Anarchism. 'Organisation'? 'Leadership'?

[Spanky Longhorn]

What happened to the attempts of the WSM to set up branches over here on the mainland?

www.libertyandsolidarity.org

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Whilst I don't accept the idea that anarchism is an end (rather it's the means and the ends), in principle, I don't think what you describe as an anarchist classless stateless society would be different from a communist classless stateless society. The two issues I would have, though, are:

First, I have serious doubts as to how easy it would be to move from the so-called workers state to the classless stateless society. I think the lessons of history needs to be listened to, here.

Secondly, I reject the idea of a workers state, because, even if you see it only as a means to an end, I don't agree that the ends justifies those means, neither philosophically nor practically.

I don't think we're going to achieve a communist, classeless, stateless society in the foreseeable future. At best the most we're going to achieve any time soon if we're lucky is a bit more community and class control of resources, the struggle for that will give us the space to argue for anarchist communist ideas, but little more than that. Not only that but we have to accept that a victory in the short term, that manages to reverse some of the attacks on the postwar settlement will serve to strengthen and reinvigorate capitalism, and demonstrate that it can answer the needs of enough people to ensure its continued majority support.

I would also say that I do not agree with the broad church approach to anarchism. Anarchism is nothing if not part of the wider working class movement - it needs to come from and respond to the self identified needs of the working class - not from abstract ivory towers or dusty pamphlets. Obviously there is a multiplicity of tactics and strategies available within that criteria but lets not get hung up on an approach that is either tied to old ideas, or open to any old toot.

 

[PeterTCA]

The notion of some sort of political utopia is absurd. The forces of servitude and the forces of freedom will always be in conflict. That's the process. The challenge of Anarchism is that there is no water-tight ideology or powerful vanguard to fall back upon. It's no easy ride.

 

[butchersapron]

www.libertyandsolidarity.org

Cheeky

 

[Edie]

So anarchists believe that it's not necessarily in human nature to have leaders and followers and hierarchies. Or am I misunderstanding. Do them things exist but you just don't get paid any more or have a higher status?

How would it work, would there still be a group of elected people that made decisions, or would everyone vote on everything, or would it just be kinda such a local level thing it would almost be like going back to farming and bartering?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So anarchists believe that it's not necessarily in human nature to have leaders and followers and hierarchies. Or am I misunderstanding. Do them things exist but you just don't get paid any more or have a higher status?

How would it work, would there still be a group of elected people that made decisions, or would everyone vote on everything, or would it just be kinda such a local level thing it would almost be like going back to farming and bartering?

I suspect many anarchists would take issue with you over the notion of a necessary human nature; they wouldn't be alone in that.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Edie]

I suspect many anarchists would take issue with you over the notion of a necessary human nature; they wouldn't be alone in that.

Louis MacNeice

Well I just mean common patterns of how relationships and society forms. Or do some people think there is just no such thing, that it's just a coincidence that at the moment the majority of people in the world have leaders?

 

[DotCommunist]

more that those patterns don't spring from no where and are actually relational (is that even a word?) to modes of production...I think...

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Well I just mean common patterns of how relationships and society forms. Or do some people think there is just no such thing, that it's just a coincidence that at the moment the majority of people in the world have leaders?

Are all those leaders the same sort of leaders, always and everywhere? If not, rather than just using a word it would be useful to define what we mean by leadership, how it is achieved, maintained, challenged, what benefits it brings, what demands it makes etc.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Well I just mean common patterns of how relationships and society forms. Or do some people think there is just no such thing, that it's just a coincidence that at the moment the majority of people in the world have leaders?

Concentrating on whether there are 'leaders' or not is beside the point - it's a red herring. That there are leaders springs from a society organised around the mass of people working for the benefit of a tiny minority. That's the question - should society be organised in that way? And to turn your post on its head, was it an accident when this didn't happen? Because it didn't alway happen. If you say we've evolved and changed since then then what's to stop us evolving even further?

 

[Edie]

Concentrating on whether there are 'leaders' or not is beside the point - it's a red herring. That there are leaders springs from a society organised around the mass of people working for the benefit of a tiny minority. That's the question - should society be organised in that way? And to turn your post on its head, was it an accident when this didn't happen? Because it didn't alway happen. If you say we've evolved and changed since then then what's to stop us evolving even further?

