Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is anarchism a joke?

Groucho said:
The organised expression of Anarchism, such as it is, in this country is a joke, but not a funny one. It is about as relevent as the organised expression of Moaism.

Part of the problem is a hopeless sectarianism and ingrained negativity.

UK @ is just grumpy old men and young cynics. It mostly inspires disappointment and disillusion. :(
Click to expand...


Very true.
 
Groucho said:
Although sections of the leninist left have mobilised huge numbers in opposition to the war, organised an anti-fascist carnival of 10,000s and have gained some influence in major trade unions. :)
Click to expand...
To no political effect - indeed it could be argued that they killed the anti war movement with their lack of vision and opposition to DIY politics, and direct action.
 
I'm not sure what is more a joke, the people in involved in the anarchist movement (and I am) or the people that spend their time slagging it off.

What happened on May 2nd:

Left List and Respect completely humiliated
IWCA loosing 2 councilors
Anarchists failed to mobilise people for City Hall


We are are ALL getting further marginalised because we as a left and anarchists have failed time and time again to ditch our historical baggage and ideologies, we have consistently ignored the central dynamic of class struggle - i.e. people who struggle, and have also failed to make our ideas and methodologies accessible and practical for a diversity of people to take on board.

I am attempting to put ideas/solutions into practice and not rely on any historically parasiting of struggles that are long dead and that have no relevance what so ever, any takers?

Anarchists, instead of using ideas and action to change the world, are more comfortable with using it to cope with the world.
 
Groucho said:
Although sections of the leninist left have mobilised huge numbers in opposition to the war, organised an anti-fascist carnival of 10,000s and have gained some influence in major trade unions. :)
Click to expand...

Groucho do fuck off, you and your ilk lower your politics to the lowest possible common denominator at every possible oppurtunity, to then come on here and slag us off is a joke. Your pathetic sect is dying on its feet and good riddance is all I can say.....
 
Groucho said:
They create an atmosphere that inspires racist attacks.

However, you are right that violence is not part of the BNP strategy or tactics for the moment. It will be, but any sensible fascist wants to gain power to commit mass murder and not be sidelined by petty acts of hooliganism and brawling. Not the 30s? More to the point it aint the 70s. The nazis of the BNP are not wearing swastika tattoos and marching down the street seik heiling. They are more sophisticated and publically moderate by comparison to their real beliefs. Opposition to the fascists cannot be reduced to simple 1970s tactics.
Click to expand...

You're right but the point I made that mk12 responded to actually prioritised political campaigning on fights against cutbacks and other attacks on the working class. However, within that we do need to be ready for defence against racist attacks - you may be right that they're not pary of BNP tactics right now but we need to be ready becuase fasicst attacks on working class Asian communities are a lot more recent than the 70s. But I agree the main priority is in stengthening working class organising against cuts, attacks on services, privatisation and a political fight against the BNP. But physical self-defence against racist attacks if and when they occur is a necessity.
 
I was reading that new mag mayday last night, and it represented all that was wrong with anarchism to me. badly written, intellectually dishonest, and full of broadsides at other anarchists. anarchism is a broad church, and it's full of people who want everyone to agree that we should stop fighting and do it their way. ver depressing. there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in london alone who self-identify as anarchist, or agree with anarchist ideals even if they wouldn't dream of calling themselves anarchists, yet we aren't doing anything? why not? well, because we're depressed, sick of fighting the cops and each other, and bored of dealing with people who don't even know what anarchism is and yet feel quite happy to criticise it. oh, and sick of people expecting anarchism to have all the answers.
 
bluestreak said:
I was reading that new mag mayday last night, and it represented all that was wrong with anarchism to me. badly written, intellectually dishonest, and full of broadsides at other anarchists. anarchism is a broad church, and it's full of people who want everyone to agree that we should stop fighting and do it their way. ver depressing. there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in london alone who self-identify as anarchist, or agree with anarchist ideals even if they wouldn't dream of calling themselves anarchists, yet we aren't doing anything? why not? well, because we're depressed, sick of fighting the cops and each other, and bored of dealing with people who don't even know what anarchism is and yet feel quite happy to criticise it. oh, and sick of people expecting anarchism to have all the answers.
Click to expand...

