Why is Anarchism Marginalised?

139 posts / 0 new
Last post
back2front's picture
back2front
Offline
Joined: 15-03-09
May 10 2009 14:39
Why is Anarchism Marginalised?

The majority of posters on here. although they may disagree on the minor details, accept that anrchism is the only philosophy that can unchain the proletariat. If anarchism is such an all-encompassing philosophy why is it so marginalised and unpopular and why, ultimately, is not on the lips of every worker?

Skips
Offline
Joined: 10-03-09
May 10 2009 14:48

It does not get the publicity it deserves. It has been repressed by the status quo. It is not taught in the education systems (the ones i have went through). Some of the groups in Britain anyway seem to me to be clique and unapproachable. It is the one system all the others are scared off because as you know it destroys the crappy lie that we need a government/state to live our lifes in peace. Propaganda does not reach the working class.

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
May 10 2009 16:39

Because of this post.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
May 10 2009 17:07
Farce wrote:
Because of this post.

Pretty much

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
May 10 2009 20:40

exactly what i was going to say.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 10 2009 21:07
back2front wrote:
The majority of posters on here. although they may disagree on the minor details, accept that anrchism is the only philosophy that can unchain the proletariat. If anarchism is such an all-encompassing philosophy why is it so marginalised and unpopular and why, ultimately, is not on the lips of every worker?

it's a fair question. i think the best propaganda is practice - demonstrating that our ideas get results. as anarchists have very little industrial/community presence, i think propaganda efforts from purely political groups outside workplaces are always going to have a limited effect. i think there's no quick fix, and we need a medium/long term strategy of political-economic organisation; building networks of militants on an industrial and regional basis, who can advocate our tactics and demands in their workplaces and industries - tactics which on proving popular and successful should win more people to our ideas, expand such networks and thus increase the influence of anarchist ideas within the wider class.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 10 2009 21:12
sickdog24 wrote:
Some of the groups in Britain anyway seem to me to be clique and unapproachable.

i think there's some truth in this, but it's a problem people are aware of. i've just got back from solfed's national conference, and retention/attraction of members was one of the topics under discussion. i think the AF have also made some efforts in this respect and it has paid dividends in increased membership enquiries/applications. so, hopefully things are moving in the right direction on this front; the task's big enough without creating problems for ourselves.

back2front's picture
back2front
Offline
Joined: 15-03-09
May 11 2009 07:08

Whay has admin not fixed my awful typo...

back2front's picture
back2front
Offline
Joined: 15-03-09
May 11 2009 07:16
Joseph Kay wrote:
back2front wrote:
The majority of posters on here. although they may disagree on the minor details, accept that anrchism is the only philosophy that can unchain the proletariat. If anarchism is such an all-encompassing philosophy why is it so marginalised and unpopular and why, ultimately, is not on the lips of every worker?

it's a fair question. i think the best propaganda is practice - demonstrating that our ideas get results. as anarchists have very little industrial/community presence, i think propaganda efforts from purely political groups outside workplaces are always going to have a limited effect. i think there's no quick fix, and we need a medium/long term strategy of political-economic organisation; building networks of militants on an industrial and regional basis, who can advocate our tactics and demands in their workplaces and industries - tactics which on proving popular and successful should win more people to our ideas, expand such networks and thus increase the influence of anarchist ideas within the wider class.

Propaganda by the deed yes but what form does it take that it is popular? Does it need to use the dreadful banality of pop culture (TV screens, glossy magazines, dull and heartless pop music etc) to appeal to a culture that gets its knowldege and experience via these mediums?

If you go into a workplace and start calling everyone 'comrade' and using bookish lefty lingo about 'dispossessed proletariats' and 'spectacular society' how many people are going to be inspired? I think a major propblem with anarchism is language, we tend to use terms which are perhaps unsuitable in this day and age, and concepts which are perhaps only relevant to the previous century. We need to use language that ordinary people can identify with, don't we?

But yes, whatever lingo we go for it needs to be aimed at the workplace itself and I agree that external political groups are self-limiting unless this fundamental concept is grasped.

back2front's picture
back2front
Offline
Joined: 15-03-09
May 11 2009 07:21
sickdog24 wrote:
It does not get the publicity it deserves. It has been repressed by the status quo. It is not taught in the education systems (the ones i have went through). Some of the groups in Britain anyway seem to me to be clique and unapproachable. It is the one system all the others are scared off because as you know it destroys the crappy lie that we need a government/state to live our lifes in peace. Propaganda does not reach the working class.

