User loginNavigationAnarchist Events
Action!Donation |
Will there be anarchy after the 1930s?
When European anarchists immigrated to North America in the late 19th century, they brought some of their cultural traditions with them. They had families they were close to and that were often involved in the anarchist movement. They also engaged in a vibrant anarchist culture, with anarchist schools for children, picnics, plays, music, bars and social clubs, etc. Anarchist families who weren’t otherwise involved in the movement would host anarchists on the run from the law. By the 1940s, the movement had been almost totally destroyed by government repression, including execution, imprisonment and deportation. The anarchist movement that re-emerged in North America in the 1960s mostly lacked any connection or continuity to the previous European immigrant movement. Few anarchists from the ‘60s to the ‘90s are still active anarchists today on this continent. I believe the blame can also be placed in part on the lack of coherent and ongoing social projects and engagement in social struggles from the ‘60s and on. There are few if any social spaces that have lasted since then or that last more than a few years after they’re founded. Rather than organizing social projects and struggles based on class conflict in the workplace, the streets or neighborhoods, most anarchists are primarily wrapped-up in punk subcultural pursuits such as bicycle advocacy and Food Not Bombs. Others see anarchy as a game of running around, adding up and comparing direct actions, and chasing after and supporting indigenous peoples’ struggles. Longer term endeavors and more active participation in social movements are not so enthusiastically pursued. In contrast, the pre-1940s European immigrant anarchist movement in North America was based on social projects and struggles which were themselves rooted in the struggle of the working class. With the decline of the factory and the rise of the service industry in North America, the anarchist movement has been removed from its traditional location of struggle, with nothing to replace it aside from the punk show, Critical Mass bike ride, Food Not Bombs serving or the here-today-gone-tomorrow infoshop. Anarchism used to be a majority working class movement whereas it’s now mostly middle class youth in rebellion against their parents and the alienation of capitalist society. Anarchism is now first of all a drop-out subculture. It used to be part of and engaged with the working class. Obviously, to some extent transience is natural for youth, but in the context of North America it is taken to an extreme that seems to indicate the influence capitalist society has on it. Younger anarchists need to be more conscious of this dynamic and also seek out and learn from older people, not necessarily just anarchists. Older anarchists need to pass on useful information and lessons when it’s possible for the youngsters to receive it in a respectful way. Anarchists of all ages need to not only develop personally but also socially, and to build and maintain longer-term social spaces, projects and struggles that can provide coherence and continuity for the anarchist movement. -By Newtothis Thirtysomething Thing |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the Anarchist News newsletter. |
I think maybe what you are
I think maybe what you are talking about is changing. Or at least starting to change. It seems to describe the 'anarchists' I knew back in the 90s when I was a youth myself. I'm not putting it in quotes to demean them or their anarchism. I suppose I am just noting that there was an element of that temporary 'anarchism' of which you speak (though I know of one who is still an anarchist- and working class for that matter). Anyways, back to my point. I may be the only self-defined anarchist amongst my friends, but anarchist sentiment is strong within them and it seems to be picking up. It is true that most of the people I speak of are from middle to upper-middle class origins and college educated. Interestingly though, many of them have followed trades that having nothing to do with their degrees (an anthropology major doing carpentry and oddjobs). And though most of us enjoy a good punk tune or two, we aren't part of the punk subculture. In fact, most of us aren't part of any particular subculture. I believe part of the driving force behind the new interest in anarchism is a solid disillusionment with government, capitalism and a system that deprives us of the freedom to take our lives into our own hands. It (the increasing trend towards anarchist principles amongst my friends) is different from the anarchism of the 30s, 60s and the later anarchism of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. Though most of us (again I speak for myself and friends only) find our roots in the progressive/liberal/left values of environmental sustainability, acceptance of people for who they are not 'what' they are, and generally libertarian social values, we have turned against dogmatism, authoritarianism, ideologies and party politics. I am not saying that all these friends of mine are anarchists per se, but their views on the world and what they wish to see for themselves sound mighty damn close. I think your critique might be about a decade late.
