's a personality flaw. Nevertheless, none of those things justify what you are suggesting.

People need to be empowered with confidence or do away with their laziness. Not be coerced or reprimanded by some political authority sitting on high.


And even something like getting a member into the group can be like climbing a mountain of laziness. But this isn't a gripe at anyone, simply an observation, certainly, other groups are worse.

And your solution that problem is unjustified


But in local groups, as Gerrard says on libcom, there's simply no accountability, and as such, things don't get done. We're not a revolutionary movement, we're a political interests/discussion club.

And enforcing collective responsibility is simply a reaction to that problem. Not a solution.



It's a theoretical debate and that debate must continue to exist, regardless of this platform. Dissent is an integral part of democracy and without it we are doomed to repeat history.

Platformism isn't about obedience, it's about collective responsibility

Which is essentially the same thing? The term 'collective responsibility' is anarchist-speak for "do what you're told", which for all intent and purpose equates to obedience.


I have no problem with electing a foreman if it makes people do shit, and he follows a democratically decided mandate.

This isn't anarchism.

You cannot achieve something by having positions of authority if people are not willing to do something. What is this 'foreman' to do if people simply or suddenly do not do what was democratically decided? what if they change their mind?

Creating bureaucratic positions is precisely the problem with Leninism and anarchism seeks to move beyond that into a situation where people freely consent to the collective and work equally and in co-operation.

Choice, I'm afraid, is the only method by which consensus and collective responsibility can be reached and maintained.



The punk scene is a massive source of inspiration for many young people and is an integral part of the anarchist milieu. It is unorganised, I accept, but it is a vibrant, diverse and incredibly radicalised scene. It simply needs to be politicised more. This is specifically something Sheffield AF are going to be trying to do.

Well, I won't get into a debate about Punk and Anarchism anymore as it is now because we already have enough to debate :lol:

Well, I think you should. You've just dismissed a massive section of the anarchist movement on whim.



It's incredibly patronising to suggest that it is a "phobia" of the media. Anarchist aren't scared of the media, we simply accept that it is specifically designed to propagate ruling class ideas and has not and never will portray anarchism in its true sense.

This hasn't been my experience of the media.

What experience with the media have you actually had? Do you honestly expect the mainstream media to vocalise or portray our desires to smash capitalism the state and create a communist society?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 15, 2007 12:53 am
The punk scene might be the worst thing to happen to anarchism. Especially the Sex Pistols. It turned anarchism from an idea of freedom to a bunch of rowdy kids breaking shit for no reason.
Why is that a bad thing? Young people rebelled against conformity and alienation. They may have done it in a disorganised way, but what they actually did was not wrong.

What is to blame is the anarchist movement’s inability to communicate their ideas in order to argue a coherent line for people to follow.

In any case, there are examples of that happening and it still happens. Young people feel alienated and thus identify with Punk and this leads onto radicalisation in whatever form that takes.


I was discussing this with a friend at work about how the sex pistols ruined the word anarchy with their drug adiction, murdering and chaos. Someone else came over and said "what are you guys talking about". I said anarchism. They said "Like Sid Vicious". Then I turned to my buddy and said "see".

The fact that young people identify with punk, shout "anarchy" and smash stuff without coherence is nothing but an expression of the fact that organised anarchists have done little to nothing in engaging these clearly politicised but disenfranchised people.

Dismissing one of the most radical and confrontational cultures on the basis that they don't "get it like you" is clearly one of the most naive and delusional approaches to engaging with people I have ever come across.

Why don't you go and talk to these kids? I assure you they are willing, dedicated and committed to anti-capitalism. They simply haven't been equipped with the opportunity to understand why.

Patronising fuck!


RAAN has a nice article about scenism.

RAAN is made up of punks. Politicised and organised punks, but punks nevertheless.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 02:52 pm
Yes it does. It specifically wants to create political authority by creating 'collective responsibility' and maintaining that responsibility through managerial organs, designed with the sole purpose to ensure that this political authority is adhered to.
Sounds good to me. If we don't have some sort of responsibility, then we have unaccountability, in that case things will only get done if people can be bothered to do things, and if they can't, we'll have to find another way of doing it. If you ask me, that's a miserable state of affairs.

