Demoracy and anarchism (or why anarchism doesn't (always) equal democracy). [Archive]

apathy maybe

7th October 2008, 11:21

Similarly you could have a communist society where the "democracy" works on a similar nature to the "democracy" of ancient Athens, the democracy that had Socrates executed. Such "mob rule" or pressure to conform to a group is decidedly problematic for any society, and isn't anarchistic.
Anyway, I was going to post a lot more stuff here, but I realised that there wasn't any point.

Instead, I'll point to a few threads where the discussion has already taken place.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-democracy-t86470/index.html

what right does the opinions of 1000 matter more then that of one? (Normally the right is "might", but that does not make it good.)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-t85450/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-direct-t46947/index.html
(I'll note I've been fairly consistent in what I've been saying,)

In my opinion anarchism means no oppression, neither by a minority against a majority, nor by a majority against a minority. The problem with "democracy" is that it permits the second.

However, if no one is forced to comply with the wishes of the majority then "democracy" is one good way of determining outcomes.

Feel free to continue the discussion without me, I'm not interested any more. I suggest you start off defining what you mean by democracy, and what aspects of society would be affected by it.

EDIT: Democracy and anarchism (or why anarchism doesn't (always) equal democracy).
Can someone change the title...

EDIT2: Apparently you need to have index.html on the end of the links... They should work well enough now.

Bilan

7th October 2008, 11:54

Anyway, I was going to post a lot more stuff here, but I realised that there wasn't any point.

Instead, I'll point to a few threads where the discussion has already taken place.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-democracy-t86470/

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-t85450/

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-direct-t46947
(I'll note I've been fairly consistent in what I've been saying,)

Feel free to continue the discussion without me, I'm not interested any more. I suggest you start off defining what you mean by democracy, and what aspects of society would be affected by it.

EDIT: Democracy and anarchism (or why anarchism doesn't (always) equal democracy).
Can someone change the title...

I think anarchism is synonymous with democracy. I think your position merely perpetuates the ambiguity of 'anarchism' (as pointed out by other members here) as being a home to a variety of contradicting trends with no real relationship but "anti-hierarchy" and "anti-oppression". These are "defining" but also stupidly philosophical, because these amigious positions have merely given rise to individualist strains which are just impractical bullshit.

To me, anarchism, the trend which is relevant, is synonymous with communism.

apathy maybe

7th October 2008, 12:09

I think anarchism is synonymous with democracy. I think your position merely perpetuates the ambiguity of 'anarchism' (as pointed out by other members here) as being a home to a variety of contradicting trends with no real relationship but "anti-hierarchy" and "anti-oppression". These are "defining" but also stupidly philosophical, because these amigious positions have merely given rise to individualist strains which are just impractical bullshit.

To me, anarchism, the trend which is relevant, is synonymous with communism.

That's fine by me, just so long as you say anarcho-communism, communist anarchism, or even just communism as appropriate. And you don't say anarchism as if it only equated to anarcho-communism. Besides, if you don't say something like anarcho-communism, you are associating yourself with all the individualists, lifestyleists, punks and other such folks whom you don't want to be associated with. :)

(I don't actually see most anarchist trends as contradictory, otherwise I would have picked one. But that's a different discussion.)

JimmyJazz

7th October 2008, 16:25

I think anarchism is synonymous with democracy.

Isn't opposition to democratic centralism the biggest single difference between libertarian Marxists/anarchists and Leninists? (I do not consider historical issues like "zomg kronstadt" to be big differences).

Bilan

8th October 2008, 04:38

"democracy" =/= democratic centralism.

Schrödinger's Cat

8th October 2008, 07:50

The links don't work for me.

I view anarchism as, ultimately, free association. I have a complaint towards certain communists who think anarchism and communism are the only compatible systems, as I have a complaint towards anarcho-capitalists believing that you can just take over land willy-nilly.

Forced direct democracy may be libertarian socialist, but it's not anarchism.

JimmyJazz

8th October 2008, 08:03

"democracy" =/= democratic centralism.

I understand that they were formulated for totally different reasons, one being the rule for a revolutionary party and the other being the rule for a society. But to tell the truth I'm not sure how they are different in principle. They both say (you can correct if I'm mistaken about DC) that the majority decision becomes the rule for all. Anarchism I would expect to reject this principle as tending towards tyranny of the majority over the individual.

Basically, I see anarchism as advocating only voluntary association whereas democracy advocates enforcement of the will of the majority over the individual in some instances.

But I could just be rambling right now on a topic totally unrelated to what you meant by your original statement, so you could just tell me what you meant by "anarchism = democracy" if you want. We can leave democratic centralism out of it.

apathy maybe

8th October 2008, 08:44

The links don't work for me.

They should work now.

More generally, what do people think of my comment about "might makes right"?

4 Leaf Clover

8th October 2008, 08:51

i dont think they are synonymous at all

democracy means electing when there is ellecting and a representative (or slave owner in this chase) there is a state

when there is a state there is a law , when there is a law , there is and unfair or unjust law and courts

when there is court there is unjustice and police , and there starts all of other problems of today

so i vote for no-state :thumbup1:

Schrödinger's Cat

8th October 2008, 12:08

Just a little tidbit: if one person holds an opinion that something must be done to property, and everyone else disagrees, chances are he's screwed in any system.

I think democracy will be the most prevalent system in existence in a post-state world, but I don't see it as a universal solution. Anarcho-individualists and social anarchists have a lot to learn from each other; for example, I liked the idea that associations would exchange information about criminals, and if that association saw your crime as wrong, it would refuse to offer you services (or, charge you a heavier rate) until you went into X amount of rehabilitation.

Bilan

8th October 2008, 13:24

I understand that they were formulated for totally different reasons, one being the rule for a revolutionary party and the other being the rule for a society. But to tell the truth I'm not sure how they are different in principle. They both say (you can correct if I'm mistaken about DC) that the majority decision becomes the rule for all. Anarchism I would expect to reject this principle as tending towards tyranny of the majority over the individual.

Basically, I see anarchism as advocating only voluntary association whereas democracy advocates enforcement of the will of the majority over the individual in some instances.

But I could just be rambling right now on a topic totally unrelated to what you meant by your original statement, so you could just tell me what you meant by "anarchism = democracy" if you want. We can leave democratic centralism out of it.

What I meant was that anarchism, a defining principle, is democratic forms of organization - primarily, this takes place as direct democracy.

JimmyJazz

9th October 2008, 05:19

What I meant was that anarchism, a defining principle, is democratic forms of organization - primarily, this takes place as direct democracy.

This is directly opposed to cyu's take (http://www.revleft.com/vb/armed-revolution-democracy-t90952/index.html?p=1257986#post1257986) on anarchism's relation to democracy:

Thus anarchists prefer decentralized democracy - from http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1932002 :

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.