See my last post - it does get publicity but it's the methodology of that publicity that strikes me. Repression is probably the most significant factor, agreed. As for cliques it's certainly true - it's Peoples' Front of Judea and Judean Peoples' Front a la Monty Python - rather than merging there is a tendency to split usually over semantical definition. But why does the propaganda not reach the working class? The question is most important. Why are we not getting through and moreso what can we do about it?

Alderson Warm-Fork
Offline
Joined: 24-12-08
May 11 2009 08:24
Quote:
anarchism is the only philosophy that can unchain the proletariat...why is it so marginalised and unpopular and why, ultimately, is not on the lips of every worker?

It's marginalised and unpopular because it's the only philosophy that can unchain the proletariat. Look at all the salvation-promising doctrines that stand as its rivals: Leninism, nationalism, social democracy, liberalism - they all provide a route for an aspiring elite to take power, all provide followers with an emotionally satisfying leader and comforting expectations that someone will solve their problems for them.

That at least strikes me as the biggest differentiating factor. To put it another way, under capitalism capitalist ideas are hegemonic, and anarchism seems absurd because it's the furthest from capitalist ideas, while crappy statist ideologies seem more sensible.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
May 11 2009 08:49
back2front wrote:
Joseph Kay wrote:
back2front wrote:
The majority of posters on here. although they may disagree on the minor details, accept that anrchism is the only philosophy that can unchain the proletariat. If anarchism is such an all-encompassing philosophy why is it so marginalised and unpopular and why, ultimately, is not on the lips of every worker?

it's a fair question. i think the best propaganda is practice - demonstrating that our ideas get results. as anarchists have very little industrial/community presence, i think propaganda efforts from purely political groups outside workplaces are always going to have a limited effect. i think there's no quick fix, and we need a medium/long term strategy of political-economic organisation; building networks of militants on an industrial and regional basis, who can advocate our tactics and demands in their workplaces and industries - tactics which on proving popular and successful should win more people to our ideas, expand such networks and thus increase the influence of anarchist ideas within the wider class.

Propaganda by the deed yes but what form does it take that it is popular? Does it need to use the dreadful banality of pop culture (TV screens, glossy magazines, dull and heartless pop music etc) to appeal to a culture that gets its knowldege and experience via these mediums?

If you go into a workplace and start calling everyone 'comrade' and using bookish lefty lingo about 'dispossessed proletariats' and 'spectacular society' how many people are going to be inspired? I think a major propblem with anarchism is language, we tend to use terms which are perhaps unsuitable in this day and age, and concepts which are perhaps only relevant to the previous century. We need to use language that ordinary people can identify with, don't we?

But yes, whatever lingo we go for it needs to be aimed at the workplace itself and I agree that external political groups are self-limiting unless this fundamental concept is grasped.

Well I don't think anyone would suggest waltzing into a workplace and talking calling people 'comrade', or using lefty lingo. I think the strength of libertarian communist arguments about workplace struggles is that they're usually the correct ones, and the best ones for advancing the material interests of those involved. So the visteon article that was posted here shows that anarchist arguments and commonsense dovetail in these respects, however far away from common sense and the real world lots of anarchists are.

Comrades in Glasgow involved in the school occupation struggles also had a lot of success just by getting stuck in supporting the action practically. When they were discussing their politics they were successful precisely because they articulated that anarchism was about what these people were doing, and that that mutual aid from the movement was available. As a result theres links between the movement and the campaign, to everyone's benefit. LCAP, though they're a bit more 'diffuse' politically, have had a lot of success in linking up with workers, claimants etc in struggle by offering practical solidarity, whatever the criticisms of that organisational model.

Generally the movement is lacking in co-ordinated industrial organisation, in the sense of getting militants in the same sectors aware of one another and working together. There have been attempts towards this from different groups, but there needs to be a much better effort.

On the other point I'd say good presentation, design and print quality are essentials for succesful propaganda - we've been working hard on this in the AF recently for instance. I don't think this has got much to do with 'pop culture', not that I think 'pop culture' is any worse than 'subculture' or whatever.

For an example of the style of writing we should be going for I think Tea Break is sound.

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
May 11 2009 13:34

I do think there are probably some problems with the internal culture of the movement, in that it tends to be disproportionately made up of the relatively privileged, university-educated layers of the class - not that there's anything wrong with those people being involved, or that they don't have anything to contribute, but I do think it's dangerous if a culture then develops that's inaccessible to people from more deprived, less educated backgrounds. I don't really have any great suggestions to overcome this, tho. It's made trickier by the fact that since Thatcherism and the defeat of the unions, there aren't really any existing examples of mass working-class organisations that we can compare ourselves against.

