In the real world

?

That's like saying slaves can't resist slaver because they're slaves!

It's precisely because the workplace is the point of origin of economic power that it is the place where that power is vulnerable. History shows our bosses and their state are really perfectly happy for revolutionaries to stand in elections, or run charities, or co-ops, etc. What they're afraid of is direct action on the job.

If by 'you' you mean me, the incredibly clever, handsome man behind the keyboard here, then no I'm not suggesting that. However, if you mean us, that is workers all over the world, as a class, then yes. I do think we're capable of it.

These revolutionary blood baths are just great for your skin, apparently.

Then you should have listened to them, you might have learned something.

A simple, easy to understand guide to the aims of anarchism.

Using mandated, recallable delegates.

Yeah, I agree that revolution is a prospect that frightens most workers rather than motivates them, but in the end that's what we're offering and we shouldn't lie about that just to be more appealing. I mean, we could say anything to make people like us, but if we're not telling them the truth what's the point? If workers like the 'constructive ideas' of anarchism but aren't prepared to struggle for it, then we've wasted our time talking to them. If we can't convince our fellow workers that a revolution is necessary, then we, as revolutionaries, aren't going to get anywhere are we? No matter how appealing we make ourselves (and I personally am very appealing).

Seriously, there isn't a lot to anarchist theory. I would regard that as the movement's greatest weakness, historically. For instance, I have Kropotkin's Fields Factories & Workshops on my shelf now, sat next to the three volumes of Capital. It's kind of obvious who the theoretical heavyweight was.

~J.

I really should be doing something productive between lectures rather than posting on libcom, but Weeler's approval makes it all seem worthwhile.

~J.

Maybe Tina and the others might be attracted to the ideas behind LCAP, OCAP, SeaSol and others for concrete things that can be done on a small scale in the here and now.

Well, no offense, but what you've seen isn't much. Go to any university or public library and the marxist theory outnumbers the anarchist theory by 25 to 1, I would estimate.

I would bet the total accumulated theory output of single SECTS within marxism would dwarf the entire anarchist canon, social or individualist.

Nope, I'm saying employees can't resist because they're not [puts on his best Trotskyite voices] workers.

Still flogging definitions from a 19th century book with about 18th century revolutions in the 21st century, tut,tut.

They're also great fun, if you survive the executions, famine and genocide you get all the fun of living in a totalitarian state, no end of things to whinge about then from an anarchist perspective.

So you're a "we're" now. Is this multiple personalities or do you have legions of Basque-like corngriinders to lead to war.

Perhaps they could have given me lessons on how not to become extinct. Or what it's like to be a member of a group 6 strong meeting in a pub and talking about "when we rule the world." Oh, wait, I can get revolutionary anarchists to do the second one.

or next time there's a famine in the world, say to the locals "sorry chaps love to help but can't do a damn thing about it till after the revolution completely pointless you see. After the revolution you'll all be fine, except of course you'll all have murdered long ago. And those people over there handing out food should stop immediately, and cut out that well digging and agricultural aid. Wait for the revolution..."

I think a lot of the answers to the questions originally timl posed in his original post can be found in the 'Aspects of Anarchism' pamphlet. I think what's needed is to spread these ideas to the masses, so that when the revolution comes, or when capitalism eats itself up and collapses, they have the knowledge there ready to take control of their own lives, organise themselves and work together. Isn't this what happened during the Spanish civil war?

One thought:

As was stated before talk of open revolution, at this point, scares people. People who would be useful allies to the common cause. That's why I think we need to start by helping people to empower themselves by informing them of how much power they as the workers actually do wield. When we get more people in the workplace starting to stand up by striking, holding sit ins, picket lines and myriad other tactics we can start the ball rolling more rapidly. Since we all know that those who are in control are generally unwilling to relinquish their grasp on the world the workers will begin to see that their efforts to effect change are being met with increasingly more heated force and the revolution will begin. We need to start with steps that aren't overtly violent to show the need for violence to the people. As more and more people begin to have less and less to lose more and more people become open to the idea of challenging authority directly and the backlash that will ensue will serve as the catalyst for revolution. At least from where I stand, we just need to appeal to the worker's sense of outrage at his plight and then engender that feeling that there is something that can be accomplished through direct action while at the same time pointing out the obvious faults of any state system. When the walls come down there will be many people with many different ideas on what the reformation of society will entail, therein lies the importance of voluntarism because if any one sect places itself above the interests of the others yet another central authority will be put in place. It is not a fight that can be won and done with but a fight that must be maintained in order to preserve the anarchy against those who would impose a new authority, those types will always exist.

