Does anarchism have a serious future?

[JoeBlack]

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

The reason it sounds like a right wing troll is because the probable way your using the term 'homeless' (sleeping on the streets/in shelters) is the way the right define it.

If you define 'homeless' in the broader sense of not having a decent place to stay then probably a lot of squatters are homeless. That is they otherwise are coach surfing, in over crowded crapy landlord accommodation or even stuck in the same dwelling as their parents.

To illustrate. The estate I live in which is 3 bedroomed houses has quite a few houses with 9 people in them representing 3 generations of the same family. This isn't by choice but because typically single parents and their kids can't afford anywhere and live with the grandparents. The word homeless as used above fails to capture the overcrowding that is a fact of life for many working class people.

 

[steeplejack]

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).

I doubt it!

SF are committed to a united ireland- the focus of that struggle has shifted to politics for now, that's the only change. Their contempt/refusal to enage with UK instituions of governemnt at westminster remains, despite the political path pursued amongst their community in NI.

SF are the best illustration I can think of, of a state failing to accommodate & control a particular outlook, both in political and military terms.

 

[steeplejack]

direct debits? dungeons & dragons?

direct democracy.

dunderheided dick'ead.

 

[steeplejack]

The reason it sounds like a right wing troll is because the probable way your using the term 'homeless' (sleeping on the streets/in shelters) is the way the right define it.

yeh- it should have been clearer- i was using homeless in the broad sense of the term you mention.

The necessity/lifestyle percentage question would still be an interesting one to have an answer to, mind.

 

[Joe Reilly]

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?

I think this territory is ripe for mis-understanding. I wasn't actually attacking your post but the ideas that a) you can be a Leninist and a marxist. And b) if you accept the hybrid marxism-leninism (authoritarian/top down) then the natural reflex might be something like anarcho-communism. The need for the latter is based on the error of accepting the historical validity of the former.

 

[Joe Reilly]

(to Joe Reilly)

Marx and Engels weren't democrats in method - see the first international.

An allegation, that is to put it mildly, contested evidence.

 

[butchersapron]

I think this territory is ripe for mis-understanding. I wasn't actually attacking your post but the ideas that a) you can be a Leninist and a marxist. And b) if you accept the hybrid marxism-leninism (authoritarian/top down) then the natural reflex might be something like anarcho-communism. The need for the latter is based on the error of accepting the historical validity of the former.

Ok, i'm with you now. And i'd say that the logical practical upshot of that position seems to lead then to either a wholesale rejection or acceptance of Marx (not marxism) - it doesn't leave much ground for manouvere. There are many many good, useful things in Marx, there are also many outdated ideas that are not really applicable given current conditions and developements. I simply don't believe there is any need to swallow the thing whole - that path leads straight back to Leninism and related fundamentalisms.

On the point that anarcho-communism can be seen a form of activity that developed alongside and in rejection of marxism-leninism, then i think that you're partially correct, but i'd say that this is actually a strength of anarchism - that it related it's historical practice and theory to something concrete - the USSR and marxism-leninism did actually exist and did do some terrible damage for nearly a 100 years, and so to try and incorporate critiques of this into its worldview was the correct thing to do. I'd agree though that some anarchists now seem unable to make any moves beyond this position despite the collapse of the USSR and of Trotskyism.

I say 'incorparate' because anarchism (esp anarcho-communism) also grew out of its own independent base - it actually came to life well before leninism, and if anything Leninism can be seen as one of the reactions to anarchism's growth within the 19th centruy workers movement rather than vice versa. Anarchism cannot be reduced to a simple a rejection of Leninism (and the confusion of Leninism with the ideas of Marx) - it has always had it's own central principles and to read them as being merely anti-leninism is to miread the whole history of anarchism.

 

[Top Dog]

Steeplejack & Red Squirrel - on the subject of DA, F4J and "demands"

Theres an interesting discussion of this in Moments of Excess that covered part of this discussion during the Life Despite Capitalism conference at the alternative ESF recently.

