Does anarchism have a serious future?

[Joe Reilly]

Have you not heard of the Spanish Civil War, then? Or the Russian Revolution? or the Spartacist revolution in Germany 1918-9? All of which anarchists and anarchism played a key part

Of course I heard of them. Remind me how you did again?

 

[In Bloom]

Of course I heard of them. Remind me how you did again?

About as well as trots like y'r good self.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Absolutley not - but if you proclaim fidelity to the writings of one man now and forever, and argue that he never did no wrong, then yes, that is dogmatic and ideological - in the terms that Marx himself first described the concept.

So, go get that beam out of your eye brother - it's getting in teh way of serious business.

The only other option is that you, by dint of being who you are, are non-sectarian, and non-ideological in any way.

In recent weeks we've had the theft of a mobile phone at the ESF, the great graffitti scandal at the book fair and the rumour of an anarchist inspired speed hump somewhere in the country. If that is the 'serious business' you were referring to don't let me get in you way.

 

[Pickman's model]

In recent weeks we've had the theft of a mobile phone at the ESF, the great graffitti scandal at the book fair and the rumour of an anarchist inspired speed hump somewhere in the country. If that is the 'serious business' you were referring to don't let me get in you way.

and what have you been up to?

 

[Joe Reilly]

About as well as trots like y'r good self.

I'm working on the assumtion your semi-literate so here goes: Trostkyism wasn't invented until the 1930's - up until 1928 or so him and Uncle Joe were chums. As for the Spartacist League Rosa Luxembourg was a marxist (old school).

 

[Joe Reilly]

and what have you been up to?

You boys are in fine form this evening.

 

[Pickman's model]

so, you've either been up to something so nefarious you don't want to discuss it - which is fair enough - or very little.

 

[In Bloom]

I'm working on the assumtion [sic] your [sic] semi-literate [oh the irony] so here goes: Trostkyism [sic] wasn't invented until the 1930's - up until 1928 or so him and Uncle Joe were chums. As for the Spartacist League Rosa Luxembourg was a marxist [sic] (old school).

Fine, Leninist/Marxist/whatever-obscure-semi-religious-brand-of-authoritarian-communism-you-subscribe-to.

 

[butchersapron]

In recent weeks we've had the theft of a mobile phone at the ESF, the great graffitti scandal at the book fair and the rumour of an anarchist inspired speed hump somewhere in the country. If that is the 'serious business' you were referring to don't let me get in you way.

Reply to the points or don't reply at all Joe.

 

[Pickman's model]

Reply to the points or don't reply at all Joe.

i think he's done a webel.

 

[Sacred Spirit]

Does anarchism have a serious future asked one of Alexander the greats anarchist soldiers, especially now that his armies lay dead and are only usefull for fertilising the crops.

and so alex wandered off only to die on the ancient site of Babylon, the last remaining few soldier paid their respect to their God as they buried him.

Though the anarchists had been the largest group in his armies and his most devoted worshipers, there were some who on hearing of the mass slaughter of his forces decided to leave and settle where they were, rather than return home.
The descendants of the ones who settled in Afghanistan still remember the old God and are still amused as to how many anarchist are still awaiting his return, bush and blair among them, -- look NO government -- Iraq and Afghanistan.

Does anyone think the penny will ever drop.

 

[888]

The return of the loon...

 

[butchersapron]

Does anarchism have a serious future asked one of Alexander the greats anarchist soldiers, especially now that his armies lay dead and are only usefull for fertilising the crops.

and so alex wandered off only to die on the ancient site of Babylon, the last remaining few soldier paid their respect to their God as they buried him.

Though the anarchists had been the largest group in his armies and his most devoted worshipers, there were some who on hearing of the mass slaughter of his forces decided to leave and settle where they were, rather than return home.
The descendants of the ones who settled in Afghanistan still remember the old God and are still amused as to how many anarchist are still awaiting his return, bush and blair among them, -- look NO government -- Iraq and Afghanistan.

Does anyone think the penny will ever drop.

ThE mAN WHO WOULD BE KING WAS FILM

up tHe punX!!!

 

[charlie mowbray]

Hello Charlie - What expulsions and denunciations would they be? You might want to look at Haggy's post (an ex-Hackney IWCAer) to see the lack of denunciation and recrimination between Hackney Independent and the IWCA.

Cheers - Louis Mac

Louis, please read my post a bit more closely- I'm referring to splits, denunciations etc within the Communist League

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Louis, please read my post a bit more closely- I'm referring to splits, denunciations etc within the Communist League

Sorry Charlie I'd linked it with your earlier post alluding to an organisation whose initials began with an I ...

Only very slightly paranoid - Louis Mac

 

[october_lost]

Ulimately the question is not whether I should be 'given the benefit of the doubt' but whether anarchism should? I outlined why I thought it had failed up to now and would in all probability continue to fail. By failure I mean not being in position physically or intellectually to ever make a significant contribution to the fight against the enemy agenda. What is worse is not seeing the need to even seriously try.

Is this simply an implication of the UK wide scene? Because outside of that I wouldnt agree with your analysis. You can only articulate a new agenda when there is enough opposition and action against something, in which case anarchism as appeared to last and would appear to have a future, but like much of the left in this country its barely on the radar...

