Anarchism

[padraig (u.s.)]

Anarchism is only tangentially related at best.

yeah - haven't read the stuff tho I'm somewhat familiar w/the concepts - I don't think John's point was that they were useless so much as that they didn't really describe anarchism (specifically, anarchist protestors in Seattle) very well.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

one last link, an interview w/the editors of the zine Do Or Die - described as a "journal of ecological resistance" - I wish a .pdf of the actual zine was available, especially the last issue, #10, but this'll have to do. British by the way. *EDIT* & I should say by far far the greatest eco/green/whatever anarchist zine I've ever read. alright now I really gotta go

really worth reading - as they also discuss the nuts & bolts how-it-was-done side that people have been interested in. also they're not above self-criticism.

http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/article.php?id=301

alright, gotta go. enjoy, everyone! will try to catch up later.

 

[massrock]

Groups aren't necessarily organised in one way at a time are they? Relationships don't usually operate along a single axis.

Spontaneously emerging (rather than imposed or formalised) hierarchies may occur in a group but I think they will usually coexist alongside other kinds of relationship having various degrees of symmetry. Also 'natural' hierarchies will tend to be context dependant and mutable, even reversible. You can see all this quite clearly even in nuclear families I would say.

 

[john eden]

true. but I don't see this as a reason to abandon anything. I was never interested in a storm-the-palace revolution anyway, at least not since I was old enough to understand that it was the same old bullshit in different clothing (so, about 14 - thanks Crass!). on the other hand I am still interested in the creation of non-hierarchical (or which at least attempt to be) parallel structures which seek to simultaneously meet people's needs & give them the opportunity to empower themselves, examples of which I described upthread (tho there are certainly many other possibilities).

Yes absolutely! I suppose what I am saying is that a scheme to completely reorganise the whole of society is a bit grandiose. So, having come to some conclusions and looked at brief historical examples, it's sensible to just think "hmmm ok, so that's one way things might go" before basically putting it to one side and then getting on with the here and now.

And for me the here and now is about defending the little we have, and trying to foster community and solidarity. I have a lot of sympathy with setting up parallel structures also, but (as you probably know all too well) these structures can (and should) actually end up in conflict with the existing structures.

Basically, despite everything, I still can't think of a better way of putting it than this:

7. Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.

 

[mistadubalina]

I am Samoan. My children are Maori and this is our history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_movement

Samoans of mixed parentage, facing discrimination from both cultures but with the advantage of cross-cultural knowledge, would play a key role in the new movement

^^that is where im heading cos funnily enough i'm polynesian royalty and i owe it to my family/people to serve them better

 

[mistersloane]

K-Punk had an interesting perspective, once upon a time:

That's a fantastic piece.

I agree with baboon here, sorry to have brought her up though. But I am going to dance on her grave, I don't think it's in any way wrong to wish politicians dead and I am going to knight Paul Kelleher come my revolution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2779597.stm

 

[Mr. Tea]

if you're referencing the nuclear family or even the extended family I would challenge that that is the most fundamental unit of human organization & argue that it's only becoming the prevailing viewpoint rather recently.

either way radicals of all stripes have at least been aware of this for a while. there have been numerous efforts, successful to varying degrees, to raise children at least communally in part. for example, on the kibbutzim. or, for a society that was "always that way" I know examples exist - tho I cannot name any off the top of my head - of "primitive" peoples who raise children largely communally, where "mother" & "father" are not viewed exlusive as the biological parents of a child.

But how extended can an extended family be, and still be a family? In the kind of societies you're talking about I think children would still probably be raised by aunts, uncles and cousins of the first, second or third degree. I mean, humans don't just stick together for no reason at all, do they? In developed societies they might do this to form a company, guild or trade union, or because they all support Chelsea or worship at the same church or even because they all have an interest in anarchism. But in a society that doesn't have complex political and economic structures - bushmen, let's say - the only obvious reason for people to congregate in a group is through some degree of shared heredity, isn't it?

Also, I kind of shudder to think what kind of upbringing someone had who writes a song about "the myth of parental love".

 

[reeltoreel]

Heredity is certainly not always the primary method of societal organisation, even in small-scale societies.

I'll see if I can find some interesting kinship diagrams and post them up.

 

[vimothy]

Just read this on another thread, from the movie Under Fire:

“I like you people, but you are sentimental shits! You fall in love with the poets; the poets fall in love with the Marxists; the Marxists fall in love with themselves; the country falls in love with the rhetoric, and in the end we are stuck with tyrants.”

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Just read this on another thread, from the movie Under Fire:

“I like you people, but you are sentimental shits! You fall in love with the poets; the poets fall in love with the Marxists; the Marxists fall in love with themselves; the country falls in love with the rhetoric, and in the end we are stuck with tyrants.”

oh Abu M, is there any topic on which you cannot provide us with wisdom?

Under Fire, hell of a movie. the irony of that quote being that the Sandinistas are possibly the only Marxists to whom the term "tyrants" does not apply. not that they were perfect but they were definitely not tyrants. (tho the vicious, enormously venal/corrupt Somoza family dictatorship they replaced were definitely tyrants).

 

[vimothy]

padraig, re: upthread, I'm not sure where I suggested that you suggested that hierarchies aren't useful.

not to be a broken record but I feel like that's exactly what I've said in this thread about a dozen times.

That's collectivism for you -- but didn't it feel good!

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I mean, humans don't just stick together for no reason at all, do they?

don't think anyone suggested this.