Furthermore, I don't particularly have a problem with collective, democratic authority, and individuals, mandated to ensure that people who volunteer to do something, do it! and face reprisals for failing to do so (unless there is a valid reason)

I mean, we're talking about the power of the group over an individual, and this democratic power manifesting itself in the form of a position of power. Obviously the individual is free to do what he or she wants with their own life, but, when volunteering to join an organisation, must be prepared to perform certain duties. I also feel the organisation must have some mechanism for ensuring that this happens, and not be subject to the whims of individual irresponsibility.


If there is something that people are "supposed to do" and do not do it, then there is an inherent problem with the nature of that person commitment to what they are doing. Perhaps it's a personality flaw. Nevertheless, none of those things justify what you are suggesting.

That's real nice written down, and I would have agreed with you some time a go. But it seems this personality flaw is inherent in almost everyone, perhaps because our organisations, as I have said, amount to little more than political friendship circles.

If you don't do something you were mandated to do, I'll buy you a pint and we can chat about music, beer and sex.


People need to be empowered with confidence or do away with their laziness. Not be coerced or reprimanded by some political authority sitting on high.

I don't think your proposal would actually equate to anything in real life. I mean, it's a bit abstract. How the fuck are we meant to 'empower' people into doing things? What does that mean?


What is this 'foreman' to do if people simply or suddenly do not do what was democratically decided? what if they change their mind?

Then he or she will be recalled. The collective, decision making power of the working class holds authority, not the individual.

If we let individual lazyness hold back organisation and efficientcy, then they are taking an authotative role over us surely?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+May 15, 2007 06:01 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ May 15, 2007 06:01 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 02:52 pm
Yes it does. It specifically wants to create political authority by creating 'collective responsibility' and maintaining that responsibility through managerial organs, designed with the sole purpose to ensure that this political authority is adhered to.
Sounds good to me. If we don't have some sort of responsibility, then we have unaccountability, in that case things will only get done if people can be bothered to do things, and if they can't, we'll have to find another way of doing it. If you ask me, that's a miserable state of affairs [/b]
There is no point in having such an authority, as people will only do things if they want to do them anyway. Regardless of whether you have a leadership demanding it to happen.

Look, what you are suggesting is totally antithetical to anarchism and contradicts or negates the purpose of individual freedom, which is a specific and defining tenet of anarchism.


Furthermore, I don't particularly have a problem with collective, democratic authority, and individuals, mandated to ensure that people who volunteer to do something, do it!

Neither do Leninists.


and face reprisals for failing to do so (unless there is a valid reason)

You've lost it.

I don't see how reprimanding people for not fulfilling a mandated role can be justified in any anarchist sense. If someone is not or does not fulfil a duty they volunteered for then the task gets given to someone else? Are we to expel them from the organisation? Suspend them or rap them on the knuckles? I don't get it.

This isn't a classroom - It's real life and you cannot enforce a collective will on an individual because they didn't do what they said they were going to do. At the end of the day it was their free choice not to do it.

Organisations have to engage with the membership and establish needs. This can only be done through equality and dare I say some level of compassion. No one has the 'right' to enforce authority of this nature onto someone.


I mean, we're talking about the power of the group over an individual

No group should have power over an individual.


Obviously the individual is free to do what he or she wants with their own life, but, when volunteering to join an organisation, must be prepared to perform certain duties.

Like going to conference?

Some individuals won't do that and the issue here is establishing why, not reacting to it with authoritarian methods. Surely we're better than that?


I also feel the organisation must have some mechanism for ensuring that this happens, and not be subject to the whims of individual irresponsibility.

Then fuck off and join the SWP.



If there is something that people are "supposed to do" and do not do it, then there is an inherent problem with the nature of that person commitment to what they are doing. Perhaps it's a personality flaw. Nevertheless, none of those things justify what you are suggesting.

That's real nice written down, and I would have agreed with you some time a go. But it seems this personality flaw is inherent in almost everyone, perhaps because our organisations, as I have said, amount to little more than political friendship circles.

It's not inherent! That's a pointedly ridiculous statement to make.

People need encouragement and confidence building and they need to see that their efforts and their ideas are justified and capable of effecting change. Having arrogant attitudes like this does not help destroy bourgeois sensibility and social conditioning. In fact, it embraces them and calls it "revolutionary".

We live in a period of reaction; of course people are going to be this way, it's the nature of our society but it's also a job for an organisation to engage with. The Anarchist Federation isn't just about doing political work, it's about encouraging confidence and helping people realise their abilities to change society.

