Does anarchism have a serious future?

[Joe Reilly]

And there we get to the crux of the matter. Joe doesn't know that much about the historical theory or practice of anarchism. You're simultaneously attacking anarchism for being an 'ideology' with no influence, then denying that it even exists as an 'ideology' (

I posed the question. Why is it that you seem to have so much trouble dealing with that?

As for ABC's what is the anarchist ABC from where we are not to where you think you want to go? For an ideology confident you can change the world it is all rather thin on specifics.

 

[redsquirrel]

As it goes i've got neither the time nor the inclination to fill you in what you should already have looked into before you started this thread.

What you don't even have time to link to the FAQ.
Not even for Ern.

 

[butchersapron]

I posed the question. Why is it that you seem to have so much trouble dealing with that?

As for ABC's what is the anarchist ABC from where we are not to where you think you want to go? For an ideology confident you can change the world it is all rather thin on specifics.

You posed the question - i answered, but pointed out that given that you started this thread, it would have been more constructive if you'd taken the time to look into it before starting the thread - as it's becoming increasingly clear that you're operating on a number of misconceptions about anarchism. I don't know if this is deliberate or not - but it's not helpful either way.

Try as i might i can't make head nor tail of that last para.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I'm pointing out the fact that s/he was obviously not saying what you thought s/he was saying. octoberlost's post seems to boil down to the argument that politics does not proceed in a vacuum, even if you have great ideas they depend on you having an audience. QUOTE]

Alright then lets look at it another way, what is anarchism's actually doing to reach the necessary audience?

 

[Ray]

This is just flabby revisionism. I did point it a number of serious flaws in contemporary anarchism.

I've just checked through all of your posts to this thread, and it confirms what I said. You didn't point to any flaws in anarchism. The closest you got was the blanket assertion in the first post that anarchism was a failure, and mutterings about ideology. You didn't point to a single element of anarchist theory that was illogical or contradictory, or point to any noticable failures of current anarchist organisations.

Don't agree? Show me the posts.

I did not spend most of my time arguing Marx was a perfect democrat. In regard to Marx what I said was that I did not regard 'marxism' as an ideology. It was your mob who focused on Marx the authoritarian - I simply asked for evidence. None was provided.

Plenty of evidence was provided, but nothing that managed to convince you that you were the only non-ideological one here. Funny that.

Such tactics are hall marks of a defensive mentality. But then of course you have much to be defensive about.

Such as...?

 

[Joe Reilly]

You posed the question - i answered, but pointed out that given that you started this thread, it would have been more constructive if you'd taken the time to look into it before starting the thread - as it's becoming increasingly clear that you're operating on a number of misconceptions about anarchism.
QUOTE]

Judging from the nature of the debate the misconceptions may actually lie with you. Among yourselves you all know what it is your talking about. Or think you do. But there is a reluctance verging on resentment (and not just limited to this thread) the minute anyone question the veracity of your assumptions. How different is that from the average Trot sect? This answer is not very much.

 

[Ray]

I'm pointing out the fact that s/he was obviously not saying what you thought s/he was saying. octoberlost's post seems to boil down to the argument that politics does not proceed in a vacuum, even if you have great ideas they depend on you having an audience. QUOTE]

Alright then lets look at it another way, what is anarchism's actually doing to reach the necessary audience?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry

Anarchists are involved in campaigns, demonstrating anarchist methods of organising in practice, and they produce papers, magazines, leaflets, and pamphlets, discussing anarchist ideas, the principles and their particular applications.

For fucks sake, if you have no idea what anarchists actually do, why do you start a thread saying that anarchism is fucked? If you have some idea of what anarchism does, what's with all the pre-school level questions?

 

[Joe Reilly]

You didn't point to a single element of anarchist theory that was illogical or contradictory, or point to any noticable failures of current anarchist organisations.


QUOTE]

What are the noticeable successes of current anarchist organisations then?

 

[butchersapron]

You posed the question - i answered, but pointed out that given that you started this thread, it would have been more constructive if you'd taken the time to look into it before starting the thread - as it's becoming increasingly clear that you're operating on a number of misconceptions about anarchism.
QUOTE]

Judging from the nature of the debate the misconceptions may actually lie with you. Among yourselves you all know what it is your talking about. Or think you do. But there is a reluctance verging on resentment (and not just limited to this thread) the minute anyone question the veracity of your assumptions. How different is that from the average Trot sect? This answer is not very much.

I'd agree with Ray here - re-read the thread and show where you've made any substantial criticisms of anarchism, beyond the fact (that we all agree on) that anarchism is not widely influential at the minute. But you led yourself by the nose to the conclusion that this can only mean that anarchism is dead (will you draw the same conclusion for marx/marxism?).

'Remeber comrades if RA is right' etc. But at least you understood exactly what Leninism was, so you made a good job of it that time.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry

Anarchists are involved in campaigns, demonstrating anarchist methods of organising in practice, and they produce papers, magazines, leaflets, and pamphlets, discussing anarchist ideas, the principles and their particular applications.

I don't doubt you have been doing all the above from time - but as you admit they don't work. They don't achieve the audience. So does the problem lie with the audience or does the the problem with anarchists?

 

[Ray]

What are the noticeable successes of current anarchist organisations then?

I'm famiiar with Ireland, rather than the UK, but anarchists here have been very effective in anti-war campaigns, anti-racist work, 'anti-globalisation' stuff.

Remember, you're the one that started the thread, arguing that anarchism doesn't have a future, so its up to you to provide the evidence.

 

[Ray]

I don't doubt you have been doing all the above from time - but as you admit they don't work. They don't achieve the audience. So does the problem lie with the audience or does the the problem with anarchists?

The problem is exactly the same as that faced by pure, non-ideological marxism.

 

[Joe Reilly]

The problem is exactly the same as that faced by pure, non-ideological marxism.

I agree. But if indeed it is recognised as a problem (and there may not be unanaminity on this) the question of what anarchism doing about it remains?

By the way the majority of the thread has been taken up with defenders finding reasons not to answer a straight question just like this. So let's see what happens...

 

[Joe Reilly]

I'm famiiar with Ireland, rather than the UK, but anarchists here have been very effective in anti-war campaigns, anti-racist work, 'anti-globalisation' stuff.

Remember, you're the one that started the thread, arguing that anarchism doesn't have a future, so its up to you to provide the evidence.

Neo-liberalism is winning hand over fist. Theoritically, idelogically, strategically and tactically. Look out the window occassionally. There's your evidence!

 

[butchersapron]

I agree. But if indeed it is recognised as a problem (and there may not be unanaminity on this) the question of what anarchism doing about it remains?

By the way the majority of the thread has been taken up with defenders finding reasons not to answer a straight question just like this. So let's see what happens...

It's not a straight question at all though is it - it's an entirely skewed question - with you limiting the replies to the choice of two that you rather the person being questioned have already decided for them - both equally unpalatable and both having to ignore wider factors such as the general climate of working class defeat and the consequent demoralisation this has brought etc. It's a are you still beating your wife type question

 

[Stavrogin]

I agree with Ray and BA in that JoeR accusation didn't match up to the reality of the thread but even so, I feel that it was a 'useful' remark.

Se Non e vero..., eh?

I've had that experience - discussing anarchism with certain people and coming to ridiculous impasses where we have, say, conflicting paradigms.

If looked at it in these terms we might be able to examine some of the reasons why, as has been said, anarchism has been unsuccesful. I don't know...

interesting though

 

[butchersapron]

Neo-liberalism is winning hand over fist. Theoritically, idelogically, strategically and tactically. Look out the window occassionally. There's your evidence!

So then are you going apply that evidence to marx/marxism then and draw the only logoical conclusion that it has no serious future? If not, why not?

 

[Pickman's model]

Neo-liberalism is winning hand over fist. Theoritically, idelogically, strategically and tactically. Look out the window occassionally. There's your evidence!

it's dark outside! can't see much out there!

 

[Ray]

Neo-liberalism is winning hand over fist. Theoritically, idelogically, strategically and tactically. Look out the window occassionally. There's your evidence!

Again, for fucks sake.

If that's your argument, then your thread should have been 'Does socialism have a future?' If you're going to attack anarchism, it should be about a problem that marxism doesn't share.

 

[butchersapron]

I agree with Ray and BA in that JoeR accusation didn't match up to the reality of the thread but even so, I feel that it was a 'useful' remark.

Se Non e vero..., eh?

I've had that experience - discussing anarchism with certain people and coming to ridiculous impasses where we have, say, conflicting paradigms.

If looked at it in these terms we might be able to examine some of the reasons why, as has been said, anarchism has been unsuccesful. I don't know...

interesting though

Yeah, i've no problem with the question being asked at all - just that the lack of support for the original contention rather let it down. It's a discussion that i think is actually needed at the minute, because i think a whole load of stuff that some anarchists are doing is not only useless but actively counter-productive to any sort of progress in the actual concrete conditions of the working class.

 

[Ray]

I agree. But if indeed it is recognised as a problem (and there may not be unanaminity on this) the question of what anarchism doing about it remains?

By the way the majority of the thread has been taken up with defenders finding reasons not to answer a straight question just like this. So let's see what happens...

Anarchism is doing the same thing as 'non-ideological marxism' is doing. Trying to convince people that its a sensible idea that would improve the world. Anarchism can't claim to have completely succeeded so far, but then neither has 'non-ideological marxism'.

Do you think there's some sort of magc wand that anarchists or marxists could wave, and convince everyone overnight of the brilliance of their position? Why do you assume there is anything to be done, apart from what anarchists are currently doing?

 

[Ray]

Yeah, i've no problem with the question being asked at all - just that the lack of support for the original contention rather let it down. It's a discussion that i think is actually needed at the minute, because i think a whole load of stuff that some anarchists are doing is not only useless but actively counter-productive to any sort of progress in the actual concrete conditions of the working class.

The difference being, you could actually point to stuff that anarchists are doing, and say "I think we should be doing more of this, and less of that". And you don't need to have direct democracy explained to you.

 

[Joe Reilly]

It's not a straight question at all though is it - it's an entirely skewed question - with you limiting the replies to the choice of two that you rather the person being questioned have already decided for them - both equally unpalatable and both having to ignore wider factors such as the general climate of working class defeat and the consequent demoralisation this has brought etc. It's a are you still beating your wife type question

A one size fits all standard ideological reply. LOL! The working class has been defeated, are demoralised etc. But not anarchism. Anarchism is made of sterner stuff. Has suffered no defeats etc.

There are a whole series of problem with that rationale. One that immediately jumps out is is that it presumes anarchism had an influence prior to the "general climate of working class defeat and the consequent demoralisation etc".

Unless you are using the R&B criteria from earlier (the majority unknowingly act in an anarchist way) the defence for current inertia simply does not stand up does it?

 

[Ray]

A one size fits all standard ideological reply. LOL! The working class has been defeated, are demoralised etc. But not anarchism. Anarchism is made of sterner stuff. Has suffered no defeats etc.

You know we're all mentally substituting 'Marxism' for 'anarchism' in your posts, don't you?

(The difference is, we're aware of what we're doing)

 

[Joe Reilly]

Anarchism is doing the same thing as 'non-ideological marxism' is doing. Trying to convince people that its a sensible idea that would improve the world. Anarchism can't claim to have completely succeeded so far, but then neither has 'non-ideological marxism'.

Do you think there's some sort of magc wand that anarchists or marxists could wave, and convince everyone overnight of the brilliance of their position? Why do you assume there is anything to be done, apart from what anarchists are currently doing?

'Anarchists are trying to convince people that is it a sensible idea that would improve the world' is the problem. By approaching everything from an idelogical angle you come across as little different to Jehovah's witnesses...which is there is no audience which is why it can never work.

 

[Ray]

By approaching everything from an idelogical angle you come across as little different to Jehovah's witnesses...which is there is no audience which is why it can never work.

Oh great, back to "everyone's ideological except me"...

 

[butchersapron]

A one size fits all standard ideological reply. LOL! The working class has been defeated, are demoralised etc. But not anarchism. Anarchism is made of sterner stuff. Has suffered no defeats etc.

There are a whole series of problem with that rationale. One that immediately jumps out is is that it presumes anarchism had an influence prior to the "general climate of working class defeat and the consequent demoralisation etc".

Unless you are using the R&B criteria from earlier (the majority unknowingly act in an anarchist way) the defence for current inertia simply does not stand up does it?

But that's not even close to what i said Joe and you know it. I said that your choices of either anarchism being wrong or the working class being wrong were ridiculous and crude because they effectively left out wider developements such as the one i mentioned, and that this meant that, contra your claims, you were not asking a straight question at all but a polemically skewed one.

I said no such thing as anarchism has suffered no defeats - i was making the exact opposite point that anarchism has suffered from many defeats (as has the wider w/c movement).

Now, that's three times on this thread that you've taken my replies as meaning the opposite of what they intended - no one else has yet managed to do this. So why do you keep doing it?

Yes, anarchism did have some influence in this country historically - that's undeniable. But, as you insist on viewing things from a formal, partyist viewpoint you're forced to deny this, to maintain the coherency of your own perspective.

This also means that you've failed entirely to grasp what the argument is concerning people often spontaneously acting in ways that anarchists would recognise as useful - i.e by adopting direct democracy or immediately recallable delegates.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

You know we're all mentally substituting 'Marxism' for 'anarchism' in your posts, don't you?

(The difference is, we're aware of what we're doing)

Ray I just had a look at your site and found it interesting. I can understand your diffrences with the trot left what I don't understand is this ..take away the labels...why wouldn't the IWCA form of organisation and orientation be acceptable to your group?

 

[charlie mowbray]

To Joe reilly
What? Your last sentence makes no sense. Looks like this conversation is degenerating into a yes it is, no it isn't session with you as the main culprit. Let's see in another ten years where Red Action is and where British anarchism is. I know who I'd put my money on.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Oh great, back to "everyone's ideological except me"...

Only on this thread Ray, in the real world it's the other way round.