LibCom Party
Aug 23 2006
Won't waste anyone's time trying to argue the merits of this idea, because anyone who subscribes to this forum should be well aware already that there are no individual solutions to corporate plutocracy and empire and that forming some sort of mass organisation is (or should be) a minimum requirement for anyone wishing to maintain a harmony between what comes out of our mouths and what we actually do. If that's true, then insofar as we fail collectively to organise in such a way that we pool our individual strengths we're all a little bit full of it, I think.
Was thinking about this and it occurred to me that without mass organisation, without praxis and without ongoing efforts to work collectively, to cooperate, to share time and space (as opposed to being isolated in front of computer screen, of course), the dream of a better world beyond plutocracy and empire remains sort of a more sophistocated escapist fantasy for those who ask questions and don't get bought off by the prepackaged escapist fantasies rolled out for the obsequious and submissive.
Have been thinking about the idea of empire lately and the way mechanisms of power reproduce themselves in our behaviour without us being aware of it. As far as I can tell, empire functions on the basis of schizophrenia and doublethink, or a willing confusion of form and substance. On the surface plutocracy looks and sounds democratic, when it is in fact authoritarian, if not covertly fascistic. By the same token, resistance in the form of Anarchism or Libertarian Communism remains a false opposition as long as the split remains between forms, between what we say, and substance, what we actually do. In fact we become more of a false opposition (and even arguably more conservative than the system we oppose) as long as we cling to our moral pretenses and refuse to face our own internal inconsistencies. Empire is as its strongest where the pretenses are strongest and the fear of confronting inconsistencies between thought and action the greatest. Ironically enough this means that without organisation Anarchists and Libertarian Communists are in fact the greatest bulwarks of empire insofar as they give it the appearance of tolerating criticism and dissent, and therefore a stamp of legitimacy.
Perhaps the reason why we fail to organise and present a credible threat to plutocracy and empire is because we sense this intuitively to be true, and that as soon as we move against empire in daily life we overcome the inconsistencies between thought and action which might actually present a credible threat. As long as we talk and do nothing the empire still carries us under its paternalist wing and protects us. I for one believe the managers of social decay within the plutocracy understand this better than we tend to give them credit for; they may be patholgically venal and corrupt but the last thing they are is stupid.
If I was them I would probably want to give us some breathing space as well, because if we ever get organised, they don't stand a chance.
Aug 23 2006
#2
Feighnt wrote:
... pardon, i dont get it?you do know a lot of the people who post here are part of Anarchist or libertarian communist organizations which are working on changing the world (or, at least, their own countries, for now)... dont you? i really dont think just about anyone here is arguing or even vaguely implicitly supporting anti-organization or disorganization...
Did I imply that anyone is? If I said anything that sounded like a statement of the obvious it was a necessary evil in the course of establishing common ground. Wasn't trying to take a stab at anyone as such.
If you read the post carefully I hope you'll realise that I acknowledged that people in this forum *are* committed to organisation, which is why I didn't try to insult you by telling you what you already knew. What I am interested in is the ideal of a mass libertarian communist organisation and how it might be achieved, but the first step in that process imo is understanding what might be standing in the way of it appearing. While I've tried to offer the basis of a critique as rigorously as possible I also hope no one takes it as a personal attack, because that's not what it's meant to be.
The issue is not why we are anti-organisation; the issue is why we have failed thus far to realise the sort of mass organisation that would create a harmony between our ideals and our actions and actually give our ideals some potential to be realised. Here we are talking about two issues, and to confuse the two is to avoid the essential point that there are noticable improvements to be made in libertarian communist and anarchist praxis, and that even anarchists can reproduce structures of coercion and control in our own behaviour so long as we confuse form and substance. The issue is not that anarchists and libertarian communists are against organisation as such, but that total refusal necessarily involves the kind of mass organisation through which total refusal in thought can be translated into total refusal in action, and that insofar as the potential for total refusal in action remains to be realised, there seems to be an inconsistency between what we say and what we do. Obviously in this I'm including myself and in so doing criticising myself as a self-identified anarchist as much as anyone else.
In any event, I'm a member of the collective that maintains anarchosyndicalism.net...so yeah, I know. I don't flatter myself however by pretending that our collective is going to change the world all on its own, and I don't consider it any sort of substitute for mass action where I am in the physical, 'real' world.