What you are suggesting is creating division, by political authority, those worthy enough to be apart of an organisation and those not worthy enough. This kind of sectarian, narrow minded and authoritarian attitude is precisely the kind of thing we should be working to destroy - Not embracing.


If you don't do something you were mandated to do, I'll buy you a pint and we can chat about music, beer and sex.

I think that's a rather naive attitude to take and not particularly worthy of a serious response. Now you're just being childish!



People need to be empowered with confidence or do away with their laziness. Not be coerced or reprimanded by some political authority sitting on high.

I don't think your proposal would actually equate to anything in real life. I mean, it's a bit abstract. How the fuck are we meant to 'empower' people into doing things? What does that mean?

Clearly if you have no concept of what 'empowerment' means then really, what the fuck are you doing?

Since when has the term 'empower' been abstract? I think it's pretty damn fucking clear what it means. An organisation will take in people who want to change society, believe in the idea but who are either under confident and downright too lazy to do anything about it. Our role as an organisation is to build confidence, engage them in debate and show, through political activity and direct action that they have an opportunity to do something.

Empower = Enable. If you are not sure about what it is we're supposed to be enabling people to do, that = fighting capitalism and the state.



What is this 'foreman' to do if people simply or suddenly do not do what was democratically decided? what if they change their mind?

Then he or she will be recalled. The collective, decision making power of the working class holds authority, not the individual.

Then what's the point in having them? You claimed that this role was to ensure people did what they were supposed to do, so if people are actually doing it anyway, what's the point of having this person.


If we let individual lazyness hold back organisation and efficientcy, then they are taking an authotative role over us surely?

Nonsense.

Those who are lazy simply don't do anything. It doesn't effect an organisation unless inertia is ripe within it and that's not going to be solved by what you are suggesting.

[Enragé]

I agree with you criticism TAT, but you have to agree that the anarchist movement of today lacks any kind of structure, thereby losing much of its power. Look, by structure i do not mean the one leads the other follow, nor even electing a "foreman" (because as you said, if people dont want to do something, they simply wont do it) which is all too reminiscent of democratic centralism. Anarchist groups are too often just a group of friends who get together sometimes and do some shit, they lack clear strategy, coherency. How would you combat this, in practice?


Also, to urban spirit, a question, how is this any different from democratic centralism in anything but terminology?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 15, 2007 07:01 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 15, 2007 07:01 am)
Chicano [email protected] 15, 2007 12:53 am
The punk scene might be the worst thing to happen to anarchism. Especially the Sex Pistols. It turned anarchism from an idea of freedom to a bunch of rowdy kids breaking shit for no reason.
Why is that a bad thing? Young people rebelled against conformity and alienation. They may have done it in a disorganised way, but what they actually did was not wrong.

What is to blame is the anarchist movement’s inability to communicate their ideas in order to argue a coherent line for people to follow.

In any case, there are examples of that happening and it still happens. Young people feel alienated and thus identify with Punk and this leads onto radicalisation in whatever form that takes.


I was discussing this with a friend at work about how the sex pistols ruined the word anarchy with their drug adiction, murdering and chaos. Someone else came over and said "what are you guys talking about". I said anarchism. They said "Like Sid Vicious". Then I turned to my buddy and said "see".

The fact that young people identify with punk, shout "anarchy" and smash stuff without coherence is nothing but an expression of the fact that organised anarchists have done little to nothing in engaging these clearly politicised but disenfranchised people.

Dismissing one of the most radical and confrontational cultures on the basis that they don't "get it like you" is clearly one of the most naive and delusional approaches to engaging with people I have ever come across.

Why don't you go and talk to these kids? I assure you they are willing, dedicated and committed to anti-capitalism. They simply haven't been equipped with the opportunity to understand why.

Patronising fuck!


RAAN has a nice article about scenism.

RAAN is made up of punks. Politicised and organised punks, but punks nevertheless. [/b]
The thing is most "punks" aren't rebelling against conformity. They conform and then rebel against their parents or something like that. They all have the same misfits T-shirt with the same spike bracelet from hot topic or the nearest mall.

Maybe sometimes punk can lead to radicalization but more often than not the punks I have hung out with just want to get drunk, high and then say some trendy fucking punk slogan.

