Some time ago I was thinking about how an anarchist organization could become a full-fledged mass movement in a greatly unequal society such as the United States (or the UK).
As neoliberalist, washington consensus bullshit dominates the entire world to manufacture crisis after crisis; social democrats have essentially sold their souls to capitalism and embraced "technocrats". We have socialist parties across europe bending over backwards to embrace austerity - sometimes even faster and harder than the centre-right.
You'd think this collapse of a meaningful parliamentary democracy midwifed by the greatest global crisis since the great depression would lead to a great revival of leftism... but that seems to not be the case.
Instead, far-right parties like the Swedish People's Party or far-right political movements like the american Tea Parties (which are frequently racist and wholly bankrolled by rich fuckfaces) have combined extreme racism, classism with even more neoliberal policies. In the US, the political process has turned into tabloid like entertainment - with the most extreme, racist, hateful, classist scum gaining the most celebrity through a deeply reactionary mass media.
In europe, the far-right has made some gains that are, in some ways, worse than the US far-right. Contrary to what Slavoj Zizej thinks, these movements combine pseudo-populism, with a very clearly defined belief in free market capitalism.
Across the first world, politics has become entertainment - a reality in-and-of itself that is, amongst working people, as relevant to their lives as the tabloids are.
Poor people talk about how stupid other poor people are while needing government assistance, white people will go on and on about how immigrants or "thugs" are taking their jobs and taxdollars while their closest friends are people of color, and working class people will talk about "overtaxing our job creators" while hating their bosses. And, no matter how you spin it, this isn't just "a vocal minority". This is the greatest propaganda infrastructure in human history. It's Gramscian cultural hegemony ramped up to a million.
We anarchists need to take things a lot more seriously, and really try to build a mass movement that dispells racist myths, fights misogynistic beliefs, fosters class solidarity, and attempts to build a better society - one community at a time.
However, thinking locally and acting locally has its limits. We need a dual power organizations which can dispell right wing lies and educate working people. We need to bring back labor journals and maybe even a labor media. We need organizations which can actively help the poor through social welfare and to spearhead the redevelopment of areas or communities destroyed by capitalism. We need to start anarcho-syndicalist unions and directly democratic community assemblies.
We need to do alot. But with what money? How do we counter millions of dollars worth of propaganda in ensuring working people don't get any ideas?
The "social democrats" and bourgeois reformists have big business and bourgeois unions, as do the conservative reactionaries.
The radical right has some pragmatic wealthy patrons and some middle class fascists (and if the rise of the nazis is any indicator, big business throws money at anything that promises to protect their interests)
But what do we have? We can't appeal to the bourgeoisie like those other groups because, well, we want to do away with them. We can't just extort money out of working people to keep the lights on - considering they're the people being appealed to with revolutionary programs and ideas, not more bloody union dues.
If we want to build a mass movement to exploit this frustration and take the ball away from the far-right, we need tons and tons of money. Where do we get this money?
And so, after this essay thinly disguised as a thread OP, here's my question -
Should anarchists, libertarian communists, and leftcommunists attempt to appeal or ally to the petite bourgeoise? Is the petite bourgeoisie inevitably going to be a reactionary force? Should modify our ideas to allow for the existence of small businesses, mom-and-pop stores, and worker's cooperatives like Mondragon? Should we, for the sake of building a mass movement, explicitly ally with these forces?
And if not, why not? We need to radically change our modus operandi, as whatever we're doing isn't working, but is this where we should go?
Would such an act be like going into parliament, sucking up all our revolutionary fervor and replacing it with reformism? Should we try to change how we operate in some other way? Would attempting to not even work? Would making up some program small businesses and the like could support lead to a society that isn't anarchist? Would support for "small capital" be so fundamentally at odds with anarchist history that it is utterly heretical, like those dumbass rightwingers and racists trying to coopt anarchism?
Be gentle, this is probably the first post I'm taking seriously. Sorry about length, I've edited this down to the bare bones.
Christ this is way too
Christ this is way too big
TL;DR:
What the title said.
a small bussness is just as
a small bussness is just as capitalist as a big one, the class interests of there owners are directly opposed to our own.
radicalgraffiti wrote: a
radicalgraffiti
Basically what they said. Some of the small, local businesses that I've worked for actually treated me worse than some of the big chains that I've worked for.
