Anarchism, entryism, reformist parties, pre-post-scarcity, et al

[JacobVardy]

Firstly, I am sorry if this is the wrong place but I wanted to start a discussion that does not seam to be covered by any of the existing topics. If I am wrong please point me in the direction of a specific topic.

In essence I would describe myself as an anarchist without adjectives. I think the best way for a society to be organised is an environmental communal confederation, with shop floor co-operatives controlling industry. Obviously this is assuming this would be prior to any post-scarcity economy.

However, given that the objective conditions do not exist to bring this about now – i.e., a global depression / war. Hence I have joined a reformist party, the New South Wales Greens. I justify this on the grounds that the structure of the NSW Greens is anarchist / libertarian and this is the best forum to convince people of the superiority of anarchist ideals. A Trotskyite mate in my local group calls me an unconscious entryist. The communal-confederational structure of the Greens also shows that such a world might be possible. I also justify my reformism on the grounds that I am a socialist to make my and other workers lives better hence I can not ignore the opportunity to ameliorate the evils of a corporatist state.

Furthermore the (would be) revolutionary groups in my city (Sydney) are more interested in slagging each other off than organising.

I am looking for my comrades here to argue me out of this position. I am not comfortable with my conclusions.

[bellyscratch]

Furthermore the (would be) revolutionary groups in my city (Sydney) are more interested in slagging each other off than organising.


This is probably the biggest problem with the revolutionary left imo.

[BobKKKindle$]

Entryism is only an effective strategy if it can be used to change the politics of an organization from the inside, or if it results in the radical section of the membership breaking away and forming their own independent organization which upholds a radical program and is not constrained by the pressures of reformism. Entryism is only necessary if the working class is tied to an existing organization and there is no realistic possibility of a new party gaining mass support as long as the existing organization continues to exist and maintain its tis with the proletariat. Is this the case in Australia?

[JacobVardy]

Entryism is only necessary if the working class is tied to an existing organization and there is no realistic possibility of a new party gaining mass support as long as the existing organization continues to exist and maintain its tis with the proletariat. Is this the case in Australia?

I think that it is. The biggest party in Australia is the Labor [sic] Party. It was created by the trade union movement in the 1890s. The labour movement still has 50% of votes at party conferences. Unfortunately it is controlled by the Right faction. There is a Left, socialist faction but as far as i know, no where does it have more than 1/3 of the membership. All trade unions are part of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which is committed to parliamentary reformism. Culturally, Australian political activism has always been associaled with trade union activism.

The main socialist groups in Sydney are the non-active Communist Party, the Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Alternative. All three are active in parliamentary politics and in the last Commonwealth election called for a NSW Greens vote. There is a very small Trotskyite group, the Spartakist League but the only people who can read their jargonistic publications are other Marxists. There are a few anarchist groups but they are mainly focused around their book stalls and discussion groups. All of these groups are active in a small triangle between the three major universities – laughingly referred to as the Newton Soviet or the People’s Republic of Redern.

The advantages of the NSW Greens is that it is larger than all of the above groups and has recently been building links with the radical trade unions like the warfies (MUA), sparkies (ETA), fireries (UFU), builders and miners (CFMEU). A vast majority of the Greens say they are socialist and claim to want a socialist society. About 1 in 10 would be, like me, revolutionary socialist who do not beleive that the objective conditions exist for revolutionary action.

[JacobVardy]

This is probably the biggest problem with the revolutionary left imo.

At least where I live it is. The problem is that all the groups are competing for the same resource – people who want to be members of a revolutionary group. So the best short term tactic is to cannibalise other, similar groups.

[Bilan]

I am from Sydney, as are many others on this site interestingly.

[JacobVardy]

I am from Sydney, as are many others on this site interestingly.

Hey mate. Cool, so there are other Sydneysiders here? So do you think the SAlties will ever get their act together? I just can’t see the point of working for any of the small socialist / anarchist groups. Given the historical conditions i can not see how working class activism has any future out side the trade union movement.

[Potemkin]

If I may put in my two cents... I'm in the US, so the political analysis might be somewhat different, but, to "argue you out of your position,":

One of the most important differences between anarchists and political (and authoritarian) socialists is the focus on social revolution rather than political revolution. What is political revolution used for by socialists and communists? To either reform or take over the state through political means. Anarchists, on the other hand, wish to abolish the state from the outset, necessitating a focus on social revolution. What is social revolution? Building social movements (through the struggles of the oppressed) to eliminate state and capitalist exploitation.

I don't think, as an anarchist, joining a political party is the way to go. Certainly, no political party can be anarchist, though I'm sure the Greens try to be non-hierarchical. Representative democracy is not what anarchism is about. Anarchism is about direct democracy, where those affected by decisions being made have a direct say in the matter.

In addition, reformism, while perhaps necessary in some circumstances (to create the room for working-class struggle, for instance), from an anarchist perspective would take place outside of the electoral arena. We can develop projects in our own neighborhoods and communities that help the working class and exploited without even paying attention to politics, by creating tenants' unions to protect from foreclosure and eviction, developing food co-ops and community gardens to help meet the needs of the neighborhood from within the neighborhood, and generally begin the process of reorganizing our communities along more anarchistic lines (when I think of community projects, I keep four criteria in mind: does it make the neighborhood more: 1. self-sufficient, 2. sustainable, 3. autonomous, 4. communal).

Participating in electoral politics simply serves to legitimize that system and the government by extension.

Anyway, I hope this helps.