Hmmm . Interesting. Full of broadsides? Where? Only in parts of the editorial, and what do you expect for a mag that is cutting intellectual space for itself? It distinguishes itself by what it is against as well as what it is for.

One article was specifically about autonomist Marxist politics and theory, and another "1967-2007 A Socialist Review" so you are well off the mark cos it didn't slag off anarchists - it didn't even mention them.

What intellectual dishonesty???? There was NO lies in the mag at all. The article about wrecking was confined to the subject, as was Ian Bones about Jade Goody and football, and so was the anti fascist article. Your review is just rubbish.
 
umm....of the few actions ive taken part in ive found anachism/ists to be abit...annoying...




at climate camp i nearly cryed when i found a socialist with some foundation.
 
Attica, what it needed was an editor not involved otherwise in the magazine to clear up a load of stuff. I'm sure that I'm either going to be labelled anti-intellectual or over-intellectual, but really we had trouble working out what the teleological problems of anarchism were. Anarchism is accused of being conservative and too attached to groups rather than action, whilst not learning from history, not rejecting the right historians, and not committed to group organisation. You have a big list of things that are wrong, without explaining why what it believes is right. It is for thinking anarchists, as you say, and therefore anyone who disagrees with anything is automatically too stupid for it. It's full of explanations for things that don't need explaining, lacks explanations for things that do, and has citations that the reader is expected to chase up rather than presents a list of the articles cited. The article about how the left cannot be serious about politics until it includes maritime theory and practice is an interesting one that fails to get across the connection between historical wreckers and the modern british working classes IMO, though as a historical article is good. The one about the Wombles is also a good expression of recent history in context, but doesn't connect the subject to the history. Dave Douglass' article is pretty well written but doesn't say anything new, ditto Ian Bone's.

Perhaps I'm just too stupid but in the end I didn't come out of it feeling full of ideas, I just came out of it feeling that I wasn't the sort of person that Mayday wanted to talk to.
 
bluestreak said:
Attica, what it needed was an editor not involved otherwise in the magazine to clear up a load of stuff. I'm sure that I'm either going to be labelled anti-intellectual or over-intellectual, but really we had trouble working out what the teleological problems of anarchism were. Anarchism is accused of being conservative and too attached to groups rather than action, whilst not learning from history, not rejecting the right historians, and not committed to group organisation. You have a big list of things that are wrong, without explaining why what it believes is right. It is for thinking anarchists, as you say, and therefore anyone who disagrees with anything is automatically too stupid for it. It's full of explanations for things that don't need explaining, lacks explanations for things that do, and has citations that the reader is expected to chase up rather than presents a list of the articles cited. The article about how the left cannot be serious about politics until it includes maritime theory and practice is an interesting one that fails to get across the connection between historical wreckers and the modern british working classes IMO, though as a historical article is good. The one about the Wombles is also a good expression of recent history in context, but doesn't connect the subject to the history. Dave Douglass' article is pretty well written but doesn't say anything new, ditto Ian Bone's.

Perhaps I'm just too stupid but in the end I didn't come out of it feeling full of ideas, I just came out of it feeling that I wasn't the sort of person that Mayday wanted to talk to.
Click to expand...


This is a far better review, and an interesting one. I agree there is a lot wrong with existing anarchisms, and as Mayday issue 2 will point out, we will try as we go along to identify things which can be and are being done better.
The problems of UK anarchism are legion, look at the issue 70 editorial of Organise and let me know how we compare to that? Mayday is far far more useful, and obviously so, but I would welcome your pov on that comparison.


I am interested in the list of things you say need explaining, please do identify them clearly.

