Does anarchism have a serious future?

[Groucho]

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....

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?

I agree with you, Sol. There are different strands of anarchism. I specifically mentioned class struggle @ that accept collectivity. (We could also mention that some @s have accepted workers councils and the Paris Commune as organisational expressions of class struggle). To my mind that accepts the workers state. Were @ism has made its more valuable contributions (Spain) has been where organisation (including trade unions), class sruggle and collectivism has been taken on board. But even here, as in Spain, or with the British Syndicalists the rejection of party, the denial of the question of power (both spring from the individualist utopian origins of @ism) lead to a utopianism that becomes fatal at key moments in struggle.

I might add that I believe that Marxism has always been at its strongest when it has lent towards libertarianism. Obviously true if you contrast the Trotskist tradition with Stalinism. But within Trotskyism there has been a sect like mentality in many organisations combined with a top down view of socialism (nationalise the top 200/300/400 monopolies, Government enabling law, industry to be run by appointees of Govt,TU bureaucracy..etc???)

The New Left in re-evaluating Marx in light of Stalinist distortions gave rise to libertarian Marxist tendencies such as the development of Marxism Humanism and the Socialism from Below of the IST.

ps I am not a real ale drinker, I do not have a beard, I do not work for Telecoms.

 

[Sorry.]

Are far as the rest of this thread goes - I'll add my voice to those accusing Joe Reilly and Groucho of posing their questions in manner that was disingenuous and were probably deliberately designed to provoke irritation rather than interesting responses.

By way of response, I'll say that I'm not particularly interested in resurrecting (erecting even?) anarchism as an ideology/political philosophy. My interest is in the ideas for action that are contained within; not just direct action, but horizontal organisation, federalism and a class based movement as interested in challenging hierarchy as it is private ownership.

I think those principles certainly have a future; if you look at trade unionism in this country (and across western europe) you can see the difference between unions increasingly dominated by active rank and file groups (the FBU and RMT for instance) and those run by the union leadership that have turned into glorified insurance schemes. It's fairly obvious which has been the more effective, and I think it's rather practical proof of the continued relevance (and potential popularity) of syndicalist ideas (even if not directly inspired by syndicalist ideology).

I'd like to also mention the continued emergence of local action groups with which anarchists are influenced, and form one of many influences of, but I'm off out now ...

 

[butchersapron]

I might add that I believe that Marxism has always been at its strongest when it has lent towards libertarianism. Obviously true if you contrast the Trotskist tradition with Stalinism. But within Trotskyism there has been a sect like mentality in many organisations combined with a top down view of socialism (nationalise the top 200/300/400 monopolies, Government enabling law, industry to be run by appointees of Govt,TU bureaucracy..etc???)

The New Left in re-evaluating Marx in light of Stalinist distortions gave rise to libertarian Marxist tendencies such as the development of Marxism Humanism and the Socialism from Below of the IST.

ps I am not a real ale drinker, I do not have a beard, I do not work for Telecoms.

No, no no - there were always libertarian marxists, from well before the emergence of the new left, this is not a modern development in fact most of them originated in the criticisms of leninism and the sort of orthodox marxism that was put into pracice in Russia in the years immediately following 1917 - libertarian marxists largely reject the traditions that you place at the very centere of your approach. The SWP (or any other trotskyist/leninist group) is not a libertarian marxist group - that makes a mockery of the very concept, given it's basis in a clear rejection of vanguards, democratic centralism etc.

(The marxist-humanism developed by Dunayevskaya was based on an rejection of the organisational and theoretical limits of trotskyism as well).

 

[blamblam]

Of course, there are the individualistic tendencies of Anarchism (see Freedom newspaper)

Fuck you!

We're fucking communists you bastard

(As you should see from your sample copy headed your way...)

 

[Top Dog]

Are far as the rest of this thread goes - I'll add my voice to those accusing Joe Reilly and Groucho of posing their questions in manner that was disingenuous and were probably deliberately designed to provoke irritation rather than interesting responses.