Regardless of the political
Regardless of the political problems I don't get why you think allying with small business would give us shitloads of cash and a massive movement? They aren't that rich and not that many...
It would probably be about
It would probably be about getting a source of cash and stability than anything else. There are actually tons of small businesses in the UK (5 million) and exponentially more in the US. I'm not sure about other countries in the first world, but if the UK/US are any example there must be decent numbers.
Christ, that OP is like a pink elephant. Can a mod literally make the text font smaller through some BBcode wizardry?
agree with the naysayers
agree with the naysayers here...i meet a lot of radical liberals that are so called anarchists that often suggest this, but then again they usually come from a petite-bourgie background...no joke
small local and indie vs big bad corporations doesn't cut it for anti-capitalism...though you often saw that vein in anti-globe and lesser so in occupy movements
Instead of loads of cash we
Instead of loads of cash we have sound ideas and direct action and mutual aid and solidarity and what not to draw upon. Obv under the circumstances a bit more cash could be put to good use but it ain't gunna come from engaging in some form of slightly-more-ethical-or-at-least-a-bit-smaller-or-worker-led capitalist activity. There isn't any sense in the idea because anarchists know that capitalist social relations lead to negative outcomes and because we want our methods to reflect our aims, not just because we're highly principled, but because you can't build for anarchy with bricks made of capitalism.
When you're in business you make money or go bust, and if you're being funded by other 'family' business you won't be attracting any money if you're explicitly anti-capitalist and want to build a society where they no longer own a business. If it was a worker-led effort we would end up putting all our time and energy in making money, which involves doing things (like exploiting workers) which goes directly against our aim of furthering the class struggle!
Yes, we're facing horrible odds but your idea of buddying up with certain specific capitalists, or putting our energy into extracting profit from ourselves to put towards anarchist causes, would vastly diminish, and possibly nullify, anarchist organising's revolutionary potential and class struggle contribution.
Dear small business
Dear small business owner,
We'd like to smash the state and do away with capitalist social relations, and all forms of hierarchy and oppression.
Please give us lots of money to do this.
Yours,
The Anarchist Movement
P.S. if you could stop exploiting the workers while you're at it, that would be much appreciated too. Cheers.
Have you seen the 'Bailouts,
Have you seen the 'Bailouts, co-operatives or class struggle' debate and the co-operatives tag?
And there's another thread on libcom which I've not read, but looks quite interesting:
Dual Power and Lifestyle Anarchism
I'm think I'm going to have to pass on accumulating our own capital and in turn developing an interest in the welfare of capitalism. It's all about the class struggle and the abolition of capitalism baby! ;) In the UK prior to the post-war social contract, trade unions were 'friendly societies' which provided their members with welfare, etc. (the evolutionist Colin Ward incorrectly in my opinion regarded these as 'libertarian' alternatives to the Fabians' paternalism) and some workers were thus caught in a dilemma when it came to striking as they didn't want to jeopardise them. Tom Brown donates a section on these 'Coffin Clubs' in his pamphlet Trade Unionism or Syndicalism which I'll put on libcom soon (I'll post a link to it once it's up).
It's like the sanctimonious argument that all the leftist journalists in the 'evil' corporate media should 'drop out' (and in the process give up their willingness to withdraw their labour) and work solely for so-called 'alternative' publications e.g. the Morning Star or media co-operatives FOR TEH TRUUFS!!111!1:
Not all socialist anarchists
Not all socialist anarchists are opposed to the existence of small businesses; if the term "small business" refers to a single, independent producer that lives off his/her own labor (and doesn't employ anyone else). Basically, someone whose self-sufficient. Hence, Bakunin (of the collectivist tendency) wished to restrict the right of private property only to the product of individual labor. He and his followers wanted to put under the collective ownership and control by working people what was already collectively owned and controlled by the capitalist class, which would amount to being most of the economy. This would allow independent producers ("self-employed", "small businesses", etc.) to co-exist with others within the new economy, but in nearly complete isolation. Basically existing on the margins of society.
What I described above is only in the transition to a fully communist society. It's not an end in itself. I think it can be a step towards our goal, which is to do away with all private ownership of the means of production. What I think is going to happen in that transition, is that those independent producers are going to find it hard to survive in such isolation and with such limited means, that they’re going to have to join "the Commune" (if that is what you want it to be called). Much like their struggling today in our so-called "free" and "fair" market economy.