Aug 23 2006
#3
Your basic arguments appear to be that democracy is not democracy and that we need to act if we are to change things.
Even I know that.
Aug 23 2006
#4
i think his basic argument is anarchists talk up a good game but fail to deliver. The big talk actually reinforces that which we seek to oppose/destroy. Any lack of real responses or interaction with society in general just highlights how mercilessly inadequate anarchists are at even attempting to overcome their own political identity.
Anarchism in this country is essentially a talking shop and a bookfair.
Fair point.
Aug 23 2006
#5
coffeemachine wrote:
Anarchism in this country is essentially a talking shop and a bookfair.
it's not much different in australia, which means it's probably not much different anywhere.
Aug 23 2006
#6
coffeemachine wrote:
i think his basic argument is anarchists talk up a good game but fail to deliver.
And he combats that by taking a huge amount of verbage to say very little. Seems to me like he's part of the problem.
Aug 23 2006
#7
absolutely. We are, all of us, a small antagonistic contradictorary collection of individuals you share the same hobby, to suggest otherwise is a kind of self-regarding delusion that allows us to play out our hobby without undue or outide interference. Anarchism is something we do in the privacy of our own indulgence.
Aug 23 2006
#8
Hi
Quote:
Anarchism in this country is essentially a talking shop and a bookfair.
Just as well. Anarchist/Communist ideology isn't fit for purpose.
Love
LR
Aug 23 2006
#9
LR wrote:
Anarchist/Communist ideology isn't fit for purpose.
Har. Aside from the paradox of a communist ideology, why not Lazy?
Aug 23 2006
#10
Lazy Riser wrote:
HiQuote:
Anarchism in this country is essentially a talking shop and a bookfair.Just as well. Anarchist/Communist ideology isn't fit for purpose.
Love
LR
considering which, you seem to spend a hell of a lot of time posting on an anarcho-communist board!
Aug 23 2006
#11
i see your point, horselover, and i agree with it to some degree...
in general, i've considered stuff like syndicates or unions to be ideal as serving the "mass organization" role for Anarchism and such (in which case, the wobblies here are an example of attempting just such a mass organization), although i admit that those might exclude lots of people since they're based on jobs, and, of course, not everyone has a job... that being said, does not the IWW accept the unemployed?
i wonder if the issue isnt so much that people havent tried to make mass organizations in modern times, but, rather, that it's really difficult to get a good mass organzation which actually stays true to the ideals. these days, at least, it seems that attempting to make a mass Anarchist organization (or whatnot) would likely result in a "Synthesis" concept (as suggested by Voline and the like way back, when they were trying to fight against the Platform)... and this might tend to attract all sorts of folk (and result in a much too loose organizational style) so as to make the organzation ineffectual, though large.
but i'm not going to suggest there may not be ways around that (and it'd be interesting to hear if anyone has any ideas regarding that).
part of the difficulty today, i think, is that Anarchism or a libertarian type of communism/socialism is rather off the radar for most people... i mean, everyone here must've heard a million times some dork coming along saying stuff like "Anarchism isnt a form of socialism because socialism is about centralizing power in the state." the difficulty of making a mass Anarchist or libcom organization amongst so many of such people is really considerable...
it's a bit of a depressing thought, but it strikes me that the movement for free socialism has kind of been put back to the formative years of the 1800's 
though, the movement has *lots* of lessons from the past, so isnt quite as naive as back then...
anyway, i'm gonna stop rambling.
Aug 23 2006
#12
Hi
Volin wrote:
Har. Aside from the paradox of a communist ideology, why not Lazy?
Well, presumably the function of anarchist-communist theory is to develop an anarchist-communist revolution. It hasn't done much of a job, and it just makes me wonder if maybe the whole gig is just a bit wet.
Most people don’t want anarchist-communism, and maybe it’s not because they’re brainwashed by the ideas of the bourgeoisie. Maybe it really is a load of rubbish, as demonstrated by its inability to deliver anything useful. I mean at least capitalism gets them fed, which is more than can be said for the combined talent of the entire left mileu to which anarchist-communism belongs.
