we can assume then, that what they don't want is to participate in the elections or debate over what to do about austerity measures. if that is not their intention, then blaming them for failing to achieve electoral impact or to turn around the austerity tide isn't internal criticism.
the only self-criticism that can possibly matter to is to ask, for example, "If these are our goals, to create alternative institutions and to NOT participate in conventional politics, then is what we're doing achieving those goals?"
if they are not participating in conventional politics and are satisfied with the alternative organizations they are building, then they are doing what they want to achieve. so, you disagree with them on their end goals. you happen to do other things to achieve your goals in the group to which you belong. forgot the name? that's your bag. Isn't the self criticism for you and your group to pursue as to whether *you* achieve your goals?
Graeber points out that anarchists - small a's - aren't interested in getting people to join in and do exactly what they are doing; rather, they are interested in getting people to self-organize and address the problems that they think are most important. That is because, at this point in political struggle, the mass of people aren't even politically aware, let alone radicalized.
There are different types of political action on this view:
1. direct action at the point of production (strikes) 2. direct action at the point of destruction (blockades) 3. direct action at the point of consumption (boycotts) 4. direct action at the point of decision (shutting down legislatures, meetings of world leaders, and the informal networking and d-making that takes places where the elite hobnob) 5. direct action at the point of assumption (occupations; culture jamming)
direct action folks argue that it takes all of these for an effective political struggle.
wha
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)