Specifically anarchist organisations

i share your reservations, to my mind the real anarchist movement isn't this or that ideological group but the actual forms of struggle and organisation that arise from the working classes own mass struggles.

This is not to say that anarchist groups shouldn't exist to argue their positions and insights but they shouldn't mistake themselves for the actual organs of struggle and resistance.

instinctually the idea seems decent to me, but then i get myself to thinking "what could a specific Anarchist organization do which a broader one couldnt?" while a more specific organization would undoubtedly remain much smaller, and could take the form of the "conscience" of the broader working class struggle (i'm sure saying that would make many people here disdain the concept, though keep in mind that the FAI was, more or less, created for precisely that role), it may remain ineffectual precisely due to the (likely) smallness.

with that said, i'm still friendly to the idea. i dont think so many problems ought to arise, as long as the organization is realistic and doesnt attempt to become a vanguard (in the authoritarian sense) which attempts constantly to reign in the working class movement and use it for its purposes. it seems decent if, opposed to this, they just stand out and frankly say "this is what we're for, and yes, we're organized specifically for achieving these aims - this doesnt mean we'll co-opt you, especially since doing so would most likely destroy the goal we're going for" (ie: you just become Leninist). ideally, such an organization would also be less prone to the change due to the external political climate (in less specific organizations, many members who are less committed will likely join the organization in times of heightened conflict/publicity, but will leave after things die down a little and become business-as-usual, hindering the ability to *sustain* growth... perhaps?).

but, all that really depends on what the specific Anarchist organization sets as its (immediate and intermediate) goals and methods of action. if it throws away good sense and ends up co-opting, it will fail to achieve a good end... but if it is too modest, it will simply be a tight kind of study-group with the occasional action here or there, and will be doomed to death through stagnation...

or so i'd imagine, anyway.

I think talk of Leninism and vanguardism here is a red herring. Obviously if you're an anarchist it means you think there are particular ways that are effective at winning struggles - i.e. anarchist ways (direct action, direct democracy). We would like as many people as possible to adopt these tactics, because history has borne out that they are the most effective. IMO of course. This isn't "vanguardist" in any negative sense.

On the point of involvement in struggles as an organisation, I see this as the main difference between something like WSM and say the AF. I'm aware of struggles WSM and also NEFAC have been in as organisations, like WSM and the water charges struggle, but not so much the AF. I can see how it could be good in mass struggles, like anti-war, or the poll tax or whatever, but on a personal level it would make me feel a bit uncomfortable in a way, to separate yourself from other people by representing an "external" organisation...

yes John and that is why no one has problems with propaganda groups, workers coming together with other workers who feel the same and arguing their positions but there is a world of differance between this and mistaking such groups as the actual revolutionary movement. I mean it's like the current Spanish CNT, they exist as a network or union of militant workers but they always push workers assemblies and they argue within them as fellow workers.

I think you're misunderstanding the point. It's not, for example, that you set up an "anarchists for housing reform" campaign and only allow anarchists to join, it's that the anarchists join the "people for housing reform" and coordinate their activity within it. In practice this means that we act as a unit in arguing for democratic structures, direct action as a tactic and so on, in opposition to the various other groups that will seek to influence the campaign - liberals, trots, reformists and so on. The alternative is to let the other currents take control. As any trot will tell you, a small minority acting in concert can exercise effective control of a much larger organisation.

Yeah sure but not just as "propaganda" groups but ones that engage in particular kinds of activities. I haven't seen any evidence that say the WSM or NEFAC have mistaken themselves for the revolutionary movement. What does that even mean? From that water charges course above, it seems like they acted well, and from the article it's obvious they were just a group of workers within this movement.

anarchism doesn't need anarchists

Shit. I'd just written a load of stuff and then erased it.
When we go to meetings we say, "I'm a member of the AF", don't we? If not we should.
We discuss these campaigns at group meetings and at NDMs and Conferences. We collectively agreed to back Defy ID. To be honest, it would have collapsed if we hadn't.
The WSM and NEFAC are just a bit tighter about the way they do these things.
My unease about "social insertion" is that I reckon we should mostly throw ourself into campaigns which directly effect us. When we do this, the organisation should provide moral and physical support for what we do.
But yes, we are often a vanguard. So what?

