'Official Anarchism'

if that's what it actually means, unclear is a bit of an understatement. Since when does "official" mean "collaborated with the state during WW2" in French or any other language? And given that the ICC's criticism extends to today's AF and other anarchist organizations, I don't think my inference was that far-fetched.
Is there such a thing as "unofficial anarchism" btw, and if so how does the ICC define it and what does it make of it?

This piece is genuinely terrible, though. And the "View related topics:
Political currents and reference >> Leftism >> "Official" anarchism >> Anarchist Federation" bit would seem to confirm that you see the AF as both leftists and official anarchists. And claiming that "The degree to which the AF has broken with its leftist past can be measured by their position on the trade unions that is virtually indistinguishable from the typical leftist approach." is just completely inexplicable.

I can get some rough understanding out of the term "official anarchism". There are brands of anarchism that can seem fairly indistinguishable from a left-close-to-trotskyism position.

But the term "official anarchism" is still just not very accurate.

I think the ICC gets into trouble by talking about phenomena that have some validity but speaking loosely at the same time. When they get criticized for this, they sometimes circle the wagons and defend their terms rather than looking for a clearer way to express their ideas. Clearly explaining their ideas would work better.

Official anarchism might be replaced in the original ICC text by "anarchists aspiring to official recognition within the left". I would say just making this substitution is better than get embroiled in terminology arguments.

Once you're using a somewhat accurate terminology, talking about where the different groups are going would be easier.

"anarchists aspiring to official recognition within the left"?

As opposed to those who give weirdos on the ultra-left the time of day?

I would agree with Red, especially considering the fuller context of the diss at "official anarchism" being included with Trotskyists and (ex-)Maoists. Too many self-described anarchists are creepily cozy not only with individual Trots and Maoists, but also tactically and ideologically with their groups. The desire to be an indispensable part of The Left is one of the most serious dividing lines distinguishing anarchists from each other. The coalition builders, the popular frontists, the ones who are happy to be arrested, the ones who lobby for improved media coverage/reception... they are the ones who should be avoided. Even if they call themselves "class struggle" anarchists, they seem to have little understanding of the class position of Leftists as the left-wing of capital...

The ICC has described the AF as 'anarchist defenders of capitalism' and 'the bourgeoisie masquerading as proletarians' so if they write other shite about us it's hardly inexplicable. It's just their standard operating procedure.

And what I've read about French anarchism during World War 2 I don't think the ICC's line has any basis in reality either. Certainly despite very poor health Voline, who I know is a big influence on the French speaking Anarchist Federation, was actively engaged in putting out internationalist propganda against the capitalist states on both sides.

Not just in France. Most famously, Rudolf Rocker supported the Allies.

Hey, I think the new blood in the ICC might be working...

I agree that this wording is poor and inaccurate.

It seems that sorting this out and picking more accurate terminology would go some way towards mending functional relations between internationalists.

It comes to me somehow strange how revolutionary anarchists here see "official anarchism" as offending. Personally I think official anarchism is clearly implying a relation with collaborationism and probably it might even first "invented" by anarchists like Baluis of Friends of Durruti against the CNT and not Left Communists themselves;

http://recollectionbooks.com/anow/arch/tafr/
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001780/

Obviously there is not any government anarchists in existance right now but as many people here said anarchists aspiring for "official recognition" within left is not a phenomenon of distant past. In fact probably in countries where anarchism is relatively weaker such as turkey, one of the most important problem of anarchism is finding themselves isolated and thus vacilliating between left and marginal activism. So I find this term still very relevant. If ICC changes this term I think that would not be the result of an "opening towards anarchism" because as far as I can observe it is actually -maybe also with the CWO- the most open organization in communist left towards the anarchists.

Sorry mikail but it really is not clear for anyone not versed in the details of the Spanish Revolution, which is most people in the "proletarian milieu" (awful name btw, you should change that one first.). I certainly had no idea that CNT collaborationists were called "official anarchists" (and I'm still not sure whether that was a derogatory/ironic name that others gave them or if they called themselves that; the former I assume). At the very least you could explain exactly what you mean by adding a footnote in that article. You should also say whether official anarchism is an entirely historical development or whether you see it as extending to today's anarchism (in particular the IWA-affiliated groups and other non-platformist groups).

When I was an anarchist there was basically three historical moments that defined my positions, 1st International- Paris Commune, Russian Revolution and Spanish civil war. So I generally tend to think that the experiences of FoD was really important and crucial for anarchists. Sorry if I am mistaken.