And counterblast's (http://www.revleft.com/vb/armed-revolution-democracy-t90952/index.html?p=1254325#post1254325):

Majority-rule political systems will never be revolutionary, because they disenfranchise minority voters. Democracy, whether direct or representative, is a form of white dominance. [or any other kind of tyranny of the majority, presuamably]

I'm gonna have to say that I side with them--you can't have it all, anarchism is either its own philosophy worthy of its own name or it is synonymous with democracy. Not both. With cyu and counterblast, I think it is its own philosophy and totally distinct from democracy.

This is an important topic in my view because I don't think anarchism has a leg to stand on when it comes to making group decisions. And as long as unity of action is required (for instance, you know, to topple capitalism), group decisions will be necessary. Without a good method of making them (that would be democracy, imo), you've only got an ideology which is anti-capitalist in sentiment but which in reality reproduces the toxic uber-individualism that created capitalism and sustains it now. This is the real reason I quit being an anarchist after starting out my socialist career as one for almost a year.

black magick hustla

9th October 2008, 05:25

I think the "reddest" anarchists are not necessarily democrats. They carry the ideological dead-weight of democracy, but organizations like the Friends of Durruti where ready to oppose the "democracy" of the CNT. Communists cannot be democrats in periods of reaction. We are willing to put forward principles over democratic maneuverings. After all, democracy is just a way to organize in order to accomplish certain objectives. The ruling class can organize democratically when it is in their interests.

Bilan

9th October 2008, 05:48

This is directly opposed to cyu's take (http://www.revleft.com/vb/armed-revolution-democracy-t90952/index.html?p=1257986#post1257986) on anarchism's relation to democracy:

Fair enough, thats still a democratic form of organization.
you're reading way to much into what I'm saying.

And counterblast's (http://www.revleft.com/vb/armed-revolution-democracy-t90952/index.html?p=1254325#post1254325):

I think that's a bit absurd. "White dominance" = democracy?

I'm gonna have to say that I side with them--you can't have it all, anarchism is either its own philosophy worthy of its own name or it is synonymous with democracy. Not both. With cyu and counterblast, I think it is its own philosophy and totally distinct from democracy.

I didn't say it was democracy. I said that democracy was a inherent principle within anarchism.

JimmyJazz

9th October 2008, 05:55

I think that's a bit absurd. "White dominance" = democracy?

In America, yeah, white dominance will always be one consequence of majoritarian democracy...but I think her broader point was just about tyrannies of the majority in general.

you're reading way to much into what I'm saying.

OK. But if anyone else wants to have this discussion, I still think the end of my last post was a good point and I'd like to hear any anarchist's answer to it.

Reposting:

I don't think anarchism has a leg to stand on when it comes to making group decisions. And as long as unity of action is required (for instance, you know, to topple capitalism), group decisions will be necessary. Without a good method of making them (that would be democracy, imo), you've only got an ideology which is anti-capitalist in sentiment but which in reality reproduces the toxic uber-individualism that created capitalism and sustains it now. This is the real reason I quit being an anarchist after starting out my socialist career as one for almost a year.

Bilan

9th October 2008, 06:05

JimmyJazz, do you know about Platformism?
Also, anarchists don't really struggle in "group decisions". the worst thing about anarchists is how slow some of these meetings can be, and achieve so bloody little.
But from my experience, in actions and groups, anarchists don't 'struggle ' with it.

JimmyJazz

9th October 2008, 06:15

But from my experience, in actions and groups, anarchists don't 'struggle ' with it.

They seemed to have a bit of a struggle with it in Spain, though. And Paris. And everywhere else where the workers were militant yet failed to seize power. Typically, this is the set of places that anarchists hold up as examples of anarchism in practice: places where the revolution failed. At least, from what I can tell, that's true.

anarchists don't really struggle in "group decisions".

Well, look: they have no formal method of making group decisions, as far as I can tell. And yet, they do obviously adopt some informal method, because they do in fact make some group decisions. In small meetings, the default group decision-making method they probably adopt (perhaps without even consciously realizing they are adopting any group decision-making method at all) is unanimity. But that obviously won't work in groups larger than ~100 people, much less for the entire working class of a country or more.

do you know about Platformism?

I will read the wiki on it.

Bilan

9th October 2008, 06:29

Robin Hoodie and I compiled a list in the Anarchist group. Have a look in there.

JimmyJazz

9th October 2008, 06:37

^Thanks.

I would still like to hear from other anarchists on this, otherwise I might have to start a thread...

Devrim

9th October 2008, 11:32

Well, look: they have no formal method of making group decisions, as far as I can tell. And yet, they do obviously adopt some informal method, because they do in fact make some group decisions. In small meetings, the default group decision-making method they probably adopt (perhaps without even consciously realizing they are adopting any group decision-making method at all) is unanimity. But that obviously won't work in groups larger than ~100 people, much less for the entire working class of a country or more.

Jimmy, I think that you are just wrong on this. I used to be a member of an anarchist organisation (over 20 years ago). It had a formal decision making structure, national officials, and over 100 members.

The IWA claims 14 national sections and has an international decision making mechanism.

Perhaps your mistake is confusing anarchism with some of the more confused anarchists you have come across in the States.

Devrim

bcbm

9th October 2008, 12:13

Well, look: they have no formal method of making group decisions, as far as I can tell. And yet, they do obviously adopt some informal method, because they do in fact make some group decisions. In small meetings, the default group decision-making method they probably adopt (perhaps without even consciously realizing they are adopting any group decision-making method at all) is unanimity. But that obviously won't work in groups larger than ~100 people, much less for the entire working class of a country or more.

What are you talking about? What is your experience? Every anarchist group I've been a part of, as well as larger meetings containing many groups, has had a formal decision making process- consensus. It isn't perfect but it works well enough and I've seen it work with groups of well over 100 people.

Perhaps your mistake is confusing anarchism with some of the more confused anarchists you have come across in the States.

Must be some very confused ones... most of us here have our shit together enough to make a decision.

Bilan

9th October 2008, 12:26

I'd like to point out something that has been in the anarchist movement for a while, and is a big problem: Structurelessness.
There's definitely, in most anarchist groups, a form of structure, but structurelessness is inherent in other smaller ones, and its truly the worst. The most undemocratic, frustrating form of organization ever.

bcbm

9th October 2008, 12:27

Elaborate SACT, I am not sure entirely what you mean.

Devrim

9th October 2008, 12:48

What are you talking about? What is your experience? Every anarchist group I've been a part of, as well as larger meetings containing many groups, has had a formal decision making process- consensus. It isn't perfect but it works well enough and I've seen it work with groups of well over 100 people.

Consensus is a terrible decision making process that doesn't really work, and ends up giving power to the people with the biggest mouths/most persistence... It has never been the practice of any anarchist group I have come across.

I'd like to point out something that has been in the anarchist movement for a while, and is a big problem: Structurelessness.
There's definitely, in most anarchist groups, a form of structure, but structurelessness is inherent in other smaller ones, and its truly the worst. The most undemocratic, frustrating form of organization ever.

I absolutely agree.

Devrim

bcbm

9th October 2008, 12:54

Consensus is a terrible decision making process that doesn't really work, and ends up giving power to the people with the biggest mouths/most persistence... It has never been the practice of any anarchist group I have come across.