I agree, it has to move from discussion to fruition. So go start a strike! Organize a massive walk out! Let's rock and roll!

You may say there is infighting on the 'anarchist' left. In the UK anyway anarchism is a tiny movement. But in any movement there is gonna be infighting. I personally will not want to work with people for example certain 'lifestlye anarchists' who do not seem to realise that anarchism(to me anyway) is about class struggle and a form of socialism without gulags etc.

I would also not want to be commanded and lead by groups from the authoritarian left.etc Tina have you read much stuff about the spanish civil war and the role anarchism played in that and Spains history?

Sure. This is a quick intro-

http://libcom.org/history/1936-1939-the-spanish-civil-war-and-revolution

Its relevant because its probably the best and most recent example of anarchists being in control or certainly influencial on large parts of spain. Its the perhaps the most successful anarchist experiment in history. To me its also relevant as it shows the dangers for anarchists of getting involved in parliaments.

Whereas for us communists-

~J.

Anarchism is about objecting to any imposed authority. It is about voluntary association. It does not preach a particular rigid structure, that's not how it works. To be an Anarchist is to object to outside control via subversion, force or any other means. Anything beyond that is personal politics.

Communism, socialism, Marxism, et all are not part of Anarchism. They are the offshoots of personal taste, viewpoints and voluntary associations. The only reason capitalism doesn't jive with Anarchism is that it is in itself all about control of the people by a ruling elite in the name of profit and it necessarily requires the dissolution of personal identity for the good of the machine. Anarchists often identify themselves with hyphens, anarcho-this, anarcho-that. That isn't Anarchism, it is Anarchism with whatever other ideology to which one subscribes added.

The solidarity or unity that we need to work toward is the end of authority. The rest is up to the people to decide via voluntary association. I have no qualm with working with anyone who is an Anarchist despite personal differences as long as they are willing to WORK toward anarchy. I would not think of telling someone that their personal views on how society and the way it should be restructured are wrong, that's not up to me to decide. If I were to try and advocate only a specific offshoot of anarchism that would make me rather authoritarian.

The fact is, different groups of freely associating people with personal liberty will voluntarily agree on what will work best for them according to the needs of their particular group. As long as that group doesn't seek to infringe upon the liberty of others not in line with it's own interest what business is it of mine? We all want the same thing, Anarchy. The rest is academic, to try and say otherwise would be non-anarchistic. So what I suggest is that we set our differences aside in the interest of working toward our one common goal. Anarchy.

In order to work toward that goal I would suggest federalism, freely associated groups voluntarily working together despite personal differences, agreeing voluntarily to unite based on the common goal, not ruled by a particular group or even delegates from all groups, but actual direct democracy in that everyone has the choice to agree or not. If you don't want a part in it, who am I to say anything about it? THAT'S what liberty is all about, the ability to secede from any association based on personal, voluntary choice. The choice to agree or to opt out.

.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that anarchism is anarchism despite any outside opinion. I'm, again, not here to argue principals. Personally I lean toward what I guess you would call Anarchist Communism, but those two separate (and they ARE separate) parts of my outlook don't coincide in a way that excludes other anarchists.

I'm not looking for "love". I'm looking for communication of useful ideas. The statement you just made says to me "we here at libcom are a group of like minded anarchists, we don't really have much room for people who don't see things as we do".

My only objection to what you call lifestyle anarchism is that it doesn't entail action in ending authority, it simply seeks to walk away into the alleys and feed off what it can find. Standing up to end authority is an important part of anarchism. To live an anarchist lifestyle is also to stand up for anarchist politics and social change, otherwise it isn't an anarchistic lifestyle at all, is it?

As to primitivism and individualism, well again, who the hell are you to say weather or not they fit into the "world you want to live in"? You can live in a community with similar desires and tastes to the ones you have and they can do likewise. It is not your call as to weather their outlook is productive, they are working toward social change in a way that suits them. As long as they don't try and force their way of life on you, what do you care how they choose to live? To say that you don't want them in your world is rather authoritarian, wouldn't you agree?

Personally I'm more of a direct action, front line fighting, in your face kind of revolutionary, but the revolution has room for all types of people who want to see an end to authority. As long as someone is working toward change, catalyzing world changing events in the future, you have no business telling them that what they are doing is not congruent with anarchism. Anarchy doesn't belong to you.