Are you an anarchist but not a member of an anarchist organisation?

[chilango]

As a "fellow traveller" of Anarchism (it's a label I sometimes use but more often don't) but who's never been a proper member of a big "A" Anarchist Org. I've always been puzzled by the need/desire to have a bunch of slightly different groups all trying to do more or less the same things. The current AFed/ACG/AnCom trajectory even more so.

 

[danny la rouge]

As a "fellow traveller" of Anarchism (it's a label I sometimes use but more often don't) but who's never been a proper member of a big "A" Anarchist Org. I've always been puzzled by the need/desire to have a bunch of slightly different groups all trying to do more or less the same things. The current AFed/ACG/AnCom trajectory even more so.

It’s probably not the case they’re all trying to do the same thing. Two of them maybe are, but I don’t think the other is.

 

[Rob Ray]

Are they criticisms you’d care to share with the thread?

Mixed, some are more based on context-specific actions taken or not taken which I think would qualify mainly as intra-group sniping, which I try not to do, but some are more general. Some of the big ones are probably:

• A tendency to bureaucratise at very small numbers where flexibility would probably be more sensible. eg. AF and SolFed both run their major decisions through bi-annual in-person meetings with reps negotiating on the basis of direct mandates, which makes response times extraordinarily slow for orgs which hover between two and three figure memberships particularly given today's technology.
• Lack of a coherent action strategy, with the "federal" part of the equation frequently not meaning very much beyond funding occasional printed matter and cohering a few writers on a website (who could have done that anyway, including to larger audiences on other more established outlets like libcom).
• Shortfalls in planning for success. I'm partway through a longer writeup about this, but orgs are extremely prone to splitting when recruitment goes well because they tend not to think about absorbing a mass of new members into existing cultures which are usually both a bit arcane and known inside-out by a minority of old mates.

The above apply to pretty much every national org including my own.

 

[danny la rouge]

Mixed, some are more based on context-specific actions taken or not taken which I think would qualify mainly as intra-group sniping, which I try not to do, but some are more general. Some of the big ones are probably:

• A tendency to bureaucratise at very small numbers where flexibility would probably be more sensible. eg. AF and SolFed both run their major decisions through bi-annual in-person meetings with reps negotiating on the basis of direct mandates, which makes response times extraordinarily slow for orgs which hover between two and three figure memberships particularly given today's technology.
• Lack of a coherent action strategy, with the "federal" part of the equation frequently not meaning very much beyond funding occasional printed matter and cohering a few writers on a website (who could have done that anyway).
• Shortfalls in planning for success. I'm partway through a longer writeup about this, but orgs are extremely prone to splitting when recruitment goes well because they tend not to think about the bit about absorbing a mass of new members into existing cultures which are usually both a bit arcane and known inside-out by a minority of old mates.

The above apply to pretty much every national org including my own.

Cheers.

 

[kabbes]

Well, it’s asking anarchists who aren’t members of anarchist organisations why they aren’t.

How do they know if they are an anarchist without discussing these ideas?

I think it’s fair to say that those responding in this thread have, for the vast majority, not been people with an ideological opposition to anarchism. They are people trying to explain why they do not feel like they would belong to an anarchist organisation, despite having a philosophy that should be open to it.

If you’re expecting a bunch of people to declare that they are died-in-the-wool anarchists and yet unwilling to join with others, you might have a longer wait.

 

[chilango]

It’s probably not the case they’re all trying to do the same thing. Two of them maybe are, but I don’t think the other is.

In theory? or in practice? Because from the outside it's hard to see.

(Not that I want to reopen any inter-group beefs, but rather in a more general sense it's baffling)

 

[Rob Ray]

I'd imagine the original intent was to work out how to recruit from the lowest-hanging branches - outright anarchists who might be persuadable to join a group - rather than to convert the next rung up of sympathetic types who've never felt entirely convinced.

Not to downplay the importance of talking to kinda-but-nah folks, but generally speaking the most powerful recruiter is simply winning stuff. People join groups that are effective, usually well before considering the specific politics.

 

[danny la rouge]

In theory? or in practice? Because from the outside it's hard to see.

(Not that I want to reopen any inter-group beefs, but rather in a more general sense it's baffling)

I’d say two are class struggle communist and the other would see itself as more broadly intersectional.

 

[danny la rouge]

How do they know if they are an anarchist without discussing these ideas?

I think it’s fair to say that those responding in this thread have, for the vast majority, not been people with an ideological opposition to anarchism. They are people trying to explain why they do not feel like they would belong to an anarchist organisation, despite having a philosophy that should be open to it.

If you’re expecting a bunch of people to declare that they are dyed-in-the-wool anarchists and yet unwilling to join with others, you might have a longer wait.