Informal consensus, perhaps. Almost every time I've been involved with consensus-using groups, there are a number of "checks and balances" used to prevent that.

Raúl Duke

9th October 2008, 14:38

I'm going to keep silent on this thread...but seriously I find this topic/thread interesting and might end up learning something very very useful/important (I hope).

Devrim

9th October 2008, 14:42

Informal consensus, perhaps. Almost every time I've been involved with consensus-using groups, there are a number of "checks and balances" used to prevent that.

What do you do when it is impossible to find a consensus? There are times when this is not possible. What you are advocating is giving minorities a veto over...everything.

Devrim

bcbm

9th October 2008, 15:57

What do you do when it is impossible to find a consensus? There are times when this is not possible. What you are advocating is giving minorities a veto over...everything.

Its very rare that consensus can't be reached. Blocks are a very, very carefully used thing. Its usually possible to get to the point where people who aren't 100% will stand aside and consensus process can be used to facilitate a straight democratic vote as well. You're limiting it by taking it to its extreme but that isn't how the process is used in reality, at least not that I've encountered.

Os Cangaceiros

9th October 2008, 18:43

I'm gonna have to say that I side with them--you can't have it all, anarchism is either its own philosophy worthy of its own name or it is synonymous with democracy. Not both.

There are many, many anarchists groups that use "real democracy" as a talking point.

Raúl Duke

9th October 2008, 21:25

There are many, many anarchists groups that use "real democracy" as a talking point.

I sometimes do that too when talking to people who aren't radical in any sense.
(I use a lot of "switching of words" for other terms as well so to make it more palatable; although usually I do only so not to expose my politics explicitly to people)

JimmyJazz

10th October 2008, 05:16

Jimmy, I think that you are just wrong on this. I used to be a member of an anarchist organisation (over 20 years ago). It had a formal decision making structure, national officials, and over 100 members.

The IWA claims 14 national sections and has an international decision making mechanism.

Perhaps your mistake is confusing anarchism with some of the more confused anarchists you have come across in the States.

Devrim

What are you talking about? What is your experience? Every anarchist group I've been a part of, as well as larger meetings containing many groups, has had a formal decision making process- consensus. It isn't perfect but it works well enough and I've seen it work with groups of well over 100 people.

Must be some very confused ones... most of us here have our shit together enough to make a decision.

Actually, you guys can educate me about anarchist group meetings, because I've never been to one.

But not having been to an anarchist group, there are two points I am sticking by my guns on for now:

(1) Consensus/unanimity doesn't work for a national organization or party. If you are going to make collective decisions--and some decisions must be made collectively--then you need some way to ensure that the people who disagree still get in line in practice. Hence, you need centralism. But centralism based on the word of some Supreme Leader is not very egalitarian, hence, you put things to a vote and you have democratic centralism.

If anarchism just means that "everybody agrees", what happens when everybody doesn't?

(2) I have met several anarchists in real life, and many more online, and my impression has been that few of them belonged to real, revolutionary organizations. And this makes sense because imo anarchism is an individualistic philosophy. Social anarchism is basically incoherent. It's an attempt to build a social organization, geared to fight for social chance, on the bedrock of an individualistic philosophy. Hence, anarchism's strong appeal among punk rockers and rebellious youth, but it's inability to create mass organizations (by "mass" I mean bigger than 10 people going dumpster-diving together). I certainly don't mean to knock a group like the SACT, since the one member of it who I know is very clearly a dedicated socialist. But I do mean to say that its philosophy is fundamentally incoherent and hence the group is basically an aberration.

Anarchism offers a great critique of liberal democracy, and a great vision for a truly egalitarian society, but it's got nothing to offer as far as getting from here to there.

Devrim

10th October 2008, 12:59

Raúl Duke

10th October 2008, 14:00

Jimmy, I agree with you on consensus, and I think that your point on the type of anarchist that you have met is due in many ways to where you live. I don't think that anarchism as it really exists in other parts of the world is about 'dumpster-diving'.
Devrim

Yeah...It depends on the area. My impression is that there's more incoherency in anarchism in the U.S. then Europe of England.

Although by incoherency I mean that in the U.S. you have more crap that tries to pass of as anarchism or fundamental part of anarchism, etc.

Its very rare that consensus can't be reached. Blocks are a very, very carefully used thing. Its usually possible to get to the point where people who aren't 100% will stand aside and consensus process can be used to facilitate a straight democratic vote as well.

SO if consensus fails you say there will be a majority vote? Sounds good as a solution to me...

However, I would like to add (not much as an argument but a piece of info, which can be used as an argument by another) is that certain decision-making principles are susceptible, I think consensus-decision making is, to "group-think" i.e. some people withhold their real disagreeing opinion just so to get something done/not to cause problems for the group as a whole/ect

bcbm

10th October 2008, 14:33

(1) Consensus/unanimity doesn't work for a national organization or party. If you are going to make collective decisions--and some decisions must be made collectively--then you need some way to ensure that the people who disagree still get in line in practice. Hence, you need centralism. But centralism based on the word of some Supreme Leader is not very egalitarian, hence, you put things to a vote and you have democratic centralism.

If anarchism just means that "everybody agrees", what happens when everybody doesn't?

Consensus doesn't mean everybody agrees, it means an agreement that nobody fundamentally objects to can be reached or, if all else fails, a majority decision can be obtained. I explained this already.

However, I would like to add (not much as an argument but a piece of info, which can be used as an argument by another) is that certain decision-making principles are susceptible, I think consensus-decision making is, to "group-think" i.e. some people withhold their real disagreeing opinion just so to get something done/not to cause problems for the group as a whole/ect

And this can't happen in a democratic setting? Anytime people are sitting and talking about something and attempting to come to a decision this is possible. I think consensus process does a lot to minimize this, though, because it actively works with dissenting opinions and tries to come to a, well, consensus.

(2) I have met several anarchists in real life, and many more online, and my impression has been that few of them belonged to real, revolutionary organizations. And this makes sense because imo anarchism is an individualistic philosophy. Social anarchism is basically incoherent. It's an attempt to build a social organization, geared to fight for social chance, on the bedrock of an individualistic philosophy. Hence, anarchism's strong appeal among punk rockers and rebellious youth, but it's inability to create mass organizations (by "mass" I mean bigger than 10 people going dumpster-diving together). I certainly don't mean to knock a group like the SACT, since the one member of it who I know is very clearly a dedicated socialist. But I do mean to say that its philosophy is fundamentally incoherent and hence the group is basically an aberration.

What exactly have you been reading of anarchism? Devrim is spot on, and there are many serious militants. Even the dumpster-divers can have their shit together. Its strange, I see so much slagging off of the US movement here but I don't think we're that bad off. We took a serious hit after 9-11, but right now we're on the biggest upsurge of organization in a long time... concrete organization as well and I think it will develop into a lot more in the coming months.