In looking at different kinds of "direct action" and the dangers inherant in it ideologising itself, the authors ask:

'Where is the rupture?' lf all forms of action are socially productive, and if capital is amoral and infinitely malleable, isn't our resistance simply the creative cutting edge of capital? Will we turn round in ten years time to find that the things we're fighting for now appear against us? Will we close down Starbucks only to find a chain of organic fair-trade coffee houses clogging up our cities? Are we stuck in an eternal return where all struggles are recuperated? Do we have to give up millenarian fantasies of a mighty day of reckoning where the truth will out and the unjust shall be judged? We don't know. With no inside and outside, there is no solid foundation on which we can stand to make those judgements: all we know is that nothing is certain. Perhaps we won't even recognise rupture until after it has happened, especially if we're still looking for a winter palace to storm.

 

[scawenb]

I am an non-Trotskyist Marxist and although I was once emotionally drawn to anarchism I was never convinced of its ability to achieve its goal.

I do however accept that there is an Anarchist theory which is practically and intellectually coherent. I do think that individualists, anti-authoritarians and utopians have taken up the term anarchism and turned it into a nonsense (there are many here on U75 but also people like Germain Greer).

My view is that as an active political movement anarchism is one of three main form of socialism as an intellectual position however it owes just as much to a radical form of liberalism (in the nest sense of the term).

In practice Marxist have always had more in common in their fight for revolution and opposition to reformism. Politically I have always found myself that I'd rather be fighting alongside anarchist than Trotsyists. From fighting fascism, to fighting the state (with it police, courts and prisons), opposing Labour and parliamentarianism to even solidarity with national liberation struggles it is the anarchists who are most reliable and committed.

The real difference comes after the revolution and the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. So in 1917 many anarchists supported the bolsheviks and visited Lenin. I think that is when important and fundamental differences come to the fore but until then I welcome a stronger, more coherent anarchist movement with a serious future.

 

[charlie mowbray]

An allegation, that is to put it mildly, contested evidence.

Not just in the First International but within the Communist League before it Marx and Engels behaved appallingly, with a series of expulsions, denunciations and vitriolic polemic. Read any history about the Communist League ( or stay ill-informed)

 

[Pickman's model]

In practice Marxist have always had more in common in their fight for revolution and opposition to reformism.

i wonder if you shouldn't reconsider that sweeping statement...

 

[Joe Reilly]

Ok, i'm with you now. And i'd say that the logical practical upshot of that position seems to lead then to either a wholesale rejection or acceptance of Marx (not marxism) - it doesn't leave much ground for manouvere. There are many many good, useful things in Marx, there are also many outdated ideas that are not really applicable given current conditions and developements. I simply don't believe there is any need to swallow the thing whole - that path leads straight back to Leninism and related fundamentalisms.

It is not about swallowing anything whole. Basically what I'm saying is that process and analysis offered by Marx and co was - unlike Lenininism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and variants of Anarchism - not an ideology. The problem is not anarchism as such but the penchant for looking at objective reality through an ideological prism that is 'outdated and not really applicable given current conditions and developments'.
To paraphrase Henry Ford: "ideology is bunk."

 

[Joe Reilly]

Not just in the First International but within the Communist League before it Marx and Engels behaved appallingly, with a series of expulsions, denunciations and vitriolic polemic. Read any history about the Communist League ( or stay ill-informed)

'Any history' - by who exactly?

 

[Ray]

Basically what I'm saying is that process and analysis offered by Marx and co was - unlike Lenininism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and variants of Anarchism - not an ideology.

Everyone else is blinded by an ideology, but you are guided by a method?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Ok, i'm with you now. And i'd say that the logical practical upshot of that position seems to lead then to either a wholesale rejection or acceptance of Marx (not marxism) - it doesn't leave much ground for manouvere. There are many many good, useful things in Marx, there are also many outdated ideas that are not really applicable given current conditions and developements. I simply don't believe there is any need to swallow the thing whole - that path leads straight back to Leninism and related fundamentalisms.

Is there another alternative to your 'adopt Marx or die' option? Can we reject ideology (that is ideology a somehow singular set of ideas for a political/economic/social system) while keeping the working class centre stage as the only class whose material interest is the thorough going transformation of society?

One of the reasons I ask this is because I attended the community politics meeting at the bookfair, and was genuinely suprised by the number of people there, who found it easier to talk about community activity in terms of ideas/identity/anarchism rather than people/problems/working class. Chatting in the pub afterwards, one of the Hackney Independent members made the intereting comment that they felt secure enough in their politics not to feel the need for the ideological tag. Now while I might disagree with them as to how far they have managed to move beyond an ideological straight jacket (the process of being owned by an ideology refered to by Joe in his Raymond Chandler quote); I really think this confidence is to be admired.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[Joe Reilly]

Everyone else is blinded by an ideology, but you are guided by a method?