Och, it’s fine for bulletin board threads to meander. I have no problem with the discussion here. It’s been interesting enough.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'd imagine the original intent was to work out how to recruit from the lowest-hanging branches - outright anarchists who might be persuadable to join a group - rather than to convert the next rung up of sympathetic types who've never felt entirely convinced.

Perhaps uncharitably put, but yes, it was a genuine interest in what the barriers are to joining an organisation, and how that could be addressed.

 

[chilango]

I’d say two are class struggle communist and the other would see itself as more broadly intersectional.

I know you'd say that. But how does that manifest in practice? How does it look different to the outside world?

 

[danny la rouge]

I know you'd say that. But how does that manifest in practice? How does it look different to the outside world?

I think it’s hard for me to put that into words without sounding sectarian, which I don’t want to do.

But I understand your frustration and it is less than optimal.

 

[Rob Ray]

Perhaps uncharitably put, but yes, it was a genuine interest in what the barriers are to joining an organisation, and how that could be addressed.

Oh it wasn't meant as an insult, initial recruiting from the ranks of demobilised anarchists is an obvious move for any new org.

 

[chilango]

I think it’s hard for me to put that into words without sounding sectarian, which I don’t want to do.

But I understand your frustration and it is less than optimal.

Yeah, I don't particularly want to discuss the AFed/ACG split. Though I'm even more baffled as to why the AnCom Network has been set up separate from the ACG (no need to tell me). Or the split in the IWA or, well, you get the drift.

For sure there are real differences, but are they really big enough to merit splitting already small groups into even smaller ones?

 

[chilango]

Then there's the bigger question of what the orgs are actually for? and would people join to do [insert specifics] stuff?

For me, for example, I would be looking for discussion and analysis. I wouldn't be looking for activism.

 

[Rob Ray]

So without getting into specific cases, splits are usually a combination of problems, in which political disagreement is frequently a lesser factor (while being presented as the main one). A handful of people joining with totally different attitudes to a single issue can easily clash with everyone else, a massive ruckus blows up and it ends with everybody having to take a side. Or it can be as simple as someone with a lot of mates in the org having a really massive falling out with someone else with a bunch of other mates. Tensions can arise because the finances have gone awry, or a key diplomatic figure leaves, etc etc. These would all be small issues in say, Unite, but if six people in an org of 30 are pissed off that's a fifth of the membership, which is a crisis and, quite easily, a split. Which is also exacerbated by the knowledge that no-one actually has to be there. I could leave Solfed tomorrow with minimal consequence - can't say the same about a union branch.

 

[JimW]

Then there's the bigger question of what the orgs are actually for? and would people join to do [insert specifics] stuff?

For me, for example, I would be looking for discussion and analysis. I wouldn't be looking for activism.

Yeah, I'd join if I was intending to contribute or thought i could be useful but I'm not really in a position to so don't.

 

[Rob Ray]

Then there's the bigger question of what the orgs are actually for? and would people join to do [insert specifics] stuff?

For me, for example, I would be looking for discussion and analysis. I wouldn't be looking for activism.

For me this is the sort of, event horizon for groups moving from a circle of people with similar views to a functional organisation. The key is that people should feel they're getting something out of it and losing something by leaving. In a union that's obvious - if you're out you don't get a say or qualify for support if you're being victimised - and even so it's a job to bring people in on an active basis. For a revolutionary group it's basically just community and a sense of putting your politics where your mouth is, and that's a limited demographic.

 

[Red Cat]

These aren't "shades of grey," let alone "control of the means of production," what you're describing is concessions by Capital which potentially dilute bosses' power to directly intimidate individuals while leaving the actual structures of control untouched. Specifically they're features of social democracy - and of course of Leninism, which simply introduced them while making it absolutely clear what happened to workers who stepped out of line.

That's why I said experienced as, as distinct from a theoretical understanding of class. I could've said materially but not everyone agrees with a class analysis, so of course people experience shades of grey of control and democracy rather than binary oppositions.

 

[Red Cat]

But I'm not an anarchist, so I'm bowing out anyway.

 

[teuchter]

Because there's no possible way in which a federated organisation that doesn't feature a single controlling authority could come to a conclusion which doesn't please everyone.

Yes there are loads of examples of federated organisations that function, but that's not what's under dispute - the question is whether such a thing can work under an anarchist structure that would grant it with a different kind of decision making authority and which would mean it was resourced in a very different way.

But what do you mean by no "single controlling authority" as far as the EU is concerned?

 

[Rob Ray]

Yes there are loads of examples of federated organisations that function, but that's not what's under dispute

It'd help if you stopped moving the goalposts, but fine.

- the question is whether such a thing can work under an anarchist structure that would grant it with a different kind of decision making authority and which would mean it was resourced in a very different way.