Obviously it is ICC's concern first. Not mine

I did not say that. But probably this line of reasoning first belonged to anarchist revolutionaries like Berneri and FoD. I might be wrong though... I hope I am not.

I can speak only for myself since I am not in ICC; I am impressed by the activities of groups like IWA and AF. When I was an anarchists my comrades -and at first me too- were more inclined towards a WSM kind of a platformism; At that time IWA or AF was much more less appearent -at least for us-. As far as I can follow IWA and AF which are clearly internationalist are getting stronger and I regard that as a positive development - clearly related to the relative strengthening of working class strugles.

Just out of curiosity - I'm not thinking about joining - but would the ICC accept members who called themselves anarchists? I'm assuming it isn't necessary to be Marxist as I think Devrim has stated somewhere that he wouldn't call himself a Marxist.

I can think of a couple of groups with fairly coherent politics that had both anarchist and Marxist members. Stinas' group in Greece and the old Solidarity group in Britain are two that come to mind.

The ICC is very much a Marxist organisation.

since no one else will, i'll bite. a very short honeymoon then?

Devrim;

ICC platform;

http://en.internationalism.org/node/606

We have an old saying in turkish for that;

Bu ne yaman çelişki

Redhughs point is valid

We can form up the wagon's sometimes, and he is correct to say that we need to try and think of better ways of explaining what we mean at times.

To this end I would like to just take up his point

This is not too clear either, it imparts the idea that those defending the positions of the Left of Capital are seeking to do so to be accepted. Some of them may do this, but others would say they are hostile to the Left. So this does not really clarify things. The point we try to make in the Platform is that they adopted positions of the Left of capital, for whatever reason. It is a question of what positions you defend, above all around the question of internationalism, not intentions. As with other leftists, those anarchist that adopt the same general framework as the rest of the left, may have the best of intentions, but despite themselves end up defending state capitalism

It may worth quoting the whole of Point 13 of our Platform to explain this in greater detail

[url=The counter-revolutionary nature of the "workers' parties"]http://en.internationalism.org/node/618[/url]

Steven raises the question of accurate terminology and it is clear that this is important. However, the main question is the understanding of the principles and method for understanding a question. This is where the Platform is important. We are all agreed on the method used by the Platform to address this question, which as Devrim says is the basis of membership of the ICC, but precisely how to explain it there can clearly be differences. Thus, in discussion with other groups, comrades etc it is important to establish whether there is agreement on the principles and method or not or whether it is a question of terminology. We may not be too good at this a times, but this is our concern.

As for the question of the level of understanding and following of anarchism within the ICC, this varies from comrade to comrade. But as comrades of a organisation whilst we may not have a high level of understanding of this or that question through being part of a collective organisation we can draw on and contribute to the organisation's understanding of say anarchism. So for example on the question of the AF, as Devrim said, there is a discussion of our position on this group in order that all comrades can contribute to our understanding and discussion of this question. In this way we are trying to ensure that when we do come to a final position all comrades understand why we have adopted such a position, and any disagreements there may be are as clearly understood as possible.

Devrim, what do you describe yourself as, then? I assume you would call yourself a communist. What about historical materialist?

This makes good sense to me, and I am sympathetic. There is also the baggage that comes with 'Marxism', the fact it is claimed by Stalinists, Maoists and Trotskyists, with their tendency to revere 'great leaders' and gurus. I think it easier to convince people who are new to revolutionary politics that these counter-revolutionary tendencies are not communist than that they aren't 'Marxist'. It is also more important to do so.

I appreciate Devrim's attempt to convey meaning to those "outside the fold" because, honestly, a lot of the ICC's terminology is indecipherable outside of it's membership (speaking from a personal perspective). Often terms used by the ICC end up meaning something very different from what I read them to be. This probably leads to lots of stupid and acrimonious threads on here, and who knows what else otherwise.

in my case, 'decadence'. a comparison of the plain dictionary meaning of this word, with the performance of markets since 1918, would leave a person baffled. tho' i've come to know what it means, i think it was a poor choice of term.

While I wholeheartedly agree, I don't think the word, in this context, was coined by the ICC.

While I understand what the ICC are getting at here, surely a term like "official anarchism" is bound to cause confusion, particularly if it's applied to groups like the AF, who, despite any political disagreements we might have with the ICC, are not by any means leftist or in favour of collaboration with the state.

Perhaps "leftist anarchists" would be less prone to misunderstanding?

Hello.

Devrim states above that he is a historical materialist. I wonder if he or another could provide me with a definition of this term. The precise meaning of it is unclear to me at present.

Goodbye for now.