Citations are available - it was the copy editor who stylistically decided to leave them out. Just email our contact address.

The Wombles article was not intended to be a chronological analysis of Wombles praxis at certain times in history, rather identifying the Wombles as a serious and important participant in history was the aim.

Yours is an interesting review, and one i didn't expect, from a serious and intellectual perspective. One that is sorely lacking in all other British anarchisms. Perhaps you should do your own magazine or journal, or magnal like Mayday?:hmm::D

From the way you have written it, it looks like we have to write even more serious articles about the politics and problems of UK anarchism, and more great articles about what we are for. Well, the next issue will have more detailed anti fascism in it, and an article on praxis, something which other uk anarchisms have totally avoided, yet it is central for any political progress. i hope it can live up to this billing:D
 
glad you took that seriously, i'm a bit mashed at the moment and will try and come back later on with a decent answer. in the end, i think it's unaligned anarchists like me, and indeed a lot of urbanites, that need to be targeted with mags like this. i like reading them, i like learning about things and reading differnt opinions. this is why i think the maritime stuff was important, for example, because i'd never considered it before. i'll try and remember to give you a proper response to the above later on though. more later anyhoo.
 
bluestreak said:
glad you took that seriously, i'm a bit mashed at the moment and will try and come back later on with a decent answer. in the end, i think it's unaligned anarchists like me, and indeed a lot of urbanites, that need to be targeted with mags like this. i like reading them, i like learning about things and reading differnt opinions. this is why i think the maritime stuff was important, for example, because i'd never considered it before. i'll try and remember to give you a proper response to the above later on though. more later anyhoo.
Click to expand...

Certainly. I'll look forward to further exchanges.
All the best.
 
right, bit soberer now.

i'll toss you some of my thoughts. i think what most got me, in the end, was the editorial. i don't know if you wrote it, but it reminds me of some of the more 'sectarian' aspects of your politics. one of the things that most gets me about many anarchists is that they all want anarchists to stop arguing and start doing things their way. in the end that isn't going to happen. you might not like it, i don't like it, but if people who explicitly believe in mutual co-operation can't resolve their differences and work together than what hope do we have? some anarchists are anti-intellectual, and some are all about sitting in the internet over-analysing things and not acting. in the end, while we may disagree, we should be trying to show the others why they are wrong, it won't be done by challenging them hostilely. personally i'd like to think i'm somewhere in the middle, not being academic enough to reel out hundreds of words of complex theory analysis, but on the other hand i'm not anti-intellectual as i believe that we need to to be able to see everything in the wider context in order to operate. but i was still immediately put on the defensive reading it. i found i didn't know if i was being targeted or not - in the end are you making a magazine for wider reading, both for anarchists of all flavours (providing they're class struggle anarchists of course) and interested unaligned parties, or are you making a magazine for people who are already in agreement with your own flavour of anarchism?

more later.

chico, the article on autonomous marxism was a little dry, but quite interesting. it didn't presuppose, as other works do, that anarchists are already marxists. many people who are just coming to anarchism, have yet to realise the role of marxism in anarchist theory. marxism is still seen by many who aren't that politically sus, as being authoritarian, whereas marxism doesn't have to be top down, it can certainly be autonomous or non-hierarchical.

off to try and find a copy of organise #70 and then come back and review the articles in mayday rather than the editorial.
 
I think that you may be over-emphasising praxis. Again, this is really a criticism or anything, it's just that the notion of praxis (i.e. the place where actions and theory meet) is something that most activist and political types are well aware of even if they don't know the word praxis. I agree that it's important to have a concept of the theory and history to frame your actions within, but most activists don't know the word. They just get on with it. Similarly, keyboard activists and academics who never do anything don't need people banging on about praxis to be told to get off their arses, IYSWIM. There may be a bigger discussion to be had here, and I don't think that this is the place to do it, as I'm afraid that it may end up becoming another personality-based argument.

I've ordered a copy of Organise #70 now.
 