Er, I don't think you're correctly using the term Leninism properly here. I think if some campaign is "directed by anarchists", i.e. anarchist ideas and tactics become the prevailing ones in the campaign, it will mean the campaign will be run directly democratically, and will use direct action. I think this will make the campaign the most effective. And as you're an anarchist you'd think you would too. And being the driving force in a campaign doesn't "separate you from the class" or anything, that just doesn't make sense :?

Hi

When in fact anarchists don't have any of the answers. Or, indeed, the questions.

Love

LR

yes, on the subject of 'vanguardism', this from the Platfrm:

In other words, I think the need was identified for a guiding light of sorts, both by the deilo trouda lot after the Russian Revolution and also by the Friends of Durruti during and after the Spanish Civil War. The difference, I think, between a guiding light and a vanguard is that the vanguard claims to know the ultimate truth (like maybe the ICC) whilst a guiding light just keeps up a collective vision of the goal as well as providing criticism and thought and facilitating thought and conversation. Concience is a good word.

The word "vanguard" used to be used by anarchists too. It wasn't invented by Leninists. Within class society, the class structure has an effect on working class consciousness, tending to lead to a sense of powerlessness as a single individual against very powerful institutions, of deference to one's erstwhile "superiors", while at the same time generating feelings of resentment at being dominated, used. In short, a contradictory consciousness. Within the class, however, there is a very great diversity of views in the sense that there are always minorities that see farther in terms of class interests, who see the possibilities of collective class power, but at present those who see the potential for completely doing away with capitalism and replacing it with a socialized, selfmanaging economy are a minority. Also, some are more passive or fatalistic whereas others are more willing to fight back, and more active in working to develop a fight against the dominating classes. Looking at it this way, the "vanguard", as a social layer, are those who see the farthest in the direction of class liberation, who are the most militant and committed to struggle for change, those who take initiatives, etc. Prior to WWII, anarchists sometimes used the term "vanguard" to refer to the more radical minority, those who were "in the advance guard of social progress" (to use a phrase from Emma Goldman). During the revolution of 1936 in Spain the FAI referred to itself as la vanguardia del proletariado. There was an anarcho-communist mag published in New York in the '30s called "Vanguard." Mujeres Libres in Spain said in its statement of purpose that its aim was to "create a female force" to "act as a vanguard of social progress" in Spain.
So, you get the idea.

The mere existence of a social layer of activists, initiators, organizers, publicists, etc. does not make this "vanguard" "vanguardist". It depends on the role they envision, and try to take on. It's clear that for Lenin the "vanguard party" was to become the management of the new society. They were to occupy the positions at the summit of the state, management and engineering positions in industry. Lenin and Trotsky were both big fans of Taylorism ahd began beating the drum for one-man management as early as 1918. And their preference for top-down central planning, begun in Nov 1917, implied that the "vanguard" should run things. This falls out of Lenin's assumption that it was the intelligentsia's possession of the "correct theory" that entitled them to make the decisions -- essentially a form of meritocratic ideology, such as that used to justify the position of the college educated professional/managerial class in the USA today.

So, as I see it, vanguardism is the approach where an erstwhile "vanguard" attempts to gain hegemony over social movements through concentration of decision-making power and expertise in its own hands, as this prefigures the type of class structure characteristic of the socalled "Communist" countries.

But a "vanguard", in the sociological sense explained above, need not be vanguardist in this sense. It could try to do just the opposite, working to empower the ordinary working people, by building organizations based on participatory democracy, developing methods and institutions for building skills and sharing information among people in general, building up the leadership skills of the rank and file, working to encourage initiative and participation on a broad basis, etc.

t.

Hi

As per Reich, the sociological vanguard's lofty vision dooms them to failure, because the real life of individuals is played out on a different level than the one they understand.

Love

LR

A useful reminder that words do not always mean the same thing to everybody, that we need to go a bit deeper.