Clarify please? What do you mean "different kind of decision-making authority"? Anarchist structures aren't inherently alien to human organising, we still have concepts like formal agreements and consequences for breaking them.

But what do you mean by no "single controlling authority" as far as the EU is concerned?

As in the structure of the EU is based on agreements between federated members acting as equals (in principle if not in fact, these are capitalist States after all), not on say, a single sovereign body at the top of a pyramid.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As in the structure of the EU is based on agreements between federated members acting as equals (in principle if not in fact, these are capitalist States after all), not on say, a single sovereign body at the top of a pyramid.

That's not really true. The federated members agree to be bound by rulings of the European Court of Justice. Effectively, it is a body of law that stands at the top of the pyramid.

 

[Rob Ray]

That's not really true. The federated members agree to be bound by rulings of the European Court of Justice. Effectively, it is a body of law that stands at the top of the pyramid.

And what it is which forces them to stay?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And what it is which forces them to stay?

Well the level of coercion that binds them is above the level of armies, so it's self-interest that keeps them together. And it's institutional robustness that makes their membership meaningful. Breaking the rules or unilaterally withdrawing would incur costs.

How do we go from here to a situation where there is no level at which coercion occurs with the help of an army? I don't know. However such supra-state institutions are a start. The states give up some of their sovereignty in return for membership, and for me that is a positive. It's the opposite of Brexit thinking - 'take back control'. I want the British state to be subordinate to supra-state organisations like the EU, the UN, etc. (On a side note, the institutional weakness of the UN nowadays is a thoroughly bad thing.) I would argue that potentially within this nested structure, more devolution of powers down to the local level is possible than in a situation where nation states are aggressively asserting their sovereignty.

 

[Rob Ray]

it's self-interest that keeps them together

Correct. They are able, as Britain has demonstrated, to leave, but they adhere to a set of agreements because the alternative is not to have access to benefits which come as part of being in the EU such as access to resources, labour, expertise etc. I happen to disagree that supra-national bodies are a de facto good in a capitalist world (Fortress Europe and bullying of smaller nations are examples of how this can get poisonous) but they do provide an example of how the threat of force and direct pyramids of authority are not the only ways to cohere large, complex societies.

 

[kabbes]

So without getting into specific cases, splits are usually a combination of problems, in which political disagreement is frequently a lesser factor (while being presented as the main one). A handful of people joining with totally different attitudes to a single issue can easily clash with everyone else, a massive ruckus blows up and it ends with everybody having to take a side. Or it can be as simple as someone with a lot of mates in the org having a really massive falling out with someone else with a bunch of other mates. Tensions can arise because the finances have gone awry, or a key diplomatic figure leaves, etc etc. These would all be small issues in say, Unite, but if six people in an org of 30 are pissed off that's a fifth of the membership, which is a crisis and, quite easily, a split. Which is also exacerbated by the knowledge that no-one actually has to be there. I could leave Solfed tomorrow with minimal consequence - can't say the same about a union branch.

I know this is a lazy cliche, but nevertheless there is some truth to it. It doesn’t bode well for the idea of devolved collectivist self-government if even a very small group of political fellow travellers can’t create a common path without splitting into factions. Even if there are good reasons for it, it is a very negative example for outsiders to observe.

 

[Rob Ray]

Even if there are good reasons for it, it is a very negative example for outsiders to observe.

Sure, but it's also not all that representative of the potentialities of the ideology. Stability is based on having strength in depth and competence draws from whatever pool is available, which in our case is a small pool - though I'd actually say on that note we often do way better than our active numbers might imply. And unlike say, the Tories, or Labour, or the Communist Party, we're not arguing that we should be the ones running things (though that said, I've found that wrangling anarchists is quite a good way of learning to get shit done with minimal resources).

 

[kabbes]

Going back to my point about how and if power relations immanent in the social relations of a social order reproduce that social order — this thing we’re talking about right here, this factional splitting, shows up a massive potential problem that needs talking about and resolving. If there is something about the social relations in anarchist groups that can’t even reproduce its own structure from one bookfair to the next, how the hell is the anarchism envisaged by that group going to be stable enough to survive in the wider world? Saying “we don’t have enough depth yet” doesn’t help. Adding more people increases the complexity and the number of inflection points. It needs to be able to keep going with 5 people before it can manage 50.

Remember, I’m not talking here about ideologies or what would be “best”. I’m just talking about whether or not something can survive, not if it should survive.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It needs to be able to keep going with 5 people before it can manage 50.

Not sure that's necessarily true. Larger groups can have more resilience, and complexity can bring with it stability. Far easier for a group of five to fall apart than a group of 50 or 500 or 5000. Just takes one argument.