Love
LR
Aug 23 2006
#13
Lazy wrote:
presumably the function of anarchist-communist theory is to develop an anarchist-communist revolution. It hasn't done much of a job, and it just makes me wonder if maybe the whole gig is just a bit wet.
Most people don’t want anarchist-communism, and maybe it’s not because they’re brainwashed by the ideas of the bourgeoisie. Maybe it really is a load of rubbish, as demonstrated by its inability to deliver anything useful. I mean at least capitalism gets them fed, which is more than can be said for the combined talent of the entire left mileu to which anarchist-communism belongs
which makes me wonder, again, why you're so keen to post on an anarcho-communist forum!?
personally, i think it does deliver quite a compelling critique of contemporary society
as for whether capitalism gets people fed - well, it does if you live in financial metropole#2, not quite so much if it's Niger.
and you have to work excessively hard for capitalism to get you fed then - might be better to talk about people getting fed despite capitalism
Aug 24 2006
#14
Hi
john wrote:
which makes me wonder, again, why you're so keen to post on an anarcho-communist forum!?
Check my profile and find out.
Quote:
as for whether capitalism gets people fed - well, it does if you live in financial metropole#2, not quite so much if it's Niger.
Ha ha. If it wasn’t for capitalism you wouldn’t even know Niger existed. Last time I checked, no-one I know was losing any sleep over the starving millions, they must be really cruel is all I can say. If all anarchist communism gives is a speculative thirdworldism, its even rubbishier than I thought.
Quote:
and you have to work excessively hard for capitalism to get you fed
Don’t make me laugh. Planned economy? No thanks.
Love
LR
Aug 24 2006
#15
Hi
this isn't an argument for working class autonomy, it's a very basic apology for capitalism.
I know Niger exists due to a combination of social systems (education, states, media companies), but more importantly the people that populate them - I get them despite capitalism's best efforts to keep them from me!
there are quite a lot of people losing sleep over the starving millions.
I never argued for a planned economy - if that's the best alternative you can think of to capitalism then I feel a little bit sorry for you
Aug 24 2006
#16
jef costello wrote:
coffeemachine wrote:
i think his basic argument is anarchists talk up a good game but fail to deliver.And he combats that by taking a huge amount of verbage to say very little. Seems to me like he's part of the problem.
don't blame me if your perceptive skills are weak.
Aug 24 2006
#17
coffeemachine wrote:
absolutely. We are, all of us, a small antagonistic contradictorary collection of individuals you share the same hobby, to suggest otherwise is a kind of self-regarding delusion that allows us to play out our hobby without undue or outide interference. Anarchism is something we do in the privacy of our own indulgence.
bravo. maybe to understand that is the first step to developing an authentic anarchist consciousness (or the last?)
Aug 24 2006
#18
Feighnt wrote:
i see your point, horselover, and i agree with it to some degree...in general, i've considered stuff like syndicates or unions to be ideal as serving the "mass organization" role for Anarchism and such (in which case, the wobblies here are an example of attempting just such a mass organization), although i admit that those might exclude lots of people since they're based on jobs, and, of course, not everyone has a job... that being said, does not the IWW accept the unemployed?
i wonder if the issue isnt so much that people havent tried to make mass organizations in modern times, but, rather, that it's really difficult to get a good mass organzation which actually stays true to the ideals. these days, at least, it seems that attempting to make a mass Anarchist organization (or whatnot) would likely result in a "Synthesis" concept (as suggested by Voline and the like way back, when they were trying to fight against the Platform)... and this might tend to attract all sorts of folk (and result in a much too loose organizational style) so as to make the organzation ineffectual, though large.
but i'm not going to suggest there may not be ways around that (and it'd be interesting to hear if anyone has any ideas regarding that).
part of the difficulty today, i think, is that Anarchism or a libertarian type of communism/socialism is rather off the radar for most people... i mean, everyone here must've heard a million times some dork coming along saying stuff like "Anarchism isnt a form of socialism because socialism is about centralizing power in the state." the difficulty of making a mass Anarchist or libcom organization amongst so many of such people is really considerable...
it's a bit of a depressing thought, but it strikes me that the movement for free socialism has kind of been put back to the formative years of the 1800's
anyway, i'm gonna stop rambling.
