I call myself an anarchist without adjectives. I consider myself to be a "big tent anarchist," which means one that recognizes that anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, individualism, social anarchism, and primitivism are all facets of contemporary anarchism. My position is similar to the vast majority of North American anarchists, who identify as "anarchists with adjectives" or eschew any kind of hyphenated anarchism.
An important part of my anarchism is that I reject the idea that the only kind of "acceptable anarchism" is that which aims to organize workers. I think that this is important, but I see that other struggles are important to social change, including networks like Food Not Bombs and Earth First, individual collectives and affinity groups, and work being done on certain issues (indigenous, media activism, etc.)
>> I never said that I was against marches and speeches. There are
>> perfect times and places for these things. I enjoy a good speaker as
>> much as the next comrade, but I think history has shown that a program
>> of social change that consists ONLY of approved marches and speakers
>> and permitted protest is not going to be one that makes any changes.
>> This was the nature of the American Left in the years leading up to
>> Seattle. Even the simple of idea of "civil disobedience' had been
>> bastardized by activists who got PERMITS to do CD.
> Sure, it goes without saying that getting permits from the government to
> do anything is a form of co-opting the struggle. Obviously, marches and
> speeches can do some to build a mass movement, but fall short of the
> real concrete organising that has to go on. Organising which consists of
> direct action and direct/delegate democracy, the arragement of
> revolutionary unions and anarchist federations, etc. Of course, there
> are many more facets to the struggle.
I agree with you here and would go so far as to say that we'd be better off if people spent less time at marches and more time doing worker organizing. Marches and rallies are easy. Going door to door, organizing workers like some friends in Baltimore are doing, is harder work.
Again, my position is that we should use all tools at our disposal, depending on the situation and context. But the Left has been mired in the passivity of marches and rallies for far too long.
Take some risks! Do civil disobedience! Do door to door organizing!
>> I don't know where Paul lives or what anarchist scene the is
>> describing, but anarchists certainly support other forms of opposition
>> to the state apparatus, the most significant being the decentralized
>> "Net War" strategy being used by anarchists and libertarian leftists
>> for the past 7 years. Paul maybe describing strategies that are common
>> among anarchists in Europe or Australia, but these strategies are a
>> minority tendency among American anarchists. At this time, the first
>> strategy is being promoted by NEFAC in the U.S. The second strategy is
>> represented by anarchists who work with the IWW and within less
>> radical labor unions.
>
>
> First of all, I come from the north west coast of the anarchist
> movement, in north america. Since the anarchist movement in north
> america is currently incredibly weak and in many cases disorganised
> [there being many exampls where we have consistently failed to mount
> sufficient opposition over several issues, for example building a strong
> anti-war movement right now], my comments on the anarchist movement were
> naturally a reflection of the dominant currents in north america, but
> primarily the currents in the coutnries with more developed anarchist
> movements, namely Argentina, Brazil, Spain, France, Germany, and such.
I argue that the dominant currents in North America are not the same as those in the rets of the world, although the situation is changing in Europe, especially in the U.K.
I'm not sure how to charcterize the anarchist movement in North America, but is is much larger and more organized know than it was 5 years ago. There has been quite an explosion of interest in anarchism, with there now being lots of anarchist activism in major cities and smaller stuff happening in rural areas.
For example, I get emails from rural anarchists all the time. There is also stuff happening in small cities that you wouldn't expect. Omaha, Nebraska has a new infoshop and has had a Critical mass ride. I just heard that Kirksville, Missouri has a new radical space. There is a new website for "Anarchy in Kansas" and Lawrence has a growing IWW chapter.
> To my knowledge, there is no implementation of this "net war" strategy
> you speak of, and this is an important point you bring up. There is this
> illusion among some who like to give themselves the title "anarchist"
> that there exists massive networks of anarchists who are actually
> opposed to the federational approach to organising, which has been the
> hallmark of anarchist unity for well over a century.
First of all, there are some anarchists out there who are opposed to the federational model, but many anarchists are simply doing things differently. Yes, this model has been used for over a century around the world, but it has been uncommon in the United States.
There has been widespread implementation of Net War in the U.S. and around the world. This strategy is why the summit protests have become so large and successful. It's the strategy I've been using for the past 7 years. This strategy has been well-described in books and articles, so it's hard to argue that it doesn't exist.
> So, lets look at the anarchist organisations that do exist. Besides a
> myriad of collectives, *many of which are currently engaged in forming
> anarchist federations*, we have already existing federations like the
> North Eastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists [NEFAC], the Great Lakes
> Federation of Revolutionary Anarchist COllectives [GL-FRAC], the
> community anti-capitalist coalition [CLAC], and even our own
> semi-deceased historical society, the IWW [to clarify, many IWW
> organisers do strong work out here on the west coast, but as an
> organisational whole, the IWW is a nostalgia cult in many ways. I still
> keep an IWW membership in this sense].