When the Friends of Durruti called for a 'revolutionary junta' it had a very different meaning in 1930s Spain that it commonly has in Ireland/Britain in 2006.

When I hear the word 'junta' I think of a gang of South American generals in dark glasses who have just staged a coup. In Spain it simply meant a committee or council.

When I hear the word 'party' I think of a political group that would like to be in government. But 'party' simply means a group of people, in Mexico the anarchists in the time of Magon called themselves the Liberal Party. It didn't mean that there were either 'liberals' or a 'party' as we use the words here and now.

And 'leadership'.. It can be 'trust me/the party because we have proved that we know what's good for you', or it can be offering suggestions (giving a lead) and trying to win influence for your ideas.

Seems to be like the whole "dictatorship of the proletariat" thing. Terms like vanguard and dictatorship can be very easily highjacked by the power-hungry and used to justify themselves. Whilst the ideas between the words or phrases might be crack on, there are negative connotations. Kind of like anarchism, socialism, communism, etc. etc. Which kind of brings us back to that one thread recently 'We Need a New Name.'

and by nature if a campaign is run along anarchist lines this necessarily means that it cant be hijacked by political leaders or specialists?

practically *anything* has the threat of being taken over by authoritarians, even very loose propaganda groups, if the authoritarians are really determined about it. for Anarchists to stand back and only offer criticisms and propaganda (no matter how important such things are) certainly wont *in the least* keep authoritarians from hijacking campaigns. if Anarchists are able to spread appreciation for Anarchist forms of organization and such during a more broad campaign, it means that these methods are approved by the broader group. you cant necessarily just expect, however, these broad masses of people to just up and make everything themselves just because they've accepted the wisdom of it - largely because, many of these people arent accustomed to this stuff at all, are unsure of themselves, etc, and would like some people to lead the way and show them how it's done. this doesnt imply authoritarianism or anything at all, you can teach and organize without standing above other people just fine.

but i fear that, if Anarchists *dont* try to do this when they're able to get the appreciation of the people, it will simply lead to a power vacuum - which the genuine authoritarians will happily occupy.

(edit) and before anyone accuses me of this - no, i dont mean to apply what i'm saying here to stuff like running for governmental positions or silly stuff like that.

Alan on libcom. Amazing.

The thing is though that's what an anarchist-directed campaign is.

Also it's inaccurate to talk about the FAI as some quasi-Leninist "vanguardist" group either, I'm not sure where that came from. Maybe Bakunin's Alliance for Social Democracy or something but no one argues for anything like that any more.

I don't really understand your point. When the WSM gets involved in campaigns, our aim is exactly to use our anarchist perspectives to influence the campaign, to argue for our point of view, because we believe those ideas are beneficial.

Another point that hasn't come up, is it that this isn't a one way street,with us outside of the campaign, sending our influence in. We are part of the struggles, the struggles influence us. For me that's where real political education occurs. If you aren't part of a struggle, the propaganda you produce will often be, I think, sterile and and abstract. It is precisely because we realise that we don't have all the answers that we take part in struggles*. We know that we need to constantly challenge and develop our own politics and the way you do that is by being involved in the some of the many struggles that exist in society.

(* well, thats one of the reasons, we're also trying to selfishly make the world a better place to live in in the short term, and help build skills and confidences needed for the long term, but thats another argument .....)

Do this, do that!

Come on man quit it with the straw man.

Ie platformism...

em, because as I said, being involved in struggle, challenges and informs your ideas. There is nothing like contact with the the real world to sharpen your thinking about an idea. Am I missing your point here? Are you staying that being involved/not being involved in struggles makes no difference to the political development of a group???

It's undemocratic? Now I'm very confused. When we were involved in the fight for abortion rights in Ireland, we always argued that the campaign should include speakers who supported free, safe abortion on demand on their platforms. Were we undemocratic to do this? Should we have stuck with a more popular, more limited demand instead (like 'abortion rights for 14 year old rape victims')? I really can't understand how raising an argument within a campaign is undemocratic? How else are we supposed to try and change peoples ideas?

I agree with you on the X-man thing though, I'd like to be able to blow up walls.