S&Y

10th October 2008, 14:37

From my experience a lot of anarchists do not use democracy in their meetings, but instead consensus.

this can be even more "authoritarian" than a majority-minority situation as people get forced to agree in order for the consensus to be reached because they cannot spend months on taking one decision.

So while in communist parties and organization , democratic centralism is used and the minority has the right to defend its position but when defeated do what the majority decides, in anarchists organizations people are forced to agree and therefore they cannot defend their opinion in the future or during the debate.

The lesson on this is that if you try to be non-authoritarian too hard, you end up being more authoritarian than the commies.:lol:

Bilan

10th October 2008, 14:45

What exactly have you been reading of anarchism? Devrim is spot on, and there are many serious militants. Even the dumpster-divers can have their shit together. Its strange, I see so much slagging off of the US movement here but I don't think we're that bad off. We took a serious hit after 9-11, but right now we're on the biggest upsurge of organization in a long time... concrete organization as well and I think it will develop into a lot more in the coming months.

What groups are growing in the US? The IWW was a while back with the Starbucks Union campaign, but I dont know about many others? Or at least, haven't heard?

also, apart from the wobs, is there any other serious syndicalist union in the US?

Bilan

10th October 2008, 14:46

Elaborate SACT, I am not sure entirely what you mean.

You haven't heard of structurelessness?

(not meant to be rude if it sounds it)

bcbm

10th October 2008, 14:57

in anarchists organizations people are forced to agree and therefore they cannot defend their opinion in the future or during the debate.

What the fuck are you talking about, this is absolutely incorrect.

What groups are growing in the US?

There was a lot of organization leading up to the DNC/RNC with groups like Unconventional Action, Bash Back and various others getting pretty serious. In the post convention period, these networks are being maintained and are looking likely to be formed into a loose federation. The first major meeting about this is coming up at the end of the month, so we'll see. Beyond that, there are various regional networks springing up.

You haven't heard of structurelessness?

I know the term, but I am not sure what you specifically mean by it. What specific ways anarchist groups operate do you see as structureless?

Os Cangaceiros

10th October 2008, 15:08

What groups are growing in the US? The IWW was a while back with the Starbucks Union campaign, but I dont know about many others? Or at least, haven't heard?

I have to agree with BCBM on this point. I've seen a marked increase in interest in radical politics and/or anarchism, as well.

also, apart from the wobs, is there any other serious syndicalist union in the US?

The answer to that question is "no".

Os Cangaceiros

10th October 2008, 15:17

I have met several anarchists in real life, and many more online, and my impression has been that few of them belonged to real, revolutionary organizations. And this makes sense because imo anarchism is an individualistic philosophy. Social anarchism is basically incoherent. It's an attempt to build a social organization, geared to fight for social chance, on the bedrock of an individualistic philosophy.

No, your premise is incorrect. Anarchism has branches that can be considered "individualistic" in nature (Stirner's variety of philosophical anarchism comes to mind), but social anarchism isn't by its very nature "individualistic".

Hence, anarchism's strong appeal among punk rockers and rebellious youth, but it's inability to create mass organizations (by "mass" I mean bigger than 10 people going dumpster-diving together).

...and here you betray your bias, by tying anarchism together with so-called "lifestylists".

Anarchism offers a great critique of liberal democracy, and a great vision for a truly egalitarian society, but it's got nothing to offer as far as getting from here to there.

We're working on it. In the meantime, I think that it would be wise for the Marxist-Leninists to give their theory of "getting there" a good fine tuning and look-over...I have a sneaky suspicion that their design is fundamentally unsound. :)

(And as far as this question of democracy goes: I'm actually in favor of democracy, because I can't think of any better way to make large decisions. Anarchists don't have a "party line" as far as this issue is concerned, though. And yes, I realize that democratic decisions can sometimes be poorly executed.)

JimmyJazz

10th October 2008, 15:41

I think that your point on the type of anarchist that you have met is due in many ways to where you live. I don't think that anarchism as it really exists in other parts of the world is about 'dumpster-diving'.

Yeah I know, I should have left that dumpster-diving bit out because I knew people would tend to zero in on it. The rest of the post contains my real points against anarchism.

Anyway I'm off to work, will be back to reply more later.

Raúl Duke

10th October 2008, 17:30

You haven't heard of structurelessness?

(not meant to be rude if it sounds it)

Since this (structurelessness) was brought up I would like to provide a link (http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) to the article called "tyranny of structurelessness".

Consensus doesn't mean everybody agrees, it means an agreement that nobody fundamentally objects to can be reached or, if all else fails, a majority decision can be obtained
Personally, I find myself somewhat in agreement with BCBM based on this definition of consensus-decision making
(try for consensus but, if all else fails, take it to majority vote).

Although I would like to hear more on "decentralized democracy" that was mention earlier (didn't get to understand it much).

Devrim

10th October 2008, 17:36

What exactly have you been reading of anarchism? Devrim is spot on, and there are many serious militants. Even the dumpster-divers can have their shit together. Its strange, I see so much slagging off of the US movement here but I don't think we're that bad off. We took a serious hit after 9-11, but right now we're on the biggest upsurge of organization in a long time... concrete organization as well and I think it will develop into a lot more in the coming months.

I think that the working class is weak in the USA, and this is reflected in political organisations. I think that anarchism is particularly politically weak in the US as are we ourselves.

Devrim

bcbm

10th October 2008, 17:52

I think that the working class is weak in the USA, and this is reflected in political organisations. I think that anarchism is particularly politically weak in the US as are we ourselves.

I think anarchism is stronger than most other revolutionary leftist groups at that moment, at least in terms of concrete activity and growth. We're certainly not strong by any means, but real gains have been made in the past two years and I see a lot of potential right now if we can continue to keep our act together.

Devrim

10th October 2008, 18:03

Do you have a national anarchist organisation in the US? Are you a member of such an organisation. Do you think that it is desirable?

Obviously NEFAC isn't by definition national. I suppose you could say the WSA is.

Devrim

bcbm

10th October 2008, 18:13

Do you have a national anarchist organisation in the US? Are you a member of such an organisation. Do you think that it is desirable?

As far as I know, there isn't a significant national organization right now, but there is a national network of anarchists. It isn't formal at the moment, but it isn't entirely informal either- most of the groups have a pretty consistent membership and activity level and there are frequent regional and national gatherings. I think things may solidify further in the coming months. I don't think we're ready for a full-fledged organization yet, and I think the idea frightens a lot of people, but if things go well with the informal network I wouldn't be opposed to taking more steps in that direction.

black magick hustla

10th October 2008, 19:14

JimmyJazz

10th October 2008, 20:08

No, your premise is incorrect. Anarchism has branches that can be considered "individualistic" in nature (Stirner's variety of philosophical anarchism comes to mind), but social anarchism isn't by its very nature "individualistic".

I already addressed this. I'm perfectly aware that anarchists make a distinction between "social anarchism" and "individual anarchism". But only the latter philosophy strikes me as coherent (as I already said). Social anarchists are either (1) practicing democracy, but for some reason doing so under the label of "anarchism", or (2) meeting in such small groups that the otherwise unworkable consensus method becomes temporarily workable.