By way of response, I'll say that I'm not particularly interested in resurrecting (erecting even?) anarchism as an ideology/political philosophy. My interest is in the ideas for action that are contained within; not just direct action, but horizontal organisation, federalism and a class based movement as interested in challenging hierarchy as it is private ownership.

Too right Sorry.

Joe has started the thread with a question designed to get anarcho's backs up, but does that make an argument in itself? You might have started it to get some serious discussion going Joe, but its not good enough to pose those questions and merely sitting back to watch the spectacle. If you believe those statements are in fact the case - that both the ideology is defunct and devoid of any useful insight and its practitioners are misguided, then you need to respond with counter arguments and perhaps construct a critique with your comments on possible ways beyond the problem. You are careful to side step the question when its put back to you, but you do intimate that your politics might be more pragmatically constructed... to suit the immediate situation that stands perhaps? And this is demonstrated by your affiliations. But if this is your position you must say so and say it clearly.

So to get an idea of where you're coming from I have a basic question for you to begin with... do you hold that it is the task of the working class to emancipate themselves? Or is that a question that you believe is too abstract to even tackle in the current social context?

 

[In Bloom]

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

Its a fair comment, but for now, I don't see any serious alternatives to trying to keep the ideas alive and waiting for an opportunity to push things forwards.

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)

I'm not talking about "violent insurgency" just yet, you're putting the cart before the horse. It's more likely that the right opportunity will come along as a result of wide scale industrial unrest or single issue based rioting (a la miners' strike + poll tax)

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....

I'd say that social centres are a good example of DA working in the here and now for the benefit of the working class. There are a lot of local campaigns you don't hear a lot about in the national media, too.

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.

First of all, F4J doesn't do DA, it does silly little stunts that piss people off, but that's a different thing all together. You seem to have a very strange idea of what DA is. And as for "the government...can't accomodate political organisation and expression", if that's true, how come the government is so tolerant of the StWC coalition and similar liberal, anti-DA orgs?

 

[In Bloom]

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?

Freedom has shifted towards class struggle, mainstream (haha) anarchism in recent years.

 

[Groucho]

beard liberation front?

You think Groucho has something to do with...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2955883.stm

that!

 

[Joe Reilly]

No, no no - there were always libertarian marxists, from well before the emergence of the new left, this is not a modern development in fact most of them originated in the criticisms of leninism and the sort of orthodox marxism that was put into pracice in Russia in the years immediately following 1917 - libertarian marxists largely reject the traditions that you place at the very centere of your approach. The SWP (or any other trotskyist/leninist group) is not a libertarian marxist group - that makes a mockery of the very concept, given it's basis in a clear rejection of vanguards, democratic centralism etc.

This is another misunderstanding that is tied into the original question. I would argue that there is no such thing as a 'libertarian marxist'. Marx and Engels were in both method and analysis were democrats. Lenin and Trotsky, though they could see a tactical value in it were, when it came to the crunch, the very opposite.
Worse, and far more damaging in the long run, than the actions themselves were the theories (Trotsky being a particularly culpable) developed to justify those actions.
So there is Marx's method, the Bolshevik experiment, and Anarchism. All different. You are either a Leninist or a 'Marxist' (this is just short hand as marxism is not an ideology as such) but you cannot be both.

To argue otherwise is can be from having a) read one but not the other b) read a little of both c) read little of either.

It follows therefore that to talk about liberterian Marxism, anarcho-communism etc is a product of a confusion that has not yet to run its course.

 

[butchersapron]

You've just pretty much re-stated my own argument (and it's an argument that i've been making on here and elsewhere for many years) - that there is an unbridgable gap between marx and 'the marxists' - in the first part of that post. But then you used it to attack my post - the one making the same argument! I think you may have misread what i actually wrote.

The last line i simply do not understand - why would the fact that 'marxists' who follow the leninist tradition are very far from Marx' actual writings mean that it's a nonsense to talk of anarcho-communism? You're not making the mistake of assuming that the 'anarcho' prefix, means 'marxist' are you?

