Does anarchism have a serious future?

[rednblack]

Salad dodger? Wozzat?

fatty?

 

[butchersapron]

Well historical inaccuracies aside (for now at least), the short answer is yes, of course anarchism has a future - maybe not through the sort of formal mass membership that some here think is the only true indicator of influence, but through helping to develop strong w/c communties that have both the power and willingness to assert their needs against the needs of the state/capital/politicos.

No ones claiming that anarchism or anarchist prcatice is perfect, or the one true way - what they are saying though is that anarchism has a hell of a lot to offer the w/c in terms of social organisation, and that this is often (historically and currently) refelected in the way the w/c organises itself, without declaring themselves to be anarchists.

To try and evaluate anarchism through the partyist perspective that some have done here is to mistate the question from the start - by definition anarchism will always be viewed as inconsequential and a failure through a party/leninist lens - it has to be a failure from that approach.

 

[Paul Marsh]

Salad dodger? Wozzat?

The term was first used by Bradford boxer Junior Witter who lambasts his rival, Bitter Blue Man City tosser Ricky Hatton, with the nickname "salad dodger"

Hatton's weight, between fights, regularly ballons up to over 12 stone, rather than his fighting weight, which is (if I remember correctly) just under 10 stones.

Those who saw Hatton on Superstars will recall that he was actually too unfit to compete, due to his compulsive salad dodging. A bit like keith Flett.

 

[steeplejack]

I don't know about the "Leninist" and "Bolshevik" stuff, but considering that he opened the thread by aserting that:

Which is patently untrue, its unsurprising that many anarchists have no interest in engaging with somebody so absurdly and willfully ignorant.

So how about telling us where it;s made a difference, outside of the Spanish Civil war, and to what extent these ideas have left a legacy, rather than these pisspoor hissy fits?.

Only butchersapron (in his post above) bothers to address the question. Which, whether the provocative way in which it was asked needles you or not, could do with a decent answer, rather than the usual "fuck off" "read the FAQ" stylee pat responses.

 

[Ray]

All told anarchism does not have much of a past.

Not true.

So does it have much of a future?

Yes.

That's about as much thought as this thread deserves.

 

[steeplejack]

To try and evaluate anarchism through the partyist perspective that some have done here is to mistate the question from the start - by definition anarchism will always be viewed as inconsequential and a failure through a party/leninist lens - it has to be a failure from that approach.

That's an interesting point. Of course there's no "anarchist party" as such as anarchists reject the established party/ballot system.

the response to that is that anarchists really are shutting themselves out of an anodyne , wasted political culture where the soundbite and media appearance is king. How do you actually get people to engage in a climate of anarchist ideas/practical action? Doesn't the anarchist approach ensure its irrelevance, the way politics currently works?

Don;t want to come across as bitter and cynical, but it really is hard to see how an ideology at its peak nearly 100 years ago can have any influence in the hear and now, however interesting some of its ideas may be. I don;t like the current electoral punch n judy show much either- but what alternative do you suggest and how do we get there?

 

[steeplejack]

Not true.



Yes.

That's about as much thought as this thread deserves.

 

[In Bloom]

So how about telling us where it;s made a difference, outside of the Spanish Civil war, and to what extent these ideas have left a legacy, rather than these pisspoor hissy fits?.

Only butchersapron (in his post above) bothers to address the question. Which, whether the provocative way in which it was asked needles you or not, could do with a decent answer, rather than the usual "fuck off" "read the FAQ" stylee pat responses.

The OP was grounded in willful ignorance. I don't get the impression that the OPer had much intention of asking a serious question so much as trying to score cheap points by making dishonest and disingenuous remarks.

 

[steeplejack]

The OP was grounded in willful ignorance. I don't get the impression that the OPer had much intention of asking a serious question so much as trying to score cheap points by making dishonest and disingenuous remarks.

Errr, okay....

...I'll ask politely and without the intention or time to "score cheap points". I'm not a leninist or Bolshevik, either.

Does anarchism have a viable political future? if yes, how do you see that taking shape and achieve the things you;d like to see happen?

 

[In Bloom]

Does anarchism have a viable political future? if yes, how do you see that taking shape and achieve the things you;d like to see happen?

Fine, in short, I think anarchism does have a viable political future. Though its influence in the short term is admittedly small, I think that growing disatisfaction with current society is evident, which could spill over into anarchic (not necessarily avowedly anarchist) action, which would open a window of opportunity for a growth in anarchism. I think that the role of anarchists in the short term should be to take direct action which will improve conditions in the here and now while at the same time promoting libertarian ideas.

 

[Paul Marsh]

Another clue might be ructions in a group beginning with I

You are not telling me that INXS have split up just before their first comeback tour minus Mr Chokey-Wankey are you?

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Bitter Blue Man City tosser Ricky Hatton, with the nickname "salad dodger"

Shouldn't you like most Man Utd supporters concentrate on the burning issue of congestion charges in London?