But in a society that doesn't have complex political and economic structures - bushmen, let's say - the only obvious reason for people to congregate in a group is through some degree of shared heredity, isn't it?

no. as reel to real said there are loads of societies which don't only base kinship on heredity. or which have a different view of heredity from the predominant European model. the Australian Aborginal peoples for one - I don't claim to fully understand it but here is an article. tho again there are loads of others.

the idea anyway isn't that the family or extended family is a bad thing - it was merely in response to Vimothy's point that the family as the most basic unit of human structure was inherently hierarchical - to say that there are many different definitions of "the family".

Also, I kind of shudder to think what kind of upbringing someone had who writes a song about "the myth of parental love".

that bit wasn't entirely serious yunno. tho I dunno if you're familiar w/Rudimentary Peni - it probably makes more sense in the context of all their work.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

That's collectivism for you -- but didn't it feel good!

nah if this was a collective meeting it'd be 1000 times as passive-aggressive.

 

[vimothy]

But that's the reason why I put "the family" in quotation marks, because it's true regardless of how you define "the family".

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

it's true in the sense that as we've discussed ad nauseam any relationship btwn 2 or more people is always going to develop some kind of hierarchy, whether or not it is formal or informal, spoken or unspoken, etc. and also in the sense that any relationship btwn children & adults is not going to be an "equal" one.

 

[vimothy]

It doesn't matter how many adults or children, the number of levels is always at least two, even if we discount the very mundane observation about "the third who walks always beside you".

 

[nomadthethird]

Also, I kind of shudder to think what kind of upbringing someone had who writes a song about "the myth of parental love".

Not to bring this discussion back to my favorite anti-oedipal topic (Sloane you already took the best bandname ever btw)--but it always amazes me that hets don't understand how rare it is for a family situation to actually work out *well* and exist without some form of abuse. It is very, very rare.

Which isn't to say that more "collective" forms of organization can't go wrong, but this ideal people have of a cuddly, wonderful nuclear family needs to meet up with reality at some point. I'm not questioning whether you personally had a satisfactory or even quite a lovely upbringing--you probably did--but that is by far the exception and not the rule.

Ask any public school teacher if you don't believe me. In the U.S. anyway there is no such thing as the "family" except in the highest tax brackets, and even then it's royally fucked...

 

[nomadthethird]

I should also point out that I wouldn't consider myself an anarchist these days. There are a load of reasons for this and I am writing them here for my own benefit as much as anyone else's so bear with me

1) Anarchism is not a useful term. It has too many associations with chaos, punk, disorder. Even actual anarchism contain so many ridiculous strands I have no desire to be associated with - primitivism, egoism, anarcho-capitalism, "national anarchism", pacifism, moralism. Bringing it up in conversation with people I am engaging with politically is a shortcut to disaster.

2) I don't see the prospect of revolution in the near future or in my lifetime and I don't think anybody outside of the dwindling revolutionary left does either. If I am wrong then I am sure I will still have access to as many pamphlets and historical examples as I require. I do think it is good people are ensuring that this stuff remains available.

3) Anarchism's critique of hierarchy is its best contribution, but it also allows all sorts of excuses for inaction and tedious arguments along the lines of "fuck you I won't do what you tell me". For example I was involved in some community politics stuff which was criticised by a fairly sensible anarchist because we weren't empowering people to take control of their own lives, we were seen as "doing it for them". Of course said anarchist had all sorts of ideas about how this could be done, he just wasn't actually doing them himself.

4) Generally the revolutionary left are not people I wish to spend much time with. Whilst I find sectarian gossip and russian history more interesting than the next man it does seem to be that large portions of the left are more interested in that than actually making a difference to the lives of working class people. Or they are adrenaline junkies chasing the next "action" without reflecting on where it is getting them.

This is exactly how I feel. I can't make any grandiose claims about why that's the "right" feeling to have, but that's just how it is. I wish I could believe harder but I just can't.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

It doesn't matter how many adults or children, the number of levels is always at least two, even if we discount the very mundane observation about "the third who walks always beside you".

I maintain there is a difference btwn a one parent-one child relationship & a more communal approach to raising children/family. it's not that the latter is non-hierarchical, merely that the approaches to establishing a hierarchy are different. w/o meaning to go on about child development - a topic about which I know, roughly, less than nothing - I would hazard a purely intuitive guess that the best thing is probably some medium of both approaches.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

also just want to say - I've thru the first dozen pages of that Graeber book I linked to & so far it is really, really good. he speaks to a lot of the things that have been discussed in this thread & expounds on many points I've tried to make in a much more eloquent fashion. he also says some stuff I'm not so sure about, but hey.

also, just want to this share observation on the difference between Marxism & anarchism.

Even if one compares the historical schools of Marxism, and anarchism, one can see we are dealing with a fundamentally different sort of project. Marxist schools have authors. Just as Marxism sprang from themind of Marx, so we have Leninists, Maoists,Trotksyites, Gramscians, Althusserians... (Note how the list starts with heads of state and grades almost seamlessly into French professors.) [italics mine - classic!]

...

Now consider the different schools of anarchism. There are Anarcho-Syndicalists, Anarcho-Communists, Insurrectionists, Cooperativists, Individualists, Platformists... None are named after some Great Thinker; instead, they are invariably named either after some kind of practice, or mostoften, organizational principle. (Significantly, those Marxist tendencies which are not named after individuals, like Autonomism or Council Communism, are also the ones closest to anarchism.)

actually mainly just wanted to get in that totally sweet line about French professors. take that, Badiou!