A collective for AnarchismS is formed from individuals coming together with broadly-similar aims. And for AnarchismS when the majority in that collective, ie Seattle, don't want to ie smash up and/or occupy banks etc, anarchists believe they have the right to do so regardless of the will of the majority.
Yes. Many anarchists do not consider themselves bound by the will of others; this remains the case even when those others happen to be comrades engaged in the same struggle. Many anarchists consider that they are free to pursue the class struggle using those tactics which they believe are most likely to be successful, and in a manner consistent with a belief in freedom from oppression. This will often mean a refusal to be dictated to by others in the same movement. That makes sense on a philosophical level, and in practical terms, where a many-faceted attack can prove successful. The majority of black Americans preferred MLK Jr to Malcolm X; the majority of Indians preferred Gandhi to Subhas Chandra Bose; the majority of Irish Republicans favoured peaceful protest to the actions of the IRA. But, in each case the struggled was significantly aided by a minority which chose to pursue the same aims through different tactics. Would you have stamped out those dissenting comrades?
POINT 1. The problem with your argument is nobody, absolutely nobody has denied you that right. What you don't seem to understand is, there is a world of difference between denying anarchist their right to do their own thing, and debating the efficacy of them doing their own thing. Can you not see the difference?
To underline the point. Nobody denied the right of anarchists in Seattle [our previous discussion]. It is patently untrue to suggest anyone stoped anarchists, because there is yards and yards of film footage of anarchists doing exactly what they wanted to do, even though this went against the will of the majority. [I'll come back to the will of the majority]
What's more, as you point out correctly, it is good everybody doesn't toe the majority to rule line. Diversity in tactics IS A GOOD THING! However, in the case of Seattle I think it was a bad thing. The anarchists did their thing, and the police mainly left them alone. Preferring to use the actions of the anarchists as an excuse to pulverise the students and workers. Using the anarchists as volunteer agent provocateurs, so to speak.
So, nobody is denying the right, just debating the efficacy.
POINT 2. You are still totally misunderstanding this socialist argument. Let me give you an example.
I have absolutely nothing against people solving eg op homelessness by occupying empty properties. Socialist would be totally in agreement with anarchist that the best way to deal with homelessness, would be to occupy empty properties. But there is a world of difference between a few self appointed activists doing it on behalf of homeless people, and the homeless people doing it themselves en masse.
I would support the en masse occupation of empty properties by homeless people, but not by a few people doing it on behalf of the working class. This is substitutionism. I don't know whether you are familiar with the term, and I wasn't clear in my original post, but I am clear now that what I am arguing against is substitutionism. This is what James Connolly was guilty of, and he paid for with his life. And this is what these people are guilty of, and they are paying for it. And so, though I admire these people's commitment, and don't question for one moment they do so for the best of reasons, I believe it is folly to open yourself up to state victimisation. If you do this as part of a mass campaign, you do not open yourself up to the same victimisation, because they cannot throw us all in prison en masse. That's the difference. And that's the main point. [There are many other reasons to be against substitutionism]
POINT 3. When I talk about working with the working class, what I actually said was working with working-class movements, what I am doing is counterposing the attitude of some anarchists "we will do what we want, regardless of the will of the majority", and the attitude of some socialists "we voluntarily submit ourselves to the will of the majority [mob rule as you put it]". Why? Why do socialists submit themselves to the will of the majority, to stay within the working class movement? [I'm using the term movement in the generic sense. ie the anti-war movement, the housing movement, whatever you want]
As a socialist I'm totally in agreement with this point "The majority of black Americans preferred MLK Jr to Malcolm X; the majority of Indians preferred Gandhi to Subhas Chandra Bose; the majority of Irish Republicans favoured peaceful protest to the actions of the IRA. But, in each case the struggled was significantly aided by a minority which chose to pursue the same aims through different tactics. Would you have stamped out those dissenting comrades?" That is a good point well made, and a point that is equally well made in many Socialist worker publications. But the problem there, as I am sure many class struggle Anarchists would point out, is that neither MLK Jr or Malcolm X; Gandhi or Subhas Chandra Bose; Irish Republicans in favour peaceful protest or the the IRA DIDN''T deal with the problem, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. They didn't put at the forefront the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. But that, looking to MLk Ghandi peaceful protest, was the will of the majority. That was/is the consciousness of the majority. The majority don't necessarily accept that we need a social revolution, that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. There is no running away from the will of the majority for people who want to see a social revolution, you have to deal with the will of the majority. You have to make a decision. Do we work with the working class movements the working class produces, or do we run away to our own little ghetto, and do our own thing? This is where I disagree with anarchist just doing their own thing.
What I am saying is, I think it is better to take a dynamic dialectical view of working-class consciousness. You start from the reality, what the majority of people think is the best method to deal with eg homelessness. You argue your case ie that the best thing to do would be for homeless people en masse to occupy all empty properties. If you do not convince people, you have made your point, but you carry on working with them at what level of activity they are prepared to commit to. If this is a petition, demonstration, occupation, whatever. The key is to get as many people active as possible. And then trust that in that struggle, they will learn their own lessons as to the best way to take that struggle forward. Because at the end of the day, the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. This is the hard slog, but it is more efficacious IN MY OPINION than activism for activism sake Or substitutionism.
One of the strengths of many 'Anarchists'* over the sort of politics you represent is their ability to apply this sort of critique to their own practice in periods when I can only imagine the likes of you indulging in self congratulatory, delusional rhetoric.
Take this text published in the wake of June the 18th, one of the high water marks of 'Anarchist' activism in recent decades:
http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm
* The inverted commas are an attempt to acknowledge that a lot of class struggle Anarchists have been critical of the sort of activism you are trying to critique for a long time. Also a lot of people who think that the activist scene shouldn't be completely dismissed as irrelevant and might be worth some (critical) engagement don't necessarily think of themselves as Anarchists or use theoretical tools from an Anarchist tradition to make sense of their politics.