 

[888]

(to Joe Reilly)

Marx and Engels weren't democrats in method - see the first international. Leninism clearly contains elements of Marxism - as do some types of anarchism. More importantly anarchism contains ideas of class struggle and working class self-organisation. Are you saying there is no anarcho-communism?

Marxism is an ideology, in so far as it is a distinct set of ideas. So's situationism, despite its claims not to be.

 

[Sorry.]

I agree with you, Sol. There are different strands of anarchism. I specifically mentioned class struggle @ that accept collectivity. (We could also mention that some @s have accepted workers councils and the Paris Commune as organisational expressions of class struggle).

You're speaking as if anarchist-communism and anarcho-syndicalism were just minority interests amongst an individualist majority! Presumably this has to be deliberate because I can't imagine that anyone involved with left-wing politics could be quite so ignorant. I can give several examples of syndicalist unions with hundreds of thousands of members, and anarchist-communist federations with nearly as many, but I couldn't name a single significant individualist movement (the closest you might is some of the post-war incarnations of the French AF)

As for the piece you've thrown in brackets, workers councils and workers control are actually ideas accepted by anarchists but rejected by Leninists! So I'm left undecided whether I'm actually enraged by that comment as much as bewildered by it.

Regarding the Paris commune, I've not really studied it, but as far as I know anarchist-communists were heavily involved.

To my mind that accepts the workers state.

*bangs head against brick wall* no it doesn't, because they're example of federal and horizontal organisation, not centralist, hierarchical organisation.

@sm has made its more valuable contributions (Spain) has been where organisation (including trade unions), class sruggle and collectivism has been taken on board.

Class struggle, collectivism and organisation are INHERENT parts of Syndicalism. There weren't "taken on board" (you patronising arse), they are the fucking centre point of the ideology!

But here, as in Spain, or with the British Syndicalists the rejection of party, the denial of the question of power (both spring from the individualist utopian origins of @ism) lead to a utopianism that becomes fatal at key moments in struggle.

In your opinion. In my opinion the struggle only existed in the form that it did because they weren't hamstrung by a centralised structure. The May '37 barricades for instance actually existed in spite of high profile anarchists, not because of them.

I might add that I believe that Marxism has always been at its strongest when it has lent towards libertarianism. Obviously true if you contrast the Trotskist tradition with Stalinism. But within Trotskyism there has been a sect like mentality in many organisations combined with a top down view of socialism (nationalise the top 200/300/400 monopolies, Government enabling law, industry to be run by appointees of Govt,TU bureaucracy..etc???)

Still statist, still democratic centralist. Not libertarian, sorry.

 

[The Black Hand]

There is a current of thought that could be termed anarcho-marxism, libertarian communism, anarcho-communism... I have used the first term to describe myself...

Marxism isn't an ideology contra to 888, it is a method of class struggle... Having read many of Marx's works, and enough subsquent theorists identifying themselves within the Marxist tradition (and there are many of these traditions) I think authentic/ideal type Marxism IS anarchism - put that in your pipes and smoke it As for a future for anarchism, quite clearly the movement worldwide is enjoying a process of major growth, so it looks like there is a rich future for it...

 

[steeplejack]

1.Its a fair comment, but for now, I don't see any serious alternatives to trying to keep the ideas alive and waiting for an opportunity to push things forwards.


2.I'm not talking about "violent insurgency" just yet, you're putting the cart before the horse. It's more likely that the right opportunity will come along as a result of wide scale industrial unrest or single issue based rioting (a la miners' strike + poll tax)


3.I'd say that social centres are a good example of DA working in the here and now for the benefit of the working class. There are a lot of local campaigns you don't hear a lot about in the national media, too.


4.First of all, F4J doesn't do DA, it does silly little stunts that piss people off, but that's a different thing all together. You seem to have a very strange idea of what DA is. And as for "the government...can't accomodate political organisation and expression", if that's true, how come the government is so tolerant of the StWC coalition and similar liberal, anti-DA orgs?

1 Sheesh, it looks like you'll be waiting a long time. That puts you in the position of reacting to events rather than shaping them.