Aha! You've made a great leap towards identifying anarchism with ORGANIZATIONS. That is an extremely ass-backwards way to explain the current anarchist movement in North America, because most anarchists are not members of organizations. Many are involved with local groups and collectives. They work within coalitions that focus on certain issues. they are involved in anarchistic networks like Food Not Bombs, Earth First, Homes Not Jails, and the Independent Media Center network. I know many anarchist geeks that aren't part of any big organizations. We have ou collectives: Flag, Tao, Mutualaid, Riseup.net and so on.
I haven't even gotten started on the anarchists involved in the peace and justice movement.
> The history of anarchist organising has told us that anarchist groups
> that fail to unite through federations become isolated, and eventually
> reformist in character. They turn inwards upon themselves, and almost
> withdraw from class warfare. For example, we can look at the extremely
> reactionary and individualist politics of the Direct Action Network
> [DAN], an almost wholly protest organisation. Or we can point to the
> German Autonomen, who came from the lengthy German Autonomist movement.
> We can even look no further than our own backyard, and see what has
> happened to the Chicago anarchist movement, and it's adoption of
> non-anarchist politics in the form of mild affinity with the ideas of
> one "the prince" hakim.
A federation is alot like a network, but with more formalized membership and agenda. The Direct Action Network is not a good example to use here, because of its moderate politics. But it is worth mentioning because it has many anarchists involved, anarchists who wouldn't be counted by certain anarchists who only consider organizations that are explicitly anarchists as being the place to find anarchists.
>> Thank you. My intention has never been to posit myself as being the
>> most radical. Shit, if you knew anything about me, you'd understand
>> that personally I'm not very radical. However, I think that we've
>> learned alot in recent years about what works. Why are the
>> anti-globalization movements growing? It's not because of any of the
>> standard tactics being used, like marches or rallies. It's not because
>> we're all trying to build one radical party.
>
>
> But we are trying to build a mass movement of opposition to capitalism
> on a global level, which is what i was trying to say. Our Idea of
> building a mass movement, however, rejects the idea of imitating
> burgeois structures and using a political party.
> by the CPN.
But you are still subscribing to the idea of building one movement. The nature of anti-capitalist opposition in recent years has been one of many movements, some of which use the Net War strategy.
>> In most cases, I fail to see the difference. We understand what
>> happens when these movements succeed. They replicate the old structure
>> and frequently make life worse for those under their control.
>
>
> I agree, they replicate the old structure of relationships, but with
> subtle differences. I don't think it is sufficient or even proper to
> latch onto the capitalist arguement that marxism = fascism, because I
> don't think this is entirely true. Marxism is a diverse range of
> theories, and even though the strongest currents have consistently led
> to fascism and near-fascism in many respects, there are noteworthy
> differences. besides, it is the capitalists who are the true inheritors
> of the fascist tradition, and who use fascist reaction to supress
> revolutionary movements. Let us also not forget that while groups like
> the CPN in Nepal are imitiating burgeois structures, and we can even say
> engaged in work that is counter-revolutionary on many respects, they are
> still made up of people in desperate conditions of poverty with real
> needs and real aspirations. It is important to support people in
> struggle, even sometimes when we have disagreements over how that
> struggle is being carried out. This doesn't mean we should support the
> CPN, it means we should support the rank and file militant, and hope
> they can be educated or persuaded around this issue.
Yes, Marxists have a diverse range of theories. But I would still be critical of any movement that advocates theories and praxis that we know leads to oppressive and brutal regimes.
>> Yes, it's a matter of figuring out what works, especially when we
>> don't have enough experiential knowledge to decide. But another thing
>> to keep in mind is that what works in one part of the world may not
>> work somewhere else. If we can learn anything from the century of
>> authoritarian communism, it's that models aren't applicable and
>> exportable to every situation. The Zapatistas will choose a path that
>> is different than working people in the U.S. or Canada.
>
>
> I agree that "finding what works" is critical, and this is especially
> true of Anarchism - anarchism develops very much within the cultures it
> exists, bringing elements into those cultures that share a common thread
> with all cultures anarchists work in. However, I disagree with the idea
> of adopting "identity politics", of merely saying that [to paraphrase]
> "the zapatists have chosen a different path from us, let them have it".
> I think this is the wrong approach, because we are creating an "us and
> them" barrier, and it is very much a denial of the objective reality
> that exists around us [I most frequently see this arguement eminating
> from po-mo marxists and their ilk].
The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't one magic model or bullet. In other words, our goal should not be a world in which every village is identical. It would be nice if all of them where anarchist-communist-libertarian, but local conditions will mandate some variation on the main theme.
> What I'm trying to get at is that there are very concrete and systematic
> cases, and maybe the Zapatista case is one of them, where we can say
> that some things were done wrong and maybe we shouldn't quite do them
> like this. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the politics of Chris
> Day, an old Love and Rager and sometimes maoist who visited the
> Zapatistas. He came back from that experience very much in conflict with
> anarchist practice partly because he adopted identity politics, and saw
> what they were doing as more appropriate. If we look at what the
> Zapataistas actually have gained in struggle today, we can say that
> possibly they should have done some things differently, and it may have
> cost them their movements and their freedom - we don't know yet, but the
> mexican government has been slowly encroaching and encircling for some
> time now. Specifically, being mixed up with Catholic politics in the
> region and the peacetalks really sunk the Zapatista cause. This being
> said, I still support the Zapatista in their just struggle, I merely
> disagree with some of the forms that struggle has taken.