 

[Random]

Anarchism exists, not as a set of organisations, but as a current of activity within society and within anti-capitalist social movements. The record of anarchism within UK movements is a good one -- mostly these have been protest movements, but that is down to the nature of UK society. Anarchism rises when popular activity rises (for example, during the poll tax protests) and falls again when activity diminishes.

So I'd say thatthe answer to the question 'does anarchism have a future?' depends how you see our society going. I'd say that mass movements and protests are going to continue to be a part of our history, and anarchism will continue to be a part of them.

Many self-described anarchists (as opposed to people who simply organise in anarchic ways) have gravitated to protest activism; partly because of the continued activity in the ecological and anti-military scenes, and partly because of the university backgrounds of many anarchist activists. I think the crucial test for anarchism in the next 10 years is whether it can adapt itself to go beyond the established protest scenes and link up with other forms of popular activity that are developing -- both in the community and in the workplace.

 

[redsquirrel]

Doesn't the anarchist approach ensure its irrelevance, the way politics currently works?

What approaches are more relevant?
Try to start/build a new liberal party that will either sell out or fade away?
Like has happened the hundreds of times before all over the world.

 

[steeplejack]

What approaches are more relevant?
Try to start/build a new liberal party that will either sell out or fade away?
Like has happened the hundreds of times before all over the world.

Where did i advocate the establishment of a new liberal party?


Besides, I'm asking anarchists how they see their beliefs developing because I'm interested, not because I've got some grand alternative that I'm about to unveil to an astonished world.

The reality is that the practice of anarchism barely registers on most folks' radar now- whether in and of itself, or as part of a broader protest current as random suggests. It's a problem that seems to have hamstrung them for a long time and i wondered how anyone else thought they might tackle it.

Aren;t you a trot, anyway?

 

[redsquirrel]

Where did i advocate the establishment of a new liberal party?


Besides, I'm asking anarchists how they see their beliefs developing because I'm interested, not because I've got some grand alternative that I'm about to unveil to an astonished world.

The reality is that the practice of anarchism barely registers on most folks' radar now- whether in and of itself, or as part of a broader protest current as random suggests. It's a problem that seems to have hamstrung them for a long time and i wondered how anyone else thought they might tackle it.

Sorry I didn't mean to imply you were. But before saying whether anarchism is relevant or not shouldn't we find out what is relevant?

And anarchism may not register with people but people are still organising in 'anarchic' ways all the time. Personally I agree with In Bloom when he says

Fine, in short, I think anarchism does have a viable political future. Though its influence in the short term is admittedly small, I think that growing disatisfaction with current society is evident, which could spill over into anarchic (not necessarily avowedly anarchist) action, which would open a window of opportunity for a growth in anarchism. I think that the role of anarchists in the short term should be to take direct action which will improve conditions in the here and now while at the same time promoting libertarian ideas.

Aren;t you a trot, anyway?

,take that back.

 

[steeplejack]

Fine, in short, I think anarchism does have a viable political future. Though its influence in the short term is admittedly small, I think that growing disatisfaction with current society is evident, which could spill over into anarchic (not necessarily avowedly anarchist) action, which would open a window of opportunity for a growth in anarchism. I think that the role of anarchists in the short term should be to take direct action which will improve conditions in the here and now while at the same time promoting libertarian ideas.

Without wishing to be rude, this sounds like a prescription for 'steady as she goes'/more of the same.

What guarantee is there that protest will become 'anarchic'? If there is any violent insurgency in the UK (however utterly unlikely), it's more likely to be right wing that left wing in character ( a la plans for military take over in the mid 70s)

Are there concrete examples of DA improving things in the here and now, anyway? Even if there aren't, then that doesn't mean that DA won't help in the future, I suppose, but it's still a pretty rickety prospectus for future action....

It strikes me that the government can accommodate any number of DA stunts (see also F4J), but can't accommodate political organisation and expression. It's in that latter category where it seems that anarchism has yet to make any impact IMO.

 

[redsquirrel]

Without wishing to be rude, this sounds like a prescription for 'steady as she goes'/more of the same.

What guarantee is there that protest will become 'anarchic'? If there is any violent insurgency in the UK (however utterly unlikely), it's more likely to be right wing that left wing in character ( a la plans for military take over in the mid 70s)

People do things within the framework of mutual aid all the time.

Are there concrete examples of DA improving things in the here and now, anyway? Even if there aren't, then that doesn't mean that DA won't help in the future, I suppose, but it's still a pretty rickety prospectus for future action....

It strikes me that the government can accommodate any number of DA stunts (see also F4J), but can't accommodate political organisation and expression. It's in that latter category where it seems that anarchism has yet to make any impact IMO.

What do you mean by "political organisation and expression"? Petitions? Strikes? Political parties?

