The WSM, activistists, and momentum in the British anarchism

Personally, I don't really see the difference between the WSM, and other Irish leftist organizations like the SWP.

I mean they both support the unions (witness Joe Black on whether we should vote in general secretary elections, about as radical as BLOC was), both are soft on left nationalism. Admittedly the WSM hasn't fallen into parliamentarianism yet, but I am sure it is only a matter of time before they end up advocating voting to keep somebody ‘nasty‘ out.

Also they both support all manner of leftist campaigns, and activism, which is what this argument started about.

I can't really see why people relate to them differently than any other leftists unless it is the fact that they call themselves anarchists.

Devrim

Re: John.

Good post however I don't see what an activist is. Who is the problem and what is your problem with them.

Is an activist simply someone who thinks that capitalism can be toppled by 'actions', as you said in your last post? Or is it something more? I think I see what you are getting at but I'll wait for you to say more until I respond.

john., just throwing this in the middle like...

but you have been saying this for good couple years. Now be honest: how much progress have you made outside the already politicised? (thats another way to call activists?)

This same old slogans you like to repeat is getting a bit tiring if only thing you have is criticism of how it shouldnt be done, eventhough vast majority of your own political activism is around libcom, which is a hangout place for hardcore politicos (before you try to counteract that, how long does your averahe non-political worker survive here before they get flamed to bits for having unrefined politics?).

Dont get me wrong, libcom newswire, features etc are awesome resource, the best shit on the net. But i am just confused of all this continnuous talk when the actions seem to be different.

i think you guys take the word "activist" and then define it to something so ridiculous than no one can but to agree with you

Why not just stick to normal definitions of the words? Makes it much easier to discuss things!

i get the impression that the whole quote about activist-ists having the most momentum is, to me, the fact that they deliberately go out and seek public exposure with what they do. i suppose in situ terms it would be seen as trying to create some sort of counter-spectacle, althoguh i don't want to go there. a lot of workplace stuff that people are doing is not the sort of thing that you'd 'report' on indymedia or the mainstream press because it lacks reportability. the black bloc trashing shit or a few EFers locking-on is extremely:

a) visual

b) immediately material

c) over all, very reportable

and so it creates an image that people can pigeon-hole as 'what anarchists do' because that's all they get to hear about. and that gets reinforced every time they hear about that sort of thing happening.

i remember reading an article in new left review by david graeber talking about 'the spectacle of the black bloc'.

i think, though, from my meagre experience is that there are a lot of people, like me, who do tend to straddle the two sides of the coin, participating in both 'actions' and more behind-the-scenes scurrying around and organising. i think that although there is a very clear distinction between different types of activism, the lines can be more blurred when you actually look at the people involved.

i agree, the specifics of actions can be somewhat lost in translation. i think the format of any action can cloud people's interpretations but again, as you say, it is more about practice than theory, and that should be stressed. the mayority of us are in the same boat, just using different types of oars that bump into each other from time to time. maybe one day we'll invent sails.

god i make myself sick sometimes

Yea, tbh I'm gonna try use activistoid on here from now on.

the majority of indymedia contributors in london at least seem to be that bloody Khoodeeelaaaaaarrrrr lot at the moment

NO TO CROSSRAIL HOLE: KOOHEEEDEEELARRRR TELLS GALLOWAY TO BLABLABLAH

hmm, read my big post. i'd be nearer JDMF on that one.

maybe it's because the distinction is more a construct of your own minds than a concrete, absolute divide between people who are purely activistists and people who are purely non-activistists. you're critiques are fairly reasonable in terms of those at one extreme, but you're forgetting a hell of a lot of people in the middle.

I think that perhaps Jack and John. have almost got to a caricature of anarchism. I don't think that activistoidism or whatever you call it is the prevailing current. Most anarchists I have met are involved in comunity projects and only rarely go to the big things, and have no illusions about them. What I have noticed is that most anarchists in principle avoid the word activist like the plague, associating it with either publicity seeking actions that are unlikely to achieve anything, or with people who have no interest, as mentioned above, with connecting to the community they claim to be helping.

It also makes me personally think of groups like the SWP or RESPECT who seek to exploit any expression of community power to further their own search for power.

I think that avoiding the word activist is a good idea, it suggests that the goal of the person is the activity itself, rather than the end result, which is worldwide social revolution.

Don't beat around the bush John! What do you know of Dublin Mayday and what happened after? If your refering to WOMBLES and WSM I think you find there are alot of friendships and admiration between them on a personal and political level.

And its fucking laughable that you think people are getting "kudos" or "class struggle respectability" - what a joke!

It's also not very difficult for someone from another country to come to London and see what has more momentum and what doesn't. Its also not very strange in what suggests such thing - mainly visibility, content and activity through political interventions something which the Libcom mafia constantly brush aside.

laters

raw

served!

rev rug i think that would just be activism rather that activismism or activoidism or whatever the hell its called - doing a specific thing for a specific purpose rather than endlessley moving from one ´action´ to the next in the need to ´do something´, and the associated like of the informal hierarchy/subcultural kudos that apparently exists in such scenes.

ftony´s got a point that there´s rarely a stark delineation though since the same people can do activities of different types.

Anything more concerned with spectacle than concrete gain.