Where are the alternative
Where are the alternative educational and community centres run by anarchists? Were are the anarcho-syndicalist organisations? Where are the sustained and non-episodic campaigns for building a movement? We aren't going to get anarchism if it's confined to .001% of the population. I hardly think the critique is a decade late, excepting that it should have been taken on a decade earlier.
Rowan Duffy
These projects and
These projects and organizations that you name are still easily recuperated subcultural ghettoes that would likely only be mainly utilized by local anarchist cliques.
Anarchists need to have real-life interactions in day to day society, with "average" people instead of telling people what they need. The efforts to reach out to vegan hipsters and paid union organizers (most of whom have never worked in the industry they organize) are wasted because they are only interested in how anarchists can help their gallery opening or organizing drive, and then they have no use for us.
Recuperation and
Recuperation and ghettoisation are two completely different concepts. You appear to be talking about ghettoisation and you appear to be making a claim that the projects I mentioned lead inevitably to ghettoisation. However, it isn't the case.
You have to create space for "average" people to make use of these structures and be conscious of the tendency to ghettoise. There is a huge difference to showing average people what they can have, and telling them what they need and you are conflating the two.
If you for instance take examples like SeaSol or OCAP or are involved in direct action workplace activity as the SAC does then you can move very quickly beyond being a subcultural ghetto. The times in which anarchism has been a big current within society are times when anarchist projects have done all of education, and workplace and community solidarity.
It seems to me that there is quite a poverty of vision in the anarchist community. Too little time spent figuring out what works and too much time with abstract theory wank and a paralysis for fear that activity might go wrong. We can't predict the future and can't predict exactly the consequences of our action. However, it seems likely that inaction isn't going to get us very far.
Rowan Duffy
Recuperation and
Recuperation and ghettoisation are two completely different concepts.
And what, specifically, maintains their separateness? I mean, aside from the artificial taxonomies that you have decided to adopt?
The semantics of a word
The semantics of a word belongs to artificial taxonomies that develop as people collectively define them through use.
Stop being intellectually lazy VZ. The internet is not that hard to use and as you probably already know the words mean nearly opposite things.
Recuperation
Rowan Duffy
Don't project your laziness
Don't project your laziness onto me. You're the one shrinking from critique.
The semantics of a word
The semantics of a word belongs to artificial taxonomies that develop as people collectively define them through use.
You obviously don't have the first clue about how language actually functions:
"It is perhaps one of the most subtle points there is in linguistics, to see how sense depends on but nevertheless remains distinct from value. On this the linguist's view and the simplistic view that sees the language as a nomenclature differ strikingly."
- Ferdinand de Sassure, Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics
I gave you two definitions
I gave you two definitions that are obviously different. You didn't critique anything, you just asked a question that could be easily answered by using a dictionary.
Your appeal to a particular linguist (as if there is a homogenous opinion among linguists regarding semantics) is hardly going to convince us that 'up' means 'down'.
Rowan Duffy
This response is completely
This response is completely reactionary and devoid of substance. Your whole "I gave you two definitions, now accept them" schtick is just you getting indignant and defensive. De Sassure's contributions to linguistics are largely regarded is pivotal in the field and went on to inform thinkers such as Foucault, Barthes, and Lacan. You can choose to look at this as "just one linguist" if you want to, but the fact is, his work is of seminal importance.
VZ
Excuse me VZ for being so
Excuse me VZ for being so ignorant. Why don't you enlighten us to exactly how ghettoisation and recuperation are the same thing.
Rowan Duffy
Will do. Because we live in
Will do. Because we live in a so-called "pluralistic" society in which even "deviance" is "tolerated", post-industrial culture has been fragmented into finite "spheres" who's identities are defined by the tensions that they maintain between each other. If we think of it in spatial terms, a "Political" space is only able to exist by juxtaposing itself against and, at one and the same time, comparing itself to "the Social," "the Cultural," "the Economic," etc. Your notion that recuperation and ghettoization are "opposites" is based on the false assumption that recuperation only occurs via inclusion. The fact is, however, that exclusion is just as much an element of recuperation as inclusion. In fact, one could go so far as to say that subcultures (or "ghettoes") are "included" in capitalist discourse precisely through their exclusion. This is 'inclusion-through-exclusion' is something that Agamben describes quite aptly in the book, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life.