Again, no I haven't been to any anarchist meetings (not even when I was an anarchist), but I don't think I have to have gone to one to know that consensus doesn't work for large--larger than an anarchist meeting--groups. People will disagree, so if you say you favor consensus, what you're really saying is you refuse to acknowledge the existence of dissenting opinions. I'm approaching this question of anarchism vs. democracy from a theoretical perspective, and, well, we are in the Theory forum so I don't feel too bad about doing it.

If you guys have a method for eliminating dissenting opinions and actually making everyone agree, I'm all ears. But it just isn't possible.

in anarchists organizations people are forced to agree and therefore they cannot defend their opinion in the future or during the debate.

What the fuck are you talking about, this is absolutely incorrect.

bcbm, you are asserting a universal negative. Have you been to every anarchist meeting ever? This would be an absurd claim to make--not only can you not prove it, but common sense is on S&Y's side, because human nature is such that some people will tend to dominate if there is nothing stopping them.

Consensus doesn't mean everybody agrees, it means an agreement that nobody fundamentally objects to can be reached or, if all else fails, a majority decision can be obtained. I explained this already.

First of all, you're talking about it as though non-consensus is a weird exception to the rule--"if all else fails". Failure to achieve consensus is the rule in society. That's why democracy was invented, because there was a need for it.

Secondly, what happens if everybody can't agree? The group just splinters? Or no action is taken? (This is why centralism was invented, because there was a need for it).

Thirdly, if you try to achieve consensus but resort to a majority vote when necessary, then what you're basically practicing is democracy that places a high value on engaging in discussion and coming to an agreement before you put it to a vote. It would be better called "non-divisive democracy", or something like that. But it isn't fundamentally different from democracy, because when it comes down to it, you'll take a vote. So...is that really what separates anarchists from Leninists in terms of organization? One values a lot of discussion before voting and the other doesn't? Because in that case you might be objecting to a straw man of Leninism--I'm pretty sure Leninist parties favor a consensus or near-consensus if they can get one. I don't think calling yourself a Leninist means you relish every 51-49 vote.

Also, in all this talk about how effective consensus can be, has anyone mentioned that the only places it's apparently been tried is at meetings where everyone came because they were all already anarchists? I'm thinking that might have something to do with how easy a consensus is to achieve. You are meeting because you share the same fundamental political beliefs, and you are impressed at your own ability to come to a consensus on political topics!

But really, that is irrelevant, because a national organization could not achieve consensus even if every member agreed on a long laundry list of fundamental beliefs. There is a limitation on the size of a group for which consensus works that you simply cannot get around.

Schrödinger's Cat

10th October 2008, 22:38

Unless there is genuine consensus, consensual democracy can be more authoritarian than the majoritarian alternative.

bcbm

11th October 2008, 22:16

Again, no I haven't been to any anarchist meetings (not even when I was an anarchist), but I don't think I have to have gone to one to know that consensus doesn't work for large--larger than an anarchist meeting--groups.

You've never seen the process work and you quite clearly don't understand it or how it functions, but you have no problem completely discounting the experience of the people who've actually used it and been to meetings and whipping up an army of strawmen about the process and how it works? Ridiculous.

People will disagree, so if you say you favor consensus, what you're really saying is you refuse to acknowledge the existence of dissenting opinions.

No, actually that isn't "really" what is being said at all. I honestly can't even fathom how you came up with this crap. How does believing in a process that tries to TAKE ALL OPINIONS into consideration and find a solution that everyone can basically agree or at least not fundamentally object to refuse to acknowledge dissenting opinions? Its about fucking working with dissenting opinions!

Have you been to every anarchist meeting ever? This would be an absurd claim to make--not only can you not prove it, but common sense is on S&Y's side, because human nature is such that some people will tend to dominate if there is nothing stopping them.

I've been to a fuckton of anarchist meetings and I have a hard time believing my experiences reflect an exception of how such meetings usually work. Given that, I feel pretty confident in saying that I have never been to a meeting where people were forced to agree (what?!) and not allowed to voice dissent. The opposite is true. Beyond that, what do you mean "When nothing is there to stop them?" Have you been reading anything I've written about how consensus works? Because I made it pretty clear there are lots of mechanisms in place to prevent one person or group from dominating.

First of all, you're talking about it as though non-consensus is a weird exception to the rule--"if all else fails". Failure to achieve consensus is the rule in society.

We're not talking about society as a whole right now, we're talking about the consensus process. I don't think anything in my phrasing was unclear and using the phrase "if all else fails" makes absolute sense in the context I was using it. I described how consensus works. In the process, if all else fails (ie consensus can't be reached through traditional discussions and methods), a vote can be taken. What's so complicated here?

Secondly, what happens if everybody can't agree? The group just splinters? Or no action is taken?

Why don't you read the thread, particularly the bit where I explained how it works, and find out?

because there was a need for it

Racism was invented because there was a need for it, that doesn't make it useful or correct.

Thirdly, if you try to achieve consensus but resort to a majority vote when necessary, then what you're basically practicing is democracy that places a high value on engaging in discussion and coming to an agreement before you put it to a vote. It would be better called "non-divisive democracy", or something like that. But it isn't fundamentally different from democracy, because when it comes down to it, you'll take a vote.

Voting is rare and has to be consensed upon, so its still part of a consensus process.

So...is that really what separates anarchists from Leninists in terms of organization? One values a lot of discussion before voting and the other doesn't? Because in that case you might be objecting to a straw man of Leninism

Where did I say anything about Leninism or raise objections to it? I don't give a fuck about Leninism.

Also, in all this talk about how effective consensus can be, has anyone mentioned that the only places it's apparently been tried is at meetings where everyone came because they were all already anarchists? I'm thinking that might have something to do with how easy a consensus is to achieve. You are meeting because you share the same fundamental political beliefs, and you are impressed at your own ability to come to a consensus on political topics!

Effective is not the same as easy. Anarchists don't agree on everything just because they're anarchists- look at the Anarchist group if you don't believe me. Consensus can be a long, exhausting, frustrating process that takes hours, so why don't you ditch the condescending tone?

But really, that is irrelevant, because a national organization could not achieve consensus even if every member agreed on a long laundry list of fundamental beliefs. There is a limitation on the size of a group for which consensus works that you simply cannot get around.

I've seen groups representing upwards of 100000 people from a range of political beliefs achieve consensus. Saying "Obviously this is the case because this is the case obviously" is not an argument.

Os Cangaceiros

11th October 2008, 23:00

Social anarchists are either (1) practicing democracy, but for some reason doing so under the label of "anarchism"

This doesn't make any sense at all.

Democracy in and of itself isn't a political philosophy. This makes just as little sense as saying, "Leninists are practicing democracy, but for some reason doing so under the label of 'Communism'", or "Social democrats are praticing democracy, but for some reason doing so under the label of 'social democracy'."

