> 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.
Sure, there are successful projects like AK Press, but AK is not a political organization. I guess you could call AK an "institution" in the colloquial sense, but it's aim is not to become a huge publishing empire.
> 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."
Brian, I'm not as anti-organization as I look. I'm more accomodating towards organizations than my friends who hold more hard line views on organizations. I've been a member of the IWW on and off for years, as well as the ACC and other groups. Frankly, I think that we need all kind of different organizing strategies to succeed. But my problem with the "organizationalists" is that they tune out the ideas of those who are critical of organizations. Since I have some experience with radical and activist organizations, don't you think that my criticisms might be worth listening to for those who seek to create new organizations and avoid the same mistakes?
For example, why are anarchist groups that organize around being an anarchist group always such failures? Why are anarchist groups that are project- and campaign-oriented more successful, especially when it comes to creating new anarchists? What happens when organizations dominated by anarchists get bogged down with internal politics and process issues?
> > 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.
Sure. I really don't have the time or incentive to participate fully in this discussion. My comments are off the cuff. See the URL in the previous message for more writings on this subject.
> > 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.
Yes. I think this would be an excellent idea. I have two examples. The first is the Anti-Capitalist Convergence in D.C., which I helped found in the spring of last year. The purpose of this organization was to provide a framework for radical anti-capitalists who wished to organize large protests against the World Bank in September of last year. After the protests, we sat down and decided if we were going to continue as a group. We decided to continue, and based on what I know of the ACC's internal problems, I'd say now that we should have disbanded and organized differently, perhaps in a loose network.
The other example is the good ole IWW, which has been in existence for almost a century. If there ever was an organization that needed to "die" and reconstitute differently, the IWW is a good candidate. Of course, it could be argued that the IWW was moribund for decades, so it was effectively dead. However, as anybody in the IWW, or recently a member, can tell you, it's that the organization is still dominated by traditionalists who are hostile to any kind of radical reforms, or new directions.
Brian, I think you should talk to Flint Jones about this, since I pretty much agree with his opinions about where the IWW needs to go.
> > 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.
I'm silent because I'm not interested in responding to every post here, not do I want to overload this list with my posts. Three posts a day, right Doug?
> When you toss out
> something like "anarchists avoid institutions" you are appointing yourself
> voice of the movement.
No, I'm simply stating a fact, that anarchists dislike large organizations, even when some of them reluctantly form them (i.e. the IWW, CNT, etc.).
> 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.
I find this accusation to be offensive. I've found recently that I'm shot down every time I try to state my views. I understand that my voice has alot of sway in anarchist circles and I've tried to be quiet more, but I still have a right to voice my opinions and make arguments.
> 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?
Infoshop.org aims to provide news, articles, opinion, and resources from the broad range of the anarchist movement, as well as other social change movements. Infoshop.org reflects my personal philosophy of ecumenical "big tent" anarchism. Increasingly, more of Infoshop.org is created by other people, so my role is becoming more of a coordinator. If Infoshop.org is missing something, it's probably because something wasn't sent to me to add to the website.
> > 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?
There are alot of anarchist magazines out there, Brian, other than the "axis of evil" that you list above. Even those three magazines are wildly different. There are lots of narrow-minded idiots in the anarchist movement who think that these three magazines march in some kind of ideological lockstep, when Anarchy and Fifth Estate are general interest anarchist magazines and APR is simply a magazine that features the alternative press.
For the record, I've often disagreed with what Zerzan has written in Anarchy, but at least I understand that a general interest magazine has a range of viewpoints that aren't necessarily held by the editors of the magazine.
If you want riot porn, you should read Barricada. ;-)
> 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.
And Social Anarchism, Green Anarchy, Harbinger, Northeastern Anarchist, Onward, and so on.
<< Chuck0 >>
Personal homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/index.html Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)