# Is anarchism a joke?



## CUMBRIANDRAGON (May 3, 2008)

Been involved in anachism for a number of years. Where are we going wrong?.
To me anachism has become a movement of getting pissed up in a bar talking bollocks then going back home again. The reason why the bnp are winning is because they are pro-active and we just get pissed and call them nazi scum.
If we don't wake up soon ,The bnp are going to be to big to stop.


----------



## scumbalina (May 3, 2008)

Stopping the rise of the far-right isn't the only issue for anarchists, nor are they the only ones tackling it.

I'd say Anarchism isn't a joke, elements of the UK movement probably are.


----------



## CUMBRIANDRAGON (May 3, 2008)

scumbalina said:


> Stopping the rise of the far-right isn't the only issue for anarchists, nor are they the only ones tackling it.
> 
> I'd say Anarchism isn't a joke, elements of the UK movement probably are.



Got to agree about uk movement.


----------



## JHE (May 3, 2008)

You're rather muddling up two very different issues there:  the vote-getting BNP and the sorry state of the anarchist movement.  I don't see much connection between them.

Is 'narchism a joke?  It's probably not intended as a joke, but that needn't stop us laughing at it.


----------



## october_lost (May 3, 2008)

CUMBRIANDRAGON said:


> Been involved in anachism for a number of years. Where are we going wrong?.
> To me anachism has become a movement of getting pissed up in a bar talking bollocks then going back home again. The reason why the bnp are winning is because they are pro-active and we just get pissed and call them nazi scum.
> If we don't wake up soon ,The bnp are going to be to big to stop.


Can we get a deeper analysis say on organisation, stratergies and tactics involved which you think are pointless?

I have a few experiences that are thread worthy, but at the same time I see good anarchists involved in things like LCAP, some of the community groups and some political campaigns which arent activisty.


----------



## Raw SslaC (May 3, 2008)

CUMBRIANDRAGON said:


> Been involved in anachism for a number of years. Where are we going wrong?.
> To me anachism has become a movement of getting pissed up in a bar talking bollocks then going back home again. The reason why the bnp are winning is because they are pro-active and we just get pissed and call them nazi scum.
> If we don't wake up soon ,The bnp are going to be to big to stop.



We woke up long ago mate, but when its you and 80 others surrounded by cops, completely controlled what can you do? The problem is not neccesarily with the people individually, its the way we fail to get behind and really develop our politics. That means instead of moaning from the side-lines (which I don't include you in this as I do not know your involvement), get involved in making things successful. Like October_lost said - what are you suggesting for strategies and tactics?

all the best

a


----------



## mk12 (May 3, 2008)

> Is 'narchism a joke? It's probably not intended as a joke, but that needn't stop us laughing at it.


----------



## urbanrevolt (May 3, 2008)

hey what good is a revolutionary who can't laugh and make others laugh?

you could say is the left a joke?  But the BNP sure ain't a joke.  

what we need is a left or working class movement that takes up issues and wins -as well as can mount physical defence against attacks by the BNP- and that will lead to the BNP's despairing politics evaporate.  We may even get  a world based on warmth, love and humour!


----------



## mk12 (May 3, 2008)

> as well as can mount physical defence against attacks by the BNP


 
Do the BNP, as party policy, regularly attack people then? This isn't 1930s Germany.


----------



## urbanrevolt (May 3, 2008)

well they did in Oldham in 2001- I remember people being attacked in their cars, in their houses, one house firebombed, others beaten up and stabbed.  This isn't Oldham 2001 either but it has the same leaders- they may be less likely to this time, some argue, but we need to be ready to defend communities if the BNP's electoral success is matched by a return to street thuggery- it's not certain but it's a definite possibility


----------



## max_freakout (May 3, 2008)

a pathetic, ugly joke


----------



## The Black Hand (May 3, 2008)

WTF is anachism? That's a joke word there.


----------



## Groucho (May 3, 2008)

The organised expression of Anarchism, such as it is, in this country is a joke, but not a funny one. It is about as relevent as the organised expression of Moaism.

Part of the problem is a hopeless sectarianism and ingrained negativity. 

UK @ is just grumpy old men and young cynics.  It mostly inspires disappointment and disillusion.


----------



## max_freakout (May 3, 2008)

CUMBRIANDRAGON said:


> If we don't wake up soon ,The bnp are going to be to big to stop.




this ^ is a hilarious joke


----------



## Groucho (May 3, 2008)

mk12 said:


> Do the BNP, as party policy, regularly attack people then? This isn't 1930s Germany.



They create an atmosphere that inspires racist attacks. 

However, you are right that violence is not part of the BNP strategy or tactics for the moment. It will be, but any sensible fascist wants to gain power to commit mass murder and not be sidelined by petty acts of hooliganism and brawling. Not the 30s? More to the point it aint the 70s. The nazis of the BNP are not wearing swastika tattoos and marching down the street seik heiling. They are more sophisticated and publically moderate by comparison to their real beliefs. Opposition to the fascists cannot be reduced to simple 1970s tactics.


----------



## Groucho (May 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> this ^ is a hilarious joke



No it isn't.


----------



## Bakunin (May 3, 2008)

Groucho said:


> The organised expression of Anarchism, such as it is, in this country is a joke, but not a funny one. It is about as relevent as the organised expression of Moaism.
> 
> Part of the problem is a hopeless sectarianism and ingrained negativity.
> 
> UK @ is just grumpy old men and young cynics.  It mostly inspires disappointment and disillusion.




In the interest of fairness and accuracy, the same could be said about the Leninist left.


----------



## Groucho (May 3, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> In the interest of fairness and accuracy, the same could be said about the Leninist left.



Although sections of the leninist left have mobilised huge numbers in opposition to the war, organised an anti-fascist carnival of 10,000s and have gained some influence in major trade unions.


----------



## max_freakout (May 3, 2008)

Groucho said:


> No it isn't.





yes of course the 'anarchists' are going to 'wake up' and rescue us all from the bnp 


or not


----------



## max_freakout (May 3, 2008)

CUMBRIANDRAGON said:


> Where are we going wrong?.



where arent you going wrong?

start with the fact you call yourself an 'anarchist'


----------



## Groucho (May 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> yes of course the 'anarchists' are going to 'wake up' and rescue us all from the bnp
> 
> 
> or not



that wasn't the bit you quoted. The idea that if 'we' don't wake up the bnp will be too big to stop is reasonable. Of course if 'we' just means Anarchists then the sentiment is pointless (as it would be if 'we' just meant Leninists)


----------



## Bakunin (May 3, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Although sections of the leninist left have mobilised huge numbers in opposition to the war, organised an anti-fascist carnival of 10,000s and have gained some influence in major trade unions.



I think you'll find that Anarchists were also involved in opposition to the war, often going a great deal further than just the usual A to B marches and some going to jail for their actions. And Anarchists have also been involved in anti-fascism, again going a lot further in some instances than a carnival and waving a few lollipops around. And Anarchists don't tend to seek influence in reformist trade unions, favouring instead the IWW and grassroots workplace organising.


----------



## max_freakout (May 3, 2008)

Groucho said:


> that wasn't the bit you quoted. The idea that if 'we' don't wake up the bnp will be too big to stop is reasonable. Of course if 'we' just means Anarchists then the sentiment is pointless (as it would be if 'we' just meant Leninists)



in the OP, the word 'we' clearly refers to 'anarchists'


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2008)

Maxis deep understanding of anarchism in a nutshell:



max_freakout said:


> anarchist-communism is a silly meaningless contradiction, a total misunderstanding of 'anarchy'





max_freakout said:


> nobody is in control





max_freakout said:


> anarchy - nobody in control
> 
> anarchism means different things to different people


----------



## Groucho (May 3, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> I think you'll find that Anarchists were also involved in opposition to the war, often going a great deal further than just the usual A to B marches and some going to jail for their actions. And Anarchists have also been involved in anti-fascism, again going a lot further in some instances than a carnival and waving a few lollipops around. And Anarchists don't tend to seek influence in reformist trade unions, favouring instead the IWW and grassroots workplace organising.



no, Anarchists have not mobilised significantly against the war. How many Anarchists organised walkouts in their workplaces risking the sack as this guy did?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2856871.stm

Fact is we were all put to shame by the school kids: 



The IWW is irrelevent. How many people did they get out on strike on 24 April? Why don't you look a little at the history of @ in Britain. Look how the Syndicalists gained influence (and consider why they collapsed at the onset of WW1). UK @ has never reached such heights since.

 wilingness to work with others, including non-revolutionaries is essential.