I have talked to these kids. I grew up in So cal and so I have a lot of experience talking to punks, greasers, psyco-billies, traditional skinheads and whatever else. Most of them have not been political an any way other than having a circle A patch on their leather jacket.

I am sure there are some people or maybe even many that become anarchists but I think they would do it without the leather jacket and spikey necklace anyway.

[Primitivist]

From my username is should be obvious that I’m no Platformist, but it seems obvious to me that within the anarchist scene (I hesitate to use the word movement) there’s a gaping black hole where the notion of responsibility, both collective and individual should be.

I don’t see why the concept of a collective authority should be viewed as antithetical to anarchist thought, especially coming from an anarcho-communist. There are all sorts of authority (not counting the boot issue) and not all of it illegitimate. This is why some organisations such as the AF have aims and principles. These are rules by another name, the only question is whether these rules can be enforced, if not there’s no point in having them. Personally speaking I have no problem in acting in a certain way, providing I was involved in constructing the position and am able to challenge it at any point. I also wish to be able to opt out if I find myself disagreeing. This is voluntary association. However, I believe in commitment and in acting responsibly. If in my personal life I commit to doing something and then don’t do it, I fully expect to get a bollocking for it. Don’t think my girlfriend would look too kindly on it if I said I’d have her dinner ready when she got home from work but then explained that I couldn’t be arsed, but that she shouldn’t worry cos it didn’t affect her unless she was lazy as well. It’s ludicrous to suggest that an individual’s laziness within an organisation has no affect unless that laziness is ‘rife’. Just the most obvious effect is that others have to take up the slack in order to get the job done. It’s called the tyranny of the minority which is no better than that of the majority.

This is not a question of individuality. In what way does it infringe upon individuality to follow through on one’s commitments? It doesn’t. To me, this attitude smacks of some ‘you’re oppressing me by asking me to clean the toilet’ bollocks. It’s lazy, selfish and totally contrary to the collective spirit of anarchism, fuck it, it’s even contrary to Stirnirite individualism which saw the need for collective action, if only for selfish reasons.

Going back to responsibility within personal life, do I think the same should apply politically? Absolutely, as I see no divide between the two. If a comrade doesn’t do something, I’ll try and find out why. If it’s a valid excuse (common sense usually prevails here) then fair enough. If it’s a bullshit reason, why should they not be reprimanded? And if they continue that behaviour the reprimands should escalate appropriately. If it were me, I would hope that I would have the balls to accept that I fucked up, take my comrades’ response on the chin like an adult and move on.

Why is unaccountability tolerated-isn’t that one of the things we are struggling against? TAT, you’ve just justified murder, rape etc. in defence of free will. You will respond that I’m using the most extreme examples possible and that’s true, but it remains a fact that if you deny collective responsibility on an ideological level because it contravenes free will, you do so in practicality. You have not argued for degrees of free will vs. collective responsibility, but said that free will must come first. Surely you would agree that men having a collective responsibility not to use their physical superiority over a woman to achieve a particular aim is not tyrannical. We should have a collective responsibility to support each other and not abuse, injure or otherwise harm anyone. If I rape a woman, should there be consequences for me? Of course. If I turn and run, thereby leaving my comrades open to danger, should it go unmentioned? I don’t think so. Obviously the response must be appropriate, but you appear to dismiss any response at all other than a ‘shoulder to cry on, I feel so disempowered’, liberal, ‘its not your fault it’s the nasty big boys’ excuse. If you’re lazy it fuckin well is your fault. Get over it. Sometimes you have to pull your finger out and act like an adult.

I also disagree that people will only people will only do things if they want to do them anyway. Or at least, I think that if that’s the case then it’s an undesirable one. If I am mandated by a group to go to a conference, I do it not because I want to but because the group requires it of me. (A lot of people enjoy those sort of things but I find them deadly tedious and horribly frustrating) In other words I submit to the group’s authority. If we have a cleaning rota, I clean the toilet because that rota represents the will of the organisation I’m a part of, not because I want to or because I like the smell of shit. The obvious point here is that I am part of the organisation, and played my part in formulating its practices. If I don’t want to clean the bog then I should raise the issue in the agreed way and explain why. Not just stop doing it. Cos that fucks other people up. At base a mechanism for dealing with a given situation is simply an agreed way of doing things. And an anarchist mechanism should be a process that is clear, accountable, subject to change and equally available to all.

