> I've been reading up about it. The most striking thing is the
> almost comically broad range of incompatible ideas that fall
> under the banner of "anarchism" these days -- ranging from
> the admirable to the absurd to the repugnant -- coupled with
> a widespread vagueness/indifference among young US
> anarchists themselves as to which of these they sympathize
> with. I'm the last person who insists on adopting catechisms
> or ideological branding, but this is unfortunate since it creates
> a sort of laissez-faire open door policy for any insane idea.
I am a strong believer in the need to sharpen the collective consciousness and organization of OWS and the whole now international thing. The issue of power is paramount, and the power we care about is -- as I insist -- the productive force of labor re-appropriated by the producers (and here, my notion is very broad, and it only excludes a small percentage of high power capitalists), rehabbed, and re-aimed at building a society of free individuals. And that through all the transitions and obstacles that may be necessary to go through and overcome. I have no illusions about the difficulty of this enterprise. In fact, all the other revolutions and conflicts we've seen in the last 100 years plus, as bloody and nasty as they were, have to be duly taken as relevant historical lessons for *this* movement as far as what they tell us about the willingness of vested interests to defend themselves by all means.
But we have seen enough history to both know that popular movements, revolutions, etc. are far from having once and for all resolved the issues involved. In other words, we have to be humble about the whole thing to admit that this movement is going to discover novel approaches and ways, and that requires that we be very mindful and respectful of process. The notion that we can, by some enlightened and sophisticated process of active indoctrination, achieve the type of unity of purpose and depth of consciousness required to build the structures we say we're trying to build, is naive. I'm not saying this to discourage such work, but to acknowledge its limitations.
The process of struggle is going to settle these matters -- we have to call things as we judge them, but we also have to remain open minded. I've come to see current breadth of scope and appeal, as loosy goosy as it may seem, as an asset. (Yes, it may also become a liability!) Immediate effectiveness in the struggle is indeed crucial. Immediate victories are required. We don't need martyrdom, but there's no other time in history in which retaining the high moral ground is more crucial. The ultimate success of the movement hinges on winning hearts and minds, and that is through victories that are deemed legit by those not yet incorporated. We should play to win before pretty formidable forces. But at this point, I insist, we are (mainly) talking to one another, not to the other side.
The insane ideas out there are not going to be dispelled easily. What is required is a very prolonged process of education in and through the struggle. Thinking more of the immediate possibilities, the movement allows for the formation of work or working groups, sort of caucuses, where people with some ideological affinities can work together. The possible initiatives are endless. It's just that Marxists and other conscious socialists shouldn't try and view it as their role to take a leadership role by some rather mechanical means. The rules of the process are to be respected and, at times, it may not be a bad idea to sin on the side of consideration for the spirit (and not just the letter) of the rules involved. (By the way, this not far from Lenin's own approach when he realized the revolutionary potential of the Soviets, which emerged rather spontaneously during the 1905 revolution in Russia.)
Can't edit it now.