Insurrectionary anarchists?

[The Douche]

http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/ioaa/life.html

Anybody want to read over that (reasonably) short article and tell me what they think about it?

Leninists and syndicalists/platformists, I know what your ideas on it will be. I'm not really looking for a debate here, just the opinions of some insurrectionary anarchists (assuming there are any on here).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:58 am
Leninists and syndicalists/platformists, I know what your ideas on it will be. I'm not really looking for a debate here, just the opinions of some insurrectionary anarchists (assuming there are any on here).
Sorry, but there is no way to avoid leninists or platformists from posting here.

This thread, like any other in the Theory forum, is open to all members.

Luís Henrique

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 28, 2007 01:36 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 28, 2007 01:36 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 08:58 am
Leninists and syndicalists/platformists, I know what your ideas on it will be. I'm not really looking for a debate here, just the opinions of some insurrectionary anarchists (assuming there are any on here).
Sorry, but there is no way to avoid leninists or platformists from posting here.

This thread, like any other in the Theory forum, is open to all members.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Yeah...dude...I know that. I'm just putting it out there that I'm not looking to debate the merits of the article/insurrectionary anarchism with platformists or leninists. I'm not suggesting that they be stopped from posting in here, just asking that it not become a debate, only the opinions of people who already identify with insurrectionary anarchism.

Dig?

[The Feral Underclass]

I wouldn't call myself an insurrectionary anarchists but I certainly have an affinity towards and sympathy for such anarchists and their ideas (see my user name).

I've read this before and it confuses several things. The first being the assumption that those anarchists who see the working class as playing the primary role in transforming society maintain old-left style tactics.

The second thing is that Lanstreicher confuses the role of organisation, viewing it as a means by which domination can occur and where "true" anarchist values cannot exist i.e. freedom to be an individual. That the collective will destroy the individual.

The third thing is the total lack of analysis in terms of what is actually going on in the world and how those things have come to be, which ultimately leads you to an objective view of how those things are to be changed.

That's my view of that piece, but obviously that doesn't really help this discussion. I have to go out now, but I will be happy to reply with a refutation of those points.

By the way, I am an anarchist communist of the Malatesta tradition and also oppose platformism and syndicalism.

[which doctor]

Sorry, this GeoCities site is currently unavailable.

[Raúl Duke]

the Malatesta tradition

What's the difference between this tradition and that of Kropotkin or any other traditions in anarcho-communism?

[The Douche]

The first being the assumption that those anarchists who see the working class as playing the primary role in transforming society maintain old-left style tactics.

I thought it was moreso those who see the working class as the end all revolutionary class and ignore other revolutionary elements of society. I don't think the article denies that the majority of those who involve themselves in the revolution will be working class.


The second thing is that Lanstreicher confuses the role of organisation, viewing it as a means by which domination can occur and where "true" anarchist values cannot exist i.e. freedom to be an individual. That the collective will destroy the individual.

Well how are we trying to define orgisation? As most insurrectionary anarchists would tend to agree, that the organisation, denies anarchist theory/praxis to take off and run in new directions. Instead preferring loose networks of affinity groups. Or such is my understanding...I may very well be wrong. I am new to insurrectionary anarchist ideas.



The third thing is the total lack of analysis in terms of what is actually going on in the world and how those things have come to be, which ultimately leads you to an objective view of how those things are to be changed.

Agreed.


By the way, I am an anarchist communist of the Malatesta tradition and also oppose platformism and syndicalism.

It was Malatesta's writings on syndicalism that got me interested in insurrectionary anarchism. And I'm trying to see where he is related to the movement and how much it draws the the Malatesta tradition.

FOB, yeah, probably since I put this up a number of people are trying to read it, and you know, those free websites cant handle very much traffic. Just keep trying, I'd really appreciate your analysis.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:21 pm

the Malatesta tradition

What's the difference between this tradition and that of Kropotkin or any other traditions in anarcho-communism?
I would say that Malatesta is the anarchist communist who maintains the most anarchistic ambiance to his ideas. I would say that Kropotkin was in the same vain as Malatesta.

[peaccenicked]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/13.htm

What diffrences do the anarchists have with Lenin here?

[The Feral Underclass]

I haven't read that article and won't do now, but skimming over it I would say that anarchism or anarchists have a tendency to look at insurrection in a more romantic way. To be insurrectionary or to attempt such methods is a direct challenge towards the institutions of exploitation and oppression. Anarchist praxis is based on direct action - the working class or oppressed using their power to challenge.

This view is probably more of an insurrectionary anarchist view whereas anarchist communists would probably view insurrection as a tool to be used appropriately to serve a working class agenda, rather than as means to be alive.

Having said that I find both methods towards insurrection to be appropriate and acceptable.

[peaccenicked]

I really dont know what you mean by more romantic or how can Lenin be more "direct" ? It is better to say nothing than to waffle. Comrade. Maybe it would be better to examine this relatively short article?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:49 pm
I really dont know what you mean by more romantic or how can Lenin be more "direct" ? It is better to say nothing than to waffle. Comrade. Maybe it would be better to examine this relatively short article?
I think what I've said is pretty clear. I'm not going to define the word romantic. Perhaps re-read what I've written and if there is something specific you don't understand then quote it.