I agree with your point on empowerment and building confidence etc. and also that there lack is a result of the society in which we live. However, you’ve got to admit that there are or should be limits. Also, empowerment doesn’t always have to involve being ‘nice’and not hurting anyone’s feelings. It can and should try not to upset people, but a few hurt feelings (often resulting from pride and usually misplaced pride at that) are hardly the end of the world, right? This is just an example but maybe being shouted at to get off my arse by someone I respect would inspire me to achieve something I thought myself incapable of. Similarly, the disrespect of my comrades is something that I want to avoid. Shame (by appealing to that sense of pride) can get people to do things, and therefore build confidence and empowerment. It doesn’t always have to be the softly, softly approach, although I think this is preferable.

[Forward Union]

I don't see how reprimanding people for not fulfilling a mandated role can be justified in any anarchist sense. If someone is not or does not fulfil a duty they volunteer for then the task gets given to someone else? Are we to expel them from the organisation? Suspend them or rap them on the knuckles? I don't get it.

Im open to suggestions. In situations where Anarchism has been applied, anything up to and including the death penalty has been utalised by the people. And as Primo said, the responce should be appropriate, in the same way you deal with these things in real life, outside of politics or whatever.

I don't see how organisational, tacitcal unity, and accountability are bad things. Punishing people for being lazy fucks is not anti-anarchist.

You can only excuse people on the grounds of not being empowered enough, for so long. I personally feel that the disorganised swamp that our movement is stuck in, tends to be a breeding groud for individualists who aren't interested in actual organisational work.


No group should have power over an individual.

No individual should ever be unacountable for their actions or inactions.


fuck off and join the SWP.

Im not hezbollah.


People need encouragement and confidence building and they need to see that their efforts and their ideas are justified and capable of effecting change. Having arrogant attitudes like this does not help destroy bourgeois sensibility and social conditioning.

Im not suggestign we limit democracy in any way. The positions would only exist to ensure that democratic mandates are carried out.


Clearly if you have no concept of what 'empowerment' means then really, what the fuck are you doing?

I understand what it means, I just don't see how it can be utalised asa means of getting people to do things.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:08 pm
Anarchist groups are too often just a group of friends who get together sometimes and do some shit, they lack clear strategy, coherency. How would you combat this, in practice?

This is essentially the question Im asking, and trying to kick start some debate around. Im not a platformist, but the issues the platform attempts to fix, are still real issues.


Also, to urban spirit, a question, how is this any different from democratic centralism in anything but terminology?

In that decisions are not made centerally. Theres no body with the ability to centrally plan anything.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:40 pm
I don’t see why the concept of a collective authority should be viewed as antithetical to anarchist thought, especially coming from an anarcho-communist.
Because it negates individual freedom. Freedom existing within its own paradox however. Something that anarchists have always noted.

Individuals exist within communities but they choose whether or not to do that and if they opt out of being apart of a community then there is lnothing that anyone can do.


TAT, you’ve just justified murder, rape etc. in defence of free will.

No I haven't.


Going back to responsibility within personal life, do I think the same should apply politically? If a comrade doesn’t do something, I’ll try and find out why. If it’s a valid excuse (common sense usually prevails here) then fair enough. If it’s a bullshit reason, why should they not be reprimanded?

Because you have no authority by which to reprimand them and any authority you believe you are entitled to is unjustified and illegitimate.

If someone consistently disrupts or attempts to subvert the collective ideas, belief and practice of an organisation i.e. subvert the freedom of others then we have a duty to defend ourselves.

Other than that there really is nothing you can do other than not rely on that person again until they are committed as much as some of you claim you are.


If it were me, I would hope that I would have the balls to accept that I fucked up, take my comrades’ response on the chin like an adult and move on.

To judge every human in that way is grossly naive and incredibly unfair.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 16, 2007 08:33 pm
The thing is most "punks" aren't rebelling against conformity. They conform and then rebel against their parents or something like that
"Or something like that"? Very convincing.

This is nothing more than a narrow-minded stereotype brought about by some ridiculous [empirical] prejudice and I refuse to engage with you if you clearly don't know what you're talking about.


Maybe sometimes punk can lead to radicalization but more often than not the punks I have hung out with just want to get drunk, high and then say some trendy fucking punk slogan.