Anyone that is motivated and guided by and idelogy is inevitably partially sighted at best, as it will necessarily involve sooner or later the rejection of home truths unacceptable to that ideology. Or the rejection of that idelogy.

That said, simply looking at reality as it is, does not provide any guarantee that you will be able to alter that reality.

 

[charlie mowbray]

'Any history' - by who exactly?

Try here http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1846let1.htm
Weitling's letter about his treatment by MARX ( I would have thiught you would side with the worker Weitling against the intellectual Marx)
Also the book the Red Prussian by Leopold Scwarzschild- more to follow

 

[Ray]

Anyone that is motivated and guided by and idelogy is inevitably partially sighted at best, as it will necessarily involve sooner or later the rejection of home truths unacceptable to that ideology. Or the rejection of that idelogy.
That said, simply looking at reality as it is, does not provide any guarantee that you will be able to alter that reality.

I'm just amused by your confidence that you are the one seeing reality as it is, while the rest of us see it through a glass darkly.

 

[butchersapron]

Is there another alternative to your 'adopt Marx or die' option? Can we reject ideology (that is ideology a somehow singular set of ideas for a political/economic/social system) while keeping the working class centre stage as the only class whose material interest is the thorough going transformation of society?

One of the reasons I ask this is because I attended the community politics meeting at the bookfair, and was genuinely suprised by the number of people there, who found it easier to talk about community activity in terms of ideas/identity/anarchism rather than people/problems/working class. Chatting in the pub afterwards, one of the Hackney Independent members made the intereting comment that they felt secure enough in their politics not to feel the need for the ideological tag. Now while I might disagree with them as to how far they have managed to move beyond an ideological straight jacket (the process of being owned by an ideology refered to by Joe in his Raymond Chandler quote); I really think this confidence is to be admired.

Cheers - Louis Mac

I think that's what i was trying to say Louis - it was Joes logic that i was arguing seemed to me to lead to the type of position of either accepting or rejecting Marx in full, with the concomitant denial that Marx's thought could ever constitute an ideology. Your first paragraph puts across the sort of approach i was trying to convey.

 

[redsquirrel]

I doubt it!

SF are committed to a united ireland- the focus of that struggle has shifted to politics for now, that's the only change. Their contempt/refusal to enage with UK instituions of governemnt at westminster remains, despite the political path pursued amongst their community in NI.

SF are the best illustration I can think of, of a state failing to accommodate & control a particular outlook, both in political and military terms.

But these days much of their focus is on getting the assembly back, getting a referendum etc. Don't you think that much of their focus has been shifted to shorter term goals, in particular being part of a government.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'm just amused by your confidence that you are the one seeing reality as it is, while the rest of us see it through a glass darkly.

Hello Ray - I took Joe to be having a pop at those who insist on placing the adherence to/identification with a particular ideology before their desire/willingness to confront reality; a bit like someone who carries on using the same pair of specs years after they have ceased to be useful and instead complains about the smallness of print these days.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[Ray]

Hello Ray - I took Joe to be having a pop at those who insist on placing the adherence to/identification with a particular ideology before their desire/willingness to confront reality; a bit like someone who carries on using the same pair of specs years after they have ceased to be useful and instead complains about the smallness of print these days.

Yes, but his criticism loses its force if he's doing the same thing himself, doesn't it? Motes, beams, and all that jazz...

 

[charlie mowbray]

Try here http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1846let1.htm
Weitling's letter about his treatment by MARX ( I would have thiught you would side with the worker Weitling against the intellectual Marx)
Also the book the Red Prussian by Leopold Scwarzschild- more to follow

Francis Wheen's book on Marx also refers to these goings-on as does Revolutionary Refugees by Christine Lattek

 

[Joe Reilly]

I'm just amused by your confidence that you are the one seeing reality as it is, while the rest of us see it through a glass darkly.