2 I wasn't talking violent insurgency immediately either. I was stating that revolutions in the UK are much more likely to be right wing in character.

3. That to me suggests you're so immersed in the practice of anarchism that you're unable to perceive it's irrelevance to 99.999% of working class- or any class people. There's lots of local campaigns everywhere in the UK- what percentage of them are driven by anarchists? Infinitessimal, i'd suggest.

4. F4J is one aspect of DA, as is the delivery of irritating stunts. Many's the time an anarchist on here has spoken of doing a "wacky stunt" arranged around some political event (pilchardman's phrase that, i believe). Of course DA is a broad umbrella that also encompasses things like HLS- whilst that may initially have had some success, the govt.s now bringing in measures which will make it much more difficult for them to operate. What's the next stage once those laws come in and put DA as we currently know it in a legal straitjacket?

Finally, the StWC doesn't fit my definition of a sustainedly effective political organisation. Yo;'re awful easy pleased if you think it is. As to other "liberal anti-DA orgs", you'll need to specify who you're talking about.

 

[redsquirrel]

4. F4J is one aspect of DA, as is the delivery of irritating stunts. Many's the time an anarchist on here has spoken of doing a "wacky stunt" arranged around some political event (pilchardman's phrase that, i believe). Of course DA is a broad umbrella that also encompasses things like HLS- whilst that may initially have had some success, the govt.s now bringing in measures which will make it much more difficult for them to operate. What's the next stage once those laws come in and put DA as we currently know it in a legal straitjacket?

Finally, the StWC doesn't fit my definition of a sustainedly effective political organisation. Yo;'re awful easy pleased if you think it is. As to other "liberal anti-DA orgs", you'll need to specify who you're talking about.

How are F4J stunts DA?
They're publicity stunts designed to get the government to change the law. That’s precisely the opposite of DA.

What do you think are effective political organisations?

 

[Ray]

F4J is one aspect of DA, as is the delivery of irritating stunts.

No, it isn't.

Direct action means that you achieve your goals directly, by the things you do yourself, rather than indirectly, by appealing to others in a position of power. Setting up a squat, reclaiming a street, going on strike, refusing to pay a poll tax, setting up a co-op - these are all examples of direct action. The F4J stunts are not direct actions - they are attempts to gain publicity, in the hope that the publicity will make the government change a law. That makes them indirect actions - just another form of petition, really.

(There's nothing wrong with stunts, in principle, but they're not direct action)

 

[In Bloom]

1 Sheesh, it looks like you'll be waiting a long time. That puts you in the position of reacting to events rather than shaping them.

Long time is a matter of perspective, I'm patient
Seriously though, I don't see any immediate alternatives, so I'll go with it, the revolution isn't the only thing in anarchism.

2 I wasn't talking violent insurgency immediately either. I was stating that revolutions in the UK are much more likely to be right wing in character.

Leaving aside the question of whether a right wing coup can be considered "revolution", what makes you say that?

3. That to me suggests you're so immersed in the practice of anarchism that you're unable to perceive it's irrelevance to 99.999% of working class- or any class people. There's lots of local campaigns everywhere in the UK- what percentage of them are driven by anarchists? Infinitessimal, i'd suggest.

They don't need to be "driven by anarchists", they are still examples of effective DA and many anarchists take part

4. F4J is one aspect of DA, as is the delivery of irritating stunts. Many's the time an anarchist on here has spoken of doing a "wacky stunt" arranged around some political event (pilchardman's phrase that, i believe). Of course DA is a broad umbrella that also encompasses things like HLS- whilst that may initially have had some success, the govt.s now bringing in measures which will make it much more difficult for them to operate. What's the next stage once those laws come in and put DA as we currently know it in a legal straitjacket?

Stunts are not DA, for the last time. F4J are trying to publicise their cause in the hope that some kind government minister will advance it for them, that is not DA by any definition. Not knocking "wacky stunts", mind, just saying they're not DA.