So you are suggesting that we should ignore the entire Punk movement based on your experience.

:rolleyes:


I have talked to these kids. I grew up in So cal and so I have a lot of experience talking to punks, greasers, psyco-billies, traditional skinheads and whatever else. Most of them have not been political an any way other than having a circle A patch on their leather jacket.

Then fucking do something about it!


I am sure there are some people or maybe even many that become anarchists but I think they would do it without the leather jacket and spikey necklace anyway.

So this is all about aesthetics is it?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:08 pm
I agree with you criticism TAT, but you have to agree that the anarchist movement of today lacks any kind of structure, thereby losing much of its power
No, I don't accept that. The Anarchist Federation for example has a formal structure as does IAF and the other class struggle organisations and internationals.

There is obviously room for improvment but to assert that the anarchist movement "has no structure" is ridiculous.


Anarchist groups are too often just a group of friends who get together sometimes and do some shit, they lack clear strategy, coherency. How would you combat this, in practice?

Certain sections of the anarchist movement lack a clear strategy and 'coherence' but they do so through choice and that's a theoretical debate that has to be engaged with. Usually, in my experience, it doesn't amount to very much and in that case it would probably be better to simply ignore them or work with them when necessary.

The class struggle anarchist movement works ok and in my experience is anything but what you described.


how is this any different from democratic centralism in anything but terminology

It isn't.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 17, 2007 10:12 am

I don't see how reprimanding people for not fulfilling a mandated role can be justified in any anarchist sense. If someone is not or does not fulfil a duty they volunteer for then the task gets given to someone else? Are we to expel them from the organisation? Suspend them or rap them on the knuckles? I don't get it.

Im open to suggestions.
I have no intention of giving you suggestions on how to punish members of the organisation I'm apart of.


In situations where Anarchism has been applied, anything up to and including the death penalty has been utalised by the people. And as Primo said, the responce should be appropriate, in the same way you deal with these things in real life, outside of politics or whatever.

Anything other than debate, compassion and equality is simply not acceptable; unless what the member has done is in contradiction to the freedom of the collective or of an individual.


I don't see how organisational, tacitcal unity, and accountability are bad things. Punishing people for being lazy fucks is not anti-anarchist.

I don't understand why not having formal managerial structures that punish members equates to being disorganised, lacking tactical unity or being unaccountable?

You're using fallacies to justify your insanity. No one has the authority to punish someone else for simply being. If someone does not do what they said they were going to do then give the job to someone else.

What is 'punishment' really going to achieve?


You can only excuse people on the grounds of not being empowered enough, for so long.

Why? If someone consistently doesn't do something they said they would do, don't let them have jobs to do. It's quite simple...


I personally feel that the disorganised swamp that our movement is stuck in, tends to be a breeding groud for individualists who aren't interested in actual organisational work.

Look, the anarchist movement as a whole is 'disorganised' only because sections of it don't accept the class-struggle analysis and do so through choice. There's nothing more than debating with them that can be done.

As for the class-struggle movement, I don't see how it is a disorganised swamp? Maybe you can enlighten me?



No group should have power over an individual.

No individual should ever be unacountable for their actions or inactions.

They're not.



fuck off and join the SWP.

Im not hezbollah.

You're a Bolshevik dressed in black and red.


Im not suggestign we limit democracy in any way. The positions would only exist to ensure that democratic mandates are carried out.

The organisation - delegated if needs be - is the only body that should be able to hold members accountable. Not individuals.



Clearly if you have no concept of what 'empowerment' means then really, what the fuck are you doing?

I understand what it means

Then why ask?


I just don't see how it can be utalised asa means of getting people to do things.

Clearly, but that's your problem not the 'movements'.

[Enragé]

No, I don't accept that. The Anarchist Federation for example has a formal structure as does IAF and the other class struggle organisations and internationals.

could you outline the structure of the AF?


In that decisions are not made centerally. Theres no body with the ability to centrally plan anything.

ok ^^ i really should start reading that platformist thing by makhno when i got some more time

TAT

The organisation - delegated if needs be - is the only body that should be able to hold members accountable

isnt that what urban spirit is talking about?
Delegates elected from the base who ensure everyone does what is collectively decided upon, i.e hold people accountable.



oh and about the whole punk thing, it can be a very fertile ground for anarchism. It often revolves around breaking down authority and improving individual freedom, "punks" say fuck you to society and do what they want, getting drunk and high is a part of that, we should be working on expanding that anti-authoritarian instinct to something more, politicise it for a lack of a better word, give it a theoretical base and expanding it from the search for individual freedom to the fight for collective freedom (because the one can obviously not exist without the other).