VZ
If you for instance take
If you for instance take examples like SeaSol or OCAP or are involved in direct action workplace activity as the SAC does then you can move very quickly beyond being a subcultural ghetto.
OCAP is basically a de facto liberal organization. Despite their so-called "militant" activities such as the Queens Park riot, they still lobby to the state for rent caps, hikes in welfare rates, etc. While I have no doubt that some OCAPers would call themselves anarchists, their actions belie their words.
What exactly is the core
What exactly is the core problem with forcing concessions from authorities? Defensive organisations acting for reform are not intrinsically revolutionary. However, as people become aware of their own power to affect change, these organisations can become revolutionary. It is exactly in the fact that authorities must give concessions that means that their authority is eroding.
By contrast the approach of never getting concessions is the maintenance of the current social order. People neither recognise their power and they never act on it.
Rowan Duffy
What exactly is the core
What exactly is the core problem with forcing concessions from authorities?
The fact that it's essentially reformist in nature?
Defensive organisations acting for reform are not intrinsically revolutionary. However, as people become aware of their own power to affect change, these organisations can become revolutionary.
I'll believe it when I see it. If you look at the evolution of the First, Second, and Third Internationals, their progression was towards an ever-increasing degree of social democracy Hell, even the CNT sold out to the republicans in the Spanish Civil War.
By contrast the approach of never getting concessions is the maintenance of the current social order.
You've got it completely upside down: accepting concessions from the state as gifts graciously given is the maintenance of the existing social order while a refusal of compromise is, by implication, a call to insurrection.
VZ
You've got it completely
You've got it completely upside down: accepting concessions from the state as gifts graciously given is the maintenance of the existing social order while a refusal of compromise is, by implication, a call to insurrection.
You've got it upside down. Concessions never come from the state unless they are taken. There is no such thing as reform without revolutionary power. Reform comes from fears of the power structure that they must give concessions or they will face consequences. As such, the extent to which concessions are given is a temperature reading of the extent to which the power structure fears the populace.
Rowan Duffy
You've got it upside
You've got it upside down.
Ooh, yay! Dialectical ping-pong!
It has been such a very long
It has been such a very long time since the power structure in the US has faced consequences, and those consequences were so mild, that any fear of revolutionary power that exists is based in a hazy memory.
The elites have managed to roll back workplace protections and shred the social safety net without hardly a peep of resistance from the unions or the organized left, since both have been seamlessly integrated.
It's true what you say,
It's true what you say, which means we have to be looking at avenues that work. We can't get to Rome in a day. Things that can be done need to be looked at.
SeaSol is making progress through direct action tactics. We should be doing more media and more free education. We should be working on social centres that don't look like squats.
Workplace struggles will take different character in different places. It's obviously not the case that you can uncritically support unions. In Ireland you can see the union bosses working directly against the interests of the workesr: ICTU.
This doesn't mean that activity in the workplace is irrelevant. Quite the opposite. Unless we develop practical techniques to avoid being crushed, we'll be crushed.
Rowan Duffy
Can you explain what you are
Can you explain what you are doing IRL to make this happen and how things are going with your attempts? How has your model for anarchism worked so far in your own area?
My intended use was that
My intended use was that recuperation and ghettoisation are different concepts. I can't vouch for the rest of the world, but where I live, in the US rust belt, most of the coveted "working class" is turned off by the vegan, folk-punk, subcultural aesthetic that most anarchist projects take on.
Decades of red-baiting by the business unions have left the working class with little use for marxist rhetoric or identity politics. The unions have made themselves very wealthy and powerful by proving time and time again that they do not tolerate any sort of radicalism and solidarity should extend no further than the local or the international at contract time. Cross-union solidarity and sympathy strikes are illegal in the US and the unions risk RICO lawsuits and the loss of their treasuries if they upset the status quo in the slightest. The unionized, upper-working class (or is it lower middle-class?) is my family background and it seems to me that anyone who looks to these patriotic, catholic, xenophobic drunks for mass social change, is obviously not familiar with the organized working class. Does "Don't Bite the War That Feeds You" ring a bell?
The right-wing elites have done a much better job of pushing a false populism than their liberal counterparts for the past 30 years or so. Talk-radio millionaires do a much better job of reaching working people in the US. They are even successfully mobilizing working people for demonstrations against union legislation and social safety nets.
Workplace radicalism seems to have been relevant in centralized production, industrial settings, but that is a long time gone. It's like the right wing obsession with nuclear family, which was also a relevant unit of production in industrial economies, but is no longer necessary, like the extended family before it in agricultural societies. In the global service economy, no one job is much better than any other, making unionization very difficult.
The bike-punk, soy milk thing is very appealing to students and the middle class, who are almost expected to spend a few years "finding themselves" through some form of safe "youthful rebellion". The subcultural marketers love selling the anarchist aesthetic and the formal organization's steady march to institution (like POG where I live) is only one grant application away from being a "legitimate" non-profit, especially given all the "Anarchist for Obama" bullshit that was breaking my heart last year.
Gotta have those
Gotta have those anarcho-syndicalist organizations. Not only is it required in order for anarchism to maintain it's "anarchistiness"; to do anything else would be to perpetrate sacrilege against our Anarchist Forefathers and the preeminent glory of their "tradition." Let's hear it for Rationalist Anarchism and it's historical metanarrative! Hip hip...!
VZ
Those who would respond to
Those who would respond to the urgency of the
situation with the urgency of their reaction only
add to the general asphyxiation.
Their manner of intervention implies the rest of
their politics, of their agitation.
As for us, the urgency of the situation just allows
us to be rid of all considerations of legality or
legitimacy. Considerations that have, in any case,
become uninhabitable.
That it might take a generation to build a
victorious revolutionary movement in all its
breadth does not cause us to waver.
We envisage this with serenity.
Just like we serenely envisage the criminal nature
of our existence, and of our gestures.
-Call
We need everything, right? Cliques can turn into gangs, which in turn become mafias. Sure, infrastructure is cool and all but conflict is what makes people take sides. Lets get fucking started, ya'll.
-tet
I see what you are saying
I see what you are saying about the lack of any solid anarchist movement. And you are right we can't get anarchism with .001% of the population. I am not saying that a critique of lack of movement is not warranted. I suppose the critique is more based on the idea that the anarchist principles I have seen growing amongst my friends are far removed from temporary rebelliousness. These are men and women in their mid to late twenties, who are disillusioned with the mainstream political parties, disillusioned with the idea of the state, disillusioned with the traditional alternatives (far-left fringe groups, etc) and wish for different way of life. These are 'normal' everyday people who are starting to take on anarchist principles. I suppose I see a more timely critique being the need to galvanize these feelings into action. This is what I meant by the critique being a decade late. I think we will see a large faction of the traditional left of the US peel away from the democratic party and its affiliates (DSA, etc) (I think this will also happen with parts of the right). The issue as I see it, is getting the anarchist word out there by telling people-every day folk- that there is another way. It was the authors view that most anarchists are all punk kids and are all temporary.
To Rowan- The above comment
To Rowan- The above comment is a response to your response of my critique of this article.
There are anarchists doing
There are anarchists doing what Rowan would like to see happen in the U.S.
They are as effective as they are. Critiquing a lack of movement because they aren't all imitating someone's particularities on how such things could or should be approached isn't going to change a lack of movement into a movement. Juggling to get more individuals to value your ideas and practices won't make a movement either. It is just getting more individuals to experiment with their thoughts on things and how they'd like to practice anarchy.
Movements are created by subjected experiences, such as being subjected to the failures of capitalism, not political maneuvers.
hpwombat: It is just
hpwombat: It is just getting more individuals to experiment with their thoughts on things and how they'd like to practice anarchy.
ofelas: I suppose I see a more timely critique being the need to galvanize these feelings into action.
I believe we are saying the same thing here, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I think sometimes I fail to communicate effectively. I am saying that for those of my friends who already have anarchist sentiments, but do not necessarily call themselves anarchists (for that matter they don't call themselves anything), I think it is important to put our sentiments/thought into action and I am not talking about political action. For example, several of my friends and I have been discussing an organic farm project whereby we could sustain ourselves with most of our food needs. This is not a pipe dream- we have the means, suitable land (20 acres), and knowledge- it is a serious action.
hpwombat: Juggling to get more individuals to value your ideas and practices won't make a movement either.
I am not saying that getting others to value anarchist ideas and practices is what needs to be done. I am saying that explaining anarchist ideas and practices to folk is important. And yes, I would probably give reasons as to why I see this as valuable.
ofelas: I think we will see a large faction of the traditional left of the US peel away from the democratic party and its affiliates (DSA, etc) (I think this will also happen with parts of the right).
hpwombat: Movements are created by subjected experiences, such as being subjected to the failures of capitalism, not political maneuvers.
(i can't seem to get this paragraph to un-italicize.)
Ofelas: I think you mistook my above statement as one implying an opportunity for politicizing this (partially hypothetical) group in some anarchist way. I realize my use of the word faction, combined with my statement about getting the word of anarchism out there might lead one to your above conclusion. This is not what I meant. What I mean is I think as more people become disillusioned with capitalism and the state/party politics, we *might* see a rise in anarchism/anarchist thought. When I speak about getting the word of anarchism out there, I am not necessarily speaking of coordinating groups, passing out leaflets, etc (though I am not ruling those out either). I am more talking about discussing our own ideas about anarchism with the people we meet and work with in our lives.
Remember to close your html
Remember to close your html to prevent it from bleeding.
How do I do that? Sorry, I
How do I do that? Sorry, I am slightly computer illiterate.
Ah, figured it out ;-)
Ah, figured it out ;-)
Critiquing a lack of
Critiquing a lack of movement because they aren't all imitating someone's particularities on how such things could or should be approached isn't going to change a lack of movement into a movement.
I'm not doing that. I'm critiquing inaction and critiquing the idea that sitting around bitching that what everyone else is doing is reformist is somehow really revolutionary. Contact with reality means that we can't immediately realise perfect libertarian utopia. Activity means getting your hands dirty. I'm not prescriptive about what should be done other than to say that we need to evaluate whether it works and try to emulate things that do. I agree with the other anon that we have to worry about recuperation and ghettoisation, but these things shouldn't cause us to throw up our hands.
I'm not opposed to new ideas. Let's here them so we can see about doing them. Let's not hear people moaning about how union activity is so boring. If it's so fucking boring then don't do it. Let's here about something exciting.
Rowan Duffy
I'm not sure which criticism
I'm not sure which criticism you are referring to, but boredom isn't the only criticism of unions. I also don't see a lot of references of reformism coming from the commentary on this site in reference to unions.
Unions reify, impede and recuperate struggle. This isn't "bitching". People come to this website to give comments and engage in discussion as well as read @news. If I join a union it isn't because the union has some quality that is revolutionary, but rather to protect my material interests as a worker. I don't see unions as protecting my social interests or helping social struggle. The forms that social struggle takes may include people that join unions, but ultimately, unions defuse problems that might rise to resistance. I agree we can build social networks of some form and we can use our shared union memberships as a practical basis to engage individuals that may be interested in going beyond the purpose of union membership.
This isn't an argument since
This isn't an argument since we aren't disagreeing about anything.
Rowan Duffy
I think the threads got
I think the threads got mixed. hpwombat's criticism, I believe, was directed at me. You then answered it as if it was directed at you. I found this funny and neglected to point it out. ;-)
Cheers,
ofelas
Maybe there'd be more
Maybe there'd be more anarchist programs if people stop complaining about other anarchists and actually got up and did some work. General rule: take a look in the mirror before you start pointing the finger.
Yeah, no shit! I think the
Yeah, no shit!
I think the first logical move for two parties concerned with the same basic goals would be to HELP before slandering and disowning. There are so many constructive opportunities for anarchists, even if they are(n't) legal. If one "anarchist" organ is doing things questionably, if you really give two shits... why not actually suggest to THEM how to be more effective. That's not the same thing as trying to "speak truth to power" or anything. Or, as the above mentioned... actually create an alternative.
I've worked for a long time in retail/sales... which is terrible, but it has taught me why people "buy into" or "desire" the crap capitalism has to offer them. The best way to promote an innovation isn't to just critique the hell out of anything that is different... it's simply to put your energy into the innovation itself and promote it's glory. FNB and Critical Mass aren't enough, but they have done very well with this approach. Even Buddhism has taken that route while still retaining critique.
People want SOLUTIONS to the problems in their lives, most of them ALREADY KNOW that capitalism, the State, hierarchy, etc. are bullshit. They may have no clue what anarchism is about, but I'll ensure you this: they won't care if an institution or organization is anarchist, communist, fascist, etc. if the people involved care about them, help them to meet their needs and desires, and in general provide a "good service".
It's always this process that leads to wide-spread values: capitalism, fascism, national socialists, etc. have always gained the trust of society through taking care of them first... then offering their ideology second. Since anarchism is much more legitimate than any of the mentioned ideologies, everything is just that much simpler.
If we are anarchists to build the worlds that we want... let's fuckin do it and use our wonderful capacity for rebellion to prevent our "enemies" from stopping us. The reverse order just scares the shit out of people who depend on capitalist/statist institutions for their livelihood. It can even be seen as rather cruel to smash capitalism without offering alternatives that those who depend on capitalism can realistically take up instead.
-Squee
Unity centered around
Unity centered around tactics seems a more effective, reasonable solution than goals. I think the syndicalist workplace sabotage and strikes are worthwhile, same with the animal rights midnight raids. However, we already have societies organized around the protestant work ethic and cow worship, and neither of them are my idea of utopia. I can no longer sell my labor, as a result of years of selling my labor and the glorified-boycott, vegan-set would kill me for eating butter if they could. Neither of their ultimate goals are for me.
Not sure how you are writing
Not sure how you are writing this in reply... But I do think tactical capacity is important as well. But min concern is with sustainance. When I am at a protest or watch one, I am never sure what's worse: the lack of effective strategy on a thousand levels, or the fact that even with the most affect we could dream up... There isn't anything to do the next day but struggle to survive (psychic or physical). I would love for a protest to funnel people into some sort of sustainable counter economy/culture... For an actual alternative that COULD be supported by mass actions. Ya Dig?
-Squee
I like what you're
I like what you're saying,and the logistics of a sustainable revolt can not be so daunting a task.For example,food,shelter and ablution facilities can be implemented as they are in many third world refugee camps at incredibly low cost,and in an environment that is not in as stressed a state as say a modern Western country,piece of cake to organize a community of say 100,000 to 500,000 people.Just look at Woodstock or other big concert logistics.Of course one extends the time to not 4days,but possibly 4 months,4 yrs,why not?.Has it ever been attempted,,,,well look at refugee camps that can function over many years.Is there some innate repugnance to live so simply or closely amongst others?Time maybe for Westerners to reconnect with the fragility and also the comraderie that hardship instills into an isolated and autonomous group.The self discovery of individual qualities long shrouded in a blanket of dependant welfare dished out by the state,and the social pressures that infuse the person with anti-social attitudes will dissolve,and the new freedoms will be a revelation to many,and a new cultural paradigm realized and easily adapted now that the fragmenting authoritarian impositions are nolonger present.Instead of the electronic entertainment we have become so used to,the people will emerge as self entertaining and the discourse will provide a local community ethos to express and evolve to new arrangements without rent or forced labour to enslave its members.
I was replying to your
I was replying to your earlier statement: "I think the first logical move for two parties concerned with the same basic goals would be to HELP before slandering and disowning."
I don't personally share goals with many of the orthodox left anarchists or animal rightists or the other single-issue activists.
I agree with your pointing out of the need to sustain momentum, but I still don't know how to protect the "counter economy/culture" from becoming just another market segment.