Anarchism. 'Organisation'? 'Leadership'?

[TremulousTetra]

I am just interested in discussing anarchism. I'm particularly interested in organisation and leadership, the attitude of anarchist to these things. But obviously, I am not trying to limit the conversation to anarchists, any opinion on the topic is welcome.

I have several questions which have been sparked by a discussion with Athos, but this comment by Athos seems as good a starting point as any;

When speaking to myself, an ex-member of SWP, but I guess Athos would extend this comment to most groups on the revolutionary left, he said;

But, I accept that, at least to begin with, our aims are the same i.e. the rejection of capitalism; and that, more importantly, even though our methods may differ, our motives are essentially the same.

I agree with Athos. I would say this is the starting point for myself, and anarchists. The removal of capitalism by the people, and to replace it with a system organised by the people for the people.

I have left out the term the working class on purpose. We can come onto a discussion about that ommission, but wouldn't people accept that that, The removal of capitalism by the people, and to replace it with a system organised by the people for the people, is essentially what motivates anarchism and the entire revolutionaries left?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA "in order to do that, I personally need a couple of compass points/landmarks on the anarchist political landscape, in order to try and create a mental map/picture of what they are talking about.

Don't forget, when I read what they're saying, I read it through political glasses created by the Socialist workers party over the last 25 years, and vice versa for anarchists etc."

 

[chilango]

You twice say "for the people" rather than "of the people".

Subtle, but a key distinction perhaps?

 

[FreddyB]

The removal of capitalism by the people, and to replace it with a system for the people, is essentially what motivates anarchism and the entire revolutionaries left?

I'd broadly accept that. What about the here and now though. What do we do today and how do we do it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

You twice say "for the people" rather than "of the people".

Subtle, but a key distinction perhaps?

no, you are absolutely right. There should be no group, above, and for that matter, below the people, administering society on their behalf, it has to be administered by the people. Well even that is badly worded. I would put your wording in, but I don't even think that that rules out the administration on behalf of the people.

If anybody can come up with, or I can think of a better wording, I will edit it.

You know, I think probably the best frasing is, by the people for the people, the American Constitution. But then you look at America and you think , FUCKING HELL.

 

[chilango]

By the people, for the people, of the people.

 

[kyser_soze]

So what question are you asking here, RMP3? Are you asking specifically about how self-organising social entities can function or something else?

 

[The39thStep]

By the people, for the people, of the people.

With the bookfair

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'd broadly accept that. That about the here and now though. What do we do today and how do we do it?

absofuckinglutely. this is whaT I too want to understand about anarchism. But in order to do that, I personally need a couple of compass points/landmarks on the anarchist political landscape, in order to try and create a mental map/picture of what they are talking about.

Don't forget, when I read what they're saying, I read it through political glasses created by the Socialist workers party over the last 25 years, and vice versa for anarchists etc.

 

[TremulousTetra]

By the people, for the people, of the people.

lol, alread done mate.

 

[TremulousTetra]

To be fair, I must say that I have edited this comment to keep it on the point I want to make

I am happy to fight for a society which isn't based on class. And I hope the working class will fight for the same. Where we diverge is when we turn our minds to what that society might look like. I don't presume to know all the details, and have no desire to bind the workers of the future to any particular blueprint. That said, I know what I wouldn't like to see - a state.

I think that the SPGB, and maybe some other groups, do go into fine detail about what they THINK communism/anarchism would be like, but as far as I know groups like the SP, workers power, SWP etc don't have a blueprint.

In fact, most anarchists spoken to have suggested there will be no money within anarchism. How does anybody know? The anarchists/communards will decide. That's the whole point, it's a democracy where the people will decide, we don't decide for them.

And so this is another point I think the revolutionary left can say we definitely know what anarchism is about, because we all agree.