Yer. I find it really hard to have the necessary... perspective. Maybe cos I don't know any history? Well I kind of know back to the Romans, but that has always been a majority serving a minority in the Western world hasn't it?

How did the minority manage to get power and control in the first place? And when was that? And what would stop that just happening again? It seems like once it's happened it's really stable, even though it's not in the majorities favour? Or maybe the majority think it IS in there favour. Thick questions I know.

 

[PeterTCA]

Yer. I find it really hard to have the necessary... perspective. Maybe cos I don't know any history? Well I kind of know back to the Romans, but that has always been a majority serving a minority in the Western world hasn't it?

How did the minority manage to get power and control in the first place? And when was that? And what would stop that just happening again? It seems like once it's happened it's really stable, even though it's not in the majorities favour? Or maybe the majority think it IS in there favour. Thick questions I know.

The problem of leaders and power has stayed much the same throughout history. Power doesn't progess towards any particular ideal. It simply festers around the same point. Problems with leaders and power are much the same today as they were in Roman times, Chaucer's time, Shakespeare's time.....

It's more profitable to look at this issue from a micro rather than a macro level. Get yourself into some good company. Engage with the everyday. Who are we to say how a free people should live?

 

[Athos]

I don't think we're going to achieve a communist, classeless, stateless society in the foreseeable future. At best the most we're going to achieve any time soon if we're lucky is a bit more community and class control of resources, the struggle for that will give us the space to argue for anarchist communist ideas, but little more than that. Not only that but we have to accept that a victory in the short term, that manages to reverse some of the attacks on the postwar settlement will serve to strengthen and reinvigorate capitalism, and demonstrate that it can answer the needs of enough people to ensure its continued majority support.

I would also say that I do not agree with the broad church approach to anarchism. Anarchism is nothing if not part of the wider working class movement - it needs to come from and respond to the self identified needs of the working class - not from abstract ivory towers or dusty pamphlets. Obviously there is a multiplicity of tactics and strategies available within that criteria but lets not get hung up on an approach that is either tied to old ideas, or open to any old toot.

I already fear that my "broad church" description will haunt me for the rest of my time here! Perhaps it was a bad choice of words. What I meant was that, to me, an attraction of anarchism is that it can encompass a range of views, and, more importantly, the anarchists who subscribe to them are typically more tolerant of other anarchists with slightly different views than many Marxists seem to be. I think that both historically and in contemporary activism, anarchists have shown a willingness to work with others where their views overlap, rather than require others to agree with every detail of their analysis before they'll work with them, or, worse, attempt to hijack other groups to impose their own ideology.

And I agree entirely that action should not be based on dusty old ideas, or any old toot.

 

[PeterTCA]

I already fear that my "broad church" description will haunt me for the rest of my time here! Perhaps it was a bad choice of words. What I meant was that, to me, an attraction of anarchism is that it can encompass a range of views, and, more importantly, the anarchists who subscribe to them are typically more tolerant of other anarchists with slightly different views than many Marxists seem to be. I think that both historically and in contemporary activism, anarchists have shown a willingness to work with others where their views overlap, rather than require others to agree with their analysis before they'll work with them, or, worse, attempt to hijack other groups to impose their own ideology.



And I agree entirely that action should not be based on dusty old ideas, or any old toot.

Good Post

 

[LLETSA]

I don't think we're going to achieve a communist, classeless, stateless society in the foreseeable future. At best the most we're going to achieve any time soon if we're lucky is a bit more community and class control of resources, the struggle for that will give us the space to argue for anarchist communist ideas, but little more than that. Not only that but we have to accept that a victory in the short term, that manages to reverse some of the attacks on the postwar settlement will serve to strengthen and reinvigorate capitalism, and demonstrate that it can answer the needs of enough people to ensure its continued majority support.

I believe that some victories against some of the currently proposed cuts are feasible, but how do you think aspects of the post-war settlement can be reversed when no party who could possibly form a government has any intention, and never will have, of doing any such thing? One reason why they have no intention is because, far from capitalism being able to 'satisfy the needs of enough people to ensure its continued majority support,' it is destined to either lose the economic war with the much more populous rising industrial powers or, if those who foresee a looming crisis of natural resources are correct, face a crisis that will severely restrict or even curtail economic growth and with it alter societies dependent upon it beyond recognition. Despite the continuing pretence that neo-liberalism or 'free markets' guarantee growing prosperity for all and greater choice, and all that kind of cobblers, what we are currently seeing is a wealth grab by the rich before western societies and those that used to be called Third World start to noticably converge. All the window dressing is slowly being allowed to decay. Ever since the turn of the century, western capitalism has had to rely on bubbles, and the only way out of the current crisis they can see is to inflate more bubbles and hope for the best.

