matt b
Indexing all opinion
Yorkshire- so North of England, home of Victorian industrialistion- my better half is in a brass band, every leisure activity has a 'community group' of some description.
That's why I don't get actively involved nowadays
Anarchism
- Thread starter nomadthethird
- Start date
Yorkshire- so North of England, home of Victorian industrialistion- my better half is in a brass band, every leisure activity has a 'community group' of some description.
That's why I don't get actively involved nowadays
matt b
Indexing all opinion
anarcho-syndicalism generally refers to the labour movement (worker controlled TUs eg: IWW), I'm guessing you would like info on anarcho-communist orgs (horrible terms, I know) which is a more general non-workplace concept.
Personally, if direct democracy is in operation, overarching views about the destruction of the state are (somewhat) theoretical and meaningless- a belief in equality etc not withstanding, empowerment being the key.
I'll have more time, with any luck, to provide more examples tomorrow
vimothy
yurp
Matt: re, for instance, the IWW, how does it differ institutionally from a non-anarcho-syndicalist TU -- decision making process, regulatory system, organisational structure, etc? What is it that makes the IWW anarcho-syndicalist as an organisation?
[BTW -- I'm sure I don't need to mention this -- but when I say "institutions", I mean the structures that underpin behaviour, implicit and explicit, rather than organisations.]
[BTW -- I'm sure I don't need to mention this -- but when I say "institutions", I mean the structures that underpin behaviour, implicit and explicit, rather than organisations.]
Last edited:
john eden
male pale and stale
well there is big beef in the UK between some class struggle anarchists (for example The Anarchist Federation) who think that unions are essentially a mechanism for controlling working class struggle (mediating between the bosses and workers) vs anarcho syndicalists (IWW and, er, I think the Solidarity Federation) who think that unions need to be more revolutionary and less focused on reform and flogging people cheap insurance.
Frankly there seems to be very little difference in what they actually do to me (hold meetings, publish magazines, argue with each other, work together on the basics). But then they are pretty small orgs operating at a time when the revolutionary wave has (cough) receded somewhat.
Having said that there is possibly a valid criticism of syndicalists for focusing too much on the workplace (aka "the point of production") at the expense of the community.
nomos
Administrator
me tooThat's why I don't get actively involved nowadays
the monopolistic tendencies of the local 'leadership' got a bit rich after a while. that and the general aversion to ideas less that 80 years old.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
"anarcho-syndicalist social organization" would, as I understand it, be synonymous to anarcho-syndicalism, being it's focused specifically on labor & everything radiates out from that. (unsurprisingly anarcho-syndicalism is often linked with anarcho-communism; in fact I'm unclear on the exact differences btwn the two)
but as far as unions, from what I understand - organized by free assocation from bottom up, no separate bureaucracy & elected leadership (active measures are taken to discourage one from developing even informally), operating by direct democracy & consensus tho majority rule may be resorted to in a really pressing situation. the ultimate goal of collective ownership of the means of production & abolition of the wage system. all that vs. the traditional top down, elected leaders, reformist etc. union structure.
personally I find the whole line of thinking to be archaic, stuck in an era of much higher general class consciousness & before all the factories it fetishizes had packed up moved away to places where the workers have considerably less power.
Last edited:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
I totally see where you're coming from here, but lately I've been thinking about this a lot and I'm beginning to disagree with the idea (if not the sentiment behind it).
This is one reason I think I sympathize more with anarchism than I do with communism--there's something about the attempts at a "communist ontology" (Badiou's included) that end up privileging what's going on in peoples' minds above all else, to the point of actually being counter-productive politically. I don't think knowledge is necessarily more powerful than anything else, to the point where simply knowing philosophy or history amounts to being politically viable. This type of knowledge is just as enshrouded in/beholden to capitalist markets (the university commodity, etc) as anything else.
I agree with McLaren, we really need people to read more and get more engaged. But at the same time, I can't help but feel there's a whole bunch of classism encoded in the privileging of the written word that so many communists (and yes some anarchists) get up to.
vimothy
yurp
Absent any leadership or administrative bureaucracy, how do they make decisions? Is it a question of anyone who wants to, developing a policy and submitting it to the popular vote? How do they envision the institutional structure of a post-capitalist/post-revolutionary state?
[Questions, questions...]
[Questions, questions...]
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
The IWW isn't, confusingly, actually syndicalist. it's also completely irrelevant, having something less than 2000 members worldwide. tho I knew an IWW organizer in Oakland, a pretty nice guy even tho he had a creepy fetish for Stalin as well as Hoxha of all people.
