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

[kabbes]

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.

That’s true enough.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t bode well, does it? These are organisations with strong and broad ideological agreement and common purpose. But as a philosophy, all this is seemingly threatened wherever there is lack of unanimity on all details. Is this inherent to the nature of the organising system? Is it just repeated bad luck owing to bad faith actors? Something else?

 

[Rob Ray]

Saying “we don’t have enough depth yet” doesn’t help.

I wasn't saying it as a solution to the concept of how a large population run along anarchist lines might maintain sociopolitical cohesion tbf, but it is important to note if your reasoning for anarchism not working is that very small groups tend to argue and split a lot.

On the main point though, there's really only a handful of examples of anarchism becoming large enough to actually test such questions in a practical sense, most of which adopted a mix of anarchist and less anarchist approaches, and all of them have been done under either war or siege conditions (CNT, Zapatistas, Makhnovists etc). So if people are looking for "here's a perfect concrete working example" there isn't one.

There's lots of partial examples which have worked in some degree but not in others, most of which have had to make compromises with the existing system. Mondragon's a very successful federation of worker co-ops, featuring flattened wage structures and often non-hierarchical working approaches, with a turnover in the billions and 80,000 employed, but it's still a corporate enterprise. SAC is a successful syndicalist union in Sweden, but it's also had to make significant compromises with State power. Radical Routes celebrated its 30th anniversary last year as an, essentially, anarchist-run federation of housing co-ops but it has to do a lot of work with banks and can't risk people's housing by getting too spiky.

The answers to whether a society could be run at scale using anarchist methodology are, thus, also partial. We know scale can be achieved, because the CNT did it even in a war zone. We know that elements of anarchist approaches can be and frequently are adopted as methods to run organisations even within capitalism, because there's lots of "flattened" societies, charities and even companies like the (very flawed) Valve model. And as much as there is no example of a large anarchist-run society at peace to prove it can be done, there is also no proof that it can't be. Folks seem to think the anarchists on this thread are being vague or evasive. This is not the case. What we are being is honest, and refusing to make promises or offer certainties about an idea we cannot, as yet, analyse in its ultimate application. No-one here is an "anarchist" in the sense of having been brought up in an anarchist society with all the social, cultural and political realignment that would entail, we're "anarchists" living in a society built around capitalism and State power who are trying to envisage something better - it's like asking someone brought up in the 10th century how the 20th century works. And then asking them to explain it all in a forum post rather than a book.

But we can try and raise our eyeline above the muck to see what we can see.

 

[LDC]

That’s true enough.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t bode well, does it? These are organisations with strong and broad ideological agreement and common purpose. But as a philosophy, all this is seemingly threatened wherever there is lack of unanimity on all details. Is this intent to the nature of the organising system? Is it just repeated bad luck owing to bad faith actors? Something else?

TBH, I think one of the main reasons is that the anarchist movement and groups attracts more than their fair share of people that for some reason/s don't manage as well in 'normal' life as many others do, and with them bring a host of issues and problems that impact their ability to operate in a group. That and wide and eclectic views on what anarchism is to further complicate matters. (Plus all the aforementioned reasons.)

 

[8ball]

When every small step is expected to point in the direction of a clearly defined and agreed utopia, it can be pretty hard to settle upon where to go for lunch.

 

[danny la rouge]

I can speak for myself about my part in founding the AnarCom Network, but please don't take my remarks as a statement by the organisation. It isn't, it's just my view.

I consider the ACG to be a comrade organisation. I still have friends and comrades in the organisation. There was a particular organisational issue that wasn't resolved to my satisfaction and there was a particular day that a number of us left, and broadly for the same reason.

We did not leave in order to found the AnarCom Network. We didn't even do it directly on leaving. But obviously we kept in touch and decided it made sense to do stuff together, which led us to form the new organisation.

I've kept in touch with members of the ACG and I will be working together with them on mutual projects as and when they arise.