I'm familiar with Mr. Day and could go on for several hours about his politics and how he screwed up the anarchist movement in North America.
I'm sure we could find a variety of ways to critique the Zapatistas, but lookign at the big picture, I see a group of people without resources who went on the offensive, gained world solidarity, and who have held the Mexican government at a standoff for almost a decade.
I find this very encouraging and inspirational.
>> I think most anarchists would disagree with that last statement,
>> because we understand that there is a political angle to scientific
>> progress and technology. These institutions imply certain
>> relationships and systems. It doesn't take a wild-eyed primitivist to
>> point this out.
>
>
> My exact point is that there is a political angle to scientific process
> and technology, in fact a socio-political/economical angle to this
> process. And it is this very thing which some people who claim to be
> "anarchist", yet have no real connection to the anarchist movement
> [primitivists, as you have mentioned, come to mind], miss entirely.
I consider some of the primitivists as anarchists and I know that most of them have a real connection to the movement and everyday activism.
> We must always be careful, as anarchists, to place things and functions
> in their appropriate context. When we don't, we are creating
> abstractions, objectifications of reality that satisify our own petty
> illusions that help us "cope" with the world and objective reality.
True. But we shouldn't be afraid to discuss these issues, which some anarchists are. This is why people like myself get attacked and have our views represented, because a few anarchists think that we are a vanguard for ideas that they think are too dangerous to consider.
> Capitalism is a context. So too is anarchism, marxism, etc. And we can
> say also that industrial developement that, under capitalism, as vastly
> different functions and implications [both on the environment and on
> people] than it does under anarchism. We can say that there is a
> correlative relationship between the context and the function being
> conducted under the context, and that when you change the context, the
> intentons behind the function [and therefore the very nature oif the
> function itself] changes. Far from being luddites, Anarchist theorists,
> from the beginning of anarchist thought to the present, have
> consistently and always attacked those who possessed these luddite
> views, and have always heralded sceintific progress as being beneficial
> to the growth and development of mankind *under certain contexts, such
> as anarchism*.
That's only partially true. Yes, some anarchists have criticized Luddites and think that technology is wonderful if it is run by anarchists. But there is also a long tradition of anarchist critique of technology that includes critics like Bookchin, McQuinn, Zerzan, Watson, and others. Frankly, I think that anarchists have been more skeptical of scientific progress than being for it, especially if you consider all of the anarchist involvement in envrionmental struggles over the past 35 years.
Remember that Murray Bookchin wrote "Our Synthetic Environment" in the early 60s and has long been bitter that Rachel Carson got more fame for her similar book.
>> I also think that the dismissal of "going back to the land" is an easy
>> way to dismiss much of what anarchists have been arguing for over a
>> century. We understand from ecology and other sciences that cities are
>> unsustainable. If you doubt this, I invite you to experience
>> Washington, DC on a Code Red day. Personally, I like cities, but I
>> think that if our planet is to survive into the next century, we're
>> going to have to change the ways that we live, especially in the
>> Global North.
>
>
> I agree that Cities, in their current incarnation, under the context of
> capitalism, are unsustainable in many ways. I don't need to experience a
> "code red day" to understand this, nor do I need to visit the slums of
> Sao Paulo, Brazil or Mexico City. And while I agree there is a very
> serious threat to the eco-system and environment, I don't see this
> threat as "bearing fruit" within the next century. I think there are
> major consquences, but not "our very survival". This kind of
> fear-mongering only serves to discredit ourselves when we try to point
> out the real ecological damage and destruction being done.
If we agree that capitalism is destroyign the planet and bringing us to the point of widespead ecological catastrophe--which is well explained in the scientific press--then we have to examine the aspects of capitalism that cuase this problem. Cities have to go on the top of the list because they are responsible for many of these problems. Traffic pollutes the air and requires immense resource extraction in order to exist.
> While I do agree that the nature of farming needs to be changed, and the
> mode of living with the land needs to be changed, I don't see this
> change coming under the context of capitalism. I see it being realized
> under the context of anarchism, and I see it as a gradual process,
> marked with rapid advances and years of settling into the gains of those
> advances. As far as "going back to the land", in some kind of luddite
> sense, this is entirely ridiculous. It is not even worth debating on
> this list, and I doubt any serious anarchist would ever, ever argue in
> favour of this kind of "luddite" mentality. Certainly evne the
> anarchists of the great Spanish Revolution argued against the luddites
> [who thankfully in that time never claimed to be anarchists] of their time.
I think this will be a gradual process, if it isn't forced by a sudden cataclysm, which is a strong possibility.
I don't know, I think the luddites were right. Their way of living was being replaced by technology that made working conditions worse. Seems like a rational reaction to me!
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------ Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.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)