 

[Joe Reilly]

i think he's done a webel.

The fact is that for the most part the anarchists on here were decidly uncomfortable discussing whether or not anarchism has a serious (which is to say a politically influential future) and so sought to justify the failure to engage by a) re-casting the question on familiar leninst - anarchist lines, finger-pointing at Marx or/and finger-pointing (e.g personalising the argument) at the one who posed the question in the first place.

All of this was I suppose predictable. But let's not pretend it was me that bottled out.

 

[redsquirrel]

The fact is that for the most part the anarchists on here were decidly uncomfortable discussing whether or not anarchism has a serious (which is to say a politically influential future) and so sought to justify the failure to engage by a) re-casting the question on familiar leninst - anarchist lines, finger-pointing at Marx or/and finger-pointing (e.g personalising the argument) at the one who posed the question in the first place.

All of this was I suppose predictable. But let's not pretend it was me that bottled out.

Like your question wasn't hugely personalised in the first place.

 

[Joe Reilly]

However, I think anything other than direct democracy shouldn't rightly be called democracy, and therefore reject representative democracy, national referendums and other forms of centralised decision making.
QUOTE]

I just thought I would come back on this as it seems to be at the heart of the debate in that it is assumed to be uniquely anarchist.

First off. If you have delegates you inevitably have centralisation of a sort straight away as delegates are elected to represent the views of those who elected them in discussions with other delegates. In the midst of the discussion the said delegate might change his mind on the issue. It was for him then to report back and seek a new mandate or be replaced. A sound way to proceed. That is basic accountablility. The under-pinning of democracy.

But it is mistake to confuse centralisation which is the inevitable outcome of delegation with lack of democracy. It is also a mistake to confuse a bottom up delegate structure as being exclusive to anarchism. Gor example communards under arms were organised on exactly those lines (with incidentally, Marx's enthusiastic approval).

 

[Joe Reilly]

Is this simply an implication of the UK wide scene? Because outside of that I wouldnt agree with your analysis. You can only articulate a new agenda when there is enough opposition and action against something, in which case anarchism as appeared to last and would appear to have a future, but like much of the left in this country its barely on the radar...

You seem to be saying that anarchism as an ideology can only kick in once the process of opposition has been set in train by someone else. I would not disagree. But this inability to initiate rather renders the whole point of the identfying with an anarchism as a idelogy pointless dosen't it?

 

[butchersapron]

However, I think anything other than direct democracy shouldn't rightly be called democracy, and therefore reject representative democracy, national referendums and other forms of centralised decision making.

I just thought I would come back on this as it seems to be at the heart of the debate in that it is assumed to be uniquely anarchist.

First off. If you have delegates you inevitably have centralisation of a sort straight away as delegates are elected to represent the views of those who elected them in discussions with other delegates. In the midst of the discussion the said delegate might change his mind on the issue. It was for him then to report back and seek a new mandate or be replaced. A sound way to proceed. That is basic accountablility. The under-pinning of democracy.

But it is mistake to confuse centralisation which is the inevitable outcome of delegation with lack of democracy. It is also a mistake to confuse a bottom up delegate structure as being exclusive to anarchism. Gor example communards under arms were organised on exactly those lines (with incidentally, Marx's enthusiastic approval).

Yes, precisely as was argued by anarchists earlier on in this very thread. No one here has claimed those organisational forms are exclusive to anarchists - we've argued the exact opposite. You're the only one making that claim on behalf of anarchists.

And if you want to talk about Marx and the commune you'll have to admit (as he himself did) that the forms of self-organisation that it threw up directly challenged and lead to him revising many of his earlier views - views which anarchists had already pointed out to him needed to be changed. Which at the very least should give you pause for thought if you wish to continue with the incredibely crude marx good, anarchists bad approach that you've chosen to employ on this thread.

 

[charlie mowbray]

The fact is that for the most part the anarchists on here were decidly uncomfortable discussing whether or not anarchism has a serious (which is to say a politically influential future) and so sought to justify the failure to engage by a) re-casting the question on familiar leninst - anarchist lines, finger-pointing at Marx or/and finger-pointing (e.g personalising the argument) at the one who posed the question in the first place.

All of this was I suppose predictable. But let's not pretend it was me that bottled out.

I certainly was not uncomfortable. All my observations, especially on the international rebirth of revolutuionary anarchism, make me feel quietly confident. You talk about personalisation. It was you who mentioned that Marx was a democrat. I argued against that, and as far as I am aware did not personalise it. Your original question was crass, with a failure to recognise the importance of anarchism around the world within social revolutions, either deliberate or not, I don't know.

 

[Ray]

The fact is that for the most part the anarchists on here were decidly uncomfortable discussing whether or not anarchism has a serious (which is to say a politically influential future) and so sought to justify the failure to engage by a) re-casting the question on familiar leninst - anarchist lines, finger-pointing at Marx or/and finger-pointing (e.g personalising the argument) at the one who posed the question in the first place.