JimmyJazz

12th October 2008, 19:02

This doesn't make any sense at all.

Democracy in and of itself isn't a political philosophy. This makes just as little sense as saying, "Leninists are practicing democracy, but for some reason doing so under the label of 'Communism'", or "Social democrats are praticing democracy, but for some reason doing so under the label of 'social democracy'."

Right, it's a political practice. The political philosophy of anarchism is awesome--I think no-hierarchy is a good rule for the ideal society. It's the political practice of anarchism that I am calling unrealistic within the context of capitalism and it's highly organized, repressive state. If you're actually interested in making revolution (and I realize that this isn't possible in the U.S. at the moment, but in some times and places it is possible), you can't possibly face the powers of the state, which operates with a tremendous amount of centralism, unless your organization is also somewhat centralist. By which I mean, group decisions are enforced, thus unity of action is possible.

Josef Balin

12th October 2008, 19:54

Anyway, I was going to post a lot more stuff here, but I realised that there wasn't any point.

Instead, I'll point to a few threads where the discussion has already taken place.

Feel free to continue the discussion without me, I'm not interested any more. I suggest you start off defining what you mean by democracy, and what aspects of society would be affected by it.

EDIT: Democracy and anarchism (or why anarchism doesn't (always) equal democracy).
Can someone change the title...

EDIT2: Apparently you need to have index.html on the end of the links... They should work well enough now.
Mob rule is the best example of democracy. You're just confusing fairness with democracy.

apathy maybe

13th October 2008, 09:06

Mob rule is the best example of democracy. You're just confusing fairness with democracy.

Because you specifically quote me, I'm replying.

I didn't confuse anything with anything. I quoted some people, and then left the discussion.

"Mob rule" is an "example" of "democracy", sure. The "best" example, fuck no.

Of course, you didn't define democracy, so it may well be that your definition of democracy is "mob rule". Feel free to elaborate.

Plagueround

15th October 2008, 09:43

I think american anarchists havent been able to solidify an organization because american anarchism is quite different than other brands. It is certainly less marxist, and it is full of post-left and "anti-civ" tendencies. Furthermore, traditionally anarchists have been an outgrowth of the labor movement, and in the US. there is no labor movement at all - so anarchists a lot of the time ride the coattails of left wing campaigns.

While I'm not yet experienced to comment on this being the norm, I have to agree to a point because this is about all I've scene while looking for organizations and local activists in my two areas I frequent.

I can't find anyone who's interested in class-struggle without throwing on all sorts of animal rights/ELF shit, as well as a whole lot of other nonsense (I've just recently talked to two "anarchists" who are working the OBAMA CAMPAIGN. WHAT THE FUCK?). It's frustrating as all hell.

JimmyJazz

15th October 2008, 15:29

While I'm not yet experienced to comment on this being the norm, I have to agree to a point because this is about all I've scene while looking for organizations and local activists in my two areas I frequent.

I can't find anyone who's interested in class-struggle without throwing on all sorts of animal rights/ELF shit, as well as a whole lot of other nonsense (I've just recently talked to two "anarchists" who are working the OBAMA CAMPAIGN. WHAT THE FUCK?). It's frustrating as all hell.

I have an anarchist friend on facebook, and the other day his girlfriend posted a bunch of pictures from her "(A) Dancy Party!!". Lol :(:(

I certainly hope it's better in Europe.

Even a few of my Green/Democrat activist friends have told me they think anarchism is silly, yet they're accepting of me as a socialist. I find that stunning, considering how ingrained the idea is in American culture that Marxism = totalitarianism; you would really expect anarchism should have the much greater appeal. But the reasons they give for dismissing anarchism always pretty much follow the ones given in this essay:
Listen, Anarchist!: Diagnosing the ills of North American anarchism (http://www.seesharppress.com/listen.html)

Again though, I want to point out that this has nothing to do with my criticisms of anarchism's organizational principles. That was a theoretical critique and not based on any experience with anarchist groups meeting. As the essay points out, North American anarchists have an anti-organizational bias, so obviously it couldn't have been them I was talking about when comparing the anarchist organizational principles to democratic centralism.

bcbm

15th October 2008, 18:45

you can't possibly face the powers of the state, which operates with a tremendous amount of centralism, unless your organization is also somewhat centralist. By which I mean, group decisions are enforced, thus unity of action is possible.

This isn't entirely true. Decentralized models have been very effective in the last decade and a half against the powers of the state. Indeed, the recent experiences with the RNC show that having a more "centralized" organization makes it much easier for the state to infiltrate, destroy and prosecute. Compare this to groups like ELF/ALF and the various autonomous anarchist actions that have occurred- for the vast majority, no one is ever caught and the ones who do get caught do so because of bad security. This isn't to say there is no place for centralized structures in a revolution- they are certainly necessary at times- but it is possible to take a lot of action without such strict organization.

I have an anarchist friend on facebook, and the other day his girlfriend posted a bunch of pictures from her "(A) Dancy Party!!".

Anarchists can't have parties? "If I can't dance..." you know the rest.

I certainly hope it's better in Europe.

Depends where you go. There's a lot of problems similar to the US, but they appear less noticeable simply because there are more anarchists and more, stronger places where anarchists can gather and organize.

But the reasons they give for dismissing anarchism always pretty much follow the ones given in this essay:
Listen, Anarchist!: Diagnosing the ills of North American anarchism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.seesharppress.com/listen.html)

You're using an essay written in 1987, when anarchism was in an extremely weak position, to dismiss the movement two decades later? Come on. I read through the whole thing and almost none of it is applicable today. What is applicable is much more muted. "Green" and "Red" anarchists may spar, but they often work together on the same (class) projects. They certainly aren't physically violent with each other. Most of the problems laid out in that essay, to me, seem to be problems that affect any movement that is at an extremely marginal and weak position which anarchism in the 1980's certainly was. Things have changed a lot, particularly in the last decade, and right now I don't see almost anything in that essay as relevant.

As the essay points out, North American anarchists have an anti-organizational bias, so obviously it couldn't have been them I was talking about when comparing the anarchist organizational principles to democratic centralism.

The last two years have seen a giant upsurge in anarchist organizing, coming off the decade before that which also saw unprecedented organization. Your essay is dated and wrong.

---

I can't find anyone who's interested in class-struggle without throwing on all sorts of animal rights/ELF shit, as well as a whole lot of other nonsense (I've just recently talked to two "anarchists" who are working the OBAMA CAMPAIGN. WHAT THE FUCK?). It's frustrating as all hell.

There's a good deal of bullshit in the NA Anarchist scene, I don't think anyone would deny. But there are lots of good people too and even those who throw other shit on top of the class struggle can still be down for the class struggle. Most anarchists I've met and worked with here accept that and many are growing increasingly critical of the animal lib, etc stuff as economic conditions get worse. You may have to dig a little deeper or push people a little more than you'd like, but I've found really shitty anarchists to be an exception. I suppose it depends where you are though.