What you say about not achieving a communist, classless society in the forseeable future reminds me of what older lefties would say to me 25 years ago: 'We won't see communism (or even socialism) in our lifetimes. It always did seem like another way of saying never to me...

 

[TremulousTetra]

It is funny, how you try to keep these debates fraternal, but 'people' just end up name-calling.

If you really believe anarchism is non-sectarian, try pming to The Black Hand, an anarchist. Try asking me, and I can regale you with a few stories of how anarchist worked with the poor little cripple in the wheelchair, until they found out I was a member of the Socialist worker and then stabbed me in the back.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think people are aware, well at least I am, that though we may set off in the direction of those broadbrush stroke models of the future, classless stateless anarchism, setting off on the journey opens up new vistas, and we might see something even better, and end up there instead. I accept that. We have already been down this discussion, in this thread. Likewise, I started off this thread intending to find out how anarchists think we get from a to z. How do we get from here, to something better. I think I have ended up finding a consensus on a broadbrush outline of what the type something better MIGHT be. I find this pretty interesting, because this model of anarchism, is exactly, EXACTLY the same model of communism the SWP presented to me between 1985 and 2001. All the arguments about;
1. No blueprints,
2. About a classless stateless society
3. As society organised by for the people.
4. About how such a social revolution will transform the way we think about the world in anarchism/communism, in exactly the way previous social revolutions ie feudalism to capitalism, revolutionised our worldview.
5. About how this will make structures of compulsion, wither away.
6. And about how even when we have reached this destination, it is not the end, because there still remains the dialectic between human beings and nature. Between the material world, and our consciousness.

And even this argument.

Originally Posted by ResistanceMP3
...Anarchism/communism is essentially an end objective, a completely classless, stateless society.....
-------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by rioted
Most anarchists would probably argue against that. Anarchism is a process: the means and ends being indivisible.

this is absolutely right to the SWP as well. This is basic dialectical materialism. About the ends and means being indivisible. They are all part of the same process. A process which never ends. Because of the dialectics humans have with nature. I think what I was doing earlier, was concentrating on a perception I have of anarchism, which I still need to clarify whether I am right or wrong. A perception of view you hold, which is fundamentally different to the SWP. However, I don't want to do that just yet, so can I come back to you on this later.

What I would like to do now, is start to look how we get from here to there. But before we start the here analysis, I'd like to look at the penultimate situation. The situation of revolution. The situation of transition, when workers have already rose up, and when they have is a situation of dual power in a country, workers autonomous zones.

 

[Edie]

It is funny, how you try to keep these debates fraternal, but 'people' just end up name-calling.

If you really believe anarchism is non-sectarian, try pming to The Black Hand, an anarchist. Try asking me, and I can regale you with a few stories of how anarchist worked with the poor little cripple in the wheelchair, until they found out I was a member of the Socialist worker and then stabbed me in the back.

Don't exactly say much for a society based on cooperation rather than competition

 

[Edie]

I think people are aware, well at least I am, that though we may set off in the direction of those broadbrush stroke models of the future, classless stateless anarchism, setting off on the journey opens up new vistas, and we might see something even better, and end up there instead. I accept that. We have already been down this discussion, in this thread. Likewise, I started off this thread intending to find out how anarchists think we get from a to z. How do we get from here, to something better. I think I have ended up finding a consensus on a broadbrush outline of what the type something better MIGHT be. I find this pretty interesting, because this model of anarchism, is exactly, EXACTLY the same model of communism the SWP presented to me between 1985 and 2001. All the arguments about;
1. No blueprints,
2. About a classless stateless society
3. As society organised by for the people.
4. About how such a social revolution will transform the way we think about the world in anarchism/communism, in exactly the way previous social revolutions ie feudalism to capitalism, revolutionised our worldview.
5. About how this will make structures of compulsion, wither away.
6. And about how even when we have reached this destination, it is not the end, because there still remains the dialectic between human beings and nature. Between the material world, and our consciousness.

