Organising for revolution?

Hi

I’m probably alone in foreseeing the installation of a puppet government whose only mandate is to sweep away the existing parliamentary system to allow a network of neighbourhood councils to “break through Capital’s shell like a baby eagle” to replace the existing legislature.

Love

LR

Welcome to the board mate! Hope you will find it useful.

rather than getting bogged down on some irrelevant scenarios of "revolution" and pretending like we have any idea how it would happen, i would focus on the actual organising methods and style of anarchists here and now.

The main difference to many other revolutionary groups is that anarchists seek to put forwards ideas of mutual aid, direct democracy, direct action, solidarity and so on. So the aim is to empower the working class rather than use the working class to get power. The power of the state and capital relies on us, the majority class, to keep it going, and any action, any organising, any step to empower our class is eating away that power.

Now will this then end up in some bloody mess, or will it happen this or that way in some apocalyptic revolutionary situation which sounds like the predictions jhehovas witnesses talk about - i don't know, nor do i care that much. And i think anarchists spend far too much time on discussing these scenarios, in the expense of doing the much needed organising here and now.

Anyways, i am not very good in talking about those utopian situations, so i better not get too involved, and let some other people who have knocked all the books to give you better answers

ps. i gotta say mate, sounds like your workplace is buzzing with anarchists, whats up with that???

Hi

I don’t think we should be especially averse to working ideas through. It beats doing crosswords. It’s Ok for some people to sit on the fence though, whatever floats your boat my friend.

Chance would be a fine thing, but with no programme to guide the method, the actual organising remains ineffective or, worse still, counter productive.

Those aren’t very attractive options you’re offering there comrade. In conversation with everyday people I find they are much more interested in understanding how autonomous society would work than knowing where they can turn up to hand out leaflets.

Really? I get the impression that most anarchists share your perspective and only a small number (imagine how small that is) dare to construct a forward vision. I’d go as far to say that the option to defer offering positive alternatives to capitalism attracts many to the milieu, and accounts for the vast array of political positions that sit under anarchism’s umbrella.

Love

LR

Hi there billysmithbillysmith It's Steve from Preston. How are you mate? Haven't seen you for a while. You know the anarcho-syndicalist take on this don't you? Challenging the state and capitalism through the economic/political organisation - the a/s union. I can't answer for other anarchists, as I don't agree with their methods of organisation.

Others may not know the circumstances you talk about in your first post but it's up to you to explain or not as you see fit. Just a word of warning though try not to get embroiled in certain arguments if you get my drift.

Not all Marxists are for 'seizing the state' stuff, recruiting you to their sect, etc. Some of us are far closer to the anarchists in practical matters, and they to us. JDMF laid it out pretty well, which doesn't answer the question what kind of organizations to form, but hey, that's not an easy question.

Mostly, we need to defend and extend whatever allows workers the most room to maneuver, to exert their power, to become aware of their strength and use it. This may at times involve 'using' the formal institutions of the state, but that is very limited and not a 'strategy', but a tactical decision for a specific situation.

Mostly, it involves figuring out what people (including us) want in a fight, what they want to achieve, what they are ready to do (which may have nothing to do with what we are ready to do), to offer resources where possible, etc. That's the day-to-day thing.

Extending that outward is hard because the character and forms of organization of major social struggles seems to change over periods (the Paris commune was one form, the councils ar another and do not seem to take place in the more 'advanced' capitalist countries after the 1930's), so who knows what the 'appropriate' forms of such organizing are? That much will have to develop out of the character of the organization of labor and the forms of resistance that specifically target that organization of labor. That is part of the reason that effective resistance can be slow in forming in the face of a decomposition of labor and a recomposition of capital.

So for now, i think JDMF is on the right track for thinking about the daily grind.

Cheers,

Chris

I am a JDMFist myself as well 8)

Hey, it even sounds cool: 'JDM Fist!'

You know Maoists in the States +Canada try to copy the Black Block with their own "Red Fist"

it does indeed, and it is hereby Trademarked 8)

WTF would 'fed fist' mead? Federated and recallable fisting?

Er whoops corrected - it was "Red Fist"

Hi Billy I'm on here now so if you email I'll get it. Tuesday's best.