Nonsense. All of the anarchists who replied to your post said that anarchism did have a future, and seemed comfortable saying so. If you want to complain about people pointing fingers and arguing on familiar anarchist - leninist lines, don't start a thread with such an obviously slanted, inaccurate and confrontational post

Your argument doesn't get far past 'Anarchism is hopeless. Marx was great. Anyone who doesn't agree is obviously blinded by ideology' Since you didn't actually suggest any problems with anarchism, and spent most of your time arguing that Marx was a perfect democrat, obviously the thread is going to focus on Marx rather than problems with anarchism.

But maybe your clear and unaffected vision saw something else

 

[Ray]

You seem to be saying that anarchism as an ideology can only kick in once the process of opposition has been set in train by someone else. I would not disagree. But this inability to initiate rather renders the whole point of the identfying with an anarchism as a idelogy pointless dosen't it?

Oh cop yourself on. Do you honestly think octoberlost is arguing that anarchism is incapable of initiating anything? Do you really believe anarchists are going to accept this characterisation?

If all ideologies have this failing - apart from the completely unideological Marxism, of course - why doesn't the clear statement of Marxist truth immediately cause a revolution?

 

[Joe Reilly]

Yes, precisely as was argued by anarchists earlier on in this very thread. No one here has claimed those organisational forms are exclusive to anarchists - we've argued the exact opposite. You're the only one making that claim on behalf of anarchists.



And if you want to talk about Marx and the commune you'll have to admit (as he himself did) that the forms of self-organisation that it threw up directly challenged and lead to him revising many of his earlier views - views which anarchists had already pointed out to him needed to be changed. Which at the very least should give you pause for thought if you wish to continue with the incredibely crude marx good, anarchists bad approach that you've chosen to employ on this thread.

If organisational form in question is not exclusive to anarchism what is indeed exclusive to anarchism?

 

[Joe Reilly]

Oh cop yourself on. Do you honestly think octoberlost is arguing that anarchism is incapable of initiating anything? Do you really believe anarchists are going to accept this characterisation?

If all ideologies have this failing - apart from the completely unideological Marxism, of course - why doesn't the clear statement of Marxist truth immediately cause a revolution?

I asked him the question. If you don't care to answer it that is no reason why he should be urged not to do so.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Your argument doesn't get far past 'Anarchism is hopeless. Marx was great. Anyone who doesn't agree is obviously blinded by ideology' Since you didn't actually suggest any problems with anarchism, and spent most of your time arguing that Marx was a perfect democrat, obviously the thread is going to focus on Marx rather than problems with anarchism.

But maybe your clear and unaffected vision saw something else

This is just flabby revisionism. I did point it a number of serious flaws in contemporary anarchism. I did not spend most of my time arguing Marx was a perfect democrat. In regard to Marx what I said was that I did not regard 'marxism' as an ideology. It was your mob who focused on Marx the authoritarian - I simply asked for evidence. None was provided.
Such tactics are hall marks of a defensive mentality. But then of course you have much to be defensive about.

 

[butchersapron]

If organisational form in question is not exclusive to anarchism what is indeed exclusive to anarchism?

And there we get to the crux of the matter. Joe doesn't know that much about the historical theory or practice of anarchism. You're simultaneously attacking anarchism for being an 'ideology' with no influence, then denying that it even exists as an 'ideology' (Taken in the sense of a coherent set of beliefs and practies, not in Marx's sense).

Do you really believe that anarchism can be reduced to the adoption of a particular organisational form (a form which you're more than happy to embrace yourself, but seem a tad put out by anarchists also supporting). You're the one reducing it to these crude straw men. Learning the lessons from past forms of working class self-organisation and the struggles that these forms have developed out of is (or should be ) an a-b-c.

As it goes i've got neither the time nor the inclination to fill you in what you should already have looked into before you started this thread. I could quickly list inquiries into differing form of domination (physchological, economic, legal etc), the evolution of and nature of the state form, research and ecperiments into differing methods of enabling direct democracy, the emphahsis on Direct Action, the rejection of representation etc, the focus on working class autonomy, the rejection of politcal parties etc.

Really Joe, this is on the level of someone turning up and saying 'marx was shit - just look at the USSR.'

 

[Ray]

I asked him the question. If you don't care to answer it that is no reason why he should be urged not to do so.

I'm pointing out the fact that s/he was obviously not saying what you thought s/he was saying. octoberlost's post seems to boil down to the argument that politics does not proceed in a vacuum, even if you have great ideas they depend on you having an audience. Uncontroversial stuff.

Seriously, do you think anyone is going to believe that an 'ideology' is incapable of initiating anything, yet still believe in that ideology?

Anyway, your qestion to ocoberlost could be just as easily turned around on you - if (pure, unideological) Marxism is so great, how come everyone hasn't joined in the pure, unideological Marxist revolution?

 

[butchersapron]

Anyway, your qestion to ocoberlost could be just as easily turned around on you - if (pure, unideological) Marxism is so great, how come everyone hasn't joined in the pure, unideological Marxist revolution?

Indeed - does Marx (or marxism) have a serious future? The evidence suggests not. That's the only consistent answer, given Joes eariler 'appraisial' of anarchism and its future.