Skips
Offline
Joined: 10-03-09
May 11 2009 13:37
Farce wrote:
I do think there are probably some problems with the internal culture of the movement, in that it tends to be disproportionately made up of the relatively privileged, university-educated layers of the class - not that there's anything wrong with those people being involved, or that they don't have anything to contribute, but I do think it's dangerous if a culture then develops that's inaccessible to people from more deprived, less educated backgrounds. I don't really have any great suggestions to overcome this, tho. It's made trickier by the fact that since Thatcherism and the defeat of the unions, there aren't really any existing examples of mass working-class organisations that we can compare ourselves against.

Got an idea. How about leafleting in Council estates? Get some flyers together and hand them out? That will do it. Or perhaps this has allready been tried?

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
May 11 2009 13:50
sickdog24 wrote:
Got an idea. How about leafleting in Council estates? Get some flyers together and hand them out? That will do it. Or perhaps this has allready been tried?

I agree that leafleting council estates is a worthwhile activity, but the problem is that it has to be connected to some kind of a relevant issue. F'r instance, while the Lewisham school occupation's ongoing (or even just while the broader campaign's going on), leafleting estates around the school informing local residents about the situation and giving an anarcho perspective on it would be a totally worthwhile activity. In the absence of a directly relevant issue like that, I think that, I'm not convinced that just going around council estates with a leaflet saying "hello poor people, would you like to be anarchists?" would be very productive.
Altho I also wouldn't say that you have to wait for something as big as a school occupation to come along before activity in working-class areas becomes worthwhile - f'r instance, if the people who did the Hereford Heckler delivered that door-to-door in nearby council estates, I think that'd be worthwhile.
But I think the major point here is that there's not a single magic bullet that'll create a mass working-class anarchist movement, you could write the best most accessible anarcho rag in the world and deliver thousands of copies in working-class areas and you'd still probably only get a very few people interested. So it goes. (Not that I'm totally pessimistic about the possibilities for the growth of a mass anarchist movement, I just think that the factors that'll make it possible are mostly beyond our control.)

back2front's picture
back2front
Offline
Joined: 15-03-09
May 11 2009 14:02
Farce wrote:
I do think there are probably some problems with the internal culture of the movement, in that it tends to be disproportionately made up of the relatively privileged, university-educated layers of the class - not that there's anything wrong with those people being involved, or that they don't have anything to contribute, but I do think it's dangerous if a culture then develops that's inaccessible to people from more deprived, less educated backgrounds. I don't really have any great suggestions to overcome this, tho. It's made trickier by the fact that since Thatcherism and the defeat of the unions, there aren't really any existing examples of mass working-class organisations that we can compare ourselves against.

Yes this is definitetly an aspect of it, agreed. The original Class War newspaper for all its faults had a very broad appeal in it's day, and Ian Bone suggests that it was because it used the language of the working class. Which of the following headlines has more appeal on that level? This is a question rather than a statement.

1. The government has betrayed the lower classes again by siding with corporate interest over peoples rights. Workers must create a united front and fight for their class.

2. Gordon brown is a cunt! Get the fucker!

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
May 11 2009 14:31
back2front wrote:
Farce wrote:
I do think there are probably some problems with the internal culture of the movement, in that it tends to be disproportionately made up of the relatively privileged, university-educated layers of the class - not that there's anything wrong with those people being involved, or that they don't have anything to contribute, but I do think it's dangerous if a culture then develops that's inaccessible to people from more deprived, less educated backgrounds. I don't really have any great suggestions to overcome this, tho. It's made trickier by the fact that since Thatcherism and the defeat of the unions, there aren't really any existing examples of mass working-class organisations that we can compare ourselves against.

Yes this is definitetly an aspect of it, agreed. The original Class War newspaper for all its faults had a very broad appeal in it's day, and Ian Bone suggests that it was because it used the language of the working class. Which of the following headlines has more appeal on that level? This is a question rather than a statement.

1. The government has betrayed the lower classes again by siding with corporate interest over peoples rights. Workers must create a united front and fight for their class.