What are non members meant to think? Well, there's number of aspects to that. First of all, what is my aim in working within organised anarchism. It isn't actually to turn working class people into anarchists in the sense of people well-versed in Kropotkin and Malatesta. It's to reinvigorate working class self confidence and self belief, to spread the values of solidarity and mutual aid, and through them show the value of direct action and self management.

So in that sense, the differences that exist between the organisations shouldn't matter, because it isn't the aim that the organisations build empires, but that they support conversations, ideas and praxis in our communities.

What are potential members to think? Well, we're very small and new. We formed for the sense of comradeship and working together. We have had membership queries, and people can only really go on what they see us say and do. I know this can be a problem. I haven't looked for a while, but I know that the ACG and the AF had virtually the same Aims and Principles for a period. That's because it was the same person who pretty much wrote them. (I consider him a friend and a comrade and I've still been in touch with him since leaving the ACG). However, I don't think those two organisations are as similar as that document in common would suggest.

This leads us to something else that has been brought up: a wide range in what people think anarchism is. Obviously there are some who call themselves anarchist with whom I'd have nothing in common: the so-called AnCaps. I wouldn't be in an organisation with them. But also even with the same basic guiding document, different ideas about what that means can arise. And in fact the smaller the organisation, the more problems this has the potential of causing.

The organised left in general is at a very low ebb at the moment. Strike militancy is actually running ahead of it. We've seen the various umbrella organisations actually lacking the capacity to do much with the wave of strikes. Organised anarchism is obviously only a fraction of that general left. I think we are very good at doing a lot with the limited resources we have. But as has been said, we are not pushing ourselves as the people who should be running things. Quite the opposite.

 

[ska invita]

Seizing control of the state through democratic means sounds all well and good, but there is no shortage of examples where those opposed to change resist with violence and stop any such transfer of power.

yes im well aware of the challenge.. im also aware of the challenge of replacing the UK state wholesale with a series of anarchist communes etc, and winning an election and dealing with the fallout seems more achievable to me.

 

[Shechemite]

TBH, I think one of the main reasons is that the anarchist movement and groups attracts more than their fair share of people that for some reason/s don't manage as well in 'normal' life as many others do, and with them bring a host of issues and problems that impact their ability to operate in a group.

Ime this is true in activism per se

 

[LDC]

I think one of the (many) challenges to anarchist theory and practice is the fact that the political ideas and organisational forms of it arose in a very different time, one where the role of the State and its institutions were much clearer to many/most people. There's a level of complexity now (both in society as it is and the problems its created) that have no easy answers, and the answers that looked workable and robust 100 (or even 50 years) ago now look very unrealistic. And much of what some anarchists suggest as 'solutions' are clearly not very convincing to many people.

There's also the question of what is a State. If we have some centralised forms of organisation to fix certain global problems; climate change, weapons of mass destruction, global transport, etc. then at what point does this end up actually being a State or pseudo-State body, rather than some anarchist organ of collective organisation that has no power to enforce rules/laws etc.?

I mean I'm also interested in the getting from A to B discussion as well. I'm increasingly thinking it's as much likely to be some mix of collapse, the withdrawal of State insititutions from some areas, a seizing of territory, etc. and only in part a process of an uprising/social revolution.

 

[Rob Ray]

yes im well aware of the challenge.. im also aware of the challenge of replacing the UK state wholesale with a series of anarchist communes etc, and winning an election and dealing with the fallout seems more achievable to me.

But you can't win an election. You have neither the votes nor a system willing to accommodate you. And the process that would allow this to happen is the same one anarchists are advocating. To resurrect the classic Solidarity quote:

Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.

 

[Pickman's model]

But you can't win an election. You have neither the votes nor a system willing to accommodate you. And the process that would allow this to happen is the same one anarchists are advocating. To resurrect the classic Solidarity quote:

even if one election could be won, i doubt a second would and the period in office would make the hysteria about jeremy corbyn look small potatoes. in short, parliament will never vote itself out of existence.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

So again, how are you going to persuade people other than by telling them to read a book? Most people aren't going to want to read that book when they are already being persuaded to vote against their own itnerests on a daily basis.

Yes ofcourse, theres literally no other way of conveying ideas etc at all than with books.

 

[Rob Ray]

The reality of the Parliamentary limit for tolerating leftie ideas has been particularly stark this cycle, it's true, but what left electoralism (deliberately) forgets is that it's all fundamentally based on leverage, not individual votes. When the workers had leverage, Tory governments built council housing. When they lost that leverage Labour was there cutting benefits. Without the extra-Parliamentary threat from below there is only the threat of the Markets, ie. the rich. Without a vibrant culture of working class resistance with its own media there is only the voice of the rich. And thus neoliberalism becomes TINA.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The reality of the Parliamentary limit for tolerating leftie ideas has been particularly stark this cycle, it's true, but what left electoralism (deliberately) forgets is that it's all fundamentally based on leverage, not individual votes. When the workers had leverage, Tory governments built council housing. When they lost that leverage Labour was there cutting benefits. Without the extra-Parliamentary threat from below there is only the threat of the Markets, ie. the rich. Without a vibrant culture of working class resistance with its own media there is only the voice of the rich. And thus neoliberalism becomes TINA.

There's a lot of truth to that, but even then, elections can still matter. There is a tangible, measurable difference between Lula and Bolsonaro, for instance, both of them reacting the same situation on the ground wrt leverage. I think a Corbyn-led Labour govt in the UK would have been tangibly, measurably different. We'll never know, sadly.

 

[Pickman's model]

There's a lot of truth to that, but even then, elections can still matter. There is a tangible, measurable difference between Lula and Bolsonaro, for instance, both of them reacting the same situation on the ground wrt leverage. I think a Corbyn-led Labour govt in the UK would have been tangibly, measurably different. We'll never know, sadly.

if only you read more widely here you'd have encountered this post

Albert writing in 1952:
"When we declare our opposition to reformism, we do not mean that we oppose reforms, and obviously any crumb is better than no bread at all. What we oppose is the devotion of the labour movement to the reformist principle, thus gradually taking over from the middle-class do-gooders, and even (as has happened above all in England) letting those people in turn take over the direction of the labour movement politically, on the grounds that they will thus manage to achieve a few parliamentary and other reforms here and there. The result of this action is that in the end we get some reforms, but no social change-over such as the labour movement was originally created for. "
Workers’ Control and the Wage System (Ideas: What is Anarcho-Syndicalism?)

clearly elections have a bearing on what happens but what administrations produce is what they think they can get away with, and what they can get away with is limited by opposition, eg opposition to the poll tax

any corbyn government would have been hamstrung by the opposition to him within his own party let alone the opposition in the media etc

 

[Karl Masks]

Yes ofcourse, theres literally no other way of conveying ideas etc at all than with books.

good luck with that then

 

[Magnus McGinty]

good luck with that then

I think you missed the sarcasm.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think you missed the sarcasm.

don't know how, it was literally dripping down the screen

 

[Karl Masks]

don't know how, it was literally dripping down the screen

being neurodiverse I don't parse digital sarcasm that's as dry as that.

 

[Pickman's model]

being neurodiverse I don't parse digital sarcasm that's as dry as that.

do you not think there are other ways of spreading ideas than through books? through discussion on an internet forum, for example?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

if only you read more widely here you'd have encountered this post

clearly elections have a bearing on what happens but what administrations produce is what they think they can get away with, and what they can get away with is limited by opposition, eg opposition to the poll tax

any corbyn government would have been hamstrung by the opposition to him within his own party let alone the opposition in the media etc

You're incapable of engaging on here without some attempt to belittle the person you engage with. It's pathetic.

But I'll respond to this because this bit - 'what administrations produce is what they think they can get away with' - is exactly what I'm disputing. That implies that every administration has similar aims, which simply isn't true. Again, I would point you at the example of the contrast between Bolsonaro and Lula in Brazil. Mujica in Uruguay would be another good example of an elected leader with significantly different aims from the person he defeated in the election.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

being neurodiverse I don't parse digital sarcasm that's as dry as that.

Glad to have helped then.

 

[Pickman's model]

You're incapable of engaging on here without some attempt to belittle the person you engage with. It's pathetic.

But I'll respond to this because this bit - 'what administrations produce is what they think they can get away with' - is exactly what I'm disputing. That implies that every administration has similar aims, which simply isn't true. Again, I would point you at the example of the contrast between Bolsonaro and Lula in Brazil. Mujica in Uruguay would be another good example of an elected leader with significantly different aims from the person he defeated in the election.

all administrations have the same aim, which is to implement as much of their programme as they can. the amount they can implement will depend on how much and how effective opposition they receive.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

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.

Interesting.

Presumably the argument for a bureaucratic structure (point 1) is precisely in case there is a large uptick in members? But actually that isn't sufficient (point 3)?

(Perhaps a another side to this is that small orgs might attract people with a predisposition to bureaucratise things, to the detriment of other tasks?)

 

[teuchter]

What are non members meant to think? Well, there's number of aspects to that. First of all, what is my aim in working within organised anarchism. It isn't actually to turn working class people into anarchists in the sense of people well-versed in Kropotkin and Malatesta. It's to reinvigorate working class self confidence and self belief, to spread the values of solidarity and mutual aid, and through them show the value of direct action and self management.

If this is the real aim I wonder if it would be better to make an organisation without "anarchist" in the name. Maybe fewer people would be dismissive or intimidated, and you'd get better engagement.

 

[danny la rouge]

If this is the real aim I wonder if it would be better to make an organisation without "anarchist" in the name. Maybe fewer people would be dismissive or intimidated, and you'd get better engagement.

We do plenty without labelling it “anarchist”, because you’re right, both “anarchist” and “communist” have baggage and we’ve saddled ourselves with both.

 

[brogdale]

We do plenty without labelling it “anarchist”, because you’re right, both “anarchist” and “communist” have baggage and we’ve saddled ourselves with both.

He may be on to something there; maybe give Statist capitalists a go?

 

[Rob Ray]

Interesting.

Presumably the argument for a bureaucratic structure (point 1) is precisely in case there is a large uptick in members? But actually that isn't sufficient (point 3)?

(Perhaps a another side to this is that small orgs might attract people with a predisposition to bureaucratise things, to the detriment of other tasks?)

Yes to both, but various other elements as well.

• The start points for Constitutions and procedures are often cribbed from more successful (ie. historic) orgs which had built up substantial systems for dealing with a wide variety of issues (eg. someone misbehaving, intra-branch friction etc), and will include measures that are either overkill or unworkable, leading to ...
• Annual tweaking and New Ideas which add up over time to make what were fairly streamlined systems more and more Byzantine. Solfed for example has been fiddling with its ruleset for more than 30 years, not always with the most comprehensive of notes, so even the longest-serving folks are often not entirely clear on the actively agreed procedures. Plus ...
• The use of older constitutions and rulesets tends to effectively ignore or barely engage with the advent of the internet, so the actual making of decisions often seems bizarrely archaic.

Edit: Oh the other big one is anarchists attempting to replace the authority of individual power with the authority of the ruleset. Imv this is often an error, as it misunderstands the desire to remove central authority for a desire to remove personal responsibility, and can end up shoving decision-making into exactly the kind of hammer-for-a-screw legalism we critique in other contexts. But it can be a factor.

 

[Rob Ray]

If this is the real aim I wonder if it would be better to make an organisation without "anarchist" in the name. Maybe fewer people would be dismissive or intimidated, and you'd get better engagement.

As said above, we do. But then of course the best of our activities end up disassociated from anarchism, rather perpetuating the problem in which people say "what do anarchists actually achieve though?"

 

[danny la rouge]

As said above, we do. But then of course the best of our activities end up disassociated from anarchism, rather perpetuating the problem in which people say "what do anarchists actually achieve though?"

Indeed.

 

[teuchter]

We do plenty without labelling it “anarchist”, because you’re right, both “anarchist” and “communist” have baggage and we’ve saddled ourselves with both.

I mean your organisation itself, though, rather than the things it does. Maybe more people would be interested in joining you, and helping you to do the not-exactly-anarchism stuff that you do. That's kind of what the thread started being about, right?