------------------------------

Now I just need to be clear on this. I think both anarchists and Communists agree, there will be a period of transition from capitalism to anarchism/communism. Anarchism/communism is essentially an end objective, a completely classless, stateless society. Anarchist MAY describe this period transition, as 'the period of workers autonomous zones', socialists DO describe this period as the period of the workers state. But the point above I'm trying to make is about the period of anarchism/communism, one classless, and stateless society.
--------------------------------------
eta. I suppose my question may be framed clearer as, do people believe like me anarchism and communism as a classless, and stateless society are essentially the same thing? Or do people believe there will still be distinction/s between a Communist classless stateless society, and an anarchist classless stateless society?

 

[rioted]

...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.

 

[chilango]

lol, alread done mate.

I know.

It's also not my view, nor am I an Anarchist.

But there you go...just tryin' to help!

 

[TremulousTetra]

I know.

It's also not my view, nor am I an Anarchist.

But there you go...just tryin' to help!

coolio.

Just out of interest, what is your political position/philosophy?

 

[kyser_soze]

In fact, most anarchists spoken to have suggested there will be no money within anarchism. How does anybody know? The anarchists/communards will decide. That's the whole point, it's a democracy where the people will decide, we don't decide for them.

I'm pretty sure a lot of communists say this too, since money is a rationing system.

Most anarchists would probably argue against that. Anarchism is a process

Yeah, I once read a great article by a German academic(!) who argued that like any living thing, a democratic society isn't an 'end state', it's a continually evolving thing, and that once people started thinking 'Hey! We've arrived!' that's when it would all fall apart and get nasty, really quickly.

I know a lot of people refer to anarchism as 'libertarian socialism', but I think that labels like communist, socialist reflect specific, structured ideologies when applied practically, with all the potential for horror that implies, whereas anarchism is more a loosely bound set of ideas & principles.

 

[LLETSA]

I am just interested in discussing anarchism. I'm particularly interested in organisation and leadership, the attitude of anarchist to these things. But obviously, I am not trying to limit the conversation to anarchists, any opinion on the topic is welcome.

I have several questions which have been sparked by a discussion with Athos, but this comment by Athos seems as good a starting point as any;

When speaking to myself, an ex-member of SWP, but I guess Athos would extend this comment to most groups on the revolutionary left, he said;

I agree with Athos. I would say this is the starting point for myself, and anarchists. The removal of capitalism by the people, and to replace it with a system organised by the people for the people.

I have left out the term the working class on purpose. We can come onto a discussion about that ommission, but wouldn't people accept that that, The removal of capitalism by the people, and to replace it with a system organised by the people for the people, is essentially what motivates anarchism and the entire revolutionaries left?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA "in order to do that, I personally need a couple of compass points/landmarks on the anarchist political landscape, in order to try and create a mental map/picture of what they are talking about.

Don't forget, when I read what they're saying, I read it through political glasses created by the Socialist workers party over the last 25 years, and vice versa for anarchists etc."

A bit of an abstract preoccupation, perhaps, when there is currently, despite all that's happening, absolutely no prospect of any radically left wing opposition to the present state of affairs that would eventually be capable of gathering the support of, say, 5% of the population.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm pretty sure a lot of communists say this too, since money is a rationing system.



Yeah, I once read a great article by a German academic(!) who argued that like any living thing, a democratic society isn't an 'end state', it's a continually evolving thing, and that once people started thinking 'Hey! We've arrived!' that's when it would all fall apart and get nasty, really quickly.

In Negrian terms that constituent power and constituted power.

 

[kyser_soze]

Forgive me for a thick moment, consituent power is where it's dispersed into the people, and constituted is where it's fixed in place?

 

[butchersapron]

Forgive me for a thick moment, consituent power is where it's dispersed into the people, and constituted is where it's fixed in place?

It means the power to continually recreate structures as an ongoing process rather than a fixed system being lumped on the end of a previous cycle of constituent power - i.e representative democracy or something being imposed as the end point of the electoral emancipation of the mass of people following the industrial revolution.

 

[chilango]

coolio.

Just out of interest, what is your political position/philosophy?

Good question.

I don't know, and in all honesty don't really care anymore about what to label myself.