Finally, the StWC doesn't fit my definition of a sustainedly effective political organisation. Yo;'re awful easy pleased if you think it is. As to other "liberal anti-DA orgs", you'll need to specify who you're talking about.

It doesn't fit my definition of an effective political organisation, but it is a political organisation, none the less and it is a mode of political expression. What forms of political organisation and expression other than DA do you think the state can't tolerate?

 

[steeplejack]

No, it isn't.

Direct action means that you achieve your goals directly, by the things you do yourself, rather than indirectly, by appealing to others in a position of power. Setting up a squat, reclaiming a street, going on strike, refusing to pay a poll tax, setting up a co-op - these are all examples of direct action. The F4J stunts are not direct actions - they are attempts to gain publicity, in the hope that the publicity will make the government change a law. That makes them indirect actions - just another form of petition, really.

(There's nothing wrong with stunts, in principle, but they're not direct action)

Okay then.

Ypour list is interesting though- what does reclaiming a street/setting up a squat achieve It may be fun in the shiort term- but long term achieves bugger all. (Squat repossessed by landlord/ RTS moved on by police and street re-opened).

Surely DA has bigger ambitions than temporary and mildly inconvenient interventions? By that defintion, it achieves little more than the annoying sensationalism of F4J.

 

[In Bloom]

Okay then.

Ypour list is interesting though- what does reclaiming a street/setting up a squat achieve It may be fun in the shiort term- but long term achieves bugger all. (Squat repossessed by landlord/ RTS moved on by police and street re-opened).

Surely DA has bigger ambitions than temporary and mildly inconvenient interventions? By that defintion, it achieves little more than the annoying sensationalism of F4J.

RTS is a bad example, IMO, but even if a squat doesn't last forever, it provides somebody who needs a home with a home, if that's not worth achieving, I don't know what is.

 

[steeplejack]

1.Long time is a matter of perspective, I'm patient
Seriously though, I don't see any immediate alternatives, so I'll go with it, the revolution isn't the only thing in anarchism.

2.Leaving aside the question of whether a right wing coup can be considered "revolution", what makes you say that?

3.They don't need to be "driven by anarchists", they are still examples of effective DA and many anarchists take part

4.Stunts are not DA, for the last time. F4J are trying to publicise their cause in the hope that some kind government minister will advance it for them, that is not DA by any definition. Not knocking "wacky stunts", mind, just saying they're not DA.

5.It doesn't fit my definition of an effective political organisation, but it is a political organisation, none the less and it is a mode of political expression. What forms of political organisation and expression other than DA do you think the state can't tolerate?

1. I'm glad yr patient!

2. Historical precedent. When has anywhere in the Uk been remotely close to a left originated revolution? red Clydeside is an example some use: history shows that to have been rather pale pink Clydeside, sadly.

3. Fair enough. Again though if anarchists are merely happy to take part, aren't you ensuring that you'll never be in a position to achieve fully all yr goals?

4. Again, fair enough, though personally I find "wacky stunts" a juvenile pain in the arse.

5. (and to redsquirrel as well who asked the same question)

Three spring to mind

a) Sinn Fein, who are in a political process backed up with latent threat of violence. if the state could have accommodated SF without the significant sea change its amde in its postion re: northern ireland, it would have done.

b) radical environmentalism which has much more subtly helped shift the state's agenda on a whole range of issues from the 70s onward. In fact the Greens parallel anarchist thonking in some ways. Patrick Harvie, a green MSP in Scotland, has claimed that he doesn't care about being in power/driving change, as long as the govt. of the day follows an environental agenda.

c) Although it's in its very early days, the IWCA- a self organising, people responsive, community based organisation making political cause from and on behalf of those shamefully ignored by all the major parties. The reaction of "New" labour and the Glib Dems to them locally suggest that the state would struggle to accommodate such a body if it was able to grow successfully.

And before I'm accused of insincerity and following an IWCA agenda, I'm not a member and couldn't really be- however sympathetic i am to some of their aims- as I don't have a class based outlook on politics, and I'm not w-c. Plus I've been called a pious middle class liberal more often by JR than you lot've had hot dinners.