 

[steeplejack]

1.Sorry I didn't mean to imply you were. But before saying whether anarchism is relevant or not shouldn't we find out what is relevant?

2.And anarchism may not register with people but people are still organising in 'anarchic' ways all the time. Personally I agree with In Bloom when he says




3. ,take that back.

1. Yes. Which is what my original question was intended to do.

2. How so? What is organising 'in an anarchic way' anyway? What current examples can you cite as a template for future action? there's threads on here all the time about "alternative non hierarchical extra-political spaces" being created, but are said spaces really impacting on indivduals beyond the small community of anarchist activists?


3.

 

[steeplejack]

1. People do things within the framework of mutual aid all the time.


2.What do you mean by "political organisation and expression"? Petitions? Strikes? Political parties?

1. What is "working within a framework of mutual aid"? No-one from the Tory wets leftward would have a problem with such an idea- it;s so all encompassing as to be meaningless. this strikes me as exactly the problem- good ideas cloaked in vague wafting language whose specific meaning is clear only to a very few.

2. Yes. Effective ones.

 

[Solidarnosc]

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.

Depends on whether you think all anarchism is individualistic. I would say that it isn't, and I think it's important that if you're going to critisise anarchism that you don't just label one tendency of anarchism as the entire movement, so to speak.

It's a bit like trying to develop a coherent critique of 'Marxism'. There are people who call themselves Marxists, but align themselves with the state capitalist regiemes, like Stalinist Russia, and Cuba, which go againt, IMO, a fundamental principle of Marxism - the self-emancipation of the working class. Since these regiemes were not based on working class control, their Marxism is questionable. There are also Marxist trends which reject any idea that these regiemes are based on working class emancipation, like the SWP.

However, there is also a tendency, especially from the 'anti-authortarian left', to bung together all Leninisms in one bag, without recognising the key differences between them. I'd like anyone to show me that the core politics of the SWP, and say, the New Communist Party, to be the same.

Anyway. There are trends in the Anarchist movement which stress organisation. The Anarchist Communism of Afed is a good example. While they may look to more sponatneity in struggle from where I'm sitting (I might be wrong on this) they clearly see that the only way forward is a more organised struggle - why do you think that their magazine is called Organise?

Of course, there are the individualistic tendencies of Anarchism (see Freedom newspaper) but you can't just lump everything together. Critiques of Anarchism aren't one-size-fits-all - just like critiques of different trends of the Marxist left.

 

[rednblack]

Of course, there are the individualistic tendencies of Anarchism (see Freedom newspaper) but you can't just lump everything together. Critiques of Anarchism aren't one-size-fits-all - just like critiques of different trends of the Marxist left.

a reasonable description

but freedom is changing and is not the same as when you last read it

 

[Solidarnosc]

a reasonable description

but freedom is changing and is not the same as when you last read it

I haven't read Freedom yet, it was just the first individualist anarchist group/publication which sprang to mind.

 

[rednblack]

I haven't read Freedom yet, it was just the first individualist anarchist group/publication which sprang to mind.

it's definately class struggle now, one of the editors is AFed

 

[Solidarnosc]

it's definately class struggle now, one of the editors is AFed

I thought Freedom was run by the Freedom Group. That's quite an interesting development, given the more individualist people apparently behind it. Is this a political shift for Freedom, or a political shift for the Afed member?

Or does it really matter?

 

[rednblack]

Or does it really matter?

no

but maybe someone who knows more of the details will come along

 

[Random]

lol

Freedom is always changing. One of its founders was Kropotkin, grand-daddy of anarcho-communism.

 

[kropotkin]

Solidarnosc: the rational trot.

Good post up there by the way.

 

[october_lost]

Of course, there are the individualistic tendencies of Anarchism (see Freedom newspaper) but you can't just lump everything together. Critiques of Anarchism aren't one-size-fits-all - just like critiques of different trends of the Marxist left.

Personally the 'individualistic tendencies' you speak of are not part of anarchism per se, they are a bourgeouis influence within it, because anarchists see freedom as a social thing, not simply as a singular activity.

It is not true that the freedom of one man is limited by that of other men. Man is really free to the extent that his freedom, fully acknowledged and mirrored by the free consent of his fellowmen, finds confirmation and expansion in their liberty. Man is truly free only among equally free men; the slavery of even one human being violates humanity and negates the freedom of all.

Anarchism, despite its faults is the best motor for revolutionary social change, since it recognises alloppressions, and doesnt deny the individual autonomy

 

[Sorry.]

I thought Freedom was run by the Freedom Group. That's quite an interesting development, given the more individualist people apparently behind it. Is this a political shift for Freedom, or a political shift for the Afed member?

Or does it really matter?

AFAIK Freedom's editorial staff no longer contains any liberal individualists. Some of the contributors are, but most of the copy comes from communists and syndicalists.