2. Gordon brown is a cunt! Get the fucker!

I do think that Class War's approach was really positive in many ways, and I'd rather read CW than Aufheben or Voices of Resistance From Occupied London any day. The problem is that the "working class" isn't homogeneous - a lot of the time 2'll be more appealing, but what about the significant sector of the class that're OAPs? Sure, some OAPs probably will respond positively to 2, but a lot of them won't. And that's a shame, cos old people like grumbling about stuff, so they've got a lot to contribute to the revolutionary movement. I think probably the biggest danger of the CW approach is that it can lead you to avoid talking about complicated ideas in case it sounds pretentious - I don't think that talking about complicated ideas in a way that actually is pretentious is that much more useful, but there has to be some kind of a middle way.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
May 12 2009 11:56
back2front wrote:
The original Class War newspaper for all its faults had a very broad appeal in it's day, and Ian Bone suggests that it was because it used the language of the working class Which of the following headlines has more appeal on that level? This is a question rather than a statement.

1. The government has betrayed the lower classes again by siding with corporate interest over peoples rights. Workers must create a united front and fight for their class.

2. Gordon brown is a cunt! Get the fucker!

I totally disagree with this. As far as i can see either you argue for socialism or you don't. The sort of populism attempted by people like ian bone is just the equivalent of trots hiding their politics in front groups and supporting the labour party because in their heads they think thats where ''the workers'' are.
There are issues with how you express things, but i'm not keen on lefties or anarchists claiming they know what level the rest of us can comprehend or what language we supposedly understand.

I still think it comes down to thinking what anarchism has to offer people in the here and now. Anarchism has no workplace presence and very little community impact.

back2front's picture
back2front
Offline
Joined: 15-03-09
May 12 2009 12:14

To reitaterate - that was a question and not a statement but I'd wager that more people would go for the Class War approach - what I'm angling at is broader and popular appeal per se and some long-winded socialist rant is far more likely to bore the arse out of your trousers and remain unread and ignored. I think Class War had many faults but it built up a huge circulation by this 'popular approach'. If you think their circulation suggests otherwise that's up to you, indeed where do YOU think the worker's heads are and what is your alternative? That is the question this post is asking really so, yes, the issue remains around HOW you say things. Clearly the current methodology is not doing the trick and this explains on one level at least, why anarchism has little presence in the workplace. If the hearts and minds of workers are influenced so strongly by tabloid media and pop culture styles might not we use those same mediums for our propaganda? Again it's a question and not a statement.

back2front's picture
back2front
Offline
Joined: 15-03-09
May 12 2009 12:23
Farce wrote:
back2front wrote:
Farce wrote:
I do think there are probably some problems with the internal culture of the movement, in that it tends to be disproportionately made up of the relatively privileged, university-educated layers of the class - not that there's anything wrong with those people being involved, or that they don't have anything to contribute, but I do think it's dangerous if a culture then develops that's inaccessible to people from more deprived, less educated backgrounds. I don't really have any great suggestions to overcome this, tho. It's made trickier by the fact that since Thatcherism and the defeat of the unions, there aren't really any existing examples of mass working-class organisations that we can compare ourselves against.

Yes this is definitetly an aspect of it, agreed. The original Class War newspaper for all its faults had a very broad appeal in it's day, and Ian Bone suggests that it was because it used the language of the working class. Which of the following headlines has more appeal on that level? This is a question rather than a statement.

1. The government has betrayed the lower classes again by siding with corporate interest over peoples rights. Workers must create a united front and fight for their class.

2. Gordon brown is a cunt! Get the fucker!

I do think that Class War's approach was really positive in many ways, and I'd rather read CW than Aufheben or Voices of Resistance From Occupied London any day. The problem is that the "working class" isn't homogeneous - a lot of the time 2'll be more appealing, but what about the significant sector of the class that're OAPs? Sure, some OAPs probably will respond positively to 2, but a lot of them won't. And that's a shame, cos old people like grumbling about stuff, so they've got a lot to contribute to the revolutionary movement. I think probably the biggest danger of the CW approach is that it can lead you to avoid talking about complicated ideas in case it sounds pretentious - I don't think that talking about complicated ideas in a way that actually is pretentious is that much more useful, but there has to be some kind of a middle way.

Yes, that's what I'd be interested in, a middle way but there isn't an all encompassing method so the populist approach still has appeal. I never took Class War seriously but I know it did get people talking and laughing together which is a positive but yes the complexity of argument is lost among the Beano comic antics. The pretentious thing was one of the faults I'd agree and the scrap-now/talk later ethos ended up as a weight wround their necks. I think it would be possible to use aspects of it alongside more reasoned arguements within the same paper for example and that way it might have the necessary broader appeal?