Ramble away, please.
I guess the reason i got bummed with syndicalism after years of sustained activism was the fact that the plutocracy is well and truly in effect, and the project the IWW and others started 100 years ago assumes a public space that i think no longer exists. The corporations have overtaken the governments of the world and the laws restricting the freedom of movement of unions are so oppressive that the only action open to organisations like the IWW are direct actions...occupations, sit down strikes, etc, actions that could just as easily be supported by an organisation not orientated towards legality within a totalitarian, plutocratic system of government. I think we lost the battle for legal existence within capitalism, and would probably do well to recognise it and move on. Anything we do openly will be squashed before it ever gets anywhere. There are plenty of books around on HUAC and Joseph McCarthy for anyone who imagines otherwise.
I think our problem is that we spend so much time bitching about Trotskyists that we develop an unhealthy prejuidice against being members of (anti-)political parties ourselves, which I think is a reflection of a tangible negative gearing within the anarchist movement and part of the tendency characteristic of empire to define oneself in opposition to an Other, instead of formulating positive ideals of one's own.
If we are back to the early days of socialism, at least we know what not to do this time around.
Aug 24 2006
#19
Lazy Riser wrote:
HiVolin wrote:
Har. Aside from the paradox of a communist ideology, why not Lazy?Well, presumably the function of anarchist-communist theory is to develop an anarchist-communist revolution. It hasn't done much of a job, and it just makes me wonder if maybe the whole gig is just a bit wet.
Most people don’t want anarchist-communism, and maybe it’s not because they’re brainwashed by the ideas of the bourgeoisie. Maybe it really is a load of rubbish, as demonstrated by its inability to deliver anything useful. I mean at least capitalism gets them fed, which is more than can be said for the combined talent of the entire left mileu to which anarchist-communism belongs.
How wise of you to work out that anarchism is not that effective, by what staggering intellectual feat did you come to such a conclusion. Yes, as you have boldly showed, at this current conjecture in time, anarcho-communism has nothing to offer me, and you're right it has nothing to do with me being''brainwashed'' but more to do with the futile slaughter that any revolution would be likely to be and the global nature of social problems, never mind the fact that like mosyt of the rest of us due to our atomised alienated society and absense of clear praxis, i currently couldn't organise a piss up in brewery let alone contribute creatively to the self management of my workplace and society.
However, since you have offered no alternative other than a rehashed attempt to radicalise social democracy along with some pathetic moralist cultural relativism about what you bizarrely perceive to be the 'middle class', and all in all considering you spend your days offering us all your vague pseudo-theoretical ramblings on your blog, i'd suspect that you are hardly in a position to sit on some high horse and comment on what is worthless to the 'people' whoever 'they' may be.
Thing is i happen to agree that the anarchist movement, is balls and we should focus solely on day to day issues, however the way you came to this conclsuion, your method of arguement, and your paranoid obsessions with delusions about 'the left', the 'middle class', the absense of 'ideology' and anything that doesn't fit in with this thompsonite class war style worship of a 'class for itself' seem to be a pile of utterly mindless shite.
For someone who has supposedly 'left communist ideology behind for the brave new frontier of economic self management' or whatever, you seem to be carrying an awful lot of leftist baggage with you
Aug 24 2006
#20
Hi
Cheers for those kind words Cantdo. Needless to say your personality disorder renders your political position defunct.
Love
LR
Aug 24 2006
#21
Lazy Riser wrote:
Cheers for those kind words Cantdo. Needless to say your personality disorder renders your political position defunct.
assuming that's the joke, thats some a-grade leftist bagage, coming from a mentally unstable dissident 
Aug 24 2006
#22
Hi
Ho ho. I suppose you might be right. I've got some strange ideas, but I tell you, I always try and be civil. I just don't understand what's wrong with the likes of Cantdo. It’s as if they’re so humiliated offline that slagging imaginary people off on the internet is their only way of letting off steam. Bless.
Love
LR
... pardon, i dont get it?
you do know a lot of the people who post here are part of Anarchist or libertarian communist organizations which are working on changing the world (or, at least, their own countries, for now)... dont you? i really dont think just about anyone here is arguing or even vaguely implicitly supporting anti-organization or disorganization...