----------



## Bakunin (May 3, 2008)

Groucho said:


> no, Anarchists have not mobilised significantly against the war.



That is a barefaced and shameful lie.

What about direct actions at Fairford, Faslane, Devonport, Aldermaston, the anti-SOCPA protests, Menwith Hill, and a whole host of others.

Risking the sack takes some nerve, I'll agree with that, but risking your very life by breaking into military bases and going to jail as a result takes just as much if not more.

Have you forgotten the Fairford Five for instance?


----------



## Groucho (May 3, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> That is a barefaced and shameful lie.
> 
> What about direct actions at Fairford, Faslane, Devonport, Aldermaston, the anti-SOCPA protests, Menwith Hill, and a whole host of others.
> 
> ...



The protests you mention are not exclusively Anarchist actions are they?




			
				bbc said:
			
		

> Around 16 demonstrators are attempting to stop the movement of munitions from an underground storage facility to RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.
> 
> At Fairford itself, around 50 elderly women from the Grannies For Peace group, have gathered.



you should at least give some credit to Grannies for Peace


----------



## max_freakout (May 3, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Maxis deep understanding of anarchism in a nutshell:
> 
> a big, silly pointless joke


----------



## Bakunin (May 3, 2008)

Groucho said:


> The protests you mention are not exclusively Anarchist actions are they?



I didn't say they were, but they had a very high level of Anarchist influence and many of the activists involved were either Anarchists or would identify more closely with Anarchists than with the Leninist left.


----------



## mk12 (May 4, 2008)

This is like the May Days in Barcelona all over again.


----------



## Bakunin (May 4, 2008)

mk12 said:


> This is like the May Days in Barcelona all over again.




If the SWP had been around then I know what their slogan would have been.

'There has never been a better time to be a Socialist.'


----------



## The Black Hand (May 4, 2008)

Groucho said:


> The organised expression of Anarchism, such as it is, in this country is a joke, but not a funny one. It is about as relevent as the organised expression of Moaism.
> 
> Part of the problem is a hopeless sectarianism and ingrained negativity.
> 
> UK @ is just grumpy old men and young cynics.  It mostly inspires disappointment and disillusion.




Very true.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 4, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Although sections of the leninist left have mobilised huge numbers in opposition to the war, organised an anti-fascist carnival of 10,000s and have gained some influence in major trade unions.


To no political effect - indeed it could be argued that they killed the anti war movement with their lack of vision and opposition to DIY politics, and direct action.


----------



## Raw SslaC (May 4, 2008)

I'm not sure what is more a joke, the people in involved in the anarchist movement (and I am) or the people that spend their time slagging it off. 

What happened on May 2nd:

Left List and Respect completely humiliated
IWCA loosing 2 councilors
Anarchists failed to mobilise people for City Hall


We are are ALL getting further marginalised because we as a left and anarchists have failed time and time again to ditch our historical baggage and ideologies, we have consistently ignored the central dynamic of class struggle - i.e. people who struggle, and have also failed to make our ideas and methodologies accessible and practical for a diversity of people to take on board. 

I am attempting to put ideas/solutions into practice and not rely on any historically parasiting of struggles that are long dead and that have no relevance what so ever, any takers?

Anarchists, instead of using ideas and action to change the world, are more comfortable with using it to cope with the world.


----------



## october_lost (May 4, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Although sections of the leninist left have mobilised huge numbers in opposition to the war, organised an anti-fascist carnival of 10,000s and have gained some influence in major trade unions.



Groucho do fuck off, you and your ilk lower your politics to the lowest possible common denominator at every possible oppurtunity, to then come on here and slag us off is a joke. Your pathetic sect is dying on its feet and good riddance is all I can say.....


----------



## urbanrevolt (May 4, 2008)

Groucho said:


> They create an atmosphere that inspires racist attacks.
> 
> However, you are right that violence is not part of the BNP strategy or tactics for the moment. It will be, but any sensible fascist wants to gain power to commit mass murder and not be sidelined by petty acts of hooliganism and brawling. Not the 30s? More to the point it aint the 70s. The nazis of the BNP are not wearing swastika tattoos and marching down the street seik heiling. They are more sophisticated and publically moderate by comparison to their real beliefs. Opposition to the fascists cannot be reduced to simple 1970s tactics.



You're right but the point I made that mk12 responded to actually prioritised political campaigning on fights against cutbacks and other attacks on the working class.  However, within that we do need to be ready for *defence* against racist attacks - you may be right that they're not pary of BNP tactics right now but we need to be ready becuase fasicst attacks on working class Asian communities are a lot more recent than the 70s.  But I agree the main priority is in stengthening working class organising against cuts, attacks on services, privatisation and a political fight against the BNP.  But physical self-defence against racist attacks if and when they occur is a necessity.


----------



## bluestreak (May 4, 2008)

I was reading that new mag mayday last night, and it represented all that was wrong with anarchism to me.  badly written, intellectually dishonest, and full of broadsides at other anarchists.  anarchism is a broad church, and it's full of people who want everyone to agree that we should stop fighting and do it their way.  ver depressing.  there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in london alone who self-identify as anarchist, or agree with anarchist ideals even if they wouldn't dream of calling themselves anarchists, yet we aren't doing anything?  why not?  well, because we're depressed, sick of fighting the cops and each other, and bored of dealing with people who don't even know what anarchism is and yet feel quite happy to criticise it.  oh, and sick of people expecting anarchism to have all the answers.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I was reading that new mag mayday last night, and it represented all that was wrong with anarchism to me.  badly written, intellectually dishonest, and full of broadsides at other anarchists.  anarchism is a broad church, and it's full of people who want everyone to agree that we should stop fighting and do it their way.  ver depressing.  there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in london alone who self-identify as anarchist, or agree with anarchist ideals even if they wouldn't dream of calling themselves anarchists, yet we aren't doing anything?  why not?  well, because we're depressed, sick of fighting the cops and each other, and bored of dealing with people who don't even know what anarchism is and yet feel quite happy to criticise it.  oh, and sick of people expecting anarchism to have all the answers.



Hmmm . Interesting. Full of broadsides? Where? Only in parts of the editorial, and what do you expect for a mag that is cutting intellectual space for itself? It distinguishes itself by what it is against as well as what it is for. 

One article was specifically about autonomist Marxist politics and theory, and another "1967-2007 A Socialist Review" so you are well off the mark cos it didn't slag off anarchists - it didn't even mention them. 

What intellectual dishonesty???? There was NO lies in the mag at all. The article about wrecking was confined to the subject, as was Ian Bones about Jade Goody and football, and so was the anti fascist article. Your review is just rubbish.


----------



## Lost Zoot (May 4, 2008)

umm....of the few actions ive taken part in ive found anachism/ists to be abit...annoying...




at climate camp i nearly cryed when i found a socialist with some foundation.


----------



## bluestreak (May 4, 2008)

Attica, what it needed was an editor not involved otherwise in the magazine to clear up a load of stuff.  I'm sure that I'm either going to be labelled anti-intellectual or over-intellectual, but really we had trouble working out what the teleological problems of anarchism were.  Anarchism is accused of being conservative and too attached to groups rather than action, whilst not learning from history, not rejecting the right historians, and not committed to group organisation.  You have a big list of things that are wrong, without explaining why what it believes is right.  It is for thinking anarchists, as you say, and therefore anyone who disagrees with anything is automatically too stupid for it. It's full of explanations for things that don't need explaining, lacks explanations for things that do, and has citations that the reader is expected to chase up rather than presents a list of the articles cited.  The article about how the left cannot be serious about politics until it includes maritime theory and practice is an interesting one that fails to get across the connection between historical wreckers and the modern british working classes IMO, though as a historical article is good.  The one about the Wombles is also a good expression of recent history in context, but doesn't connect the subject to the history.  Dave Douglass' article is pretty well written but doesn't say anything new, ditto Ian Bone's.  

Perhaps I'm just too stupid but in the end I didn't come out of it feeling full of ideas, I just came out of it feeling that I wasn't the sort of person that Mayday wanted to talk to.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Attica, what it needed was an editor not involved otherwise in the magazine to clear up a load of stuff.  I'm sure that I'm either going to be labelled anti-intellectual or over-intellectual, but really we had trouble working out what the teleological problems of anarchism were.  Anarchism is accused of being conservative and too attached to groups rather than action, whilst not learning from history, not rejecting the right historians, and not committed to group organisation.  You have a big list of things that are wrong, without explaining why what it believes is right.  It is for thinking anarchists, as you say, and therefore anyone who disagrees with anything is automatically too stupid for it. It's full of explanations for things that don't need explaining, lacks explanations for things that do, and has citations that the reader is expected to chase up rather than presents a list of the articles cited.  The article about how the left cannot be serious about politics until it includes maritime theory and practice is an interesting one that fails to get across the connection between historical wreckers and the modern british working classes IMO, though as a historical article is good.  The one about the Wombles is also a good expression of recent history in context, but doesn't connect the subject to the history.  Dave Douglass' article is pretty well written but doesn't say anything new, ditto Ian Bone's.
> 
> Perhaps I'm just too stupid but in the end I didn't come out of it feeling full of ideas, I just came out of it feeling that I wasn't the sort of person that Mayday wanted to talk to.




This is a far better review, and an interesting one. I agree there is a lot wrong with existing anarchisms, and as Mayday issue 2 will point out, we will try as we go along to identify things which can be and are being done better.
The problems of UK anarchism are legion, look at the issue 70 editorial of Organise and let me know how we compare to that? Mayday is far far more useful, and obviously so, but I would welcome your pov on that comparison. 


I am interested in the list of things you say need explaining, please do identify them clearly. 

Citations are available - it was the copy editor who stylistically decided to leave them out. Just email our contact address.

The Wombles article was not intended to be a chronological analysis of Wombles praxis at certain times in history, rather identifying the Wombles as a serious and important participant in history was the aim.

Yours is an interesting review, and one i didn't expect, from a serious and intellectual perspective. One that is sorely lacking in all other British anarchisms. Perhaps you should do your own magazine or journal, or magnal like Mayday? 

From the way you have written it, it looks like we have to write even more serious articles about the politics and problems of UK anarchism, and more great articles about what we are for. Well, the next issue will have more detailed anti fascism in it, and an article on praxis, something which other uk anarchisms have totally avoided, yet it is central for any political progress. i hope it can live up to this billing


----------



## bluestreak (May 4, 2008)

glad you took that seriously, i'm a bit mashed at the moment and will try and come back later on with a decent answer.  in the end, i think it's unaligned anarchists like me, and indeed a lot of urbanites, that need to be targeted with mags like this.  i like reading them, i like learning about things and reading differnt opinions.  this is why i think the maritime stuff was important, for example, because i'd never considered it before.  i'll try and remember to give you a proper response to the above later on though.  more later anyhoo.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 4, 2008)

Lost Zoot said:


> umm....of the few actions ive taken part in ive found anachism/ists to be abit...annoying...
> at climate camp i nearly cryed when i found a socialist with some foundation.


Do you want some mascara?


----------



## The Black Hand (May 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> glad you took that seriously, i'm a bit mashed at the moment and will try and come back later on with a decent answer.  in the end, i think it's unaligned anarchists like me, and indeed a lot of urbanites, that need to be targeted with mags like this.  i like reading them, i like learning about things and reading differnt opinions.  this is why i think the maritime stuff was important, for example, because i'd never considered it before.  i'll try and remember to give you a proper response to the above later on though.  more later anyhoo.



Certainly. I'll look forward to further exchanges. 
All the best.


----------



## chico enrico (May 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> One article was specifically about autonomist Marxist politics and theory


----------



## chico enrico (May 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> the next issue will have ..... an article on praxis


----------



## bluestreak (May 5, 2008)

right, bit soberer now.

i'll toss you some of my thoughts.  i think what most got me, in the end, was the editorial.  i don't know if you wrote it, but it reminds me of some of the more 'sectarian' aspects of your politics.  one of the things that most gets me about many anarchists is that they all want anarchists to stop arguing and start doing things their way.  in the end that isn't going to happen.  you might not like it, i don't like it, but if people who explicitly believe in mutual co-operation can't resolve their differences and work together than what hope do we have?  some anarchists are anti-intellectual, and some are all about sitting in the internet over-analysing things and not acting.  in the end, while we may disagree, we should be trying to show the others why they are wrong, it won't be done by challenging them hostilely.  personally i'd like to think i'm somewhere in the middle, not being academic enough to reel out hundreds of words of complex theory analysis, but on the other hand i'm not anti-intellectual as i believe that we need to to be able to see everything in the wider context in order to operate.  but i was still immediately put on the defensive reading it.  i found i didn't know if i was being targeted or not - in the end are you making a magazine for wider reading, both for anarchists of all flavours (providing they're class struggle anarchists of course) and interested unaligned parties, or are you making a magazine for people who are already in agreement with your own flavour of anarchism?

more later.

chico, the article on autonomous marxism was a little dry, but quite interesting.  it didn't presuppose, as other works do, that anarchists are already marxists.  many people who are just coming to anarchism, have yet to realise the role of marxism in anarchist theory.  marxism is still seen by many who aren't that politically sus, as being authoritarian, whereas marxism doesn't have to be top down, it can certainly be autonomous or non-hierarchical.

off to try and find a copy of organise #70 and then come back and review the articles in mayday rather than the editorial.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 5, 2008)

chico enrico said:


>



Well it was only written for those with knowledge of AM.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 5, 2008)

chico enrico said:


>



Clearly Praxis is something which needs clarifying then. An understanding, open mind and/or acceptance of new words is essential for any progress, a dialectical point of view recognises that words come into being and then they pass away (or are bypassed).


----------



## bluestreak (May 5, 2008)

I think that you may be over-emphasising praxis.  Again, this is really a criticism or anything, it's just that the notion of praxis (i.e. the place where actions and theory meet) is something that most activist and political types are well aware of even if they don't know the word praxis.  I agree that it's important to have a concept of the theory and history to frame your actions within, but most activists don't know the word.  They just get on with it.  Similarly, keyboard activists and academics who never do anything don't need people banging on about praxis to be told to get off their arses, IYSWIM.  There may be a bigger discussion to be had here, and I don't think that this is the place to do it, as I'm afraid that it may end up becoming another personality-based argument.

I've ordered a copy of Organise #70 now.


----------



## Groucho (May 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> To no political effect - indeed it could be argued that they killed the anti war movement with their lack of vision and opposition to DIY politics, and direct action.



I disagree. The anti-war movement encouraged DIY actions. The movement did not stop the war. This causes a certain amount of disorientation, but also a deeper politicisation. The anti-Vietnam war movement did not end the war, but it did develop over manty years into a significant challenge to the priorities of the ruling class and precipitated a political crisis for the rulers that made war extremely difficult for a generation.
Off hand the only anti-war movements I can think of that actually ended the wars they opposed are the revolutionary mutinies in Germany in 1918 and the Russian revolution....


----------



## Bakunin (May 5, 2008)

Groucho said:


> I disagree. The anti-war movement encouraged DIY actions. The movement did not stop the war. This causes a certain amount of disorientation, but also a deeper politicisation. The anti-Vietnam war movement did not end the war, but it did develop over manty years into a significant challenge to the priorities of the ruling class and precipitated a political crisis for the rulers that made war extremely difficult for a generation.
> Off hand the only anti-war movements I can think of that actually ended the wars they opposed are the revolutionary mutinies in Germany in 1918 and the Russian revolution....



Funny that, I recall a certain Lindsay German claiming that direct action was 'elitist.'

And I also recall the amount of glaring and flak I got for writing to Socialist Review to refute her remarks (I was in the SWP at the time). The letter in question appeared in the January 2003 edition IIRC.

Come to think of it, I'm far more likely to consider the mutinies and the Russian revolution as involving direct action of the kind that the SWP CC simply wouldn't have the guts to go for.


----------



## smokedout (May 5, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Funny that, I recall a certain Lindsay German claiming that direct action was 'elitist.'
> 
> And I also recall the amount of glaring and flak I got for writing to Socialist Review to refute her remarks (I was in the SWP at the time). The letter in question appeared in the January 2003 edition IIRC.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'm far more likely to consider the mutinies and the Russian revolution as involving direct action of the kind that the SWP CC simply wouldn't have the guts to go for.



and i seem to recall the SWP stewards physically assisting the police and stopping any attempt at direct action on their marches

all that happened on the 2 million march was that the SWP and a bunch of liberals effectively gave the state consent to launch the war


----------



## The Black Hand (May 5, 2008)

smokedout said:


> and i seem to recall the SWP stewards physically assisting the police and stopping any attempt at direct action on their marches
> 
> all that happened on the 2 million march was that the SWP and a bunch of liberals effectively gave the state consent to launch the war



QUite.


----------



## urbanrevolt (May 5, 2008)

the 1-2 million march certainly had the potential to stop the war if direct action tactics had been used.  the poj tis to learn from it now and see how we can recreate such a mass movement that is under the control of the participants

let's try for some direct action outside the Labour party conference in Manchester in September and as part of the overall convention fo th eleft.  Let's also try to form a physical force movmenet on the streets against immigration raids on houses, workplaces and schools


----------



## chico enrico (May 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Clearly Praxis is something which needs clarifying then. An understanding, open mind and/or acceptance of new words is essential for any progress, a dialectical point of view recognises that words come into being and then they pass away (or are bypassed).



i dunno, maybe i'm just old fashioned but i kinda think it's best to stick to words that people understand. why bother complicating the language used to communicate ideas which are relatively complex in the first place?


----------



## JTG (May 5, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Funny that, I recall a certain Lindsay German claiming that direct action was 'elitist.'
> 
> And I also recall the amount of glaring and flak I got for writing to Socialist Review to refute her remarks (I was in the SWP at the time). The letter in question appeared in the January 2003 edition IIRC.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'm far more likely to consider the mutinies and the Russian revolution as involving direct action of the kind that the SWP CC simply wouldn't have the guts to go for.



I can well remember the abuse the anarchist direct action proponents at the Stop the War group I was in took from the SWP. Fortunately, they were usually ignored.


----------



## Nigel (May 7, 2008)

I think the main problem with the contemporary anarchist movement in Britain and most of Europe is their inability to break out of its subcultural ghetto.

With quite heavy attacks on the squatting scene, and community meeting places being closed down or taken over by trusts and/or charities, it is difficult for anarchists to build a base, let alone spread out into the broader community.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 7, 2008)

i fink teh main problem with anarchsim is the lack of an associated brand of clothing in top shop.

fuck trusts and charities man, get out on the fucking high street......


----------



## bluestreak (May 7, 2008)

Attica said:


> QUite.



Yup.


----------



## JTG (May 7, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Yup.



Indeed


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 7, 2008)

yes!

[/spartacus]


----------



## bluestreak (May 7, 2008)

Also, I was thinking about this the other day.  Anarchism is partially about being the opposition.  You may not be able to change the world, but it's saying things that need to be said.  At a time when people won't stand up for themselves out of fear or indirection, or because they've got it good enough that a state can push forward undemocractic and illiberal politics without opposition, anarchists should be the opposition when there is none, questioning, shouting, making the points that others aren't making and exposing the flaws in the system.  If nothing else, it's an impetus for reform, even if it's not for revolution.  

Basically, even if the anarchist future is naive and unworkable, we need to be pointing out when the emperor has no clothes, challenging the notion that political change is going to come out of the goodness of politicians hearts.

*insert v pic here... governments should be afraid of their people, not people afraid of their governments *


----------



## bluestreak (May 7, 2008)

Basically, what I'm saying is:  should we be only allowed to criticise if we have a 100% valid replacement model? Obviously not.  But if the media and the politicians only represent one basic viewpoint with quibbling over the minutiae then we need to speak out.  We don't have parties, we don't have manifestos, we don't seek to replace the power structures with our own, we're not after people's money, or votes, we're utopians and at the very least, no matter what else we do, we should not be shut up in our ceaseless criticism of the lies that surround power structures.  We need to be voices of truth, I guess.  And if we can't speak as one, which isn't going to happen, we should at least be trying not to undermine each other or we become a joke.


----------



## Groucho (May 7, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Funny that, I recall a certain Lindsay German claiming that direct action was 'elitist.'
> 
> And I also recall the amount of glaring and flak I got for writing to Socialist Review to refute her remarks (I was in the SWP at the time). The letter in question appeared in the January 2003 edition IIRC.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'm far more likely to consider the mutinies and the Russian revolution as involving direct action of the kind that the SWP CC simply wouldn't have the guts to go for.



It is and was the idea of disbursing the movement into elitist actions by small exclusive groups that we opposed. 

The idea that many thousands of Anarchists would have launched impressive direct action that would have stopped the war if only the SWP had not stood in their way is nonsense.

The fact is, if they meant it they would just have got on and done it. But no the articulation of abstract demands were only about denouncing the SWP and were not intended as a guide to action. 

Roads were blocked by demonstrators, but the Anarchists were down the pub.

Workers walked out of my place, but were denounced by Anarchists as 'agents of the state'. What would you have us do? asked one of my colleagues. 'Resign, give up work' was the answer.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Workers walked out of my place, but were denounced by Anarchists as 'agents of the state'. What would you have us do? asked one of my colleagues. 'Resign, give up work' was the answer.



Sure they were groucho. Sure they were.

A more hamfisted and transaparent lie you very rarely see on here.


----------



## Groucho (May 7, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Sure they were groucho. Sure they were.
> 
> A more hamfisted and transaparent lie you very rarely see on here.



I don't tend to tell lies. As it happens that was not the only time that PCS members have been denounced in such terms by Anarchist types either.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2008)

Sorry. Total lie. 

Try and get the at work/not working thing straight while you're at it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Workers walked out of my place, but were denounced by Anarchists as 'agents of the state'. What would you have us do? asked one of my colleagues. 'Resign, give up work' was the answer.



 

Did you really think that anyone on here would buy this? t makes me wonder what you tell people in 'real life'.


----------



## Nigel (May 7, 2008)

*Anarchy In One Bedsit*



Paulie Tandoori said:


> i fink teh main problem with anarchsim is the lack of an associated brand of clothing in top shop.
> 
> fuck trusts and charities man, get out on the fucking high street......



You don't think that anarchism is caught in a subcultural ghetto then.
What are you going to do on the High Street, that would be any different from anywhere else?


----------



## Bakunin (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> It is and was the idea of disbursing the movement into elitist actions by small exclusive groups that we opposed.
> 
> The idea that many thousands of Anarchists would have launched impressive direct action that would have stopped the war if only the SWP had not stood in their way is nonsense.
> 
> ...



Evidence please.


----------



## Groucho (May 7, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Evidence please.



What do you want evidence of?


----------



## Bakunin (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> What do you want evidence of?



You made a lot of assertions, without supporting evidence, in your previous post. I'd like to see some supporting evidence to back them all up.


----------



## Groucho (May 7, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Did you really think that anyone on here would buy this? t makes me wonder what you tell people in 'real life'.



That is my recollection of the conversation, and I tend to have a pretty good memory for such things.


----------



## llantwit (May 7, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Basically, what I'm saying is:  should we be only allowed to criticise if we have a 100% valid replacement model? Obviously not.  But if the media and the politicians only represent one basic viewpoint with quibbling over the minutiae then we need to speak out.  We don't have parties, we don't have manifestos, we don't seek to replace the power structures with our own, we're not after people's money, or votes, we're utopians and at the very least, no matter what else we do, we should not be shut up in our ceaseless criticism of the lies that surround power structures.  We need to be voices of truth, I guess.  And if we can't speak as one, which isn't going to happen, we should at least be trying not to undermine each other or we become a joke.


Nice post.


----------



## chico enrico (May 7, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Also, I was thinking about this the other day.  Anarchism is partially about being the opposition.  You may not be able to change the world, but it's saying things that need to be said.  At a time when people won't stand up for themselves out of fear or indirection, or because they've got it good enough that a state can push forward undemocractic and illiberal politics without opposition, anarchists should be the opposition when there is none, questioning, shouting, making the points that others aren't making and exposing the flaws in the system.  If nothing else, it's an impetus for reform, even if it's not for revolution.
> 
> Basically, even if the anarchist future is naive and unworkable, we need to be pointing out when the emperor has no clothes, challenging the notion that political change is going to come out of the goodness of politicians hearts.



a very good point, very well expressed.

that's esssentially what i didn't like about that 'revolting london' leaflet. it was like a leaflet _PROMOTING _what was basically class struggle anarchism but kinda tagged onto the mayoral election.

it should JUST have been a leaflet slagging off the candidates, calling them wankers, gobshites etc and not bothering with pushing the (anarchist) party line which just puts folk off. if anything it should have been entirely oppositional to all the other political groupings pushing a political line but by default would probably have been regarded as no different by those it (i would imagine) hoped to attract. 

something which, sadly, i think was rather reflected in the turn-out. 

still, to their credit, at least the _did_ do something.


----------



## Groucho (May 7, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> You made a lot of assertions, without supporting evidence, in your previous post. I'd like to see some supporting evidence to back them all up.






			
				 Groucho said:
			
		

> The idea that many thousands of Anarchists would have launched impressive direct action that would have stopped the war if only the SWP had not stood in their way is nonsense.



Surely, if you dispute this it is for you to provide evidence of the SWP succesfully thwarting these grand plans the Anarchists had.




			
				 Groucho said:
			
		

> The fact is, if they meant it they would just have got on and done it. But no the articulation of abstract demands were only about denouncing the SWP and were not intended as a guide to action.



Again. My point - or assertion - is that the point is to do things. Anarchists attack the SWP for doing it the wrong way. Well go on then you do it right. If not then shut the f*** up.




			
				 Groucho said:
			
		

> Roads were blocked by demonstrators, but the Anarchists were down the pub.



Yes, I am sorry but when anti-war protesters were blocking roads in Whitehall there was a distinct shortage of Anarchists. The school kids were more militant that your lot (actually, they were more militant than my lot too). But, yeh, I suspect your lot were down the pub bemoaning the lack of proper militant action while the school kids were getting a kicking from the police.




			
				 Groucho said:
			
		

> Workers walked out of my place, but were denounced by Anarchists as 'agents of the state'. What would you have us do? asked one of my colleagues. 'Resign, give up work' was the answer.



You want evidence? Like I record every conversation that ever takes place in my life. Or else I must be a liar right? Because no Anarchist would ever denounce Civil Servants for working in the Civil Service would they?? It could never happen could it? Funny that because as I say it is not the only time I have heard that argument.


----------



## Bakunin (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Surely, if you dispute this it is for you to provide evidence of the SWP succesfully thwarting these grand plans the Anarchists had.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, no supporting evidence then.

I'm afraid I'm with Butchers on this one.


----------



## llantwit (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> It is and was the idea of disbursing the movement into elitist actions by small exclusive groups that we opposed.


Where I live and work we (anarchists) were arguing for a broad diversity of tactics. I was very active in the STWC, taking part in, organising, and building for all the actions and events the SWP people were backing, but I also continually argued the case for direct action of various kinds (mass and small group, military targets, arms trade targets, 'town targets' like road blocking). I and others were consistently an vociferously shouted down (no exaggeration) by SWP members who misrepresented what I was calling for in very similar terms to those used by you here.


Groucho said:


> The idea that many thousands of Anarchists would have launched impressive direct action that would have stopped the war if only the SWP had not stood in their way is nonsense.
> The fact is, if they meant it they would just have got on and done it. But no the articulation of abstract demands were only about denouncing the SWP and were not intended as a guide to action.


Do you really believe that? The fact is there was quite abit of @ and other direct action against the war. I think our point here is that there would've been more had the SWP accepted the need (and potential) for building some quite serious and effective direct actions and put their quite considerable influence behind calling for them (in addition to other events, marches, etc). Instead they attacked those who argued for a diversity of tactics, and dissuaded many people from carrying out DAs. This was a big mistake, and a real missed opportunity.


Groucho said:


> Roads were blocked by demonstrators, but the Anarchists were down the pub.


Again with the disbelief that you actually typed that. Are you high? Do you have an excuse for that gross lie? Can't actually be bothered to type any more after re-reading this bit.


----------



## winjer (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Yes, I am sorry but when anti-war protesters were blocking roads in Whitehall there was a distinct shortage of Anarchists. The school kids were more militant that your lot (actually, they were more militant than my lot too). But, yeh, I suspect your lot were down the pub bemoaning the lack of proper militant action while the school kids were getting a kicking from the police.


Complete and utter bullshit.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030502183207/riseup.net/ourmayday/dis/outbreak.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20030502184023/riseup.net/ourmayday/dis/oldst.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422162040/http://riseup.net/ourmayday/dis/fairford22nd.html


----------



## Bakunin (May 7, 2008)

winjer said:


> Complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20030502183207/riseup.net/ourmayday/dis/outbreak.html
> http://web.archive.org/web/20030502184023/riseup.net/ourmayday/dis/oldst.html
> http://web.archive.org/web/20030422162040/http://riseup.net/ourmayday/dis/fairford22nd.html



As I suspected.


----------



## JTG (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> The fact is, if they meant it they would just have got on and done it. But no the articulation of abstract demands were only about denouncing the SWP and were not intended as a guide to action.
> 
> Roads were blocked by demonstrators, but the Anarchists were down the pub.



Cobblers


----------



## JTG (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Yes, I am sorry but when anti-war protesters were blocking roads in Whitehall there was a distinct shortage of Anarchists. The school kids were more militant that your lot (actually, they were more militant than my lot too). But, yeh, I suspect your lot were down the pub bemoaning the lack of proper militant action while the school kids were getting a kicking from the police.



This is utterly dishonest rubbish. The StW group I was involved in frequently saw anarchists planning direct action against the war and being shouted down/ignored by the Trot left in favour of organising coaches to more A to B marches in London.

Luckily the group I was in had a pretty high proportion of anarchists and independent lefts to Swappies so they rarely got their own way.


----------



## bluestreak (May 7, 2008)

Sorry Groucho, my experiences disagree with yours too.

The Worthing Against War group was set up by anarchists, so that kind of set the pattern.  Though in at least one local paper interview the local SWP paper seller claimed SWP responsibility for setting it up!


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2008)

Groucho needs to start listening to people like me. I told him  what would happen with RESPECT and it happend to the second and last dot. I told him him about the BNP and i was right to the second and last dot. Maybe you'll be right his time Groucho and i'll be wrong.. Then you'll not need to make up such daft self serving scenarios. Odd that it works out that you lot were right on both these things and that i was wrong all along.

The all seeing party that can't even see what'is in front of it. I wonder why.


----------



## scumbalina (May 7, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Though in at least one local paper interview the local SWP paper seller claimed SWP responsibility for setting it up!




The SWP claiming to have done something that others did? Trying to take over entire movements and get all the credit for themselves? Well I never...


----------



## Bakunin (May 7, 2008)

scumbalina said:


> The SWP claiming to have done something that others did? Trying to take over entire movements and get all the credit for themselves? Well I never...



Indeed.

I may need a strong cup of tea and a lie down, having recieved such shocking news for the first time.


----------



## Groucho (May 7, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Groucho needs to start listening to people like me. I told him  what would happen with RESPECT and it happend to the second and last dot. I told him him about the BNP and i was right to the second and last dot. Maybe you'll be right his time Groucho and i'll be wrong.. Then you'll not need to make up such daft self serving scenarios. Odd that it works out that you lot were right on both these things and that i was wrong all along.
> 
> The all seeing party that can't even see what'is in front of it. I wonder why.



Listening to your constant negativity about everything? Yes it is true that if you do something you can mess up. If you do nothing but carp from the sidelines you can claim never to have made a mistake. But it is just that you have never done anything. 

I am sure that in some locations Anarchists dod stuff but that was not the general picture. 

Even the Poll Tax in the area I was in at the time saw Anarchists do sod all. On the day of the march the coach I organised to London was full. Where were the local Anarchists? Oh sorry, bit torn mate, you see we had organised a hunt sab and well, you know it was already organised. Still hope you have a good demo.


----------



## JTG (May 7, 2008)

I know loads of anarchists who were on that march. Guess what - they took part in the local campaigns as well!

Why does posting on the internet mean people assume you don't do anything else btw?


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Listening to your constant negativity about everything? Yes it is true that if you do something you can mess up. If you do nothing but carp from the sidelines you can claim never to have made a mistake. But it is just that you have never done anything.
> 
> I am sure that in some locations Anarchists dod stuff but that was not the general picture.
> 
> Even the Poll Tax in the area I was in at the time saw Anarchists do sod all. On the day of the march the coach I organised to London was full. Where were the local Anarchists? Oh sorry, bit torn mate, you see we had organised a hunt sab and well, you know it was already organised. Still hope you have a good demo.



Makes up a lie. An utterly transparent one at that -extends it into the past. Bril;linat.. Waffles. Makes it worse, bring in point about the poll tax that they fucked up on big time (pleas stop your acrtions they are worthless and cannot achievr anything - only the action olf the civil servants can halt this tax etc).

Honestly, groucho -there's no need to lie.


----------



## Bakunin (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Even the Poll Tax in the area I was in at the time saw Anarchists do sod all. On the day of the march the coach I organised to London was full. Where were the local Anarchists? Oh sorry, bit torn mate, you see we had organised a hunt sab and well, you know it was already organised. Still hope you have a good demo.



Well, seeing as they had already organised another action, they were hardly sitting about twiddling their thumbs, were they?

And you don't tend to see many Swappies taking an interest in that sort of action so I'd say they were within their rights to do what they had already laid on, especially as Anarchists are sadly thin on the ground in many areas and bodies are needed on a regular basis.

This typical arrogance and ignorance as displayed by Swappies on a regular basis. If it isn't something laid on by your beloved CC then it isn't worth doing or is to be shouted down.


----------



## JTG (May 7, 2008)

But actions count for nothing compared to organising a coach to some march


----------



## Bakunin (May 7, 2008)

JTG said:


> But actions count for nothing compared to organising a coach to some march



Ah yes, I forgot.

Direct action is elitist and must be condemned.

It's shuffling round London, grimly trooping from A to B under the watchful eye of police and their friends in the SWP acting as stewards, that really matters.

I'm sure the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are delighted to have the support of the SWP, it must really make up for the dead, injured and 'rendered' relatives and friends.


----------



## Groucho (May 7, 2008)

JTG said:


> But actions count for nothing compared to organising a coach to some march



Some march? 

Excuse me but a local hunt sab or the major anti-poll tax demo. You know, the one the police turned into a riot. You remember the one where the rioting fucked Thatcher. 

They didn't go to Welling either on the grounds that the ANL was an 'SWP front'.


----------



## Bakunin (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Some march?
> 
> Excuse me but a local hunt sab or the major anti-poll tax demo. You know, the one the police turned into a riot. You remember the one where the rioting fucked Thatcher.
> 
> They didn't go to Welling either on the grounds that the ANL was an 'SWP front'.




The ANL WAS an SWP front, and you know it as well as anyone here. I was IN the ANL, so I know it too.

So, a few Anarchists, people you seem to despise and loathe, didn't go on your march because they already had an action planned. Big deal. If you have as much contempt for Anarchists as you seem to then that shouldn't have been too much of a problem for you.

After all, can't have people offering an alternative to paperselling and A to B marches, now can we?


----------



## JTG (May 7, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Some march?
> 
> Excuse me but a local hunt sab or the major anti-poll tax demo. You know, the one the police turned into a riot. You remember the one where the rioting fucked Thatcher.
> 
> They didn't go to Welling either on the grounds that the ANL was an 'SWP front'.



I'm well aware of what happened on that march cheers. twas more a comment on the general attitude of the Trot left towards what's important and what isn't.

And the ANL was an SWP front so I don't blame them. I was a member of the ANL, I do know.


----------



## october_lost (May 8, 2008)

Anarchism isnt a joke. Its an effective way of organising minus the drawbacks of centralised cliques and hierarchies. Its freedom in practice and when its done right its applicable to so many people.

A lot of what passes for theory and action is turning over and over in circles and its genuinely sad to see this, thats why short fallings should be discussed as wide as possible for the hope of re-alignment. Truth be told that aside from LCAP and a few local groups we punch massively below our own capacity and have zero influence outside of a subculture. The reason for this is that when theres a scarcity of experience,and understanding of things like organisation, stratergy and tactics then its easy to go through the mills of using the same old modes of doing things. There are as many pitfalls as there should be operating right now, but when a correct way of doing things works it will spread as I think the growth of LCAP as shown.


----------



## Alright (May 8, 2008)

In an anarchist society, free enterprise business would have to be banned, otherwise capitalistic ways would just roll right over anarchism.


----------



## northernhord (May 9, 2008)

No


----------



## geoff64 (May 9, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Some march?
> 
> Excuse me but a local hunt sab or the major anti-poll tax demo. You know, the one the police turned into a riot. You remember the one where the rioting fucked Thatcher.
> 
> They didn't go to Welling either on the grounds that the ANL was an 'SWP front'.



Sorry mate, like everyone else has said.  I know it too from direct experience of being heavily involved in the SWP when ANL Mk2 was launched.  It was clearly an SWP front.

I recall a group (probably the Leninist - now the CPGB) who organised an ANL meeting in East Ham in the mid-90's.  I mean if the ANL is not the preserve of the SWP why not have open ANL meetings where all the public can go?  The SWP in Newham - and I was at the meetings - organised to turn up in force at the meeting, vote themselves into positions of authority on this new "ANL" committee and then voted to abolish it...  The Leninist were just being mischevious but they made their point.

But you're right people went to Welling (twice in the space of a few months - the first organised by Militant was a good day out too and got much closer to the bookshop) for lots of reasons - not because the ANL was an SWP fron (which it was ... )


----------



## biff curtains (May 9, 2008)

> no, Anarchists have not mobilised significantly against the war. How many Anarchists organised walkouts in their workplaces risking the sack as this guy did?



What sort of fucking div would organise a workplace strike against the fucking war?


----------



## Bakunin (May 9, 2008)

biff curtains said:


> What sort of fucking div would organise a workplace strike against the fucking war?




Outside of wrkplaces related to the military and arms trade I don't see what use it is, to be honest.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 9, 2008)

Alright said:


> In an anarchist society, free enterprise business would have to be banned, otherwise capitalistic ways would just roll right over anarchism.



How so?


----------



## october_lost (May 10, 2008)

biff curtains said:


> What sort of fucking div would organise a workplace strike against the fucking war?



Our taxes pay for the war effort, which is an obvious diversion from social services etc. Im shocked this as been asked TBH


----------



## Raw SslaC (May 11, 2008)

Didn't 25,000 dockers in the US go out on strike over the war this mayday? I think so.


----------



## Nigel (May 11, 2008)

biff curtains said:


> What sort of fucking div would organise a workplace strike against the fucking war?




http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=7445815#post7445815


----------



## Nigel (May 11, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> How so?


I'd be interested to here something from Anarchists on this one.
An alternative to Marxist Economics.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 11, 2008)

*Is anarchism a joke? *

No, but anarch_ists_ frequently are.

It's people, innit: sometimes they're numpties.


----------



## october_lost (May 11, 2008)

Nigel said:


> I'd be interested to here something from Anarchists on this one.
> An alternative to Marxist Economics.



On what level?

Since we dont anticipate organising a central economy its not going to be in the same ball park. Im not sure if you were being coy or what. But their are left libertarians who have written extensively about capatilist economics and possible economic models of organising.


----------



## spanglechick (May 11, 2008)

nothing to add - just that i keep thinking the thread title say "is anachronism a joke" - which is quite deep, and inpenetrable, and keeps confusing me - til i work out, time after time, that it actually says "anarchism".


----------



## danny la rouge (May 11, 2008)

october_lost said:


> On what level?
> 
> Since we dont anticipate organising a central economy its not going to be in the same ball park. Im not sure if you were being coy or what. But their are left libertarians who have written extensively about capatilist economics and possible economic models of organising.


Marx's economics are largely a critique of capitalism.  This is where he is strongest and spends most time.  

I'm not sure we need an anarchist to rewite _Capital_ or _Value, Price and Profit_.  What's the point?


----------



## october_lost (May 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Marx's economics are largely a critique of capitalism.  This is where he is strongest and spends most time.
> 
> I'm not sure we need an anarchist to rewite _Capital_ or _Value, Price and Profit_.  What's the point?



There isnt one.

Marx understanding of capital is a good starting point, but if were talking about economic blueprint for a future society, then we have to look somewhere else. Abraham Guillen has some material in print about anarchism organising the economy.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 11, 2008)

october_lost said:


> Marx understanding of capital is a good starting point, but if were talking about economic blueprint for a future society, then we have to look somewhere else.


Absolutely.

I have to say, I like Guillen's work on the Spanish collectives.


----------



## Nigel (May 11, 2008)

october_lost said:


> On what level?
> 
> Since we dont anticipate organising a central economy its not going to be in the same ball park. Im not sure if you were being coy or what. But their are left libertarians who have written extensively about capatilist economics and possible economic models of organising.



Proudhon argued for a national bank, Kropotkin touched on it lightly; some stuff in Fields Factories & Workshops, during the Spanish Civil War the CNT were very much into the idea of Barter as a form of mutual aid and exchange.

Free market ideas were much in favour with many American Anarchists, Tucker, Thoreau.

Colin Ward argues from what I can work out of re-reading stuff like Anarchy in Action for some kind of self employed form of exchange.

As far as Macro-Economics is concerned, most Anarchists are forced to submit to Marxist concepts of Economics (Capital). Bakunin in the last years of his life was very concerned about getting a Russian publication of it out. But I would have thought that most Anarchists would have found the way that Capital is structured too deterministic. Their is also the concept by some Anarchists that economic conditions don't always create social structures, in fact I've heard some argue completely the opposite(e.g. there were individuals in a group called syndiclist fight who broke away from DAM in the mid 1980's who put this point of view across).


----------



## HarrisonSlade (May 11, 2008)

CUMBRIANDRAGON said:


> Been involved in anachism for a number of years. Where are we going wrong?.
> To me anachism has become a movement of getting pissed up in a bar talking bollocks then going back home again. The reason why the bnp are winning is because they are pro-active and we just get pissed and call them nazi scum.
> If we don't wake up soon ,The bnp are going to be to big to stop.


Many people within the anarchist "movement" aren't actual anarchists. Many are people who like ranting a lot, and being as judgemental as the fascists they claim to loathe. Anarchy, to me is about disestablishing this society, and allowing everyone to create a new one. Very much like the early Americans, but without having to kill the troublesome natives.


----------



## Nigel (May 11, 2008)

Found this interesting webpage.

http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6960&print_page=true&include_comments=true

Not heard of the phrase Parecon(participatory economics), or Michael Albert or Robert Hanel


----------



## bluestreak (May 12, 2008)

HarrisonSlade said:


> but without having to kill the troublesome natives.



oh i dunno.  a few shipments of smallpox-coated blankets to the home counties wouldn't go amiss.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 12, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Found this interesting webpage.
> 
> http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6960&print_page=true&include_comments=true
> 
> Not heard of the phrase Parecon(participatory economics), or Michael Albert or Robert Hanel


Really?  Albert is one of the editors of Z Mag.  His Parecon books have been reviewed in the British press.  I can lend you one if you like.


----------



## chico enrico (May 12, 2008)

anarchists should get some nice looking girls on the covers of their mags then maybe they'd sell more.


----------



## Nigel (May 13, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Really?  Albert is one of the editors of Z Mag.  His Parecon books have been reviewed in the British press.  I can lend you one if you like.



A brief outline of his ideas would suffice!


----------



## danny la rouge (May 13, 2008)

Nigel said:


> A brief outline of his ideas would suffice!


Oh, OK.  Everyone joins committees to decide what gets done.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 13, 2008)

More seriously, here's a link (though not very brief):

http://www.zmag.org/zparecon/qaoverview.htm


----------



## Nigel (May 13, 2008)

*Pie in the Sky*

Seems a bit wishy-washy and abstract.
No real meet to the bones.


----------



## durruti02 (May 13, 2008)

Raw SslaC said:


> We woke up long ago mate, but when its you and 80 others surrounded by cops, completely controlled what can you do? The problem is not neccesarily with the people individually, its the way we fail to get behind and really develop our politics. That means instead of moaning from the side-lines (which I don't include you in this as I do not know your involvement), get involved in making things successful. Like October_lost said - what are you suggesting for strategies and tactics?
> 
> all the best
> 
> a



i remember the maoists used to  have a slogan that the fish need a sea to swim in .. it seems to me brit@ has forgotten this


----------



## durruti02 (May 13, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> a very good point, very well expressed.
> 
> that's esssentially what i didn't like about that 'revolting london' leaflet. it was like a leaflet _PROMOTING _what was basically class struggle anarchism but kinda tagged onto the mayoral election.
> 
> ...


 agree!


----------



## durruti02 (May 13, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Even the Poll Tax in the area I was in at the time saw Anarchists do sod all. On the day of the march the coach I organised to London was full. Where were the local Anarchists?



what total bollox you talk .. anarchists, with the pre- SP, were the back bone of the anti poll tax movement .. the SWP ignored the issue for many months due to their idiot denial of the importance of community .. then they tried to take over groups all over the country by packing meeting etc and distracted from the task in hand .. the behaviour of the SWP during the poll tax was a disgrace


----------



## JTG (May 13, 2008)

They spent ages trying to persuade the civil servants not to collect it and ignoring the non payment angle didn't they?


----------



## biff curtains (May 13, 2008)

october_lost said:


> Our taxes pay for the war effort, which is an obvious diversion from social services etc. Im shocked this as been asked TBH



When the labour movement hasn't got the self confidence to strike in it's own interests why the fuck should we strike against the war? Which is abstract and far flung for most people.


----------



## llantwit (May 13, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Seems a bit wishy-washy and abstract.
> No real meet to the bones.


I've always thought the opposite, to be honest.
There's books and books of this stuff. Sometimes it feels like he's planned every inch of post revolutionary society when you read Albert.
There's more here. Used to be a stand alone website with reams of stuff on parecon, but the link's broken at the moment so I can't point you to it.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 13, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Seems a bit wishy-washy and abstract.
> No real meet to the bones.


Erm, nope.  Structure galore!  That link isn't the whole thing, you know.  

There are also places it is being put into practice, so it is constantly being refined.

I have reservations, but also a lot of time for it for two reasons: 1, it is actually being used.  2, it could be the type of model needed for large organisations "post revolution", such as broadcasting organisations, for example.

A libertarian society would probably ideally have Parecon pockets, in my view.

Seriously, I'll lend you a book.


----------



## Nigel (May 13, 2008)

llantwit said:


> I've always thought the opposite, to be honest.
> There's books and books of this stuff. Sometimes it feels like he's planned every inch of post revolutionary society when you read Albert.
> There's more here. Used to be a stand alone website with reams of stuff on parecon, but the link's broken at the moment so I can't point you to it.



I was'nt slating it, but like you implied the way it comes across in the last article seems like a utopian pipe dream, without any infastructure I cannot see it working.

I think that the main problem with the left is hanging onto Bolshervik model, with its beaurocratic elites, which I cannot see turning into anything but authoritarian, restrictive governments.

But I cannot see Anarchists offering anything viable


----------



## Groucho (May 13, 2008)

JTG said:


> They spent ages trying to persuade the civil servants not to collect it and ignoring the non payment angle didn't they?



No the SWP did support calls for workers to organise non-collection. (That would be local Government workers who are public servants but not Civil Servants as they don't work for the Civil Service). One council - Greenwhich - did take strike action after a legal ballot. The strike was legally over the workloads caused by poll tax administration (there could be no legal strike over poll tax as a political/moral issue), the impact of the industrial action was to refuse to collect. So it wasn't a completely impossible demand.
I know of one location where the poll tax records were taken out and dumped in a river by a dissillusioned worker who was actually a LP member.
However, the SWP did also support non-payment, and organised many of the local groups. There was some initial slowness in Scotland, but by the time registration was rolling out to England the SWP were up to speed.

In my area an assortment of Trots* organised the group in 1989. We went around estates while most people were still ignorant about the whole thing.
By late 1989 and 1990 the other Trots had left town and the SWP along with students and non-alligned locals ran the campaign. 

The local Anarchists were mainly into hunt-sabbing. They did attend some anti-poll tax events we organised, but they missed the London demo (riot) because it clashed with a hunt sab. 

*One of those Trots who was then a member of Workers Power previously of the SWP, before that of the WRP, is now a member of the Anarchist Federation via the RCP and Red Action.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2008)

Groucho said:


> No the SWP did support calls for workers to organise non-collection. (That would be local Government workers who are public servants but not Civil Servants as they don't work for the Civil Service). One council - Greenwhich - did take strike action after a legal ballot. The strike was legally over the workloads caused by poll tax administration (there could be no legal strike over poll tax as a political/moral issue), the impact of the industrial action was to refuse to collect. So it wasn't a completely impossible demand.
> I know of one location where the poll tax records were taken out and dumped in a river by a dissillusioned worker who was actually a LP member.
> However, the SWP did also support non-payment, and organised many of the local groups. There was some initial slowness in Scotland, but by the time registration was rolling out to England the SWP were up to speed.
> 
> ...



Unbelievable. Apart from the AF producing the very first anti-poll tax publication in england (on top of calling strikers scabs and all the other tripe you think people on here will swallow). I really mean the total glossing over and what anounts to a series of lies about the SWPs position at the start of the anti-poll tax campaign. It's easy to start _after_ you'd 're-adjusted' your postion. What made you re-adjust your position?

Shameless.


----------



## jonH (May 13, 2008)

Anarchism may be a joke, but the jesters have the King by the pants and he knows it.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 13, 2008)

Q) Is anarchism a joke?

A) No. Or if it is it isn't meant to be.

Which is kind of the problem. The BNP _are_ a joke but the unfortunate side effect of that is that they've got a bigger audience.

Go figure.


----------



## greenman (May 14, 2008)

It is interesting on the economic aspect that some of the economic ideas that have been associated with anarchism and the libertarian left (to the scorn of orthodox Leninists an Trotskyists) are now gaining much more support and being adopted in watered down forms across much ot the political spectrum - i.e. mutualism, cooperativism and economic democracy.  This stretches from the Green Party, the Labour left, independent socialists (Ken Coates etc) even to mainstream social democrats (reading between the lines of Neal Lawson's article in the Guardian this week).  Even the Tories are attempting to fake it in the UK.

Anarchist or Libertarian Communism remains the absoloutist position of "orthodox" anarchists though - and Albert's Parecon is perhaps just an updated and more fleshed out idea of the libertarian communism of Kropotkin, Isaac Puente et al.  There was an interesting debate between Albert and Schweikart on Z-Net over the relative merits and feasability of their economic models - Parecon (roughly speaking communist with a small c) and Economic Democracy (roughly speaking socialist-mutualist).

Of course in the end you can have all the intricate models you want but, as in Argentina in recent memory it is what working people put in place following economic upheaval/transition that counts - although some piecemeal and often temporary experiments can be conducted whilst still under the reign of capital.  Some of these may even be introduced on a local or larger scale by progressive parties and movements.

As far as UK (and world) anarchism is concerned, intellectually it is not a joke as suggested above - if anything it is currently having its' intellectual storehouse regularly pilfered by left, right and centre.  Organisationally it maybe though, and many anarch_ists_ are a joke, although this was more common when "punk" still held some sway (being in most cases a form of extreme and quickly commodified anti-social individualism and infantilism rather than a socio-political current).  

Way back when, when I was an anarcho-syndicalist we semed to have more purchase on reality (and easily identifiable common enemies - requiring easily identifiable tactics of opposition - with much of the rest of the left in Thatcherism and street fascism) than is currently evident from what passes for either the anarchist movement or the "left".

Now that the things we face are socially ingrained neo-liberalism, populist "democratic" fascism and a global challenge of war, climate change and resource scarcity,  from the outside the anarchist movement (and much of the rest of the left) appear often to be running round like headless chickens without focus or the ability to talk to/communicate with people outside their own circles.

Those things in this neck of the woods that *are* promising are influenced by, sometimes participated in, but definitely *outside* the ideological UK "anarchist" movement.  Counter to Groucho's assertion the growth of the British Isles IWW is a promising sign (though relatively small at the moment 4-500 is the biggest explicitly syndicalist/industrial unionist initiative in this part of the world for a long time and ties in with other base level organising efforts)  What is inportant here is that the IWW is not politically sectarian and is not "anarchist" - if it were, then it would not grow as it has done and includes socialists and greens and left libertarians of various stripes as well as independent minded workers.  On a  political level the IWCA has been a comparable initiative of the broadly speaking libertarian (in the sense of non-leninist, not the "social libertarian" sense ) left.  Despite recent setbacks this still seems a worthwhile initiative, though too rigid "cultural classism" and sectarian habits learned by its activists whilst in the leninist and anarchist movements may hold it back.

Meanwhile, some of the Marxist left are exploring new territory under the banner of ecosocialism, whilst left greens are seeking to "redden" their part of the green movement under the same banner.  Whether this comes to anything will perhaps depend on whether both groups can properly critique and move beyond the historical dead-end of Trotskyism in the case of the left groups and the dead end of popular frontist/coalitionist parliamentarianism that has neutralised many of the European Green Parties as serious vehicles for change (and the drift to the right of European Green Parties is now approaching a critical point)

We are in a time of political, economic and ideological flux with many opportunities and threats.  Whether anarchists, or for that matter the left as a whole are "a joke" stuck in oudated analyses and purist little cults or can transform into something relevant and promising is in their own hands.


----------



## Nigel (May 14, 2008)

*Another Rant Against The SWP!!!!!!!!!*



Groucho said:


> No the SWP did support calls for workers to organise non-collection. (That would be local Government workers who are public servants but not Civil Servants as they don't work for the Civil Service). One council - Greenwhich - did take strike action after a legal ballot. The strike was legally over the workloads caused by poll tax administration (there could be no legal strike over poll tax as a political/moral issue), the impact of the industrial action was to refuse to collect. So it wasn't a completely impossible demand.
> I know of one location where the poll tax records were taken out and dumped in a river by a dissillusioned worker who was actually a LP member.
> However, the SWP did also support non-payment, and organised many of the local groups. There was some initial slowness in Scotland, but by the time registration was rolling out to England the SWP were up to speed.
> 
> ...



This is absolute rubbish.
I was in the SWP at the time, any action initiated by white collar unions like CPSA was not pushed forward by the SWP. Tony Cliff made a notorious speech about ,"You might as well burn your bus ticket as you Poll Tax Bill". They were later involved in the anti poll tax movement, and despite the policies of the SWP many members played an heroic role, even going to prison for not paying poll tax. But in general most of the Hacks in the SWP were prepared to push non payment to the first hurdle of a fine, and then pay, were hostile towards non registration, sectarian towards anyone who had a serious agenda of fighting the poll tax(apart from if they thought they could get them to join their mickey mouse organisation), frightened of upsetiing 'left' labour councillers and were very glad when it was all over, sabotaging  any attempt to continue the campaigns against Council Tax, local government capping etc. etc.


----------



## CUMBRIANDRAGON (May 17, 2008)

Raw SslaC said:


> We woke up long ago mate, but when its you and 80 others surrounded by cops, completely controlled what can you do? The problem is not neccesarily with the people individually, its the way we fail to get behind and really develop our politics. That means instead of moaning from the side-lines (which I don't include you in this as I do not know your involvement), get involved in making things successful. Like October_lost said - what are you suggesting for strategies and tactics?
> 
> all the best
> 
> a



Maybe comming together more ,Opening social centres {squats} etc. . I don't have the answers.


----------



## october_lost (May 21, 2008)

biff curtains said:


> When the labour movement hasn't got the self confidence to strike in it's own interests why the fuck should we strike against the war? Which is abstract and far flung for most people.



Its not a one or the other choice, you should engage in all spheres of life that you can. Picking fights here and there is a recipe for a very weak movement imo


----------



## geoff64 (May 21, 2008)

re SWP and the poll tax:

i was a member of the swappies at the time and also a local govt worker.  There was quite a bit of tension between us and the SP/Militant at the time (I was in a poll tax group with a Militant member called Jeremy Dear - he's doing alright now).  They were critical of the SWP because our posters said 'Don't collect don't pay' and their's said 'don't pay don't collect' - a distinction i didn't really understand at the time, but it was indicative of a slowness of the SWP to appreciate the community struggle - despite what had been going on in Scotland. 

During our first local anti-poll tax march Militant slagged us off publically for chanting 'fight Thatcher's poll tax, not Thatcher's war' (the first Gulf War was taking place at the time) cos we might put off anti-poll tax activists who were ambivalent or supportive of the war.  I've come to think that Militant were probably right about this, but I also think that publishing an anti-poll tax newsletter that specifically condemned the SWP for this was a mistake given that the SWP and Miltant in my london borough was the only organised resistance - there was no @ or Labour left activity at all where we were.  (I had quite a heated argument with Jeremy Dear about this at the time.)

A group from our SWP branch die-hardly refused to pay and had our wages attached after going through liability orders and court hearings etc. We also got  lists leaked to us from the Community Charge office of those who were going to be the first to receive summonses and we drove around the borough in a car putting leaflets through people's doors encouraging them to attend court.  This was not a tactic supported by the SWP branch. What we did do was host a meeting at our union branch for members of Greenwhich workers who were on strike over the issue - Rahul Patel came and spoke.  Came to nothing, really.  

But - having woken up - the SWP did organise around court hearings and provide McKenzies friends.  I attended court hearings from Essex to Bournemouth offering support to non-payers, either direct advice or demonstrating.  SWPers also fought back in Trafalgar Sq - I had a number of close friends who were nicked after dawn raids (and I count it among the most inspiring events of my political life).  SWP members and sympathisers in our union branch organised a coach to the event which dropped us off in South London. We booked a 50-seater and there were only 6 of us on it, iirc!

Given the nature of the Party it was difficult for me to get a grip of the criticism against it at the time - there was so little internal discussion and I was crap at searching out other Left or @ publications until after the event.  What I heard subsequently about Swappie behaviour around the country - altho I had no first-hand experience of it - came as no surprise really, and I've read and heard of lots of accounts since that are plausible, notwithstanding the partisan bias of many. 

In reality, notwithstanding the debates at Swappie Central Committee level and the behaviour of some branches - perhaps/probably a lot - in hijacking and domineering local campaigns in an effort to recruit rather than to do the business, SWP members did a great deal during the campaign both at local community and union level, in spite of all the manoeuvering in the Party above, as the SP and @ groups did too. Guess it depended where you were really...


----------



## biff curtains (May 22, 2008)

october_lost said:


> Its not a one or the other choice, you should engage in all spheres of life that you can. Picking fights here and there is a recipe for a very weak movement imo



Unfortunately the pathetic dregs of the left tend to pick and choose - the bits that are glamarous or foreign.


----------