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
May 12 2009 13:36
back2front wrote:
Yes, that's what I'd be interested in, a middle way but there isn't an all encompassing method so the populist approach still has appeal. I never took Class War seriously but I know it did get people talking and laughing together which is a positive but yes the complexity of argument is lost among the Beano comic antics. The pretentious thing was one of the faults I'd agree and the scrap-now/talk later ethos ended up as a weight wround their necks. I think it would be possible to use aspects of it alongside more reasoned arguements within the same paper for example and that way it might have the necessary broader appeal?

I'd pretty much agree with all of that. I do think Resistance, while probably being less fun than Class War, does do a decent job of managing to be readable and not dull while also not dumbing down its politics too much, but then I'm in AF so I would say that. tongue Some of the freesheets produced by local groups are really good as well.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 12 2009 19:02
back2front wrote:
Propaganda by the deed yes but what form does it take that it is popular? Does it need to use the dreadful banality of pop culture (TV screens, glossy magazines, dull and heartless pop music etc) to appeal to a culture that gets its knowldege and experience via these mediums?

If you go into a workplace and start calling everyone 'comrade' and using bookish lefty lingo about 'dispossessed proletariats' and 'spectacular society' how many people are going to be inspired? I think a major propblem with anarchism is language, we tend to use terms which are perhaps unsuitable in this day and age, and concepts which are perhaps only relevant to the previous century. We need to use language that ordinary people can identify with, don't we?

But yes, whatever lingo we go for it needs to be aimed at the workplace itself and I agree that external political groups are self-limiting unless this fundamental concept is grasped.

what i'm saying is that it shouldn't be 'aimed at' workplaces from the outside. we should be organising where we are, and networking with others who share our politics (hence why i advocate 'political-economic' organisation). propaganda by the deed should be our ideas being borne out in practice, and our activity getting results. to take an example a SolFed member was involved in, the Workmates collective (which we're going to put more info into the public domain about soon - there's a brief summary in the brighton pamphlet). there he was arguing that temp/subcontract workers should be included, but there was a suspicion they'd scab. as it happened, none of them did despite not being initially involved, and they were subsequently welcomed in. workmates adopted anarcho-syndicalist structures (mass meetings and a delegate council), which took root because they were both relevant to the task at hand and got results. if lefties had been stood at the gates advocating that, it would almost certainly have been ignored. so i think organising as part of the class rather than treating it as an externality to be converted is crucial.

Farce wrote:
I do think there are probably some problems with the internal culture of the movement, in that it tends to be disproportionately made up of the relatively privileged, university-educated layers of the class - not that there's anything wrong with those people being involved, or that they don't have anything to contribute, but I do think it's dangerous if a culture then develops that's inaccessible to people from more deprived, less educated backgrounds. I don't really have any great suggestions to overcome this, tho.

i think it's a factor of the fact anarchism is mainly an idea and not a practice in the UK at present. thus it's disproportionately made up of people with above average literacy and time on their hands to read up. greater engagement in practical organising and struggles would likely lead to a more representative cross-section of the class being involved.

Farce wrote:
Got an idea. How about leafleting in Council estates? Get some flyers together and hand them out? That will do it. Or perhaps this has allready been tried?

like i said to back2front, i think this runs the risk of seeing the class as an external thing to be converted, rather than our co-workers, friends and lovers who share our problems - problems to which (as Django says) - we have some practical responses which usually prove effective.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
May 12 2009 20:28
JK wrote:
i think it's a factor of the fact anarchism is mainly an idea and not a practice in the UK at present. thus it's disproportionately made up of people with above average literacy and time on their hands to read up. greater engagement in practical organising and struggles would likely lead to a more representative cross-section of the class being involved.

I think this is the key point really. A lot of the dynamism of the 'direct action casework' groups in the UK seems to be down to the fact that they have a lot to offer practically. They can build trust and links with people in struggle who may not be particularly politicised and bring them into the orbit of the anarchist movement. Its only through this kind of practical work and visibility that we're going to get out of the circular problem of anarchism not being that well represented in the class because it is largely theoretical in appeal and largely being theoretical in appeal because it doesn't have a practical base in the wider class. I'm not necessarily saying LCAP-type groups are the way to go, but its that kind of practical investment we need.

