I think this "big tent" claim is a cop-out, a way of saying that ideologies that are really anti-thetical to anarchism are part of anarchism. It's like me saying im a "big tent socialist" and saying that "nationalism socialism" is part of socialism. I think you're using this label to introduce ideologies which are very opposed to and anti-thetical to anarchism into your little anarchist pantheon, and I strongly disagree with it. Individualism [even of the Sternerite school] and primitivism, much the same as anarcho-capitalism, are not part of the anarchism. They are outside ["burgeois influences", as Luigi Fabbri called them] ideologies that try and associate themselves with a broader mass movement that has an established history of theory and practice.
>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.)
This is rather vague, and what I think you're trying to do is attack anarchism because, as anarchists, one of the things we do is seek to organise working class people and empower them to organise themselves into revolutionary, libertarian associations that are communal and collective in nature. Obviously, there is no part of anarchism that has the idea that the only work anarchists do is in exlusively organising workers and the unemployed - a crucial part of anarchism is propagandizing, organising anarchists themselves into federations, etc. Food Not Bombs is a good example of a group that seeks to support the have-nots of society.
Earth First is not an anarchist organisation, and i've met several Earth First!ers who have in fact emphatically stated they are not anarchists. In fact, some Earth First!ers are even primitivists, whose ideology is wholly anti-thetical to anarchism.
>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.
My position is that we shouldn't use all the methods at our disposal, because many of those methods are anti-thetical to anarchist principles. I believe that the means we use in organising has to be consistent with the stated ends we are trying to achieve.
>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 think the dominant currents in North America and the UK are similar to the rest of the world. As everywhere, anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalist are the two recognized strains of anarchism that are consistent with anarchist principles and have survived as solid theoretical and practical applications of anarchism. This is why anarch-communists, following the 1917 bolshevik coup, started referring to themselves merely as "anarchists" or anarchists without adjectives, partly because the word "communism" was slandered, and partly because of anarcho-communisms position in the anarchist movement.
>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.
That's right. It's larger and more organised, and with that comes the attracted attention of minority fringe ideologies that seek to latch on to a growing healthy organisation like parasites. NEFAC, GL-FRAC, CLAC, the resurgence in IWW organising, and various local collectivse and projects are all good examples of this.
>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.
Actually, anarchism has its very roots in federationalism. Anarchism arose as a social movement from advocates of Federations [Proudhon and so forth]. And although they developed strongly, one of the core principles they carried was the use of the Federation as a key way of organising society. And this model has been common the north america, and has only been "uncommon" when the anarchist movement itself was supressed, or in a weakened state where it could not muster a federation. People who call themselves anarchists who are opposed to one of the core principles of anarchist organisation - the federation - are in fact not anarchists. just as a nazi is not a socialist.
>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.
This is complete bullshit. As someone who has actually organised for "summit protests", I know first hand that the organisational basis comes from individuals and collectives that organise through the dissemination of information and agitation in local communities. Could you give some well documented examples, with a bibliography of these supposed books and articles, and explain to us all the correlation between this and actual organising around summit protests?
>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.
You speak about identifying anarchism with organisations as if anarchism doesn't have practical methods of organising that are consistent with its principles. Anarchists aren't against organisation. It's not a matter of whether or not we want to organise against the state and capitalist social relations, it's a matter of *how*. You're attack against anarchist organisation is right in line with the marxist attack, it's one of misrepresentation.
BTW, "local groups an collectives" are, surprisingly enough, forms of organisation. Also, speaking as a member of the TAO *Federation*, I would like to point out that the TAO Communications Federation is, in fact, a Federation [go figure]. It's not a matter of whether our organisations are large or small, it's *how* they organise and what for.
>I haven't even gotten started on the anarchists involved in the peace and
>justice movement.
Like, for example, the Anarchist Black Cross Federation?
>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.
sure, I am subscribing to the idea of building one unified mass movement, consisting of many diverse parts representing all sectors of the have-not population throughout the globe. This idea of a unified movement isn't new, and I'm proud to "subscribe" to it. And here we go again with the net wars bullshit...
>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.
Obviously, there isn't a "magic model or bullet". There are many diverse options put forward by different sectors of the anarchist movement. For example, the question of Platformist Federations vs. the Synthesis Federation model, the role of programs, etc. I'm not argueing for some kind of strict ideologicla uniformity, only that the theory and practice known as "anarchism" has identifiable characterists and principles that distinguish it from other theories and practices that are not "anarchist", no matter how much they may claim to be.
>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 would never blame a maoist for 'screwing up' the north american anarchist movement, that gives him way too much credit. I think it's safe to say he had divergent opinions, and abandoned anarchism for some bastardized maoist-anarchist synthesis. Whatever, he can do what he wants.
>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.
I consider none of the primitivists as anarchists, just as i consider none of the 'libertarian' capitalists as anarchists, and no fascist as an anarchist.
>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.
You think you're views get mis-represented because a minority in the anarchist movement believe you're too dangerous? That sounds fairly egotistical, and at best i think the majority of the anarchist movement give a chuckle whenever they hear some primitivist claiming that the unabomber or john zerzan are anarchists. Similarily, we give the same chuckle when some anarcho-capitalist tells us that we aren't really anarchists, and that "free market" anarchism is some true form, etc.
>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.
No, you're still not getting it. Anarchists who criticise luddite knee-jerk reactions to technology, like those you are currently advocating, don't think technology is "wonderful". You still don't seem to understand that technology is neither "good" or "bad". It simply is, and we cannot give human characteristics to an inhuman thing. That is personification, it's not real. When we, as anarchists, talk about technology we talk about the positive or negative effects of its application under the current or possible alternative socio-economic contexts.
>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'm not an advocate of Murray Bookchin. I own his "The Spanish Anarchists" published by AK Press, I've read most of his work, but i'm not very impressed with most of his stuff. and it's clear his "libertarian municipalism" isn't anarchism, hence why it's called "libertarian municipalism" instead of anrachism. That being said, most attacks against Bookchin from primitivists and their ilk are usually personal attacks and complete unsubstantiated.
>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.
No, you're still not getting it. We don't say "because X piece of technology is being used to kill people under capitalism, it is bad" we say "X piece of technology is being used to kill people because it is being used in teh context of capitalism in this way, and under anarchism we could use it in a different way and it would take on a different form" etc. So we don't say "cities under capitalism are bad therefore cities are bad". This is a stupid arguement. By this arguement, no one should eat with knives because people are killed everyday with knives.
>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!
Technology can either be used by people to serve humanity or deteriment it for personal greed. For the majority of the worlds population, the problem isn't that technology is making living conditions worse, but that lack of access to technology and resources is continuing their poverty and opression.
Paul
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx