> I get them from working with anarchists. Where do you get yours, the back
> of a cereal box?
I actually believe that you do get these ideas from "working with anarchists."
> Yes, anarchists have created their own institutions, but for the most
> part, these institutions have been failures. What Brian is conveniently
> ignore
Wait a minute - who are you talking to? "The audience"?
Some institutions have been failures; some haven't. It's hard to say that AK Press is a failure, for example. It's pretty much succeeding at what it has set out to do.
> is all the self-management and organic associations that
> anarchists form all the time for a variety of purposes. These projects may
> last for one action, or they may last for a few years. Most of the
> organizing that anarchists do does NOT have the goal of creating permanent
> institutions.
You said an "institution" * by defintion* was something that was interested in its own self-preservation. Your words, not mine. By your own definition, any sort of democratic or libertarian organization that is interested in preserving itself is a much-dreaded "institution." 1) That's a silly way to define institutions, and 2) I think any meaningful movement towards radically direct democracy would want to defend its institutions; i.e. we would hope they would be able to preserve themselves. Unless we are suicidal and want things to fail in order to remain "pure."
> There are good reasons why anarchists avoid institution-building. There
> are plenty of writings on this subject.
Are they more convincing than you? I'd love to see them.
> I'm talking about organic groups that have a lifespan. You are advocating
> a form of leftism that believes that permanent institutions are the way to
> achieve rdical social change.
These are the sorts of things - the lifespan of an organization - that should be decided by the people working in them, and by the people affected by their working. Are you proposing there be a self-destruct button in every organization so that it explodes automatically, whether the people wish it to or not? That's bizarre.
> When post-leftists argue that anarchism is
> still plagued by leftist thinking, we are talking about the quasi-Leninism
> that you are advocating.
Since when is Leninism the belief that people ought tohold insitutions and organizations accountable, and destroy them if they want, or preserve them if that is what they wish? In what weird alchemy does "permanence" become "oppression"?
> No, I'm simply making an argument for my views. I never said I was an
> ambassador for anarchism, but I have been an anarchist for over 15 years.
Now, thankfully, you are finally arguing your views, instead of just tossing them out and remaining silent when challenged. When you toss out something like "anarchists avoid institutions" you are appointing yourself voice of the movement. Infoshop.org is a well designed website - but increasingly you've assumed an unwarranted voice of authority upon what the movement and its beliefs consist of. WHat you've chosen to omit or emphasize, in your website or in forums like this, is often completely at odds with anything that is egalitarian, anti-authoritarian, or democratic. Forget about whether it is anarchism or not - how about, does it make sense or not?
> Folks need to know that Brian has a extremely narrow definition of what an
> anarchist is, which allows him to conveniently define away much of
> anarchism that doesn't toe his party line. This is a typical logical
> evasion practiced by many hard line anarcho-syndicalists.
Whatever, Chuck.
> Brian, perhaps you should read more anarchist literature other than
> Anarcho-Syndicalist Review.
Well, let's see, you wouldn't mean anything like AJODA or Alternative Press Review or Fifth Estate would you. I do try to keep down my lunch, you know. After about the thrid interview with Kaczynski in AJODA I wondered why I was spending money on the magazine any more. Between intereviews with Kaczynski, the "noble savage" fantasies of Zerzan, and the riot porn, it was hard to not make my own molotv with the zine. And what was it that McQUinn stated in a certain 1992 issue of Alt Press Review?
But of course there's The Match, Arsenal, and Barricada. And I've not only read these, I've had articles printed in some of them, Chuck0.
Cheers, Brian