Thats not to say that propaganda and propagandistic interventions aren't useful, its about the balance of both. Speaking from what I know, the AF has doubled in size over the past year as a result of visibility, presence and making the ideas more accessible and well presented. But even though we have a spread of people involved, from cleaners to engineers to health workers, young unemployed people and students are over-represented because they have the time to investigate the politics abstractly, rather than have the politics develop through struggle. Getting stuck into struggles practically at least raises the possibility of them spreading through the class this way. Not to be complacent about our activities, which can be better, but anarchists have been pretty good in getting in and offering solidarity recently, sometimes in the absence of the usual leftist subjects.

One final point to make is that (communist-) anarchism isn't like the various brands of bourgeois politics, be they liberal, leftist, conservative, whatever. We can't leaflet estates in the way leftist groups or far right groups do during elections telling people we'll make their lives better if they take 5 minutes out of their lives and vote for us. We're telling people they need to struggle in their interests, and that we'll support them if they do. That kind of consciousness will only come about on a level capable of threatening capitalism in the course of struggle itself. We're going to be a minority until that point, but we can be a far, far larger and more effective minority than we are at the moment.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
May 12 2009 21:20
cantdocw wrote:
I still think it comes down to thinking what anarchism has to offer people in the here and now. Anarchism has no workplace presence and very little community impact.
Joseph Kay wrote:
it's a fair question. i think the best propaganda is practice - demonstrating that our ideas get results. as anarchists have very little industrial/community presence, i think propaganda efforts from purely political groups outside workplaces are always going to have a limited effect. i think there's no quick fix, ...

Actually I think there is a quick fix - starting groups similar to Seattle Solidarity Network and OCAP/LCAP. SeaSol in particular took surprisingly little effort to start (still a lot of work, but much easier than organising a workplace or a large campaign for some specific issue) - a group that can rack up a string of small victories in winning back unpaid wages, stolen deposits, etc., has, by doing so, already built a basic level of confidence and experience in its members, a little bit of reputation for getting things done, concrete examples to point to, and a range of contacts. This may prove a good starting point for harder projects such as building networks of militants, community groups and so on.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 12 2009 21:38

the London SolFed locals are involved in LCAP and we've been hearing positive things. i think you're right that a 'many small victories' approach could facilitate more ambitious projects. not sure it's a quick fix as such though, a lot of work from what i hear.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 12 2009 21:42
Django wrote:
We're going to be a minority until that point, but we can be a far, far larger and more effective minority than we are at the moment.

this is the point - i think recognising this allows us to focus on doing that rather than trying in vain to build mass revolutionary organisations piecemeal.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
May 12 2009 21:56

Good discussion here; I just wanted to second this point by cantdocartwheels:

Quote:
There are issues with how you express things, but i'm not keen on lefties or anarchists claiming they know what level the rest of us can comprehend or what language we supposedly understand.

The approach of "dumbing down" things for the "language of the working class" is extremely patronizing bullshit. Also the associated idea that college educated anarchist = Ivy League Marxist is equally horseshit.

I would also add that anarchism is marginalised a) by the right-wing establishment, for obvious reasons b) by "left wing" populists for its uncompromising anti-statist position. We are born in a culture that teaches us to worship the state and all of its "great accomplishments," from day one. It doesn't take much reflection to understand why anarchism is branded as starry-eyed utopia by the leftist realpolitickers.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
May 12 2009 22:02
Quote:
the London SolFed locals are involved in LCAP and we've been hearing positive things. i think you're right that a 'many small victories' approach could facilitate more ambitious projects. not sure it's a quick fix as such though, a lot of work from what i hear.

It's a *relatively* small amount of work compared to most other approaches. It may be that SeaSol required less work than LCAP. It required 3-4 fairly dedicated people, a website, phone number and lots of posters to start.

As (former SeaSol member) precariat said, what if US anarchists/anarchoids in the mid 90s had been forming SeaSol style groups instead of Food Not Bombs groups? The anarchist movement here might be quite a lot stronger, and with considerably better overall politics simply because of people's experience.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 12 2009 22:04

yeah it's an approach we're looking into - we might be trying to get some LCAP people down to give a talk in Brighton. i certainly agree that if all the energy that goes into pointless shit under an 'anarchist' banner were better directed, we'd be in a much stronger position. but then a lot of those 'anarchists' are actually diametrically opposed to class politics (and of course some aren't).

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
May 12 2009 22:10
Joseph Kay wrote:
but then a lot of those 'anarchists' are actually diametrically opposed to class politics (and of course some aren't).

True, but part of the reason for their shit politics is that they have not been shown the superirority of class struggle anarchism through practice.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 12 2009 22:13

fair point, you don't read about many Food Not Bombs groups in Spain in 1934.