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension[email protected] 17, 2007 08:24 am

Maybe sometimes punk can lead to radicalization but more often than not the punks I have hung out with just want to get drunk, high and then say some trendy fucking punk slogan.

So you are suggesting that we should ignore the entire Punk movement based on your experience.

:rolleyes:


I have talked to these kids. I grew up in So cal and so I have a lot of experience talking to punks, greasers, psyco-billies, traditional skinheads and whatever else. Most of them have not been political an any way other than having a circle A patch on their leather jacket.

Then fucking do something about it!


I am sure there are some people or maybe even many that become anarchists but I think they would do it without the leather jacket and spikey necklace anyway.

So this is all about aesthetics is it?
I'm not saying we should ignore anyone based on my experiences. I am saying these are my experiences that lead to my thoughts. It's not a stereotype that I have. It is the experience I have had. Maybe I just have a warped view of them because the last time I saw a punk was when I was in high school. Maybe we were all just dumb kids. I have yet to meet an adult who was silly enough to call themselves a "punk".... whatever punk means. To me it is a music genre and nothing else. Maybe the people that listen to the music have radical beliefs but I don't think they are a separate entity from others that have similar beliefs.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Furthermore, I don't particularly have a problem with collective, democratic authority, and individuals, mandated to ensure that people who volunteer to do something, do it! and face reprisals for failing to do so (unless there is a valid reason)
That sentence is a contradiction. If someone volunteers to do something you can't make sure they do it and then punish them if they don't. That would make it involuntary because they would do it out of fear of reprisals.

Maybe you don't have a problem with "mandated authorities" but I certainly do. I guess "no gods, no masters" was changed to "no gods, and some masters". You seem to keep bringing up things like what people are "supposed to do" and such. I think that is the wrong way of looking at things especially in regards to an anarchist society. What are these things that people are "supposed to do"? What would the difference be between that and wage labor? What is the difference between the "mandated" authorities and the current capitalist police force? If you support a direct democracy path and I was part of the 49% that said nay to the authorities what is the difference in the "anarchist" police force that I object to and the LAPD?

It just seems to me like more of a mess. I really don't see the reasoning for such a force. I think that if there is something that needs to be dealt with it should be the community as a whole dealing with it, not elected community managers. If that was the case I really don't see a difference between your anarchism and the USSR's Communist party leadership.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 18, 2007 09:55 pm
To me it is a music genre and nothing else
And therein lies the problem.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:44 pm

No, I don't accept that. The Anarchist Federation for example has a formal structure as does IAF and the other class struggle organisations and internationals.

could you outline the structure of the AF?
It is made up of local Federations who adhere to the Aims & Principles of the organisation and we have several National Delegates Meetings to organise collective strategy and tactics and to report back work. We are working towards having national compaigns but each Federation works independently according to the Aims & Principles.

We are a decentralised organisation based on a federalist structure. Just how we would envisage society to operate.


TAT

The organisation - delegated if needs be - is the only body that should be able to hold members accountable

isnt that what urban spirit is talking about?
Delegates elected from the base who ensure everyone does what is collectively decided upon, i.e hold people accountable.

No, that's not what he's suggesting. At our National Delegates Meetings each local Federation delegates one or two people to represent the Federation on a national level. Their sole task is to relay information or agenda points collectively decided by the local Federation.

US is suggesting we have one individual to hold people accountable. What I am suggesting is National Delegates meetings representing the entire organisation should hold individuals accountable. This is the most democratic way of doing it and does not give individuals political autority.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 03:01 pm
RAAN is made up of punks. Politicised and organised punks, but punks nevertheless.
not true!

(though yes, some of us are seen or identify as "punks")

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Nachie+May 19, 2007 07:27 pm--> (Nachie @ May 19, 2007 07:27 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 03:01 pm
RAAN is made up of punks. Politicised and organised punks, but punks nevertheless.
not true!

(though yes, some of us are seen or identify as "punks") [/b]
I didn't mean all of you.