The reason why I say this is because we do not have to oppose this particular set of people, nor is it necessary to. They’re not immediately in direct conflict with our vision. After all, they only represent a small minority within the economy. After the revolution, we can tolerate them. In transition, we can as well encourage them to become part of our “Commune”. But that’s if you support a transition or an immediate step into a fully communist society. I don’t know.
stateless_crow wrote: Instead
stateless_crow
I don't know why you're taking the piss, that's as daft as the original post. All the solidarity in the world ain't going to pay for basic things like reimbursing people's travel to pickets, organising drives or fancy propaganda. That doesn't mean getting into bed with small business owners but there is a need to find the cash to step it up.
flaneur
flaneur
I don't know why I was taking the piss either, I don't think it was too excesivley piss-takey though... soz to NNN if it was.
Obviously it's necessary to fundraise for many organising activities and selling stuff is part of that, but I didn't bother saying so because the point being made was whether we should expand into new businesses, or somehow ally with existing businesses which I broadly disagree with... but now I'm remembering someone mentioning an anarchist bar in Berlin, which I think would be a cool thing to have in London too, and I probably would join a co-op who were going to set one up. But I think ideas like that are a bit different to the general 'lets do business' theme of the OP.
If we're going to bring the money-making/ fundraising side of anarchists stuff that already exists into the conversation- generally the stuff anarchists already do to raise money to do more anarchist things has a specific anarchist content and focus. The social relations and working practices involved in any anarchist income-generating activity are not at all designed to maximise profit or provide a wage for those doing the work either (with poss exception of cooperatives which do have wages and stuff I guess...). I think things that already happen like printing anarcho tees or selling papers or selling food at demos or whatever.... I think it's a distinctly different thing to suggesting we somehow ally with small businesses or aim to divert a large part of our energies into setting up cooperatives (presumably ones which work in a business-like fashion and sell stuff non-anarchists want)... in which case we'd be competing in a market and our principles and aims would become subjected to anti-worker market forces and such... I'm not against all anarchist money-making activity, but I think we'd probably have more impact if we continue to stick to our day jobs and put whatever funds we can (through buying publications/merch, paying dues/subs, donating etc) and organising energy we can into the movement, rather than establishing loads of coops and what not- the teaming up with small business thing doesn't work for either party...
stateless_crow wrote: Dear
stateless_crow
Sorry bzfgt I have no idea
Sorry bzfgt I have no idea what that second quote is talking about and how it relates to my effort at drafting out a letter to forge an alliance with small businesses and the anarchist movement (which (edit: I assume in theory) principally involves them giving us money to do anarchist stuff and us remaining politely opposed to, but largely detached from, from the class struggles taking place in small businesses).
As to my initial post on this thread- I do see that it was a bit daft how I phrased it (and my point was not well-made perhaps) but I still think there is a way of sort of saying something like that but not as open to accusations of daftness which distinguishes between fundraising to do more anarchist stuff by getting people (mainly anarchists) to spend their wages on anarchist-themed stuff (like at the bookfair) which has been produced in an anarchist way which relies mainly on people freely giving their time and energy and effort to get things done- and focussing on putting those efforts directly into anarchist stuff is better I think, rather than setting up cooperatives to make a profit and then spending that profit on anarchist stuff... yeah? I hope someone who can almost understand what I mean say what I'm thinking so I can go 'yeah, that's what I meant'... Edit: I will re-read, and possibly edit, this when I'm sober.
stateless_crow
stateless_crow
But that's what we've been doing.
We are living in the greatest depression since the 1920s - 30s. Inequality has, across the first and third world, grown like so many weeds. It has turned into "the socially liberal neoliberal party" vs. "The socially conservative neoliberal party".
Discontent, dispassionate apathy and the like have become the hegemonic feeling amongst working people.
We have alll the ingredients for a popular, radical mass movement,.
We can debunk any right wing lie thrown at us. We can dismiss the case for reformism. We have a radical alternative that is radically democratic and give power away from the capitalists and to the workers. There's not a whiff of austerity in our theories.
All our ducks are in a row, but the lack of crucial resources renders it all pointless. We have gold, but we can't do anything with it.