JimmyJazz

16th October 2008, 03:58

This isn't entirely true. Decentralized models have been very effective in the last decade and a half against the powers of the state. Indeed, the recent experiences with the RNC show that having a more "centralized" organization makes it much easier for the state to infiltrate, destroy and prosecute. Compare this to groups like ELF/ALF and the various autonomous anarchist actions that have occurred- for the vast majority, no one is ever caught and the ones who do get caught do so because of bad security. This isn't to say there is no place for centralized structures in a revolution- they are certainly necessary at times- but it is possible to take a lot of action without such strict organization.

All of this is no doubt true, depending on what task you seek to be effective at.

If it is taking state power, I think we agree that ALF/ELF aren't going to succeed at that.

If it is overthrowing the state and leading the masses to suppress any attempt to create a new one, I don't think ALF/ELF are going to do much in that direction either.

Anarchists can't have parties? "If I can't dance..." you know the rest.

Well yes, I'm assuming that line is where this girl got the idea for the party, or at least for the name of it. It's pretty much the one anarchist quote that every anarchist I've ever met knows.

My own personal stance is that, if it isn't paired with revolutionary work, it isn't my dance party. :cool:

You're using an essay written in 1987, when anarchism was in an extremely weak position, to dismiss the movement two decades later?

Actually, you are the only one who has taken a dismissive stance at any point. Give me credit where it's due--I've gone out of my way to respect anarchism while refuting it (pointing out that I once was an anarchist, recognizing that anarchists are not at all homogenous group). Meanwhile you have said a few things like "I don't give a fuck about Lenin", in a discussion about anarchism versus Leninism :confused:.

Anyway, my interest is in comparing the very best of anarchist theory with the very best of Marxist theory. I'm not interested in smearing or misrepresenting either side. I only posted that essay in response to Plagueround's post, not as a part of the larger discussion. What the essay actually says is that North American anarchism is not very advanced for a form of anarchism, so it wouldn't even really make sense as a contribution to the discussion of anarchism vs. Leninism on the topic of organization.

right now I don't see almost anything in that essay as relevant.

You would know better than me.

There's a good deal of bullshit in the NA Anarchist scene, I don't think anyone would deny. But there are lots of good people too and even those who throw other shit on top of the class struggle can still be down for the class struggle. Most anarchists I've met and worked with here accept that and many are growing increasingly critical of the animal lib, etc stuff as economic conditions get worse. You may have to dig a little deeper or push people a little more than you'd like, but I've found really shitty anarchists to be an exception. I suppose it depends where you are though.

My experience of NA anarchism is still that it is individualist, unsophisticated and nonrevolutionary. For example, I've met quite a few anarchists who have never heard of the Anarchy FAQ. They are shocked when I tell them it exists! I think that's a pretty good illustration of how out-of-touch NA anarchism is with the more serious anarchism that exists (or at least has existed) elsewhere. However, I have no doubt that any NA anarchists who have made their way to RevLeft are probably a cut above. I mean, their mere willingness to speak with Marxists, Leninists, even Mao and Stalin Anti-Revisionists ffs, pretty much proves their interest in and appreciation for the class struggle. There's no excuse for sectarian anti-anarchism like S&Y has displayed recently.

Die Neue Zeit

16th October 2008, 05:14

^^^ If you're suggesting that only class-strugglist anarchists should be considered for discussion, that's all fine and dandy (methinks what S&Y probably isn't aware of class-strugglist anarchism), especially when it comes to critiquing their hostility towards organization (save the elect few that openly and correctly function inside generally Marxist parties).

bcbm

16th October 2008, 22:39

All of this is no doubt true, depending on what task you seek to be effective at.

If it is taking state power, I think we agree that ALF/ELF aren't going to succeed at that.

If it is overthrowing the state and leading the masses to suppress any attempt to create a new one, I don't think ALF/ELF are going to do much in that direction either.

You're not really addressing the point I was making. I wasn't suggesting the ELF/ALF are a good thing or doing any of that, I was merely using them as an example of how decentralized organizing can function and be successful at combating the state without a lot of interference. Obviously a revolutionary decentralized group would act differently and choose different targets.

My own personal stance is that, if it isn't paired with revolutionary work, it isn't my dance party. :cool:

What a colossal bore you must be. ;)

Actually, you are the only one who has taken a dismissive stance at any point. Give me credit where it's due--I've gone out of my way to respect anarchism while refuting it (pointing out that I once was an anarchist, recognizing that anarchists are not at all homogenous group).

By dismissing processes you don't understand and the explanations of people who've actually used them and bringing up articles that are two decades old and irrelevant to disprove NA anarchism?

Meanwhile you have said a few things like "I don't give a fuck about Lenin", in a discussion about anarchism versus Leninism :confused:.

Actually, I was just explaining how consensus process works if you look back over the thread. I didn't weigh in at all on the Anarchism v. Leninism debate because I see it as largely irrelevant.

I only posted that essay in response to Plagueround's post, not as a part of the larger discussion. What the essay actually says is that North American anarchism is not very advanced for a form of anarchism, so it wouldn't even really make sense as a contribution to the discussion of anarchism vs. Leninism on the topic of organization.

Sure, but you're still using it to effectively dismiss American anarchism and still upholding its central claim even now and that is what I am taking issue with. Sorry to pull things off topic, but I get very tired of people slagging off on the movement I've spent almost a decade of my life working with and building, particularly with criticisms that are simply inaccurate.

You would know better than me.

Well, now we're getting somewhere!

My experience of NA anarchism is still that it is individualist, unsophisticated and nonrevolutionary. For example, I've met quite a few anarchists who have never heard of the Anarchy FAQ. They are shocked when I tell them it exists! I think that's a pretty good illustration of how out-of-touch NA anarchism is with the more serious anarchism that exists (or at least has existed) elsewhere.

I don't think one example is a "good illustration," especially since I can point to the last two years in particular of solid activity and a more coherent and organized anarchism in North American. As I said, there is certainly some bullshit going on here, but I don't think its in the vast majority and a lot of the bullshit is often accompanied by very solid politics as well. Are we as good as we could be? No. But I think your characterizations are wrong and completely in conflict with almost everything I've seen. Those elements exist, but they're not the mainstream of NA anarchism.

Black Dagger

17th October 2008, 02:15

JJ, you've been quite respectful so far which is great, but some of what you say is quite speculative?

I've gone out of my way to respect anarchism while refuting it (pointing out that I once was an anarchist, recognizing that anarchists are not at all homogenous group).

Ok, but didn't you also say you'd never been to an anarchist meeting? :confused: How long were you an anarchist for?

My experience of NA anarchism is still that it is individualist, unsophisticated and nonrevolutionary.

I don't think it's reasonable to talk about 'NA anarchism' - think about what you're saying - you're talking about a whole continent - but what is this based on? You said yourself you've never been in an anarchist organisation or attended an anarchist meeting. So most (all?) of this 'experience' boils down to strictly superficial impressions of the few of anarchists you have happened to bump into where you live, or some place you may have visited.

