Does anarchism have a serious future?
- Thread starter Joe Reilly
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
by this "political mainstream" do you mean that in future the iwca's policies are going to be determined by focus groups and so forth rather than by what's in the working class interest? i think you should expand somewhat on this "political mainstream" bit. it sounds a bit ominous to me, that you might mean some things i rather hope you don't.Joe Reilly said:
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Pickman's model said:
Being in the 'political mainstream' means challenging head-on the hegemony of the middle class parties in working class areas in a visible way NOT retreating back into the cosy but artifical world of 'community assemblies' and the like. Focus groups are not an issue. They exist to try and glean what people are thinking a) because the party is unrepresentative of that section of the population or b) as is the case with New Labour as an alternative to trusting its existing membership. The IWCA does use surveys. But for a different reason.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
that's fair enough, but i imagine that most people would share my understandign of the "political mainstream" which is buying into the sphere of politics represented in the house of commons. which would rather defeat the object of the iwca...
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
catch said:
The bureaucrats are probably more powerful than the elected councillors at present. But that is not a problem if the contradictions are brought out into the open, the real relationship made both explicit and transparent, and the bureaucrats politically confronted on it in front of the public. But of course until you are in position to run a council...
All of those things can be done now, and council bureaucracies already affect people now - either employing them, or making decisions which affect them. I don't think it's an issue which should be left until "you're in a position to run a council", that's merely one possible tactic within a whole range of community politics (and community politics encompasses workplaces within that community, including local councils and contractors, a point that should be obvious, but is worth repeating). And as you've just pointed out yourself, running a council only begins to address that particular power structure, and so far you've suggested public confrontation of bureaucrats, something that can be done by anyone, not just elected councillors.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
catch said:
Your quite wrong there. The contradiction can be exposed by elected councillors confronting un-elected bureaucrats. No one else can do it. Otherwise in any attack the councillors and bureaucrats link arms with councillors the first line of defence. Thus no contradiction to exploit. The councillors have to be stripped out first to enable the exposure to occur.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
maybe no contradiction but much confusion.Joe Reilly said:
888 said:The return of ...
Obviously 888 is a scripted trinitarian....>>>>
------------------------------------
Does anarchism have a serious future?
May have helped on this thread if someone had answered if anarchism had a past and if so what.
As with all ISM'S it is no more than an extended abstraction that nullifies the original if left to fester.
Curious how non seem to be able to address the issue.
The Greeks invented the classifications of the archy's, now when did anarchISM turn into anarchism and for how long did Alexanders religious fundamentalists spend per day in praying to him ?
Does anyone know if the present X+infinity of groups calling themselves anarchist's have yet been in touch with the descendants of Alexanders worshipping troops (some of whom were Greek) in Afghanistan ?
To ascertain the REAL history of Anarchy and anarchISM ?
.
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Get back on the medication, mate.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
catch said:
You can choose to elect councillors with a proven track record of working to a shared agenda with the more powerful council bureaucracy, or you can choose to elect councillors who are committed to pursuing the interests of the communities they come from (in the case of the IWCA working class communites), regardless of the interests of the council bureaucracy. These are the real, albeit limited choices that face voters come the local elections; I know which one I prefer and which one more effectively exposes the contradictions between the rhetoric and reality of local representative democracy. The option of not taking part does nothing in and of itself to expose this contradiction and of course gives those backing the first option a free run. None of which of course precludes political acitivity outside of the electoral arena.
Cheers - Louis Mac
Ray said:
I think that joe reilly answers the point about direct and representitive democracy and the IWCA. My suggestion is to think of the IWCA as a trade union for residents based on rank and file principles.
As for the square peg/round hole I remember the IWCA being described as 'a good idea in practise that would never work in theory'
Louis, that's all quite reasonable, and I'm not necessarily against people running for local elections if it's understood that it's a limited tactic within a much wider range of activity, however that's not the same as "No one else can do it".
Both you and Joe Reilly have confirmed that there's a limit on what councillors can do even if elected due the nature of the current electoral/bureaucratic system - even within the remit of the council, let alone every other powerful institution within communities that the council as an entity has to deal with but has no jurisdiction over. Direct, face-to-face, community assembly-based politics has the potential, even if it's not happening now, to deal with issues that local councils don't have any control or influence over, which Joe Reilly dismisses as trying to impose anarchist organisation on communities through an ideological straitjacket.
Both you and Joe Reilly have confirmed that there's a limit on what councillors can do even if elected due the nature of the current electoral/bureaucratic system - even within the remit of the council, let alone every other powerful institution within communities that the council as an entity has to deal with but has no jurisdiction over. Direct, face-to-face, community assembly-based politics has the potential, even if it's not happening now, to deal with issues that local councils don't have any control or influence over, which Joe Reilly dismisses as trying to impose anarchist organisation on communities through an ideological straitjacket.
Chuck Wilson said:
Hmm, well I'd suggest that if the IWCA continues, and continues to grow, it'll start running into the same problems as the trade union movement
Chuck Wilson said:
I can see the point of a pragmatic politics, and it looks from here like anarchists and IWCA members would get along well on a lot of things. But 'rejecting theory' and only 'looking at immediate goals' could also be described as 'ignoring long-term problems because you can't see the solutions'.
The thing is, its hard to argue about if the lack of any general theory means debates come down to "I think comrade X is a great bloke - are you saying he's going to sell us out?".
Bakunine --3 Letters to the Swiss.
He has an interesting use of the word Earth, in it's application.
--------
When an English ship first landed in Japan, they found that the Jesuits had been there for approx one hundred years. The Japanese had learnt from them to understand that Europe was under one religion, Catholic, there were no disturbance - all peaceful, all Europeans were of one religion.
So tales had been told, sadly the English told of the wars and of the Protestants as well and of many other religious groups.
Bakunine as with most others of the early anarchists of the modern period, were all from within the Russian Empire and of the Russian religion, which they clearly understood as an offshoot of the German Catholic.
The area of both Russia and Germany was riddled with concepts of More's Utopia, which in itself came from the area of the Anglo catholic, Britain, it's author 'became' a saint.
The main line within it was that the society they had was the best of all BUT it needed a new management committee.
Bakunine in his written pieces refers to the type of State (Civitas) that existed in Russia and Germany as being the same all over the earth.
The Communist manifesto was aimed at trying to move the position of the Utopians, Bakunine pandered to them. He was wrong. It's how they taught him. He never broke from it.
The state (civitas not civilisation) has been guided in it's development, in the Byzantine, feudal and capitalist periods by the same religious doctrine, though the German (feudal) and the British (capitalist) were not a continuity of the Byzantine or the Roman.
Anarchism of the modern period arose in the Russian Empire it has to a great extent been grafted on to central and southern Europe because it had a use value.
The fascists and Stalinist were all of the Utopians of last century. and yes there are such things as anarcho fascists. So yes anarchism has problems.
He has an interesting use of the word Earth, in it's application.
--------
When an English ship first landed in Japan, they found that the Jesuits had been there for approx one hundred years. The Japanese had learnt from them to understand that Europe was under one religion, Catholic, there were no disturbance - all peaceful, all Europeans were of one religion.
So tales had been told, sadly the English told of the wars and of the Protestants as well and of many other religious groups.
Bakunine as with most others of the early anarchists of the modern period, were all from within the Russian Empire and of the Russian religion, which they clearly understood as an offshoot of the German Catholic.
The area of both Russia and Germany was riddled with concepts of More's Utopia, which in itself came from the area of the Anglo catholic, Britain, it's author 'became' a saint.
The main line within it was that the society they had was the best of all BUT it needed a new management committee.
Bakunine in his written pieces refers to the type of State (Civitas) that existed in Russia and Germany as being the same all over the earth.
The Communist manifesto was aimed at trying to move the position of the Utopians, Bakunine pandered to them. He was wrong. It's how they taught him. He never broke from it.
The state (civitas not civilisation) has been guided in it's development, in the Byzantine, feudal and capitalist periods by the same religious doctrine, though the German (feudal) and the British (capitalist) were not a continuity of the Byzantine or the Roman.
Anarchism of the modern period arose in the Russian Empire it has to a great extent been grafted on to central and southern Europe because it had a use value.
The fascists and Stalinist were all of the Utopians of last century. and yes there are such things as anarcho fascists. So yes anarchism has problems.
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Anarchism Outmoded
I am sure that you have read up on much of the history of anachism from the nineteenth century onwards that anarchist movements gained control in areas of Southern Europe: Italy in the early twentieth century, influenced much by Malatesta's concept of an Anarchist Party, The Spanish Civil War where areas were succesfully controlled by CNT-AIT. There was much infuence by anachism and large movements in South America: Argentina, and if you consider Zapata Mexico. USA, Canada, Australia where the IWW of which many were Anarchists and Syndicalists opposed to Political Party Leadership. Tom Mann the British Syndicalist is said to be influenced by Anachism in finding alternative solutions in industrial disputes [Sabotage; Geoff Brown]. The list goes on...
More to the point its main rivals Capitalism, Fascism/Nationalism, Communism/Socialism have all been inspired by anachism.
The history of Anarchism for most seems to start with Godwin and Proudhom and go on from there (I think that is where Woodstock starts). However I would argue that the roots of anarchism were with the peasant rebelliions of the middle ages. Movements of peasant rebellions inspired by the Peasants Revolt where the Symbol of the Black Rose apparently comes from. The development of movements such as the Dolcherites, Taborites, Anabaptists came during the reformation.
One question I think that you have to ask though, is when anarchist movements have become succesful is when they have not acted in a strictly anarchist way. Anarchists have either acted as Vanguards for there ideals or blatantly become leaders. Even if afterwards there has been some form of spontaneous organisation, leaderless self government.(usually short lived).
Anarchism can exist in condusive utopian societies where almost everyone is consenting, but when it comes to an ideology for resistance against authoritarian regimes that are exploitive and oppressive it falls on its face.
Another problem anarchism has especially in the post war period is that it has been taken by various subcultural groups whose main activities are sourounded by some form of hedonistic indulgence. This may or may not be subversive, liberating etc. but to a greater or lesser extent it alients itself from the day to day struggles of oppressed peoples or just adds to them.
However I can't see why this state of affairs has to carry on forever. But for anarchism in its present state I cannot see it not being a subcultural movement.
WHY WHAT DO YOU THINK
JOE
I don't know if anarchism was never a effective, does'nt have much of a history, and is'nt effective today.Joe Reilly said:
I am sure that you have read up on much of the history of anachism from the nineteenth century onwards that anarchist movements gained control in areas of Southern Europe: Italy in the early twentieth century, influenced much by Malatesta's concept of an Anarchist Party, The Spanish Civil War where areas were succesfully controlled by CNT-AIT. There was much infuence by anachism and large movements in South America: Argentina, and if you consider Zapata Mexico. USA, Canada, Australia where the IWW of which many were Anarchists and Syndicalists opposed to Political Party Leadership. Tom Mann the British Syndicalist is said to be influenced by Anachism in finding alternative solutions in industrial disputes [Sabotage; Geoff Brown]. The list goes on...
More to the point its main rivals Capitalism, Fascism/Nationalism, Communism/Socialism have all been inspired by anachism.
The history of Anarchism for most seems to start with Godwin and Proudhom and go on from there (I think that is where Woodstock starts). However I would argue that the roots of anarchism were with the peasant rebelliions of the middle ages. Movements of peasant rebellions inspired by the Peasants Revolt where the Symbol of the Black Rose apparently comes from. The development of movements such as the Dolcherites, Taborites, Anabaptists came during the reformation.
One question I think that you have to ask though, is when anarchist movements have become succesful is when they have not acted in a strictly anarchist way. Anarchists have either acted as Vanguards for there ideals or blatantly become leaders. Even if afterwards there has been some form of spontaneous organisation, leaderless self government.(usually short lived).
Anarchism can exist in condusive utopian societies where almost everyone is consenting, but when it comes to an ideology for resistance against authoritarian regimes that are exploitive and oppressive it falls on its face.
Another problem anarchism has especially in the post war period is that it has been taken by various subcultural groups whose main activities are sourounded by some form of hedonistic indulgence. This may or may not be subversive, liberating etc. but to a greater or lesser extent it alients itself from the day to day struggles of oppressed peoples or just adds to them.
However I can't see why this state of affairs has to carry on forever. But for anarchism in its present state I cannot see it not being a subcultural movement.
WHY WHAT DO YOU THINK
JOERay said:
I don't think anyone has suggested that the IWCA has ambitions to become 'the trade union movement'.A trade union for the community seems to be a convenient political analogy, after all what were soviets but directly elected representitives form working class communities?
As for theory ,it used to be fashionable to think of Red Action as having no theory, simply a bit of muscle in anti fash activity. what surprised me about them when I trawled through their archives on the web site was that they have probably been (one of) the most active in crtically examining a number of theoretical principles that have become sacred for the left.More importantly they have tried to tackle these issues from a position of putting ideas into practise.
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Sorry. said:
A couple of years ago I went to their Christmas Party and someone there was talking about taking over the management of the place. I tied to point out that the correct youphemism(apologies for spelling) should be something like leaderless co-ordinator.
Goes to show even an archaic institution like freedom has been seduced by concepts like modernisation and coherent management structures.
If it wasn't "become a manager at freedom", then I have no problem with the term management as a verb in the sense of administration rather than administrator.
So "take over the management of the place"
"take over the running of the place" both sensible.
"take over the leaderless co-ordination of the place" - much closer to management newspeak.
So "take over the management of the place"
"take over the running of the place" both sensible.
"take over the leaderless co-ordination of the place" - much closer to management newspeak.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Ray said:
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I can't pretend to have understood everything in the thread, but I have learned a lot. Well done to all, but especially those who took it through to its conclusion.
Frats Rmp3
Frats Rmp3
october_lost
It's not hip any more...
I dont get it, the meanderings of a few marxists makes up a conclusion for youResistanceMP3 said:
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
october_lost said:I dont get it, the meanderings of a few marxists makes up a conclusion for you
People in glass houses and so on...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
should move?Joe Reilly said:
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Didn't know you and dickman were marxists.october_lost said:I dont get it, the meanderings of a few marxists makes up a conclusion for you
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
slightly redundant question: it varies from a person to person basis. There isn't an u75 anarchist group with a set analysis.RedSkin said:
That said the overwhelming majority of @'s here are class struggle, and have come to @ through class struggle. They would argue that anarcho-communism and class struggle are the same thing.
Similar threads