We don't even have a pro-working class newspaper, and god know's that it would resonate with working people a thousand times more than any Murdoch tripe.
We need a stable, consistent and reasonable sources on which we can build a mass movement. I'm not saying we should do what I propose in the OP (after reading responses, I'm erring on negative), I'm saying we need to definitely change our tactics in that regard.
(Also, not bothering small businesses when they go through their own labor "problems" wouldn't really be a pro or con, that's business as usual for them. We would have to formulate some fancy ideas the petite bourgeoisie and worker's co-ops would vastly like compared to the status quo)
The most simple answer that I
The most simple answer that I can think of to the question in the OP is this:
If the purpose is to expropriate the capitalist--to strip him of of all of his productive property and place it under the direct, democratic control of the workers, then anarchists must seek to ally themselves with the WORKERS in all capitalist businesses, be they big or small.
If the capitalist owner wants to join in as pall bearer to capitalism he must do so only on terms established by the workers; terms of complete equality with his former wage slaves. Otherwise he will be superfluous; we don't need him/her.
Nothing significant is to be gained and much can be lost by seeking alliances with the capitalists themselves while respecting their outdated property rights and social privileges.
Remember: we are all in a class struggle for life.
NNN, You rightly referred in
NNN,
You rightly referred in the middle of your introductory text to the contradictory ideas 'poor' people hold in contrast to the material reality of their own and their friends etc position and interests.
The best we can do is to work on making more transparent the reality of those contradictory ideas in situations where the objective conditions of a capitalism in crisis will tend to exacerbate the material contradictions. Part of that process involves encouraging collective resistance, solidarity and confidence amongst our fellow workers as a bulwark against the atomising and isolationist tendencies of everyday life that make us prey to illusory and harmful 'solutions' to our problems. That isn't easy but it starts with those we have the most direct contact with in everyday life.
Mass movements are not built as we might build a house but arise out of the material contradictions of life in this society - we are not alone.
On small businesses, we're
On small businesses, we're struggling against the existence of capitalist social relations. The logic of capital doesn't disappear because a business is "local", "small", "fair trade", or whatever.
On co-ops, you can hear about them from the anarchists:
http://libcom.org/library/participatory-society-or-libertarian-communism
http://libcom.org/library/bailouts-co-operatives-or-class-struggle-debate
Or from the bosses:
http://libcom.org/library/co-operatives-all-together
And they both agree, co-ops are a means to muffle the class struggle..
This is not to say that movements don't benefit from co-ops, but they're not and can't be a revolutionary strategy.
stateless_crow wrote: Sorry
stateless_crow
Sorry, the quote wasn't juxtaposed with yours in order to ridicule it, I put them together to contrast two perspectives but if one wasn't also reading the "Lenin" thread it would have little context. One was deriding the notion that small business would altruistically fund anarchists, at the cost of underwriting a movement for its own destruction; the further implication being that businesses for the most part are not altruistic, but act in their own interest. The other was insisting that left groups that receive funding from a parliamentary party are able to remain completely autonomous; the further implication being that the party in question does not necessarily further its own interest by funding them. It was a juxtaposition that referred back to anther thread, so it may have made little sense to those not reading that thread.
Fair enough, but I think
Fair enough, but I think cross-class alliances and receiving funding are not the same especially when the funding does not come from a parliamentary party in the sense that the programme of the party dictates what gets funding and what does not. That decision is made by federal committees who are in my experience usually very dedicated to the funding of grassroots events - actually antifa stuff gets the most funding. (would it provoke an outcry if I told you that my federal committee only has 3 Linke members out of 8 board members, the rest of which can broadly be considered as having a libertarian socialist background?)
I claim that most small left orgs are mostly autonomous in the sense that I have yet to see something get canceled because the RLS didn't fund something. It's usually more of a convenient financial relief than 'the financial drip without which all extraparliamentary groups would wither to nothingness'. That funding can be a tool of dependency is nothing I deny, but to claim the RLS could seriously alter the course of the broader left in Germany is to overestimate their power and financial capacities by a long shot.
Sorry to bring this up again but I do see a distinction here.
Yes, I know nothing of the
Yes, I know nothing of the details, so thanks for filling that in.
A Wotsit wrote: Dear small
A Wotsit
Oh Christ, that is priceless, lol. Nothing like a scoot through old threads when mining for comedy gold!