 

[Ray]

Okay then.

Ypour list is interesting though- what does reclaiming a street/setting up a squat achieve It may be fun in the shiort term- but long term achieves bugger all. (Squat repossessed by landlord/ RTS moved on by police and street re-opened).

An achievement doesn't have to be permanent for it to be an achievement. The purpose of an RTS is to have a street party. It doesn't achieve this purpose by petitioning the Arts Council or local corporation to organise a street party, it does it by holding a street party. Action that directly achieves its goals.

Squats, as In Bloom says, provide a home to people who previously didn't have a home. You want a home -> you squat a house -> you have a home. Direct action.

 

[redsquirrel]

a) Sinn Fein, who are in a political process backed up with latent threat of violence. if the state could have accommodated SF without the significant sea change its amde in its postion re: northern ireland, it would have done.

b) radical environmentalism which has much more subtly helped shift the state's agenda on a whole range of issues from the 70s onward. In fact the Greens parallel anarchist thonking in some ways. Patrick Harvie, a green MSP in Scotland, has claimed that he doesn't care about being in power/driving change, as long as the govt. of the day follows an environental agenda.

c) Although it's in its very early days, the IWCA- a self organising, people responsive, community based organisation making political cause from and on behalf of those shamefully ignored by all the major parties. The reaction of "New" labour and the Glib Dems to them locally suggest that the state would struggle to accommodate such a body if it was able to grow successfully.

I think it's important to note that anarchists are willing to play some role in political organisations. I mean there are anarchists in the IWCA, tenants associations etc not to mention anarchist groups like AF, SolF and Class War. The idea that DA is the only type of action anarchists are willing to take is nonsense.

 

[steeplejack]

1. An achievement doesn't have to be permanent for it to be an achievement. The purpose of an RTS is to have a street party.

2. It doesn't achieve this purpose by petitioning the Arts Council or local corporation to organise a street party, it does it by holding a street party. Action that directly achieves its goals.

3. Squats, as In Bloom says, provide a home to people who previously didn't have a home. You want a home -> you squat a house -> you have a home. Direct action.

1. Fine. But, errr....we're talking about how anarchists see their goals being achieved in the middle to long term. If all they have to offer is some street parties broken up when the police have a spare moment, isn't JR's original question re: irrelevance of anarchism a pertinent one? Any bugger can, by yre definition, claim political 'achievment' after a two hour RTS style 'happening'. Doesn't do much for anyone else though, does it?

2. I've got the point about DA, thanks.

3. I'd be interested to see what percentage of folk squatting actually were homeless before moving into their squat. But it's a difficult question to ask without sounding like a right wing troll (which I'm not). I don't have a huge problem with squatting and the linked points it makes about a) ludicrous property market and b) affordbale housing for all are important ones. But how many folk squat because they are homeless, rather than as an expression of affinity to anarchist/self-organising ideas?

 

[In Bloom]

Fair enough. Again though if anarchists are merely happy to take part, aren't you ensuring that you'll never be in a position to achieve fully all yr goals?

If that's all anarchist ever did, yes, we would be. But the only way anarchism is ever going to be seen as a credible idea by the mainstream is if we show we aren't a bunch of middle class wankers who sit on our arses all day smoking pot and moaning about the government.

a) Sinn Fein, who are in a political process backed up with latent threat of violence. if the state could have accommodated SF without the significant sea change its amde in its postion re: northern ireland, it would have done.

The government puts up with Sinn Fein because they fear violent action, not because they're affraid of political expression.

b) radical environmentalism which has much more subtly helped shift the state's agenda on a whole range of issues from the 70s onward. In fact the Greens parallel anarchist thonking in some ways. Patrick Harvie, a green MSP in Scotland, has claimed that he doesn't care about being in power/driving change, as long as the govt. of the day follows an environental agenda.

Another example of the state changing its policies in the hopes of appeasing DA based movements, IMO.

c) Although it's in its very early days, the IWCA- a self organising, people responsive, community based organisation making political cause from and on behalf of those shamefully ignored by all the major parties. The reaction of "New" labour and the Glib Dems to them locally suggest that the state would struggle to accommodate such a body if it was able to grow successfully.