And even this argument.

Originally Posted by ResistanceMP3
...Anarchism/communism is essentially an end objective, a completely classless, stateless society.....
-------------------------------------------------
Most anarchists would probably argue against that. Anarchism is a process: the means and ends being indivisible. [/QUOT] this is absolutely right to the SWP as well. This is basic dialectical materialism. About the ends and means being indivisible. They are all part of the same process. A process which never ends. Because of the dialectics humans have with nature. I think what I was doing earlier, was concentrating on a perception I have of anarchism, which I still need to clarify whether I am right or wrong. A perception of view you hold, which is fundamentally different to the SWP. However, I don't want to do that just yet, so can I come back to you on this later.

What I would like to do now, is start to look how we get from here to there. But before we start the here analysis, I'd like to look at the penultimate situation. The situation of revolution. The situation of transition, when workers have already rose up, and when they have is a situation of dual power in a country, workers autonomous zones.

WTF this is like a different language

 

[butchersapron]

It is funny, how you try to keep these debates fraternal, but 'people' just end up name-calling.

If you really believe anarchism is non-sectarian, try pming to The Black Hand, an anarchist. Try asking me, and I can regale you with a few stories of how anarchist worked with the poor little cripple in the wheelchair, until they found out I was a member of the Socialist worker and then stabbed me in the back.

Fantastic

 

[Athos]

It is funny, how you try to keep these debates fraternal, but 'people' just end up name-calling.

If you really believe anarchism is non-sectarian, try pming to The Black Hand, an anarchist. Try asking me, and I can regale you with a few stories of how anarchist worked with the poor little cripple in the wheelchair, until they found out I was a member of the Socialist worker and then stabbed me in the back.

A bloke I know got mugged by a black man.

 

[smokedout]

racist

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is funny, how you try to keep these debates fraternal, but 'people' just end up name-calling.

But it's so much fun!!!

If you really believe anarchism is non-sectarian, try pming to The Black Hand, an anarchist.

Is he? First I've heard of it!

Try asking me, and I can regale you with a few stories of how anarchist worked with the poor little cripple in the wheelchair, until they found out I was a member of the Socialist worker and then stabbed me in the back.

To be fair though, at least, given your cripplitude (I just made that word up to describe us crips), you didn't feel the knives going in!

 

[ViolentPanda]

A bloke I know got mugged by a black man.

A bloke I mugged was a black man. I gave him his money back and then paid him to stab rmp3 in the back.

 

[Athos]

I think people are aware, well at least I am, that though we may set off in the direction of those broadbrush stroke models of the future, classless stateless anarchism, setting off on the journey opens up new vistas, and we might see something even better, and end up there instead. I accept that. We have already been down this discussion, in this thread. Likewise, I started off this thread intending to find out how anarchists think we get from a to z. How do we get from here, to something better. I think I have ended up finding a consensus on a broadbrush outline of what the type something better MIGHT be. I find this pretty interesting, because this model of anarchism, is exactly, EXACTLY the same model of communism the SWP presented to me between 1985 and 2001. All the arguments about;
1. No blueprints,
2. About a classless stateless society
3. As society organised by for the people.
4. About how such a social revolution will transform the way we think about the world in anarchism/communism, in exactly the way previous social revolutions ie feudalism to capitalism, revolutionised our worldview.
5. About how this will make structures of compulsion, wither away.
6. And about how even when we have reached this destination, it is not the end, because there still remains the dialectic between human beings and nature. Between the material world, and our consciousness.

And even this argument.

Originally Posted by ResistanceMP3
...Anarchism/communism is essentially an end objective, a completely classless, stateless society.....
-------------------------------------------------
Most anarchists would probably argue against that. Anarchism is a process: the means and ends being indivisible. [/QUOT] this is absolutely right to the SWP as well. This is basic dialectical materialism. About the ends and means being indivisible. They are all part of the same process. A process which never ends. Because of the dialectics humans have with nature. I think what I was doing earlier, was concentrating on a perception I have of anarchism, which I still need to clarify whether I am right or wrong. A perception of view you hold, which is fundamentally different to the SWP. However, I don't want to do that just yet, so can I come back to you on this later.

What I would like to do now, is start to look how we get from here to there. But before we start the here analysis, I'd like to look at the penultimate situation. The situation of revolution. The situation of transition, when workers have already rose up, and when they have is a situation of dual power in a country, workers autonomous zones.

I don't want to squabble about the SWP, so I'll skip to the last paragraph. Though, I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

[LLETSA]

I think people are aware, well at least I am, that though we may set off in the direction of those broadbrush stroke models of the future, classless stateless anarchism, setting off on the journey opens up new vistas, and we might see something even better, and end up there instead. I accept that. We have already been down this discussion, in this thread. Likewise, I started off this thread intending to find out how anarchists think we get from a to z. How do we get from here, to something better. I think I have ended up finding a consensus on a broadbrush outline of what the type something better MIGHT be. I find this pretty interesting, because this model of anarchism, is exactly, EXACTLY the same model of communism the SWP presented to me between 1985 and 2001. All the arguments about;
1. No blueprints,
2. About a classless stateless society
3. As society organised by for the people.
4. About how such a social revolution will transform the way we think about the world in anarchism/communism, in exactly the way previous social revolutions ie feudalism to capitalism, revolutionised our worldview.
5. About how this will make structures of compulsion, wither away.
6. And about how even when we have reached this destination, it is not the end, because there still remains the dialectic between human beings and nature. Between the material world, and our consciousness.

And even this argument.


I don't want to squabble about the SWP, so I'll skip to the last paragraph. Though, I'm not sure what you're asking.

He's asking how his version of what will never happen differs from your version.

 

[Athos]

He's asking how his version of what will never happen differs from your version.

The indivisability of ends and means in my conception of anarchism means that, although we may be a long way from the ends i.e. a classless stateless society, every step towards that i.e. the everyday efforts we can all make to live in a way consistent with anarchist principles, is an example of my version of events happening. You seem to be very negative about the possibility of change, whereas I believe that we (individually and collectively) can begin to make it happen, here and now.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Though, I'm not sure what you're asking.

He's asking how his version of what will never happen differs from your version.[/QUOTE]

Bingo! And the answer is, it doesn't. Well, according to this thread so far. Does anybody have any distinctions?

Is there any groups on the revolutionary left who don't claim that after the transition stage, workers state, workers autonomous zones, etc etc, a stateless classless society is their aim?

I don't want to squabble about the SWP, so I'll skip to the last paragraph.

it's simple, stop doing it then. In every thread with me, it has been you who has brought up the SWP ORGANISATION/PARTY.

I have no interest in discussing that, I'm trying to compare and contrast the definitions of anarchism and communism, and see whether there is any real difference. It was the same in the thread about dialectical materialism, I'm discussing the ideas, not the organisation.

 

[Athos]

Bingo! And the answer is, it doesn't. Well, according to this thread so far. Does anybody have any distinctions?

Is there any groups on the revolutionary left who don't claim that after the transition stage, workers state, workers autonomous zones, etc etc, a stateless classless society is their aim?

I don't want to squabble about the SWP, so I'll skip to the last paragraph. [/qoute]

it's simple, stop doing it then. In every thread with me, it has been you who are brought up the SWP ORGANISATION/PARTY.

I have no interest in discussing that, I'm trying to compare and contrast the definitions of anarchism and communism, and see whether there is any real difference. It was the same in the thread about dialectical materialism, I'm discussing the ideas, not the organisation.

OK. So, notwithstanding the difference in focus between ends and means, I suppose that the professed ultimate aims of what you label anarchism and communism are the same; that's something I acknowledged early on. The big difference is the way that a stateless classless society might be bought about. Essentially, this boils down to whether or not there should be this transition phase of a workers' state. I would say that there should not. This is because I am philosophically opposed to the oppression inherent in ANY state, and because I believe that, in practice, it would be more difficult to move from the workers' state to statelessness as it would to move there in one step.

Obviously, the above is open to the criticism of over-simplification, but I wanted to get down to where one fundamental difference can be found.

 

[TremulousTetra]

But it's so much fun!!!

Is he? First I've heard of it!

To be fair though, at least, given your cripplitude (I just made that word up to describe us crips), you didn't feel the knives going in!

to be honest with you Panda, it wasn't funny. It screwed my head up, and was one of the last nails, and I emphasise only one of, in my political activist coffin. Pretty much gave up hope, in a similar fashion to edie and LLETSA, after that.