User loginAnarchist Library
Anarchist Events
|
Why Anarchist Projects Fail. The Generational Question
Only France and Italy preserve the real continuity of anarchist generations, unaffected by mass extermination. When I visited Spain and the offices of the CNT in Barcelona there was a collection of quite elderly men in the "meeting room" in one section. The editor of Solidaridad Obrero was somewhat younger than me, and we tried to communicate through our mutually bad French. What I noticed was an absence of "middle-aged people" on the premises. The headquarters of the CGT in Barcelona was a little bit better, with a better mix of generations- but not by much. The youth of the staff was quite obvious. Well, and good. What does this mean, especially in the situation of most of the world where anarchists are overwhelmingly young, as in Canada. Anarchism is in the throes of a revival, and it is to be expected that most of its adherents will be quite young. This has both its good points and its bad points. Let's travel through them. When people first come to anarchism they usually infused with "the light of conversion". Their enthusiasm is boundless, but so are their expectations. They far too often imagine that all they have to do is present "the idea" , and huge numbers of people will flock to the banner. When this, inevitably, doesn't happen they are left with stark choices. One of them is to adopt a rational long-term view of the anarchist project. A small minority-the best- take up this option. They may adopt any number of long term strategies. One of the most popular today is the "platformist" option. Another is to simply wipe the whole commitment off their memory and go on to different things. This is the option of the vast majority of ex-anarchists. Their choice may indeed be rational, especially if they have seen the worst of the anarchist movement close up. A third, the worst option, is to take their emotional frustration as a guide to action and enter into what Molly calls "kindergarten terrorism" under the false assumption that more militant actions will impel the "masses" that initially rejected them to join them. A pretty silly delusion actually, as the vast majority of such wanna-be terrorists usually pick ideological positions that are rock solid guaranteed top be rejected by the ordinary person. Whether it be the end of civilization or neo-Maoist nostalgia in terms of crime "in the name of" racial minorities the end result is the same. The ordinary person sees them as one more "urban nuisance", and applauds the police actions against them with the same emotions that they applaud city actions against other pests such as mosquitoes. The comparison is quite apt as the actions of such groups are on the level of "increased insect populations", not the "great threat to the rulers" that they imagine. It is hardly surprising that "student anarchists" will rethink their ideological position after a few years. Their life situation is, of course, inherently unstable. For the majority it lasts 4 years, and then they go on to what is sadly called "reality". In developed countries the majority of young people attend some sort of "institution of higher learning", whether it be university or a technical college. It is there where they first meet anarchism, but it is an anarchism that is specific to their circumstances. It is rootless and ahistorical, lacking any long term perspective. It imagines great things can be accomplished in a tiny bit of time. Some will go on from this apprenticeship into the opportunities offered by the "established left" after their graduation. Insofar as they "remain anarchists" they will eternally compromise their original ideals. Sometimes they will lie about such compromise and claim that they haven't changed their opinions at all. This tactic, traditionally associated with (ex)Trotskyists, depends upon the modern illusion that anarchism is no different from fashionable leftism. If Molly were to give a "corrective" to this I would suggest that every would-be "anarchist" adopt at least ONE position that is at variance with the leftist subculture and defend it vigorously. The actual content doesn't matter. The reaction of the leftists will be the education that is needed. Adopting such a position would provide a bridge to maintaining anarchist opinions in the world that faces a person "after graduation", if for no other reason that it would provide training in "being contrary". Still, it is sad that so few of our younger recruits manage to carry their anarchism on into their further life- beyond that they decide to extend their adolescence into middle age (cheered on by a tiny minority of evil people ensconced in the anarchist movement who encourage such actions for profit-you know the type). THIS is a failing that a mature anarchism will eventually correct. Whether it be by the gradual building of anarcho-syndicalist unions that offer people an opportunity to carry their anarchism forward into the real world- something that is being done as we speak. Whether it be by the formulation of long term plans such as the platformists are trying to do today. Whether it be by the gradual growth of other anarchist alternatives that aim for long term growth. All these things come together, and they are considerations that anarchists should think about if they are not enraptured with the illusion of "revolution" or, worse, simply sticking their finger up the nose of ordinary people as certain primitivist and "post-leftist" sectarians do. What is sad is that there is little "opportunity" offered for older people in anarchism today. Most older anarchists, when retirement finally comes about, immerse themselves in the struggles of ordinary people that have little connection to anarchism. In some ways this is a great thing, as they carry the struggle into exactly where it should be, amongst people that younger anarchists are often too snotty to approach. The gradual growth of anarchism means that there will be an increasing number of such people who will spread the anarchist idea in a much more efficient way than flashy demonstrations can. But it is still sad that there is so little interchange between this older generation-who now exist in greater numbers than they did when I first became an anarchist-and the younger people who come to anarchism imagining that it was invented with punk rock. So what does this mean in terms of "why anarchist projects fail" ? The limitations of projects initiated by younger people whose life situations are inherently unstable should be obvious. To make them survive the "graduation" of their founders requires exquisite planning that often-usually- is not possible. The limitations of anarchism in "middle-age" are also obvious, and they will only be overcome by gradual growth, something that younger people don't see as necessary. As to older anarchists one may say that they should very much carry on as they do now, but perhaps they should make a greater effort to reach out to (and if necessary argue with) younger anarchists who are in need of their experience. |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the monthly Anarchist News Digest. |
I'm 53 and active over the
I'm 53 and active over the last five decades, starting when 12 in 1967, with anti-Vietnam war activism.
Since then I've been active in every decade since and moved from democratic - socialism or Liberal to libertarian - socialism or anarchism in the 70's. There have been many victories - Vietnam, Whaling in Au, Solidnardosc, South Africa, many forest struggles to name a few, even if some were Phrrhic. Activism is not a series of defeats, failed projects and setbacks by any means imo.
The key to avoiding personal burnout is to take sensible breaks and 'get-a-life' as they say.
I see anarchist progress since 1936 as arising out of close examination of the greatest revolutions of all time such as the South-Central Ukraine 1918-21, Spain and Paris 68.
Also the incremental advances anarchism has made are not insignificant. The revolt against work of the late 1960's, the rise of anarcho-feminism and anarchism and the Black revolution...and punk rock. During the eighties we produced small papers - samizdats. During the nineties some of us closely studied the rise of the internet and caught up with some of the anarchist classic hirstories. The period 1999 - to today is well known but recently I see anarchism as failing in some ways - in the Anglosphere please note!- to incorporate a healthy balance between study or theory and praxis. We haven't taken aboard the advances since 1936 deeply; we haven't properly absorbed the net and post-left anarchism. In short we don't have an attractive 'saleable' narrative. ( BTW if platformism is the answer, then what was the fucking question again!?)
I must admit some of the never-ending moronic denial of propaganda-of-the-deed and associated willful ignorance about diversity-of-tactics doctrine can be depressing sometimes and that is a definite set-back in the 'West'.
So here we need to take a lesson from our Greek comrades and make real concrete progress through direct action while the Red Borg continue to wither away whining. We'll guard our left flanks as astutely as we presently guard our right. The anarchist future eluded us then - but that's no matter.
Tomorrow we'll all run faster - stretch out our arms further.
Yrs etc pro2rat@yahoo.etc
Well it's good to finally
Well it's good to finally see some words of wisdom on this website (both the article and your comment). Thank you, I will learn what I can from your advice. Also, (and I don't want to sound like some suck up when I say this) I recently wrote a rough opinion essay on the current anarchism "movement" and what it could do to help break down racial divisions among the white working People and the black working People in america, as well as forming solidarity with current African Liberation organizations in america (such as the International Peoples Democratic Uhuru Movement). It would be nice if you could check it out and leave a comment, I believe its on the 2nd or 3rd page of the site, it's called "How to Catch a Fire".
-Eyedea
i am continually annoyed by
i am continually annoyed by commenters on various web sites, articles, etc, who make huge assumptions about the make up of anarchists. these assumptions frequently state that american anarchists are predominantly young white middle class males. when i read further, the evidence offered is weak. based on who goes to meetings, who goes to demos and such. even the assumption that there is an anarchist MOVEMENT is defenseless. just 'cause people call themselves anarchists and do shit together doesnt make for AN anarchist movement. as has been said before, anarchy is kinda hip and cool these days. this is not a positive thing. however, interest in anarchist ideas, history, controversy etc. is and ought not be stifled by a bunch of organizational rhetoric and identity politicking.
anarchists (that i respect) are individuals who have, through many means, discovered for themselves (they could not have been recruited, inducted, etc or else they would still be following others ideas), that they no longer want the structures and strictures of the state, capital, religion, etc. to rule their lives. further, they know that to fully realize the freedom to live as they desire, the cessation of both institutional and societal (being less strictly instituional, but still multi-conformist) mandates is necessary. they engage in whatever activities give them pleasure, expand and at times destroy boundaries. they practice new ways of relating to those they care for and new ways of resisting those who continue to jerk the chains.
some of these folks don't even call themselves anarchists. they really don't need to. defining oneself has additional purpose to just being. i call myself an anarchist because I enjoy the conversations that often come out of that description. and of course, it is a simple shorthand for the fundamental situation i want.
i am 52. many of these friends i speak of are in their 40-60s. i also have many who are in their 20's and 30s. we are white, black, olive, male, female, gay, straight, bi. all are pretty poor by american standards. all these characteristics are meaningless outside of the context of this society. however, we are still in this society so we must recognize and deal with the crap that goes along with these artifical divisions.
none of us has yet destroyed all the shit that we've carried around for so long. belief systems mainly. and so much of the struggle remains internal. this introspection and the potential for isolation and retreat is problematic for sure. but none of us want to be tied down to some new fucked up movement that seeks recruits and has the audacity to insist we are supposed to act a particular way. to all become some big new blob.
i have done my time in activist meetings and demos. there is simply too much ego-driven, ideological, bullshit and worse - they are damn BORING. they continue with the same old ways as every left and right group ever has. i am not going to reach out to the black community in atlanta, the homeless in new orleans. even if i lived in those cities, why would total strangers want me invading their lives for? don't they have enough do-gooders tellin them how fucked up their lives are? what, they need us oh so smart anarchists to show them the way? now that is fucking racist - however benevolent.
if anarchy means anything, it means people who are inclined to want total freedom from this shit will find themselves - through their own ponderings and experiments along with perhaps inspiration from others in books, discussions, etc - agitating for an end to all that gets in the way.
strategies designed to force this are doomed, as should be easily recognized by now. however, we do need to discover new strategies for increasing the pressure, let's say, that is surely necessary to make room for a more widespread resistance. this is where creativity needs to come in to play. not more fucking formulas.
so what does it mean to fail? to succeed as an anarchist? these may be obsolete questions and new ones more necessary to ask.
-ole woman in the shoe
yea! what ole woman
yea! what ole woman said!
-crazy neighborhood dog lady
"anarchy is kinda hip and
"anarchy is kinda hip and cool these days"...What? Not where I'm from lady! I'm probably the only anarchist in my city (population of 43,000). All the other "kids" are wannabe 'Bangers, they all wanna fly their "colors" (Crip, Blood, MS-13, Latin Kings, they're all the same thing, potential Comrades). Not me, I want to LIVE REVOLUTION. I want to smell the smoke of a burning pig car. I want to Liberate myself, but more importantly, MUCH more importantly, I want to Liberate other People. Black, Brown, white, Olive, Yellow, whatever color they come in, I want them to taste Revolution. I want them to taste Liberation. I want them to taste Freedom. I want them to taste Equality. I want them to taste Social Justice. I want them to taste Peace! God knows they deserve it. I want them to lead, represent, and rule themselves. I want to start a Fire in the masters House and WATCH that motherfucker burn!
All Power To The People!!!!!
Live For The People,
Struggle For The People,
AND Die For The People!!
-Eyedea (a Proud FreeThinking 16 year old Person!)
remember to breathe,
remember to breathe, bunny.
and perhaps consider the hubris of thinking that you can liberate anyone but yourself.
I want to see peace but at
I want to see peace but at the same time i want to start a fire and let the mothafucka burn. that's not exactly peace but ok.
I was being a little
I was being a little dramatic. I know this. I still disagree that anarchism is becoming "hip and cool" to capitalist youth.
-eyedea
Also I'm 16... which
Also I'm 16... which basically means my hubris is denser than, well, whatever's defined as the densest. I apologize for sounding like some vanguardist militant (although there' nothing wrong with being militant). I was simply making a statement and trying to make it sound as freakin epic as I could, obviously it backfired. Also I would like to ask everybody (basically whoever reads this comment) on their thoughts on the "lumpenproletarian", just out of curiosity because I just finished reading "Soledad Brother" (probably one of the best pieces of literature I've ever read). Or maybe even a few comments on the prison system. Then again (I just keeping stacking up the list don't I) maybe somebody could even leave a comment on George Jackson himself.
-Eyedea
i recently met a young woman
i recently met a young woman - 16 also - who had a circle a on her jeans. when i asked her about it, she said she thought it looked cool when she first saw it so she used it. when i asked her what anarchy meant to her, she said she doesnt believe in it 'cause it means "stickin it to the man", just lyrics from some artist or another. hip. cool.
the fact that activists - iberal and mildly lefty both - are using this description, even though their ideas and tactics havent changed, says something too. there is a redefinition attempt being made from many quarters.
I'm 38 here! I don't usually
I'm 38 here! I don't usually tell people I'm an anarchist due to the varied definitions and ideas that others have of that word.
It seems to me though that a "pure true" democracy pretty much sums up my idea of anarchy. The greeks original democracy; A name pulled out of a lotto, and you got your civil service commitment for one term only!!
We actually have the technology for everyone to be able to vote on each issue (Do not beleive the B.S. of electric machines get a different recount everytime, Diebold can make atm's accurate to hundreths of a penny so.... They do put Braille on drive through machines though).
We need a new system thats all inclusive, we need civil service back, not family business,.....
2.T.J.
34 and a second generation
34 and a second generation anarchist. To me, being an anarchist means learning how to grow my food, filter and collect my water, generate my own power, and provide my own health care within a network of friends in my community. Taking these steps lets me respond with a shrug as I watch capitalism destroy itself. If you want to bring down the state, learn to live without it first.
"If you want to bring down
"If you want to bring down the state, learn to live without it first."
doesn't need to be first but simultaneous experimentation seems necessary.
Yea I kind of thought that
Yea I kind of thought that was more of a way to live too instead of just destroying everything, then you have no way to feed yourself and you die. Pointless waste of time.