The state struggles to accomodate such organisations in the hopes of corrupting them and making them more like themselves, not because they're tolerant of DA.

 

[steeplejack]

The idea that DA is the only type of action anarchists are willing to take is nonsense.

I agree, and you'll note I haven't advanced this position anywhere.

 

[steeplejack]

1. If that's all anarchist ever did, yes, we would be. But the only way anarchism is ever going to be seen as a credible idea by the mainstream is if we show we aren't a bunch of middle class wankers who sit on our arses all day smoking pot and moaning about the government.

2.The government puts up with Sinn Fein because they fear violent action, not because they're affraid of political expression.

3.Another example of the state changing its policies in the hopes of appeasing DA based movements, IMO.

4. The state struggles to accomodate such organisations in the hopes of corrupting them and making them more like themselves, not because they're tolerant of DA.

1. A tough job, I agree.

2, 3 & 4: SF aren't linked to violent paramilitaries just cause they feel like it. The govt. fears violence, true, but also fears the frustrated political expression/set of ideas which motivated that violence. The two are inseparable. as to 3 & 4, not much sign of that happening, really, is there?

 

[redsquirrel]

SF aren't linked to violent paramilitaries just cause they feel like it. The govt. fears violence, true, but also fears the frustrated political expression/set of ideas which motivated that violence. The two are inseparable.

But hasn't that set of ideas being somewhat sidelined by SF/IRA turning towards a more party political role. I mean by letting SF into government, they have become a political party and have all the problems that political parties have (maintaining their popularity for instance).

 

[Ray]

1. Fine. But, errr....we're talking about how anarchists see their goals being achieved in the middle to long term. If all they have to offer is some street parties broken up when the police have a spare moment, isn't JR's original question re: irrelevance of anarchism a pertinent one? Any bugger can, by yre definition, claim political 'achievment' after a two hour RTS style 'happening'. Doesn't do much for anyone else though, does it?

The point about direct action is that its empowering. When you organise something yourself, and it comes off, whether it be a street party or anything else, you realise that you don't need to ask other people to do things for you, you can do it yourself. And that's something you'll remember - that you don't need to contact your MP or the union head office to sort out a problem in your area or workplace, you can take direct action. And it 'does something' for other people because your confidence and experience will benefit other people.

So how I see anarchists achieving their goals in the middle to long-term is this - People get involved in political activity. They realise that directly democratic means of organising works. They extend that to other activities, drawing in more people. Those people realise that anarchist methods work. They extend that to other activities...

What's your alternative?

 

[steeplejack]

So how I see anarchists achieving their goals in the middle to long-term is this - People get involved in political activity. They realise that directly democratic means of organising works. They extend that to other activities, drawing in more people. Those people realise that anarchist methods work. They extend that to other activities...

What's your alternative?

Er, I'm not sure that the successful organising of afternoon parties/temporary squats count as fulsome evidence that DD works. It works in that very limited and limiting sphere of organisation, I'm sure- whether it would work in the long term, say, in organising health care and whatever is far from proven.

there's bveen other threads about it, but anarchism suffers from a real image problem. people automatically associate it with brick chucking youths, mobs, pisspoor stickers on lamp-posts, and Gavrilo Princip. I'm aware that's a reductive caricature, and know that in the main anarchism seems to be a bunch of okay people trying to get things done in their local area, but that doesn't come across at all outwith the activist community.

Anarchism suffers as much as anything else from political apathy- the current two party/ pressure group system actively discourages people's involvement, so they're likely to look at anything calling itself politics/political activity with a hearty skepticism. Party politics is failing and breaking down, but I'm far from sure that anarchists/anarchism is anything like organised or strong enough to capitalise, however things may shake out in future.

 

[rednblack]

Er, I'm not sure that the successful organising of afternoon parties/temporary squats count as fulsome evidence that DD works.

direct debits? dungeons & dragons?