I made no such exclusive claims. Millions of working class people see reality as it is. Changing that reality is the difficult bit.Howeve if the basic evidence is tampered with, either over or under egged, or re-shaped in some way so as not to appear to be in conflict with idelogical principles and beliefs then it is fair to assume that the 'difficult bit' quickly becomes the impossible bit.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Francis Wheen's book on Marx also refers to these goings-on as does Revolutionary Refugees by Christine Lattek

Well yes there were 'goings-on'. Not in dispute. I am not trying to paint Marx or Engels as saints. Merely that working class control, the unrestricted law of the greatest number lay at the heart of the political philosophy espoused by them.

 

[kropotkin]

Joe,seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?
Serious anarchist theory centres around the w/c as the most important historical actor, and works towards developing it's own capacity for organisation and self-management. You have either misunderstood what it actually is (as illustrated by you actually arguing the same position as Butchers above), are deliberately attempting to attack a straw man, or are just trying to be argumentative.

Anarchists don't want to recruit people totheir organisations, they want to percolate anarchist methods of organising to other sections of the class and provide support when any sections are trying to independantly act in their own interests. Granted the "movement" is currently shit, and many anarchists get sucked into thinking PR stunts are a substitute for political action, but it is amistake to conflate anarchism with anarchists.

Changing tack, another example of anarchy in action is that of the residents pissed off with traffic in their estate putting in their own speed-control measures (speed bumps as far as I remember). No blak and redflags, no quoting of 19th century writers, just normal people acheiving their desires directly.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Joe,seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?
Serious anarchist theory centres around the w/c as the most important historical actor, and works towards developing it's own capacity for organisation and self-management. You have either misunderstood what it actually is (as illustrated by you actually arguing the same position as Butchers above), are deliberately attempting to attack a straw man, or are just trying to be argumentative.

Anarchists don't want to recruit people totheir organisations, they want to percolate anarchist methods of organising to other sections of the class and provide support when any sections are trying to independantly act in their own interests. Granted the "movement" is currently shit, and many anarchists get sucked into thinking PR stunts are a substitute for political action, but it is amistake to conflate anarchism with anarchists.

Changing tack, another example of anarchy in action is that of the residents pissed off with traffic in their estate putting in their own speed-control measures (speed bumps as far as I remember). No blak and redflags, no quoting of 19th century writers, just normal people acheiving their desires directly.

Hello Kropotkin - Some anarchism does have the working class at its heart, but not all e.g. Striner as the individualist par excellence.

Did the people doing their own traffic calming call it anarchy in action? If not this would seem to be an example of the ability to get along quite nicely without the ideological label.

Cheers - Louis Mac

p.s. The notion that Joe is a trotskyist is very funny!

 

[kropotkin]

arghh!

1. Stirnirite anarchism has always been a minority current, and certainly is these days. It is clear from reading this thread, and indeed Joe Reilly's first post, that the current being discussed is anarcho-comminsm.

2. That is the point i am making! They don't have to self-identify as anarchists for the action to be "anarchist". My point is that it doesn't need a label. We really are arguing the same posiiton here (which is the point of my posts)

3. He certainly behaves like a leninist.I don't give a fuck what people say- I'll make my judgements based on actions cheers.

Mark

 

[rednblack]

2. That is the point i am making! They don't have to self-identify as anarchists for the action to be "anarchist". My point is that it doesn't need a label. We really are arguing the same posiiton here (which is the point of my posts)

exactly, and that's something that marxists from a leninist background (i'll avoid the question of whether joe or for that matter louis are leninists now ) find really difficult to understand, loads of people act in an anarchist way in the community or workplace with out ever calling it anarchism or necersarily knowing anything about it - everytime that happens (even if 99% of the time it doesnt lead to the setting up of permanent structures) it is a valedation of the correctness of anarchist theory

imo

 

[Machen]

another example of anarchy in action is that of the residents pissed off with traffic in their estate putting in their own speed-control measures (speed bumps as far as I remember). No blak and redflags, no quoting of 19th century writers, just normal people acheiving their desires directly.

Anarchism must mean more than THAT! It must involve more than a particularly uppity manifestation of local Neighbourhood Watch schemes, led by Hyacinth Bucket, ffs!!

But your comment raises another interesting question: what is it about the pro-Foxhunting, Countryside Alliance/BFSS lot and THEIR defence of community against the British State, that prevents it from being - in your analysis - 'Anarchist'? Are the anarchists of U75 planning on getting on down to London to lend some support to these resolute defenders of local community tradition in the face of State power?