I'm sorry to disappoint but I think that's almost impossible to determine - surely it varies greatly from situation to situation.
If you're interested in anarcho-syndacalism I think reading about the Spaniards is really the place to start. The CNT is the best in practice example & there's been loads of stuff (well maybe not loads, but some) written about both their formal organization & the kind of stuff you're talking about. also still kinda relevant today - I think it's like the 3rd largest union in Spain?
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
There are different schools of thought, but I'm into the "direct democracy" raise hands and count type of idea...
Simple, yes, but the most viable societies are not nation-states, I think it's safe to assume at this point in history...
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
so, again as I understand it.
assuming you've got enough members to have this problem, they're divided up somehow - usually by craft I think tho maybe not always - into groups small enough that they can generally make face to face, consensus decisions. when a decision is required that effects more people either there are intermittent larger meetings or representatives empowered only to voice the consensus of their smaller group. & so on & so on to a higher & higher level. the representatives are also I think rotated fairly often to prevent them from becoming like elected offices.
as far as who puts forward policy, yeah I think it's anyone can.
look all this stuff is formal, on paper, in theory, etc. in practice it's always imperfect. there are always problems with a power structure of some kind developing, of certain people becoming leaders. the FAI, for example, functioned as a more militant union-within-the-union & a challenge to CNT bureaucracy to the point where some more moderate CNT members split off to form a non-anarchist Syndicalst Party.
have you ever read The Dispossessed by Ursula K. LeGuin? that should be added to the general reading list - by far the best theoretical overview of how a large scale anarchist society might function in practice, for better & worse. & she addresses most of the stuff you're bringing up better than I possibly could.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
I like some of the LeGuin that I've read, but I like models and data more when trying to assess stuff like this. From my perspective, it looks like anarchism is appealing in an affinitive, dispositional sense, to some, but doesn't really offer anything in concrete political-economic terms.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I had to look up "dispositional", but if I understand you right then I don't think I disagree, tho it depends what you mean by "concrete political-economic" terms. for many people, including perhaps myself, there is a conscious rejection of concrete political-economic goals.
I feel somewhat hampered in attempting to explain/defend anarchism by the fact that I'm not really sure what I believe in these days. if anything. *EDIT* I don't mean that cynically in the least. it is actually quite painful to admit. but it's true. maybe in a way that is an answer to your question?
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
frankly I really have no idea how to answer this concisely. it's a question someone could write a book, several books, trying to answer.
it's just so broad. there is no "unified anarchism theory" for one thing.
I feel like we're enganged in some kind of Socratic Dialogue. One that reveals very interesting things to me - I applaud your line of questioning only I'm not sure I have any answers for you.
vimothy
yurp
No worries, of course. I'm not attacking anarchism (I don't think), I'm just trying to understand what makes anarchism anarchism, other than a belief in anarchism (which would then constitute a belief in a belief in anarchism). In the final analysis, it seems to me, if you want to make collective decisions, you need a mechanism for making those decisions and translating them into action, which means you need an understanding of political-economy and social institutions.
vimothy
yurp
As a corollary to that last post, perhaps I should say, there doesn't seem to me to be any uniquely anarchist solution to these problems, though of course this may reflect more on my lack of knowledge of anarchism as a practical and theoretical matter than any lack on the part of anarchism per se.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
alright, I thought about this for an hour whilst trying to do other stuff & this is what I came up with:
there is nothing that "makes anarchism anarchism". to me. this is the whole point really.
I think you're right that, on a certain level, it is intuition, a leap of faith. but one that is constantly open to critical introspection. that is also the point.
in a nutshell:
anarchism - freedom equals responsibility
capitalism - freedom
communism - responsibility
(tbc this not supposed to imply that capitalism then equals communism)
*EDIT* also, I mean, in the real world, I don't think any really worries about "what makes anarchism anarchism" (not that that it's not a valid inquiry) - you just do muddle ahead & do your best, like anyone
there is nothing that "makes anarchism anarchism". to me. this is the whole point really.
I think you're right that, on a certain level, it is intuition, a leap of faith. but one that is constantly open to critical introspection. that is also the point.
in a nutshell:
anarchism - freedom equals responsibility
capitalism - freedom
communism - responsibility
(tbc this not supposed to imply that capitalism then equals communism)
*EDIT* also, I mean, in the real world, I don't think any really worries about "what makes anarchism anarchism" (not that that it's not a valid inquiry) - you just do muddle ahead & do your best, like anyone
Last edited: