I think this is an opportunity to evaluate anarchism today. It doesn't matter that the originator of the thread has a view. The fact is anarchism has failed to attain its goals (true also of Marxism and reformist socialism). Yet the injustices of society are so accute that the need for some kind of solution rejecting capitalist heirarchy is more pressing than ever. No-where has anarchism become a significant influential force for any length of time, and no where less so than the UK.
In recent times the emergence of an anti-capitalist current, a huge movement against the economic injustice of neo-liberalism, and against war has openned up real opportunities for an activist libertarian collectivist current to thrive.
The idea that liberty and capitalism go hand in hand - or could even go hand in hand - is refuted, bith in practice and in the ideology of the capitalists themselves. Reformist socialism is firmly entrenched in the mire of failure with reformist parties now happily running capitalism and perpetuating the most extreme right-wing neo-liberal ideological practice.
Marxism has its baggage. Having become associated with some of the most opporessive and heirarchical regimes.
One would have thought that anarchism should be experiencing some kind of rennaissance. Not so though.
Subjectively Anarchism has been torn apart by the hopeless sectarian stupidity of aloof intellectuals on the one hand and elitist posteuring on the other.
Objectively there is a flaw at the core of anarchy. Individualism. Individualism as opposed to collectivism arises from specific class interests. The bourgeois individualist can happily embrace anarchism in theory demanding that the state leaves him be to exploit without interference. The free hand of the market will bring about peace and harmony if unmolested by the nanny state.
But anarchism also has a peasant basis at its origins and thus articulates a desire to bring down the authority of capitalist masters as well. Again the individual comes to the fore in peasant ideology all the while the aspirations are to develope ones own land and own property without the oppression of landlords. But with the advent of capitalism such straight-forward individualism is shown to be incapable of challenging the rule of the opporessors.
Collectivism is embraced of necessity because only collective struggle is viable and only collective production can hope to form a structured society free from bosses. But here is a conflict and contradiction within the heart of anarchism that cannot be resolved. Any collective will result in the prospect of some form of majority decision - and thus the liberty of the individual is threatened.
This becomes all the clearer when the question of the state is considered. For the majority class - the working class - to seize power as a class they must have to enforce their rule as a class rule. It is inconceivable that the minority capitalist class will simply stand aside peacefully. Any oppression of one class by another - however democratic, and even if it is the majority class imposing its will on the minority - has to be opposed in principle by anarchists. Fundamental to Anarchist ideology is opposition to state and law as enemy. There is, in the final analysis, no class collective solution acceptible to anarchists for whom the bottom line remains individual liberty. So the position is adopted that all state power and all law must immediately be abolished or nothing has changed. This utopia is obviously not attainable.
In the day to day struggle this utopian individualism cripples anarchism from contributing to any real movement for liberty of the many. Insofar as Anarchism has at any stage contributed to the struggle it has been through accentuation of the collective and class element of struggle and the subordination of individualism - Spanish @ trade unions, syndicalism etc. Here though, a utopian position vis a vis power and the state renders @ impotent at key and decisive points.
Even in small scale struggle @ is weak. The battle for a change in law is possible for a reformist with illussions in the capitalist state. It is also possible for a Marxist. For Marxists all law is class law. It is possible through collective action to force concessions from the state that are set as markers in law. Trade union rights, equal pay legislation etc are, for Marxists a small victory possible because of the strength of the collective working class movement. For an anarchist the state and law as enemy means that the key issue is not the balance of class forces but rather the existance of the state and law. So any such victory is a contribution to the problem and not a victory at all. Thus anarchists render themselves impotent in the day to day struggles. Impotence plus utopianism of course encourages the kind of purile oppositionism to all manifestations of our society whether benevolent or malevolent, and can lead to an atttack on an anti-fascist meeting for e.g. at an event attended by 10,000s of people who reject many of the worst aspects of the system and who choose to do something about it. The very people who should be the audience sought by any anti-authoritarian tendency are attacked as the enemy. Thus anarchism denies itself a any future.
Anarchists also take the individualism at the heart of their ideology to the question of organisation. Heirarchy of all kinds, however democratic is rejected in theory. All heirarchy leads to power and all power to corruption. So the organisational basis for anarchism in theory becomes a network of autonomous individuals or a loose federation of groups of autonomous individuals cooperating voluntarily with no leadership and no rigid structure. In practice this leads to elitist forms of struggle undertaken on behalf of the poor/oppressed/working class who are viewed as too dim witted to form part of this elitist goup. Vanguardism (class conscious workers organised in a party to seek to take forward the class struggle) is rejected in favour of elitist action. 'Vanguardism' seeks to organise the most militant sections of the class to enable them to challenge the influence of capitalist ideology over the rest of the class - a philosophy that requires organisation and struggle involving the mass of workers. Anarchist elitism is by its nature separate from the mass of the people it seeks to liberate. The lack of an organised structure means in practice there can be no democratic calling to account and a secret unaccountable leadership emerges in the case of e.g. the Wombles. Since small elitist actions are more prone to disruption by state infiltration and state repression the organised @ cells become ever more heirarchical and elitist (as an attempt to avoid state disruption) whilst raging in theory against heirarchy. Thus many of those rightly attracted to the idea of anti-authority and challenging heirarchy are repulsed by the reality of the organisations who claim to be the most consistant anti-auhoritarians.
In recent times the emergence of an anti-capitalist current, a huge movement against the economic injustice of neo-liberalism, and against war has openned up real opportunities for an activist libertarian collectivist current to thrive.
The idea that liberty and capitalism go hand in hand - or could even go hand in hand - is refuted, bith in practice and in the ideology of the capitalists themselves. Reformist socialism is firmly entrenched in the mire of failure with reformist parties now happily running capitalism and perpetuating the most extreme right-wing neo-liberal ideological practice.
Marxism has its baggage. Having become associated with some of the most opporessive and heirarchical regimes.
One would have thought that anarchism should be experiencing some kind of rennaissance. Not so though.
Subjectively Anarchism has been torn apart by the hopeless sectarian stupidity of aloof intellectuals on the one hand and elitist posteuring on the other.
Objectively there is a flaw at the core of anarchy. Individualism. Individualism as opposed to collectivism arises from specific class interests. The bourgeois individualist can happily embrace anarchism in theory demanding that the state leaves him be to exploit without interference. The free hand of the market will bring about peace and harmony if unmolested by the nanny state.
But anarchism also has a peasant basis at its origins and thus articulates a desire to bring down the authority of capitalist masters as well. Again the individual comes to the fore in peasant ideology all the while the aspirations are to develope ones own land and own property without the oppression of landlords. But with the advent of capitalism such straight-forward individualism is shown to be incapable of challenging the rule of the opporessors.
Collectivism is embraced of necessity because only collective struggle is viable and only collective production can hope to form a structured society free from bosses. But here is a conflict and contradiction within the heart of anarchism that cannot be resolved. Any collective will result in the prospect of some form of majority decision - and thus the liberty of the individual is threatened.
This becomes all the clearer when the question of the state is considered. For the majority class - the working class - to seize power as a class they must have to enforce their rule as a class rule. It is inconceivable that the minority capitalist class will simply stand aside peacefully. Any oppression of one class by another - however democratic, and even if it is the majority class imposing its will on the minority - has to be opposed in principle by anarchists. Fundamental to Anarchist ideology is opposition to state and law as enemy. There is, in the final analysis, no class collective solution acceptible to anarchists for whom the bottom line remains individual liberty. So the position is adopted that all state power and all law must immediately be abolished or nothing has changed. This utopia is obviously not attainable.
In the day to day struggle this utopian individualism cripples anarchism from contributing to any real movement for liberty of the many. Insofar as Anarchism has at any stage contributed to the struggle it has been through accentuation of the collective and class element of struggle and the subordination of individualism - Spanish @ trade unions, syndicalism etc. Here though, a utopian position vis a vis power and the state renders @ impotent at key and decisive points.
Even in small scale struggle @ is weak. The battle for a change in law is possible for a reformist with illussions in the capitalist state. It is also possible for a Marxist. For Marxists all law is class law. It is possible through collective action to force concessions from the state that are set as markers in law. Trade union rights, equal pay legislation etc are, for Marxists a small victory possible because of the strength of the collective working class movement. For an anarchist the state and law as enemy means that the key issue is not the balance of class forces but rather the existance of the state and law. So any such victory is a contribution to the problem and not a victory at all. Thus anarchists render themselves impotent in the day to day struggles. Impotence plus utopianism of course encourages the kind of purile oppositionism to all manifestations of our society whether benevolent or malevolent, and can lead to an atttack on an anti-fascist meeting for e.g. at an event attended by 10,000s of people who reject many of the worst aspects of the system and who choose to do something about it. The very people who should be the audience sought by any anti-authoritarian tendency are attacked as the enemy. Thus anarchism denies itself a any future.
Anarchists also take the individualism at the heart of their ideology to the question of organisation. Heirarchy of all kinds, however democratic is rejected in theory. All heirarchy leads to power and all power to corruption. So the organisational basis for anarchism in theory becomes a network of autonomous individuals or a loose federation of groups of autonomous individuals cooperating voluntarily with no leadership and no rigid structure. In practice this leads to elitist forms of struggle undertaken on behalf of the poor/oppressed/working class who are viewed as too dim witted to form part of this elitist goup. Vanguardism (class conscious workers organised in a party to seek to take forward the class struggle) is rejected in favour of elitist action. 'Vanguardism' seeks to organise the most militant sections of the class to enable them to challenge the influence of capitalist ideology over the rest of the class - a philosophy that requires organisation and struggle involving the mass of workers. Anarchist elitism is by its nature separate from the mass of the people it seeks to liberate. The lack of an organised structure means in practice there can be no democratic calling to account and a secret unaccountable leadership emerges in the case of e.g. the Wombles. Since small elitist actions are more prone to disruption by state infiltration and state repression the organised @ cells become ever more heirarchical and elitist (as an attempt to avoid state disruption) whilst raging in theory against heirarchy. Thus many of those rightly attracted to the idea of anti-authority and challenging heirarchy are repulsed by the reality of the organisations who claim to be the most consistant anti-auhoritarians.