How does that enable you to speak with any credibility on a continents worth of anarchists? :confused: I'm not trying to have a go at you, it just seems and odd claim to make.

For example, I've met quite a few anarchists who have never heard of the Anarchy FAQ. They are shocked when I tell them it exists! I think that's a pretty good illustration of how out-of-touch NA anarchism is with the more serious anarchism that exists (or at least has existed) elsewhere.

I disagree.

To be honest i'm not sure i understand your point - why is knowing about a website indicative of anything about an individual anarchist or indeed the anarchists of a whole continent? I know plenty of anarchists who don't have the internet at home, and others that do who have never heard of the 'anarchist FAQ'. If i was to speculate i would say this is because they don't centre their political (or social) activity on the internet. Not everyone, spends all day on the internet - i do, but that's just coz i have internet access at work - so what else will i be doing? Work?! Really, to use knowledge of the 'anarchist FAQ' as a measuring stick for anarchists is completely arbitrary and without reason.

JimmyJazz

17th October 2008, 03:02

Hey BD,

Lemme just say now that this'll be my last post on this derail of NA anarchism vs. anarchism at large, cuz I'm just not that interested in the topic, and certainly not in arriving at the final word on the issue. But to clarify what I have already said:

Ok, but didn't you also say you'd never been to an anarchist meeting? :confused: How long were you an anarchist for?

There are not class-strugglist anarchists meeting in my area that I was ever able to find.

I don't think it's reasonable to talk about 'NA anarchism' - think about what you're saying - you're talking about a whole continent

Well that's just silly. To talk about a group's common characteristics, especially re: how they differ from some other group, is not the same as suggesting that the membership of either group is homogenous. I'm sorry, but culture doesn't cease to exist because people don't like to be stereotyped. I would not intentionally stereotype an individual anarchist who happens to be from NA, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a huge correspondence in humans between belief and geographical location. I.e., there is culture.

So most (all?) of this 'experience' boils down to strictly superficial impressions of the few of anarchists you have happened to bump into where you live, or some place you may have visited.

Not sure where you are getting this from? I've known (and I know) a few anarchists quite well. I've mingled in anarchist bookstores across the country.

Ironically, the one thing that I am truly ignorant of, at least in terms of personal experience, is the modern anarchist movement outside of America. But no one seems to be calling me on that. :confused:

But I don't think you need to have met a single anarchist to see the clear difference between, for example, Murray Bookchin and Daniel Guerin. Guerin would not have written "Listen, Marxist!". Is this because he stands in the European tradition? I can't say for sure, but I think that has a lot to do with it.

And for that matter, you can look at the "Old Left" anarchism as well, and see that Berkman is basically a joke when compared to someone like Kropotkin.

To be honest i'm not sure i understand your point - why is knowing about a website indicative of anything about an individual anarchist or indeed the anarchists of a whole continent? I know plenty of anarchists who don't have the internet at home, and others that do who have never heard of the 'anarchist FAQ'. If i was to speculate i would say this is because they don't centre their political (or social) activity on the internet. Not everyone, spends all day on the internet - i do, but that's just coz i have internet access at work - so what else will i be doing? Work?! Really, to use knowledge of the 'anarchist FAQ' as a measuring stick for anarchists is completely arbitrary and without reason.

Most of the NA anarchists I have met/known/know do not know much about anarchism, period. I don't claim to be an expert myself. But even when I was an anarchist, I didn't really have discussions with other anarchists. It was clear that I was moving in a direction that they weren't. I was interested in the nature of the Soviet Union, and in understanding the Marxist claim about the centrality of the working class. When I talked to them about things like the working class, they'd say it was bought off by consumerism; when I talked about the Soviet Union, they just gave me a blank stare. They mostly wanted to talk about liberating billboards or black blocking. (Not that they did even these things, only talked about them). They were cool people to hang out with, but politically I did not feel any real connection with them, despite the similarity in labels.

Of course it's possible that I am completely off-base about NA anarchists and I happen to have only known the rather individualist/unserious ones. But it seems unlikely given the number I've interacted with. And I'm obviously not the only or first person to think this, given the essay I posted. It's clear that some observers have perceived a NA-European rift since (when was that essay written? the 80's?). Anyway, since some time ago.

So, that's one man's impression of it. nothing more.

bcbm

17th October 2008, 03:07

It's clear that some observers have perceived a NA-European rift since (when was that essay written? the 80's?).

That essay said nothing about a rift with Europe and really, in my experience, Europe isn't terribly different from the US. Like I said, there's just more anarchists.

Black Dagger

17th October 2008, 04:10

So, that's one man's impression of it. nothing more.

That's all i wanted to hear, cheers.

JimmyJazz

17th October 2008, 07:21

I said that would be my last post on that particular subtopic, but get this. Tonight I was at a screening of a movie about women's suffrage by a feminist/women's studies group that I'm friends with a few members of. Afterwards they did a voter registration drive, and they were allowing me to ride their coattails by plugging Brian Moore of the SPUSA (I was just trying to get him write-in status on the ballot, not convince anyone to vote for him).

One dude told me he was already registered to vote and it came out that he was an anarchist. So I plugged my little campaign to him because, obviously, he seemed like a likely target. And he gave me a weird look and said "but I'm not a socialist."

:ohmy:

And just to rule out a few alternate explanations for what he meant, he was not a newbie (he said he'd been an anarchist for almost a year), so it's not like there was an excuse for him not having gotten around to the anti-capitalist side of it yet; and he was not a principled nonvoter, because he also told me that he had just the other day registered to vote, as an independent. And he did not follow it up quickly with "but I'm against wage labor" or anything like that, so I'm pretty sure you can rule out the idea of it being an issue of semantic difference.

First of all, can you imagine any anarchist on this site saying "I'm not a socialist"? And how about any European anarchist? If so, then my impressions of European anarchism are way, way off.

Afterwards his girlfriend who had some "animal liberation" pin on her sweater tried to corner me to find out where the Psychology department (this was on a campus) keeps the birds they do research on after she found out my major. She was really insistent on trying to get the exact room and I think she wanted to free them. :lol:

bcbm

18th October 2008, 00:58

he was not a newbie (he said he'd been an anarchist for almost a year)

Given that serious radicals often maintain a life-long commitment to their politics, or at least to some brand of radical politics, I'd say ialmost a year is definitely "newbie."

And he did not follow it up quickly with "but I'm against wage labor" or anything like that, so I'm pretty sure you can rule out the idea of it being an issue of semantic difference.

What did he follow it up with?

First of all, can you imagine any anarchist on this site saying "I'm not a socialist"? And how about any European anarchist? If so, then my impressions of European anarchism are way, way off.

Yes.

If you're going to keep bringing this shit up, you could try to come back with something a bit more substantial then "I met one/two/five people who are idiots!" Wow, splendid job. I know hundreds who have their shit together. Quit trying to dismiss the whole movement here as a joke because some people are morons. I'm sorry you seem to live in an area with a high percentage of them, but you could do the same thing with any political ideology.

Schrödinger's Cat

18th October 2008, 01:42