I think that the general distrust of the the structures of state and a releuctance to attempt to utilise them to seize power is a well founded one. Its important that we dont seperate our theory from practice or the means from the ends, if we want a society of free people, without hierachy or authority and based upon direct democracy then that is the way we must organise now or else what is there to stop those in positions of power within 'revolutionary' organisations simply consolidating their power in the event or any social uprising. If we want direct democracy, the abolition of political power and horizontal organisation then attempting to change things through hierachical and statist organisations simply repudiates these principles and turns them into abstract ideas or just ideology. The revolution will be the self emancipation of the working classes or it wont be at all. History is littered with examples of the pitfalls of allowing power to hijack the class struggle, the bolshevicks being the obvious ones but you can also see similar contradictions in the CNTs compliance and collaboration with elememts of the spanish army and politicians.

I think organisation is definately needed, but this is the self organisation of the working classes, with no compromise with politicians or bureaucrats, theory should never be subordinated to short term gains as these gains will only be worn down once again and we´ll be back at square one. So organisation should take place at the grass roots in communities and at work and never lose its revolutionary content or be recuperated back into the political system. No political party is revolutionary, they just play the role of revolutionaries. What will prevent the emergence of anybody in a position of power within anarchist organisations is the simple fact that they are anarchist organisations, how can someone seize power in an organisation that is organised horizontally through direct democracy, without representatives and based upon the participation of all its members?

i think we should let JDMF lead us forward. with a bit of a beard he could be the new messiah

Can't beat Nestor Makhno's 'Platform' for having enduring anarchist organisations with:

* Ideological Unity

* Tactical Unity

* Collective Responsibility

* Federalism

[http://struggle.ws/platform/plat_organise.html and http://anarchism.ws/platform.html]

Falls down at present on the first point. Without agreement on basic theory, on aims and goals, an effective organisation is impossible. Practice has instead been to try and include everybody inside a big, vague, anarchism without hyphens, which prevents any effective organisation forming.

The Friends of Durruti made a similar call in http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/fod/towardsposition.html

I love their use of 'slight' in:

can you cite examples please mate? I would have said it exactly the opposite, and i think we should base this kinds of claims on proper evidence rather than predetermined political claims.

All organisations have some level of ideological and tactical unity, platform does not have a monopoly on ideological and tactical unity. And i would claim that stricter the criterias demanded from this unity, smaller and more insignificant the group is - and it sounds like you claim exactly the opposite?

That old canard, eh? "Junta" is Spanish for "council." Nothing more.

This is how the AF organises, if that's any help.

We have formal membership, based on agreement with our Aims and Principles AND a commitment to work with the organisation. We all pay subs.

We meet once a year for a conference. At the conference we discuss political issues, elect officers, decide priorities and publications.

Three other times a year we have a delegate meeting(NDM). This is to deal with matters that come up between conferences. Conferences meet for two days, NDMs one day.

Groups and members have autonomy within the organisation. We decide our reaction to issues according to the A&Ps, but don't seek approval from others to do so. Anyone is free to write or speak in the name of the AF. We work on the principle of trust.

There is only one type of membership, no candidates or such like, everyone has the same say and vote (as long as they are bothered to express an opinion), everyone gets a chance to do a job within the AF. Nobody can hold a post for more than 2 years.

Isn't it 3 years? And every officer is up for election annually?

The organisations must be fluid, theoretically lucid, if theyre not then they will be easily defeated, youve got to be able to adapt to different situations while not abandoning the basic desire to abolish the existing order.

The organisations aim must not be its own self preservation and this is what tends to happen to bureaucratic unions, that their end goal is their recruitment of the biggest numbers and the perpetuation of the union as opposed to the realisation of any meaningful change. Anarchist organisations need´nt operate solely at work and most i think have some community role, i think its hard to seperate work and community or social life since its part the same social organisation and nothing under that social ordering of things can escape its influence entirely, however alliances with non revolutionary organisations and groups often leads to compromise with such groups and as such the repudiation of the ideal at the heart of any anarchist organisation and the following integration and neutralisation of the organisation leading to complete impotence.

I dont know enough about the anarcho-sydicalist unions to say to be honest, what is it that defines an anarcho syndicalist union from a syndicalist union? I´m guessing its the fact that the anarcho one is based upon the practice of direct democracy, the election of revocable delegates and not negotiating with the bosses but aiming at their abolition, right? This would make it harder for the union to become bureaucratic since its members would be in control of the situation.