[peaccenicked]

I am not looking for a definition of romantic but "more romantic" in context, and ''more direct''

I begining to think we should close this subject already.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:28 pm
I am not looking for a definition of romantic but "more romantic" in context, and ''more direct''

I begining to think we should close this subject already.
What does it mean to romanticise something? And when I use the term direct I mean to employ confrontational tactics.

I don't understand what's confusing?

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:28 pm
I am not looking for a definition of romantic but "more romantic" in context, and ''more direct''

I begining to think we should close this subject already.
no don't close the subject please.
i'm fascinated, whilst not an "anarchist", i have "anarchist" sympathies.
like most trots, i always seem to end up siding with them against the "top downers".
i don't think that revolutionary socialists deny that members of other classes outside of the proletariat can play a revolutionary role, che guevara was a doctor, i believe.
what the revolutionary socialists/comunists emphasise however, is that in a truly proletarian revolution, the role of enlightened indviduals or groups amongst the petit bourgeouis or even bougeouisie has to be subserviant to that of the advanced members of the proletariat.
or, in english, welcome them aboard, but remember where they come from and don't let them out of your sight for a minute.

[peaccenicked]

"We must mobilise the armed workers and call them to fight the last desperate fight, occupy the telegraph and the telephone exchange at once, move our insurrection headquarters to the central telephone exchange and connect it by telephone with all the factories, all the regiments, all the points of armed fighting etc'' From article

What could be more glamorous, more direct?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't know what you mean by "glamorous" but yeah, it's direct. The difference between anarchist insurrection and that of Lenin, however - which was your question - is that anarchists (insurrectionary) call for those methods outside of class struggle. Although, as I said, anarchist communists only use those methods to further a class struggle agenda, even outside of a revolutionary situation, which of course Leninists don't usually agree with.

[black magick hustla]

I read the anarchist tension some years ago.

I am by no means an anarchist, and I dont disregard the role of the militant and of organized communists, but I do feel some simpathy for the ideas

My problem with that type of "disorganized" approach is that, while it is awesome in a romantic, glamourous way, our enemy is organized and efficient. Furthermore, it seems to me that insurrectionary praxis leads inevitably to primitivism, for how can we be able to wield the heavily specialized technology without organization and cohesion? Its impossible for that to happen through "affinity groups" or whatever.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:10 am
My problem with that type of "disorganized" approach is that, while it is awesome in a romantic, glamourous way, our enemy is organized and efficient. Furthermore, it seems to me that insurrectionary praxis leads inevitably to primitivism, for how can we be able to wield the heavily specialized technology without organization and cohesion? Its impossible for that to happen through "affinity groups" or whatever.
I don't quite understand why insurrectionary activism equals disorganisation. All the direct actions I have been on were massively organised.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 30, 2007 11:12 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 30, 2007 11:12 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 12:10 am
My problem with that type of "disorganized" approach is that, while it is awesome in a romantic, glamourous way, our enemy is organized and efficient. Furthermore, it seems to me that insurrectionary praxis leads inevitably to primitivism, for how can we be able to wield the heavily specialized technology without organization and cohesion? Its impossible for that to happen through "affinity groups" or whatever.
I don't quite understand why insurrectionary activism equals disorganisation. All the direct actions I have been on were massively organised. [/b]
I dont think organized "direct action" is exclusively an insurrectionary approach. Even stalinists from the new left used very anarchistic direct action (remember the chicago days of rage?)

From what I gathered of TAT and other readings, it seems to me that what makes insurrectionary anarchism unique is their refusal of organization, which leads to a disdain for technology and an overemphasis on violent, direct action.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 05:00 pm
I wouldn't call myself an insurrectionary anarchists but I certainly have an affinity towards and sympathy for such anarchists and their ideas (see my user name).
solid gold


Leninists and syndicalists/platformists, I know what your ideas on it will be. I'm not really looking for a debate here

*Zips Mouth*

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:25 am
From what I gathered of TAT and other readings, it seems to me that what makes insurrectionary anarchism unique is their refusal of organization, which leads to a disdain for technology and an overemphasis on violent, direct action.
They reject formal organisation. I don't know any anarchist that regards themselves as insurrectionary who refuses to organise. It's clearly untrue that they don't have some organisation.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 30, 2007 11:44 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 30, 2007 11:44 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 12:25 am
From what I gathered of TAT and other readings, it seems to me that what makes insurrectionary anarchism unique is their refusal of organization, which leads to a disdain for technology and an overemphasis on violent, direct action.
They reject formal organisation. I don't know any anarchist that regards themselves as insurrectionary who refuses to organise. It's clearly untrue that they don't have some organisation. [/b]
Well, I mean, its obvious.

I dont think you can accomplish absolutely anything without some sort of communication and tactics lol.

What I meant is formal organization, which there is nothing wrong with.

[peaccenicked]

which of course Leninists don't usually agree with.


...the reply to the question: What must be done in order that the workers may aquire political knowledge? cannot be merely the one which, in the majority of cases, the practical workers, especially those who are inclined towards Economism, usually content themselves with, i.e., "go along with the workers." To bring political knowledge to the workers the Socialists must go among all classes of the population, must dispatch units of their army in all directions...- V.I. Lenin

There are of course 'Leninists' who are actually economists.