For shorthand purposes in real world discussions I will sometimes say that I'm "sort of an anarchist" or "sort of a communist"...maybe libertarian communist would be close, but i'm sure I hold (many) positions that fall outside that bracket.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Most anarchists would probably argue against that. Anarchism is a process: the means and ends being indivisible.

Yes I have picked up on this before, the analogy I make in my head, to make sense of what you are saying, would be considered derogatory. So why don't you explain that comrade, in language us mere mortals may understand. [no offence intended]

the reason I think you should do this, is because you have made a very important point. it is something I definitely want to understand better, something I'd love to see defined in plain english.

 

[chilango]

I'm pretty sure a lot of communists say this too, since money is a rationing system.



Yeah, I once read a great article by a German academic(!) who argued that like any living thing, a democratic society isn't an 'end state', it's a continually evolving thing, and that once people started thinking 'Hey! We've arrived!' that's when it would all fall apart and get nasty, really quickly.

I know a lot of people refer to anarchism as 'libertarian socialism', but I think that labels like communist, socialist reflect specific, structured ideologies when applied practically, with all the potential for horror that implies, whereas anarchism is more a loosely bound set of ideas & principles.

It means the power to continually recreate structures as an ongoing process rather than a fixed system being lumped on the end of a previous cycle of constituent power - i.e representative democracy or something being imposed as the end point of the electoral emancipation of the mass of people following the industrial revolution.

I'd agree with that. But then I like Heraclitus.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Good question.

I don't know, and in all honesty don't really care anymore about what to label myself.

For shorthand purposes in real world discussions I will sometimes say that I'm "sort of an anarchist" or "sort of a communist"...maybe libertarian communist would be close, but i'm sure I hold (many) positions that fall outside that bracket.

I kind of knew you would say that. lol

. Having said that, if you can draw distinctions between communism and anarchism, you look like the very person who may be able to answer my question above. For me anarchism and communism are the same thing. So what's the difference?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yes I have picked up on this before, the analogy I make in my head, to make sense of what you are saying, would be considered derogatory. So why don't you explain that comrade, in language us mere mortals may understand. [no offence intended]

the reason I think you should do this, is because you have made a very important point. it is something I definitely want to understand better, something I'd love to see defined in plain english.

What is so hard to understand about the means and the ends being indivisible; you might not agree with it but it's simple enough to get your head around.

Louis (not an anarchist) MacNeice

 

[LLETSA]

For me anarchism and communism are the same thing.

Me too. Equally unachievable as a way of permanently organising society. Take a look at the world and the way societies and geo-political entities are fragmenting. We'll be lucky to even get temporary socialist governments from now on.

 

[kyser_soze]

it is something I definitely want to understand better, something I'd love to see defined in plain english

Anarchism is a process, and an end. It is endlessly 'becoming' something, but never being fixed in a specific shape.

Nope, that's not plain English, that's hippy.

 

[FreddyB]

Me too. Equally unachievable as a way of permanently organising society. Take a look at the world and the way societies and geo-political entities are fragmenting. We'll be lucky to even get temporary socialist governments from now on.

You're a proper little ray of fucking sunshine aren't you LLETSA?

 

[LLETSA]

You're a proper little ray of fucking sunshine aren't you LLETSA?

Why? Just because I try to address things as they are instead of how we'd like them to be?

 

[chilango]

I kind of knew you would say that. lol

. Having said that, if you can draw distinctions between communism and anarchism, you look like the very person who may be able to answer my question above. For me anarchism and communism are the same thing. So what's the difference?

Some kinds of anarchism are the same as some kinds of communism.

Depends upon how you define them of course, it also depends upon how one attempts to enact them.

 

[frogwoman]

I just don't know how you'd set up and maintain an anarchist society without the use of force tbh. I think it's a great idea and I hope it can work one day, but at present I just don't think it's possible tbh (and experiments in setting up anarchist societies were crushed within a few years ie in Spain etc) and I just don't know how you'd prevent this and get people sufficiently organised to defend themselves against the inevitable attack - and believe me there would be.

 

[butchersapron]

You think anarchists are pacifists?