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

[Fozzie Bear]

No I'm saying that it's failure to progress in modern times is primarily because it has no set clear fundamentals.This ambiguïté leaves it open to distortion and stasis.Anarchism is fighting for its soûl today.If it doesn't Establishment it's True credentials it's finished.

But groups like ACG and ACN are doing that? And more than that.

ETA: there is a continuous and unbroken line of people stating the fundamentals of anarchist communism since St Imier afaik. I need to read the Nick Heath book though.

 

[andysays]

Anarchism is a parody and pathetic vista of à once great Movement.Unless Anarchists State what à concise set of principles is Re;Authority/Freedom of Speech/Dictatorship of Prolétariat etc then it will be a foil for Middle Class dirt and Lifestylist parasites

I bet you say that to everyone in your affinity group

 

[Blackred]

Aye. I kind of agree. (I’m a bit more ambivalent about your first paragraph, but then I’m a grumpy auld bugger). But I’m comfortable enough in my own convictions that I don’t feel the need to give up because there are other people who think other things.

Don't get me wrong I often find The Scene absolutely infuriating . But if you're putting in serious work most of the worst of that lot don't show up anyway.

I find the attitude that people have to start somewhere problematic.Anarchists need to be more organised and disciplines.We will go nowhere otherwise and the fact the Président of Argentina claims he's an Anarcho Capitalist shows how pathetic we are in letting our Beliefs be hijacked

 

[Blackred]

I bet you say that to everyone in your affinity group

Why wouldn't I?

 

[Pickman's model]

I bet you say that to everyone in your affinity group

It sounds like something out of Stewart home

 

[danny la rouge]

Anarchists need to be more organised and disciplines.

Oh, I agree. And I do agree that lifestylism is off putting to a lot of people. I’m not saying “hey, we should all learn to juggle, man”. I’m just saying I don’t really mix with the unicycling tendency, and they don’t figure in stuff I do.

 

[A380]

…Anarchists need to be more organised…pathetic we are in letting our Beliefs be hijacked

Yeah, there should be some centralised world Académie Anachist that decides what to do and, more importantly, who is and who is not allowed to call themselves anarchists.

 

[danny la rouge]

Why wouldn't I?

People still think you might be another poster recently of this parish. You aren’t.

 

[The39thStep]

No I'm saying that it's failure to progress in modern times is primarily because it has no set clear fundamentals.This ambiguïté leaves it open to distortion and stasis.Anarchism is fighting for its soûl today.If it doesn't Establishment it's True credentials it's finished.

Modern day anarchism does have clear fundamentals and soul. I read on here about the recent introduction of foreign holiday jaunts by its leaders and that to me shows how it is establishing its credentials.

 

[andysays]

Why wouldn't I?

You happen to have (re)appeared shortly after a previous poster was banned.

That poster insisted that everyone else on this forum if not the world was doing anarchism wrong, and your post above has led many of us to suspect, possibly incorrectly, that you are them under a different name.

They were a strong advocate of affinity groups as opposed to other types of organising, hence my attempt at a joke.

Apologies if you're not the third coming of amateur agitator or groovy sunday, and apologies for the long winded explanation.

 

[Blackred]

Yeah, there should be some centralised world Académie Anachist that decides what to do and, more importantly, who is and who is not allowed to call themselves anarchists.

It's basic Organisation and practices. Letting anyone join and people with a Non Class base is ridiculous.

 

[Rob Ray]

.Anarchists need to be more organised and disciplines.

This is never not true, but it's basically a meaningless ambition in and of itself. Small business owners selling circled A t-shirts are disciplined and organised.

What matters is where those of us who are disciplined and organised put our focus. To my mind that is not in moaning about irrelevant peripheral movement issues, or how some dickheads like to misuse words sometimes. That is itself an indulgence, it has little to do with the task at hand.

You want a movement you'll have to persuade other disciplined and organised people you're worth listening to.

 

[danny la rouge]

You happen to have (re)appeared shortly after a previous poster was banned.

That poster insisted that everyone else on this forum if not the world was doing anarchism wrong, and your post above has led many of us to suspect, possibly incorrectly, that you are them under a different name.

They were a strong advocate of affinity groups as opposed to other types of organising, hence my attempt at a joke.

Apologies if you're not the third coming of amateur agitator or groovy sunday, and apologies for the long winded explanation.

Well, you can’t make an umlaut without breaking eggs…

 

[Blackred]

You happen to have (re)appeared shortly after a previous poster was banned.

That poster insisted that everyone else on this forum if not the world was doing anarchism wrong, and your post above has led many of us to suspect, possibly incorrectly, that you are them under a different name.

They were a strong advocate of affinity groups as opposed to other types of organising, hence my attempt at a joke.

Apologies if you're not the third coming of amateur agitator or groovy sunday, and apologies for the long winded explanation.

No problem mate.I understand the difficulties

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Anarchism does not have one initial founder or one initial great thinker, unlike Marxism. Both a strength and a weakness. Times change and anarchism changes. Some people claim to be anarchists, and their claims get questioned. Just like any other political/social/religious/philosophical movement really. Getting too purist about things just leads to more factionalism. Not purist enough leads to lack of effectiveness.

 

[A380]

Anarchism does not have … one initial great thinker…

It does now Blackred is here to enlighten you.

 

[Blackred]

Anarchism does not have one initial founder or one initial great thinker, unlike Marxism. Both a strength and a weakness. Times change and anarchism changes. Some people claim to be anarchists, and their claims get questioned. Just like any other political/social/religious/philosophical movement really. Getting too purist about things just leads to more factionalism. Not purist enough leads to lack of effectiveness.

Yes the peripherals change but never the Fundamentals.Anyone calls himself an Anarchist these days and that's the issue.Anarchism is Anti Capitalist/Anti State/Anti Religion etc It is not some plastecine to mould to à Collective viewpoint

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Yes the peripherals change but never the Fundamentals.Anyone calls himself an Anarchist these days and that's the issue.Anarchism is Anti Capitalist/Anti State/Anti Religion etc It is not some plastecine to mould to à Collective viewpoint

Yeah. But you can't stop someone calling themselves anarcho-capitalist. All you can do is slag them off. They're not going to get allied to class strugglers anyway, nor involved in their organisations. And you can't stop non-anarchists misinterpreting anarchism either. They do it all the time, and will continue to do so.

 

[Rob Ray]

Anarchism has never been entirely anti-religious. Its major movements have often had a strong critique against organised religion, but religious anarchism has a very long history especially through the Quakers, liberation theology etc.

I'm not against having a clear idea as to what you mean by anarchism, but gatekeeping your own conception as the only acceptable one will get you nowhere fast. People aren't machines to be programmed with The One True Path, they're chaotic and frequently self-contradictory animals. You have to work with what is.

 

[Blackred]

Yeah. But you can't stop someone calling themselves anarcho-capitalist. All you can do is slag them off. They're not going to get allied to class strugglers anyway, nor involved in their organisations. And you can't stop non-anarchists misinterpreting anarchism either. They do it all the timee, and will continue to do so.

No but you can exposé the falsehoods and psuedo Libertarian stance and in doing so open People's eyes to réal Anarchist history. Otherwise our History is lost and they win.If you don't the stragglers will parasite and hold back the Movement

Yeah. But you can't stop someone calling themselves anarcho-capitalist. All you can do is slag them off. They're not going to get allied to class strugglers anyway, nor involved in their organisations. And you can't stop non-anarchists misinterpreting anarchism either. They do it all the time, and will continue to do so.

Yeah. But you can't stop someone calling themselves anarcho-capitalist. All you can do is slag them off. They're not going to get allied to class strugglers anyway, nor involved in their organisations. And you can't stop non-anarchists misinterpreting anarchism either. They do it all the time, and will continue to do so.

 

[Blackred]

Anarchism has never been entirely anti-religious. Its major movements have often had a strong critique against organised religion, but religious anarchism has a very long history especially through the Quakers, liberation theology etc.

I'm not against having a clear idea as to what you mean by anarchism, but gatekeeping your own conception as the only acceptable one will get you nowhere fast. People aren't machines to be programmed with The One True Path, they're chaotic and frequently self-contradictory animals. You have to work with what is.

That was part of the emerging rébellion of the Poor not Anarchism per se.Interpreting on those ground is misleading. Yes the Quakers/Diggers were important etc and challenged the State but to attribué that to Anarchism as a hole is wrong

 

[Rob Ray]

That was part of the emerging rébellion of the Poor not Anarchism per se.Interpreting on those ground is misleading. Yes the Quakers/Diggers were important etc and challenged the State but to attribué that to Anarchism as a hole is wrong

Well, good luck in your search for that Pure Anarchist Movement you've got in your head I guess. I think you'll be a long time looking.

 

[Blackred]

Well, good luck in your search for that Pure Anarchist Movement you've got in your head I guess. I think you'll be a long time looking.

It's not purist mate it's realising the progression of political beliefs.Otherwise we may aswell put Jesus with Bakunin

 

[Rob Ray]

K

 

[Blackred]

It's not purist mate it's realising the progression of political beliefs.Otherwise we may aswell put Jesus with Bakunin

That's why Anarchism has no direction or focus.It has let itself drift and be taken over by Fakirs

 

[Dystopiary]

Well, you can’t make an umlaut without breaking eggs…

There'll always be dire critics.

 

[A380]

I’m glad I’m not an anarchist, so many of you seem to have spent your life campaigning for a better world, and reading, discussing and thinking about anarchism’s theory and history for decades. But now this Blackred chap ( and I’ll bet he is a chap) has rocked up and pointed out how you are all completely wrong. You all must feel so silly now.

 

[hitmouse]

Yeah, I used to be more hardline about this stuff (as in, the enemies are the state and bosses, putting too much time into slagging off other anarchists and the like is a waste of effort), now I am a bit more sympathetic to blackred's view in that I think some of the stuff people calling themselves anarchists say and do is really toxic counterproductive shit and could do with being challenged more... but ultimately I think you do have to be a bit of a historical materialist about it, if revolutionary anarchism means anything at all then it's a tendency within the wider working-class movement, and with the current state of the workers' movement in general, you can't really expect the libertarian direct action end of it to be doing any better. If there is a general revival of class militancy, then you'd hope that there would be more space for a revival of anarchism as a movement.

But groups like ACG and ACN are doing that? And more than that.

ETA: there is a continuous and unbroken line of people stating the fundamentals of anarchist communism since St Imier afaik. I need to read the Nick Heath book though.

Tbf, I appreciate it may not be what the author intended, but one of the big things I took from reading The Idea was how much of the history of groups who consider themselves to be dedicated to the fundamentals of anarchist communism actually consists of them breaking (with what other people consider to be) the fundamentals of anarchist communism, from France to Uruguay to Bulgaria. That's perhaps a side-note though.

 

[planetgeli]

That's why Anarchism has no direction or focus.It has let itself drift and be taken over by Fakirs

Yeah we've had experience with one or two fakirs on here. Well, one, but he claimed to be two.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Well, one, but he claimed to be two.

It was just a fission expedition