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

[belboid]

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.?

My main disagreement with anarchism has always been about what is a 'state' and the fact that, what the best anarchists describe as a central but still freely federated and democratic organ, is really a state by any other name. And that isn't meant as a pedantic point or any kind of 'gotcha' but to note that if we don't know what a thing is, we will be hampered in our understanding of how to control it and how to eventually do away with it.

In the meanwhile we have to work to, to use that Albert quote, build 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. And far from being against voting it means a massive expansion of voting, of democratising the institutions as best we can under the current system and to expose the contradictions between the claims of bourgeois democracy and the reality.

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.

This seems all too likely to me too, but the problem is, its hard to argue for in advance "we're just waiting for the imminent collapse of capitalism when the values of anarchism will become apparent!"

 

[Rob Ray]

the problem is, its hard to argue for in advance "we're just waiting for the imminent collapse of capitalism when the values of anarchism will become apparent!"

The real question is how to parse the sudden realisation of a need for anarchist values against the non-understanding of a large number of people who are so wrapped up by the existing system they are totally incapable of imagining anything else, and in fact act against their own interests to protect the status quo. The rise of Mutual Aid groups during the pandemic (sparked by a Freedom Press article) was a very important example of this, and we're actually working on a book about that very topic.

 

[Karl Masks]

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

The Inquiry wasn't whether or not it's possible, but whether or not the person in question is willing or able. Explaining anarchism to a largely disinterested if not hostile audience isn't easy.

 

[Pickman's model]

The Inquiry wasn't whether or not it's possible, but whether or not the person in question is willing or able. Explaining anarchism to a largely disinterested if not hostile audience isn't easy.

let's revisit what you actually asked

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.

you weren't asking what you think you were asking

 

[teuchter]

You understood wrong. We do useful things which are not labelled as anarchist, this does not mean we don't do useful stuff as anarchists as well.

What sort of useful stuff falls into the category of "done as anarchists" rather than "not labelled as anarchist"?

 

[Rob Ray]

What sort of useful stuff falls into the category of "done as anarchists" rather than "not labelled as anarchist"?

Read through some anarchist news media or something if you're actually interested rather than just being tendentious, you're quite capable of using Google.

 

[teuchter]

Read through some anarchist news media or something if you're actually interested rather than just being tendentious, you're quite capable of using Google.

I was interested to know what you (or other anarchists acting "as anarchists") mean by useful, and to whom. Google can't tell me that.

 

[Rob Ray]

I was interested to know what you (or other anarchists acting "as anarchists") mean by useful, and to whom. Google can't tell me that.

No. I've got neither time nor the inclination to indulge your laziness and go through Freedom News, libcom, reddit or whatever to make a list for you to try and pick holes in. If you're interested you can show some initiative. If you aren't and, as has been the case through most of this thread, are mainly in it to find excuses to be dismissive, then that's your bag.

 

[8ball]

My main disagreement with anarchism has always been about what is a 'state' and the fact that, what the best anarchists describe as a central but still freely federated and democratic organ, is really a state by any other name.

I get what you mean here, but if you remove elements like alienation from means of production, various forms of compulsion, the enforcement of inequality with hard borders, unaccountability of authority, the monopoly on violence, the ability of States to threaten and go to war (both military and economic) in a monolothic fashion, and an assortment of things I'm too groggy to think of right now, then I'm not sure how long the resulting society would resemble a State for.

 

[Pickman's model]

I get what you mean here, but if you remove elements like alienation from means of production, various forms of compulsion, the enforcement of inequality with hard borders, unaccountability of authority, the monopoly on violence, the ability of States to threaten and go to war (both military and economic) in a monolothic fashion, and an assortment of things I'm too groggy to think of right now, then I'm not sure how long the resulting society would resemble a State for.

Societies and states are not the same thing

 

[8ball]

Societies and states are not the same thing

Full moon in 2 days...

 

[Pickman's model]

Full moon in 2 days...

That's the most politically astute post you've made in years

 

[8ball]

That's the most politically astute post you've made in years

Certainly counts for it round here.

 

[Pickman's model]

Certainly counts for it round here.

If you have a body which facilitates the running of supra-communal things like transport, like an electric grid, that does not make it either a state or a society. Society is the population at large, in the same way an ocean is a body of water. Society has its currents, like an ocean, and like an ocean only a proportion of it can be controlled. The state is the conglomeration of attempts to control society whether through thought - eg education - or some more active measure like the army or police.

For marx the state was the means by which one class oppresses another. Our modern state incorporates this but adds other levels which also control but have other activities - eg the nhs. Controlling does not prevent it being in some ways beneficial - universal vaccination for instance. The state determines who is 'in' and who 'out' - not everyone in UK society had access to the national health service, for example. Similarly with the welfare state, payments are not universal and as we've seen during eg the miners strike or more recently with the quotas of sanctions can be applied or withheld to further the state's interests, not society's. The state is of course in society insofar as it is composed of members of society but its interests are opposed to those of society as it seeks to maintain its own power and existence.

 

[Karl Masks]

let's revisit what you actually asked

you weren't asking what you think you were asking

Your inability to understand my post isn't my problem.

 

[8ball]

If you have a body which facilitates the running of supra-communal things like transport, like an electric grid, that does not make it either a state or a society. Society is the population at large, in the same way an ocean is a body of water. Society has its currents, like an ocean, and like an ocean only a proportion of it can be controlled. The state is the conglomeration of attempts to control society whether through thought - eg education - or some more active measure like the army or police.

For marx the state was the means by which one class oppresses another. Our modern state incorporates this but adds other levels which also control but have other activities - eg the nhs. Controlling does not prevent it being in some ways beneficial - universal vaccination for instance. The state determines who is 'in' and who 'out' - not everyone in UK society had access to the national health service, for example. Similarly with the welfare state, payments are not universal and as we've seen during eg the miners strike or more recently with the quotas of sanctions can be applied or withheld to further the state's interests, not society's. The state is of course in society insofar as it is composed of members of society but its interests are opposed to those of society as it seeks to maintain its own power and existence.

A fair bit to unpack there. I guess it would help to know what question you thought you were answering.

 

[Pickman's model]

A fair bit to unpack there. I guess it would help to know what question you thought you were answering.

Your confusion between states and societies

 

[8ball]

Your confusion between states and societies

You wasted that much time on a single elision a small child could understand?

You might want to look up for yourself what a society is too before drowning yourself in nautical metaphors.

 

[Pickman's model]

You wasted that much time on a single elision a small child could understand?

You might want to look up for yourself what a society is too before drowning yourself in nautical metaphors.

Perhaps you need to enlist the assistance of a small child then as you plainly struggle with it

 

[8ball]

Perhaps you need to enlist the assistance of a small child then as you plainly seem to struggle with it

FFS, you can’t even make literal sense at this point.

Try smaller words, maybe a dictionary.

 

[Pickman's model]

FFS, you can’t even make literal sense at this point.

Try smaller words, maybe a dictionary.

Which words are you having difficulty with?

 

[8ball]

Which words are you having difficulty with?

See, you’ve gone and done it again. All good words, just no grasp of their meaning.

Your ability to use a computing device seems to indicate some promise, so keep at it.

 

[Pickman's model]

See, you’ve gone and done it again. All good words, just no grasp of their meaning.

Your ability to use a computing device seems to indicate some promise, so keep at it.

One day you'll advance beyond ad hominems. Maybe.

 

[8ball]

One day you'll advance beyond ad hominems. Maybe.

One day you’ll stop hiding behind them.
Who am I kidding, of course you won’t.

 

[Pickman's model]

One day you’ll stop hiding behind them.
Who am I kidding, of course you won’t.

I'm not hiding. If you've an actual disagreement with my post 614 then let's hear it

 

[8ball]

I'm not hiding. If you've an actual disagreement with my post 614 then let's hear it

You need time to Google for more ad homs?

I’d happily take up that point with a good faith actor, but I’m reminded of that old adage about wrestling with pigs.

 

[Red Cat]

This anarchism looks fab, respectful and curious discussion, and good conflict resolution skills too. What's not to like?

 

[Pickman's model]

You need time to Google for more ad homs?

I’d happily take up that point with a good faith actor, but I’m reminded of that old adage about wrestling with pigs.

If I sought an ad hom I don't think I'd need to search for it. But throughout this lovely little exchange you've been a worse faith actor than me

 

[8ball]

This anarchism looks fab, respectful and curious discussion, and good conflict resolution skills too. What's not to like?

There’s also a meat raffle.

 

[danny la rouge]

This anarchism looks fab, respectful and curious discussion, and good conflict resolution skills too. What's not to like?

To be fair, several of the people engaged in this thread are not anarchists.

But can we have the meat raffle another night? I’m vegan.