Also, you'll see anarchist groups discussing situations where undemocratic leadership is the better choice:
"Say there are two mass organizations, both with a lot of
conservative members. One is highly democratic and votes to
exclude racial minorities or to oppose a program of member
education around racial oppression within the organization and in
society. The other is highly undemocratic, with a leadership to
the left of its membership. In the second organization, the
leadership undemocratically creates a program to educate members
about race and changes the members’ attitudes. Clearly both of
these situations are highly imperfect. Clearly the second is
preferable.
"Above all, we should strive to create the conditions wherein an
organization can act democratically and make good decisions in a
democratic fashion. Sometimes this means encouraging democratic
processes even though this will result in worse decisions than if
an enlightened leadership made them. Other times, however,
certain issues are important enough that being less than fully
democratic is worth it because it will avoid catastrophes or
create conditions which change members’ consciousness over time."
— http://ideasandaction.info/2011/06/mottoes-and-watchwords/
Now, of course you'll probably meet mechanical anarchists who go overboard on process. They'll adhere to rules even when they lead to terrible outcomes. But when studying any field, like anarchism, we want to learn from the best parts, not confine ourselves to the silly parts.
And I think anarchism is really good at developing a more sophisticated understanding of power relations, if you're serious about extracting the good parts and dumping the silly.
All the best,
Tj
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Gar Lipow <gar.lipow at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 5:49 AM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I an not an anarchist, and in a growing and vigorous mass movement the
>> relative 'weight' of anarchists would steadily decline. But I cannot
>> understand why, at the present time, anyone seriously interested in
>> building an anti-capitalist movement should not see the role of
>> anarchists to date as wholly positive. And, moreover, I cannot see any
>> focus on errors, mistaken tactics, inadequate strategy as other than
>> the irresponsible behavior of mere observers, ignorant of the
>> unavoidable messiness of a movement in its early stages.
>> Does anyone have a response yet to my question as to a non-sexist and
>> non-ageist synonym for "old women" in Luxemburg's 1898 speeches? We
>> really need such a term.
>>
>> Carrol
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>. Of course, there is an inherent limit to anarchists as leaders ,
>> because anti-leadership is their fundamental principle.
>
> Not to all anarchists. Many anarchists do believe in leadership, just
> not via state authority. Not an anarchist my self, be the whole
> "leaderlessness" is only one segment of anarchism, though currently a
> very important one in on-the-ground organizing.
>>
>> The unity of anarchists, socialists and communists brings to mind the
>> Haymarket events and May Day.
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
> --
> Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow
> Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com
> Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/
> Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk