Results 1 to 20 of 24
Anarchist Mass Organization in The U.S.
Over 150 years of the anarchist theoretical and organizing tradition have passed, yet anarchist influence in the United States is practically non-existent. In some local contexts, we do see occasional anarchist influence, but in a nationwide context anarchists are practically irrelevant.
There has been a conversation brewing for a few years among some anarchists. This conversation has moved forward specifically in a grouping of organizations that have come together in recent years around the Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences. Since the first Class Struggle Anarchist Conference in New York City in 2008, it’s been increasingly clear that these different organizations have a great deal of agreement and could be strengthened by unification into a nationwide anarchist organization.
In anticipation for an upcoming conference of these organizations that intends to found this single, nationwide organization, this article is an effort to bring together the many arguments for why such an organization is desirable. More than that, I hope to show the inspirational possibilities of such an organization in the broader anarchist movement, so that this organization can take off after its founding.
http://redandblack.rocus.org/?p=72
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]narcho
ommunism
[/FONT]
even while i reject organizational structures (excluding certain basis-democratic topic-based infrastructures & affinity style groups) more power to them if thats their thing.
The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less than he Whom thunder hath made greater?
Here at least We shall be free
Platformism will not solve the problems of anarchism's irrelevance
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
sweet, looks interesting is there anything like this in Canada?
Speaking badly of anarchism will not solve the problem of communism's unpopularity.
And anarchism is not irrelevant! What makes you think that?
There's no such thing as anarchist mass organizations anywhere in the world anymore, except maybe the CNT in Spain.
The topic is about anarchism in the USA. I live here so I can confirm that yeah, it's pretty irrelevant.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Ever heard of americentrism?
This thread is about Anarchism in the US. A thread about an American situation should focus on America, duh.
Even the fact that many users from the usa don't say where they are from, or say something like "a hole in the ground", is evidence of americentrism.
But you are right, this thread is about an organisation in the USA.
Revolutionary politics in general are pretty irrelevant (in the grand political context, not to individuals or small groups perhaps). That's no more than logical in a non-revolutionary period.
And, as Psycho said, good for them. I genuinely hope they can get some interesting experiences and interventions out of the project. I don't think it'll matter that much (my misgivings about platformism, or syndicalism for that matter, aside) as the 'organisational problem' is not solved through finding the correct form (whether found in 'getting our forces together', 'centralism' or 'decentralization') from which the content will spring. That's putting the cart before the horse. But yeah, best of luck to those involved
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree..."
- John Milton -
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
- Amadeo Bordiga
I think the article linked in the OP makes a lot of correct and crucial arguments about why unity is needed. If successful, members of the diverse Marxist sects could perhaps learn from it and themselves jump over their own shadows.
That being said, I think the text misses the crucial point of programme: What is the basis of this unity project? What is the common strategic trajectory that describes our journey from here to working class power and to communism beyond? A programmatic document furthermore would help to pin the organisation in that any leadership can be made answerable to the membership for any opportunist moves.
So, this is what I would call a partyist project and I warmly welcome the initiative for that reason, but it is still somewhat 'proto' and we'll need to see how it develops.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
^This, I really like the idea. Putting aside my own positions on various things, I like the idea because we saw how Occupy just blew up overnight, I personally think a lot more people, particularly the younger generations are more aware, familiar, etc. in general with Anarchism. I'd even be willin to participate.Revolutionary politics in general are pretty irrelevant (in the grand political context, not to individuals or small groups perhaps). That's no more than logical in a non-revolutionary period.
And, as Psycho said, good for them. I genuinely hope they can get some interesting experiences and interventions out of the project. I don't think it'll matter that much (my misgivings about platformism, or syndicalism for that matter, aside) as the 'organisational problem' is not solved through finding the correct form (whether found in 'getting our forces together', 'centralism' or 'decentralization') from which the content will spring. That's putting the cart before the horse. But yeah, best of luck to those involved
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
And this hasn't been tried before? Besides most sects,
a) sometimes diverge on crucial matters which would make 'unity' a complete and utter farce in anything but name
b) are numerically so insignificant that even unity won't matter that much
Do you truly believe this? How have programmatic documents prevented such a thing in the past? What use is programmatism in an era where it has become structurally impossible to conquer a stable ground for the proletariat? (never mind the fact that working class affirmation is problematic from a communist perspective in the first place)
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree..."
- John Milton -
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
- Amadeo Bordiga
The Constitution section doesn't strike me as anarchist when it comes to membership. It seems more like a socialist party structure rather than a mass anarchist organizing group.
"[People] act like its some kind of rock solid homogeneous body of masculine oiled men with big hammers and flat caps standing outside factory gates chewing tobacco and muttering 'those damn petit-bourgeois students and their alienating camera-smashing, I sure love me some CCTV! Don't you, comrade stakhnov?'." - Ravachol
I think that Occupy Wall Street was a lot different than any group such as this (prospective) group, though. OWS was a broad loose collection of people, it didn't have an official ideology so people could project whatever beliefs they had unto it. It simply represented a broad opposition to the status quo and that's why you had everyone from liberals to libertarians to communists and anarchists interacting with it.
I could easily imagine something like that happening again. Transforming that into a rigid, structural form such as a communist party or an "anarchist party", though? I honestly can't imagine that happening in the USA.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
I noticed this too. Reading the document made me think of a lot of leninist/kautskyite concepts of mass partyism and struck me as odd for anarchists. I guess it just shows that I've been out of the anarchist loop for too long or that I talk to too many anarchist-communists who might as well be ultra-left marxists. I think I missed this part in the document, but which anarchist groups will be merging?
sounds pretty standard for platformist groups to me
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
I always thought a more regional basis (think like NEFAC) would have been more "doable" but if they can pull this off more power to them.
Although I don't see how exactly this will solve US anarchism's problems, yet I guess I could say it may provide the means or make it easier to do so.
But it depends on how you frame the problem. A lot of organizations seem very recruitment-minded and tbh I can only forsee all pro-rev ideologies to be fringe until the "eve" of the revolution. Also so far a lot of these kinds of organizations are very "activist" orientated, going to symbolic protests and demos mostly. What I'm more concerned at this point is not exactly "spreading the ideologies" to the masses but to help foment more militancy among people whether they wanna do a wild-cat strike, fight tuition increases, or whatever.
"My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay
"if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm
"Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie
"The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus
