Effective resistance

Remind me, are the anarcho-vanguardists with or against the neo-Leninoids?

have you read "mulitude" yet, it's an attempt to flesh it out. Doesn't really work though cos it becomes very obvious that at it's strongest it's the proletariat as understood as much wider than the industrial worker and at it's weakest it gets reduced to some sort of "rebel alliance" who will magically fuck up the death star.

30000 people read this site every month (a bit more iirc). I write stuff for this site, how many who find this site for the first time are "not strongly politically affiliated and are asking the kinds of questions I/we have answers for"? Probably a fair few judging by google keywords. And if they find one article on here, they're far more likely to read more than if they're given one issue of a paper or pamphlet.

I'd rather put time into a permanent resource like this site, potentially read by tens of thousands of people, than into a leaflet to hand out to maybe 1000 at a demo that'll probably go in the bin in 5 minutes - considering I myself am accustomed to not taking leaflets in the street anyway after years of being offered them on high streets around the country. Same as I don't talk to those charity muggers any more.

Waltham Forest council is about to try to turn the longest daily street market in Europe, 2 minutes from where I live, into "Bluewater" according to the local paper. They're going to (probably ineptly) attempt to Islingtonise Walthamstow, with expensive flats and shopping arcades that will push out all the cheap market stalls and shops that currently occupy the area. The local cinema was sold off to the UCKG, the library/arts centre that was supposed to be built nearby is now going to be a retail/leisure complex, a local community college is in the process of being closed down. I've only been in the area three months, so I've not worked out even where to start on all this, but I consider all the people that are pissed off about this attack on their community and local services a far more likely group of people to take up ideas about self-organisation, direct democracy and the impact of class on their lives than most of the issues that large events are organised around. They may never identify as "libertarian communists", or join an organised group, but they may well fight the further encroachment of capital into the area as public spaces are divvied up into coffee shop kiosks, rents go up, etc. etc.

The problem here is that, just as with Jack a few posts back, this is turning into a discussion about how one particular activists time is best spent, rather than a discussion about the strategy of an organisation or a movement. That's not in my view a good way to look at things - and the fact that people find themselves having to looking at the issue in those terms is an indication of the chronic weakness of organised anarchism at the moment.

I'm certainly not against running websites, still less am I against taking part in community campaigns - the number of doors I've knocked on to talk about the bin tax or infill housing or a swimming pool closure or the privatisation of an estate doesn't bear thinking about. The point I'm trying to make to you is that as a movement you need to set your political sights higher than just putting some texts on a website and trying to save the local bus station - those are important things, but you are ultimately trying to convince people to get organised to change the world.

Recruiting to your politics and building your organisations are essential parts of that. And if you are serious, as a movement, you have to pay attention to reaching people who are in the short term recruitable, which *amongst other things* means intervening into big "lefty" gatherings.

Nice evasive move mate

Well, apart from the implicit 'partyism' in that statement, I agree with much of it. However, I don't like the assumpation that some forms of, more general organisation, are more imporant than local activity. IMO its horses for courses, so I'm happy, for example, that people like the Wombles and autonomists intervened in to the ESF, but frankly going to all those meetings wasn't my cup of tea. The point is, that any good grassroots movement has to have lots of different organs that do various neccessary tasks, without elevating any of them into the 'right', or 'ultimate' thing to do.

Speaking for CSG, since you seem to be specifically having a pop at us here, we are an organisation which aims to encourage, initiate and develop grassroots struggles in response to capitalism. We fight our local campaigns because they are worthwile action - how is this not setting our sights high?

But why? It's not even as easy recruiting ground as you think, at least not from my point of view, because I would mainly have to be saying to people "Look, frankly mate your politics are balls".

Seriously though, it's true many people have and will continue to come to us from anti-social activism, Leninism, radical liberalism etc, but to be honest I would love to see that whole worthless protest movement die off and the organisations which perpetuate it disappear. I don't want to immerse myself in the world of summit protests or the latest sad attempt to "unite the left". I want to consciously turn my back on that. Sorry but there really isn't enough there to salvage.

And this idea that we have to recruit from one section of the left to another is just perpetuating the trend of internalising the left within itself and externalising it from the rest of society.

To put things another way, I feel it's a hugely more important achievement to persuade one of my co-workers to join me in demanding a pay rise, than it would be to turn some rebel clown into the most politically sound libertarian communist.

As far as the preparatory meetings are concerned, I agree with you. I went to one and couldn't get out of the room fast enough - a small room full of political hacks squabbling isn't a fun or useful place to be. But I also went to the ESF itself, not because I like listening to bureaucrats and liberals and SWPers drone on, but because there were thousands of people there worth talking to. Not on the platforms, but milling around.

I'm not talking about the CSG, about which I know very little. I am criticising some of the people on this board (who may be mostly in CSG?) because I think that they're worth having this kind of argument with. There wouldn't be any point discussing much of this with say your friends and compadres in the juggling corner as there wouldn't be enough common ground. I might not be so strident when discussing something like this with people from the WSM, because for all that from my perspective they share a basic lack of seriousness when it comes to recruitment, they are better on things like intervening at left events.

Well much of it depends on what attitude you take. In my view the way to start is to concentrate on what you positively stand for, what you want to achieve, what you think useful activism entails, the kind of things people should get involved in. Then deal with disagreements in that context. Remember that you probably aren't dealing with an SWP fulltimer or the King and Queen of the WOMBLES. You are dealing with someone who is questioning some aspect of capitalism, or the system as a whole, and who is pissed off enough to come along to an event and find out more.

To give a personal experience, I was at a London Mayday a few years back. Most of the Socialist Party contingent was on the trade union march but we split off a sizeable group to go down to the anarchist organised events elsewhere. When we got to the area where things were happening we found some big stunts, which were more or less enjoyable. We also found loads of young people wandering around looking for something to do, not really sure what was on when or where, but wanting to get involved. We spent the day giving out leaflets and the like but mostly just talking to people. I spent more than an hour explaining the bin tax struggle in Dublin to some girls who had travelled down from Scotland. By the time I left - long before the hassle from the cops began in earnest - I'd arranged to meet two people for proper discussions about joining the Socialist Party, one of whom is still active. During the whole day by the way I saw one old guy selling Freedom and almost no other anarchist publications. We got a few dirty looks and muttered comments from more hardened anarchist scenesters, but so what?

You may want that to happen. You never know it may actually happen someday, although I very much doubt it. In the meantime "the whole worthless protest movement" is there and you either take advantage of the opportunities it offers to build support for your politics or other people will.

I think that either would be an achievement. But this sentiment is also what I mean by not setting your sights high enough. Shouldn't the object be to convince both of them of the need to demand a pay rise and also of the need to overthrow capitalist society?

Oh my God, what the fuck is happening here? I can't believe we're havign this same fucking discussion AGAIN!!!

Look, its pretty fucking simple: Do we want a movement that encourages radical working class politics based in people's everyday lives? Or do we want one that is based in a series of abstract protest movements which we, as libertarian communists, know will have negligable effect while getting some naive 17-year-olds to face serious fucking jail time for something which we know is a steaming pile of shit but which they haven't discovered yet (but no doubt will when they're sitting in Feltham)?

If you want the latter, continue as you were. If you want the former, then please just accept that it won't be easy and it might take more than leafleting some StW demos or building mobilisations against the G8. Sure, do it if you want but I think we've already ascertained that these summit protests are complete fucking bollocks based on the lie that these mobilisations could actually stop something.

Fuck this, I'm tired and I've got to leave for work in fifteen minutes. I honestly can't believe we're having this discussion again. This is truly ridiculous. Though not as ridiculous as protesting against capitalism

To be honest I dunno how else I could have answered it. Unless I'd actually signed up someone I knew to a group, or "converted" someone ideologically. I don't think it works like that.

Yes we are. This is the Introductory Thought forum, after all. But one thing you might be encouraged by is, compare this thread to past threads on the same topic. Isn't it so much better?

And more importantly, hasn't a degree of tactical unity emerged in the years since this website got set up?

A cause for (muted) celebration, I reckon.

ed, we wouldn't need to have this discussion this long if you would sometime actually read what people write mate. No one is saying that there are only two black and white choices, so your whole question is silly.

Anyways, no need to argue. I give you few years time to do some of that community and workplace organising and we can then talk again. I dont think it is a coincidence that most of the strongest "black and white" comments in this thread come from young eager men who frankly know fuck all about workplace organising. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but i'm only being real here. It just pisses me off when someone claims to criticise high horse positions from another high horse...

Solidarity and all that

JDmatafaka

double post thing

No one's arguing that any movement should be based 'in' abstract protests, just that such protests need to be engaged with.

Like JDMF says, you'll feel a lot better if you argue against what people actually write, rather than having re-run shadow-boxing bouts with the phantom of your past activism.

Ladies & gentleman, I give you....... the elephant in the room.

Actually we've got to the stage in these threads where I normally point out one of the slightly annoying things on these boards, which is the impression you get sometimes, that posters leapt out of their mothers' wombs with their politics already sorted.

And no, I'm not saying that every generation of anarchists (or whatever you young uns are calling yourselves nowadays) needs to reinvent the wheel. But a bit of tolerance and (dare I say it) humility wouldn't go amiss.

Ah well.

Ed, you may have had this conversation before but I haven't at least not in any detail. Nobody is forcing you to read the last few pages of this thread and nobody is forcing you to comment on it. Feel free to ignore it and get on with building a "movement that encourages radical working class politics based in people's everyday lives" if you like.

If you are going to comment on the thread though, you may do better as some of the contributors above have pointed out to engage with what people are actually saying here rather than with some other ideas you've argued with before. Your core point seems to be to force people's views into a false dichotomy - activist shite or real "libertarian communism" - a dichotomy which just isn't present in this discussion. Nobody is arguing that big left events are going to overthrow or damage capitalism, that juggling and squatting are important forms of political activism or anything similar. In fact as far as I can tell all of the participants are pretty much united around the idea that workplace and community organising are the key tasks for socialists.

Where there is a real disagreement is in how to respond to the existence of these "activist" (I'm using the terminology common on these boards rather than that of my own political current here) events and their undoubted attractiveness to many of the people who are currently most inclined to question capitalism. Should socialists ignore them, and therefore leave these people to the tender mercies of the SWP or "activist scene" anarchos, or should socialists intervene at these events trying to influence people towards class politics, workplace and community struggle, through argument, propaganda, recruitment etc?

It is my view that the relunctance of class struggle anarchists to take the latter option stems from a number of causes. Part of it is a confusion between on the one hand making a political break with the juggling and squatting brigade and on the other having to physically avoid any event they like. Part of it though comes from the generally unserious attitude which anarchists, at least in the English speaking world, seem to take towards recruitment and organisation. An unserious attitude which has chronically limited the size and influence of your organisations and therefore your politics and activism.

It is a strange experience to find somebody reading my arguments as being pro-subcultural activism, still less as being pro-pointless confrontations and arrests. I'm much more used to being attacked for "workerism", or in the words of some of our Trotskyist equivalents to your Womrades (genius word by the way) "parking meter socialism" and "pot-hole politics". I'm quite enjoying it, I have to admit.

Calm down Ed, Jeez.

Especially as what IAngry is saying is obviously true - that if you want to recruit people to your ideas big lefty events act like a filter. It doesn't mean you have to get involved in organising (un-)spectaculars, cos they'll happen anyway, but that if you could be bothered you could win some people over to your ideas far more easily than cold-"calling" the general population.

First off, I want to say sorry to IrrationallyAngry and Marinebroadcast. In my rush to get the post done before I had to go to work, I forgot this was Intro Thought. I realise you might not have had this kind of discussion before and I wasn't aiming this at you. As for the rest of you, well I've had this argument a million times before hence why I was pissed off.

Neither am I. But to me, it's like saying "there's no black and white choices between libertarian communist organising and rock climbing". Activism is a hobby, I don't give a fuck if you want to get involved in it but don't try and dress it up as serious revolutionary organising. It's fucking useless, it can't build an alternative to capitalism but it might get people interested in ideas that might follow on to radical working class politics. But (as John knows, as we've had this conversation a million times in person), most of the time it doesn't. As Catch has mentioned many times, we don't feel the need to get involved in Leninist groups but many Leninists become libertarian communists so why the need to get involved in dead-end bullshit activism? Fucking hell, at least everyone in the SWP believes in class struggle and organisation. That's a shitload more than I can say for the 'anti-authoritarian' movement.

How about you suck my fucking dick? Seriously, I see it as a sign of weakness that you have to bring in the fact that I'm younger than you to a political discussion. What the fuck? You know fuck all about me. What do you know about political organising? Do you have a tradition of socialist and trade union organising going back four generations in your family? Coz I do. Is that relevant to this discussion? No, of course it fucking isn't. So how about we stick to the points in the discussion, yeah?

I bet you wouldn't patronise me like this in person (not coz I'd glass you, but just coz you'd feel like more of a dick doing it in person). No doubt you'll get the chance coz tbh, out of everyone on these boards you're the only person on these boards I actually want to meet - just to see if you'll dismiss me as easily in person as you do online.

Why do they need to be engaged with? Because lefties are there? Who gives a fuck? No one (apart from other lefties). Question: were the G8 protests worth two years of organising and £200,000? Is this the kind of engagement you're talking about? Or do you just want to leaflet the Make Poverty History march? What does your engagement consist of? If it consists of lying to people about the possibility of shutting down the G8 then I'm not fucking interested. But I really do want to know: What does "engagement with summit protests" mean?

What points have I addressed which haven't been made? Examples, not psuedo-poetic bollocks dressed up as a political point please.

Nice one John, I'm glad to see your transition to Leninism is nearly complete. Seriously though, how is engaging with your neighbour or your workmates on a day-to-day basis cold-calling? Surely its much more like cold-calling to see someone on a lefty demo and think "ooh, I bet they'd like a copy of my leaflet". At least if you see someone everyday (or at least four times a week as I do my workmates), you get to build up some kind of trust which no protest could do.

Last point goes to the Button: yeah, you're right. The only reason I'm getting so frustrated is because I'm not arguing with idiots, its with people I have some respect for and I feel I've gone over this before only for them to ignore the points I've already made. And because I'm a little bit pissed after drinks at the pub with (one particularly fit) workmates and Jack Button, I love you. except for this bit:

As if I haven't already addressed this point a milion times! Oh, and neither has Catch! Jesus fucking wept!

Anyway, fuck you all. I'll see you at the bookfair. Serious words are to be had, comrades. Serious words.

i'll pass, but i appreciate the offer mate.

well, i did resist it for months The age is not directly correlating factor here, since there are plenty of young radicals who do not think that they hold the truth and lack the healthy dose of humble attitude what comes handy in these issues.

thats pretty cool, we should have another discussion about that. My dad was worthless arsehole junkie smackhead racist bastard, but if we leave him out my grandads father fought for the reds in the finnish civil war. Beat that matafaka!

Please don't glass me We wouldn't have this discussion face to face because you wouldn't have been so silly to repeat the same arguments without listening to others over and over again - if you had you probably would have been left ranting alone in the table. Online discussion is difficult, i often come across as more of an arse online than in person (honest!) and i hope the same is true for many others - or otherwise we are in trouble with movement full of sociopaths. Thats why we have to consciously give eachother benefit of a doubt and actually try to read and listen to the arguments.

I have tried to listen to the arguments, and take those into account when making my reply. I may not agree with it, but at least try to take the discussion forwards. If you keep on saying that people who do things such as anti-GM food work, anti-deportation work, solidarity work with third world people, environmental campaigining, anti-racist and fascist work, gay activism and so on are just rockclimbers, then you have to be prepared to be glassed yourself mate if you say that to peoples face.

lol!

Can we split this thread off, starting with Ed's post to an 'I'm pissed and posting on the forums' one?

TBH I think this is a bit of a dickish way of saying "You have an opinion which I don't agree with and I can't shake you out of it". I mean, you think you're as right as I think I am so to just turn around and say that I think I "hold the truth" is a bit of a pisstake really. You're not budging either so maybe you think you "hold the truth"? We can always play this game when we disagree with someone, its got nothing to do with politics and is usually just pulled out when someone feels they've got no more points to make in a discussion (much like the person's age).

Also, if age isn't a "directly correlating factor" then why bring it up?

Yeah, I did want to start another thread about this just coz I reckon its interesting how politics is (or isn't) passed down in families. Also, I reckon most people have some radical family past just coz of the nature of mass movements (i.e. they're big, innit ).

I promise nothing

Funny that, I could say the same thing about you! Seriously though, what point have you made that I haven't addressed? Just say it and I'll try to address it (or, most probably, direct you to a link where I already fucking answered it! ).

I didn't say any of this. In fact, I think I said the opposite:

Do you get what I'm saying? Seperating these projects from the class (through activism away from our daily lives) make them less effective. They might still be worth doing, but they won't be as effective. It is also a sign of our weakness (as a class) that we have to rely on these tactics. It doesn’t indicate any strength in the tactic.

Summit protests, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. We all accept that they're based on a lie (that you can shut down the summit) but what we disagree on is whether we should be involved in them. I think they're pointless and for all the effort that goes into them, they have little pay-off (i.e. not many people from the summit movements actually get involved in radical grassroots politics, usually just more of the same dead-end activism – much the same way as Leninists: some do, most don’t) and even bigger costs (financial, personal and legal).

As such, I don't see the need to rush to get involved because the first thing you have to say when you're engaging with people there is "yeah, but you know these protests are useless, right?" At least when organising where we live and work we can start from the point of how we can improve our lives.

I directed two points directly at you Lazlo. Are you not gonna address them? If not, why not? Here they are again in case you missed them:

1) What does "engagement with summit protests" mean?

2) What points have I addressed which haven't been made?

Not a derail (honest), just an observation.

When I was a nipper, being "an activist" was a good thing. We would talk about being a union/workplace activist, and one of the things we struggled to build was "a union of activists," i.e. one where the members didn't wait around for the full-timer or rep to "come & sort things out," but would take action with her/his workmates to adress their problems.

Now picture the scene. There I was quite happily doing my little anarcho thing, and I stumble across this website, and all of a sudden (or at least it seemed to me) being an activist was now officially a Bad Thing.

Clearly, I've missed out on a lot of recent anarcho-scene goings on. Lucky me, you might say. I certainly missed out on the period when summit protests were the be-all & end-all. Apparently. Or maybe that's a caricature of what was going on. I have no idea.

"Activism" was always dangerous, in that it led to burnout. And good riddance.

So what do we want? What do we seek to foster or encourage? Folk who are willing and able to take action to improve their lives & communities, but without becoming activists? Or am I missing something?

Genuine question, and rambling a bit, but I did have a couple of cheeky ones at lunchtime.

aye thats about right button, we want to help develop activity in areas that have direct consequences for ourselves, where we can make concrete demands and palpable gains. Of course, we don't want to be involved in some sort of crude parochial activitism eother, but rather recognise that real unity and internationalism stems from solidarity, a recognition of mutual interest that must come from the bottom up.

Fnarr! Fnarr!

So your mutual interests comes from your arse up through your mouth then? Is that what you Libcom-ites call from the "botttom up"? 8)

Well, it's unfair to reply to a drunk post when you're sober, so I was waiting for you to re-state your points in the light of day. I'm happy to answe your points, but not to rebutt every vague lairy accusation or rumour.

Thanks

What I've argued for is engagement in protest events in general. To me, the level of engagement has to change depending on how useful you think the vent is, and what the composition of the people attending is.

One reason I've supported Dissent! is that I didn't want to see Globalise Resistance walking off with some kind of 'anti-capitalist' image, or painting itself as the most radical section, etc. I'm pretty pleased that's happened.

I woudn't expect all class struggle anarchists to have similar concenrns and to put similar energy into making Dissent! happen. What I am arguing, is that a reasonable engagement with the G8 protests would have included attempts to put across anarchist ideas, and hold meetings where people interested in libertarian organising could get together.

In the case of the G8, the Edinburgh AF did a stall, and handed out copies of Resistance to Make Poverty History marchers, and fair play to them.

You've accused people of trying to create a movement 'based in a series of abstract protest movements', and not in dealing with issues of everyday life. No one has suggested this, it's just a lazy assumption/straw man.

well they do say it's the highest form of flattery.

Honestly though a bottle of wine would have been just as good.

ed bro, sorry for being an arse earlier. My concern about these angry attacks on one form of radical movement is this:

if so many fucking great comrades have come out of these movements, and continue to do so, who would like to deny that it is a potential organising ground.

To be so strongly against any involvement in various protest movements is much like some of the immigrants who are arguing for more immigrant control, so called "shut the door behind you" approach

Anyway, any libertarian group worth anything should be able to accommodate different approaches to this kind of small strategic issues which don't really matter that much.

JDMF i think your missing the point abit, Ed and others including myself got involved in summit hopping shit cos there was other visible gateway, we got involved in anarchism in spite of the activisty stuff not because of it.

And im sorry I think you;ll find we have got a lot more decent comrades out of Leninist groups yet we don't argue they are a potential organising ground.