Attica said:
To no political effect - indeed it could be argued that they killed the anti war movement with their lack of vision and opposition to DIY politics, and direct action.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The anti-war movement encouraged DIY actions. The movement did not stop the war. This causes a certain amount of disorientation, but also a deeper politicisation. The anti-Vietnam war movement did not end the war, but it did develop over manty years into a significant challenge to the priorities of the ruling class and precipitated a political crisis for the rulers that made war extremely difficult for a generation.
Off hand the only anti-war movements I can think of that actually ended the wars they opposed are the revolutionary mutinies in Germany in 1918 and the Russian revolution....
 
Groucho said:
I disagree. The anti-war movement encouraged DIY actions. The movement did not stop the war. This causes a certain amount of disorientation, but also a deeper politicisation. The anti-Vietnam war movement did not end the war, but it did develop over manty years into a significant challenge to the priorities of the ruling class and precipitated a political crisis for the rulers that made war extremely difficult for a generation.
Off hand the only anti-war movements I can think of that actually ended the wars they opposed are the revolutionary mutinies in Germany in 1918 and the Russian revolution....
Click to expand...

Funny that, I recall a certain Lindsay German claiming that direct action was 'elitist.'

And I also recall the amount of glaring and flak I got for writing to Socialist Review to refute her remarks (I was in the SWP at the time). The letter in question appeared in the January 2003 edition IIRC.

Come to think of it, I'm far more likely to consider the mutinies and the Russian revolution as involving direct action of the kind that the SWP CC simply wouldn't have the guts to go for.
 
Bakunin said:
Funny that, I recall a certain Lindsay German claiming that direct action was 'elitist.'

And I also recall the amount of glaring and flak I got for writing to Socialist Review to refute her remarks (I was in the SWP at the time). The letter in question appeared in the January 2003 edition IIRC.

Come to think of it, I'm far more likely to consider the mutinies and the Russian revolution as involving direct action of the kind that the SWP CC simply wouldn't have the guts to go for.
Click to expand...

and i seem to recall the SWP stewards physically assisting the police and stopping any attempt at direct action on their marches

all that happened on the 2 million march was that the SWP and a bunch of liberals effectively gave the state consent to launch the war
 
the 1-2 million march certainly had the potential to stop the war if direct action tactics had been used. the poj tis to learn from it now and see how we can recreate such a mass movement that is under the control of the participants

let's try for some direct action outside the Labour party conference in Manchester in September and as part of the overall convention fo th eleft. Let's also try to form a physical force movmenet on the streets against immigration raids on houses, workplaces and schools
 
Attica said:
Clearly Praxis is something which needs clarifying then. An understanding, open mind and/or acceptance of new words is essential for any progress, a dialectical point of view recognises that words come into being and then they pass away (or are bypassed).
Click to expand...

i dunno, maybe i'm just old fashioned but i kinda think it's best to stick to words that people understand. why bother complicating the language used to communicate ideas which are relatively complex in the first place?
 
Bakunin said:
Funny that, I recall a certain Lindsay German claiming that direct action was 'elitist.'

And I also recall the amount of glaring and flak I got for writing to Socialist Review to refute her remarks (I was in the SWP at the time). The letter in question appeared in the January 2003 edition IIRC.

Come to think of it, I'm far more likely to consider the mutinies and the Russian revolution as involving direct action of the kind that the SWP CC simply wouldn't have the guts to go for.
Click to expand...

I can well remember the abuse the anarchist direct action proponents at the Stop the War group I was in took from the SWP. Fortunately, they were usually ignored.
 
I think the main problem with the contemporary anarchist movement in Britain and most of Europe is their inability to break out of its subcultural ghetto.

With quite heavy attacks on the squatting scene, and community meeting places being closed down or taken over by trusts and/or charities, it is difficult for anarchists to build a base, let alone spread out into the broader community.
 
i fink teh main problem with anarchsim is the lack of an associated brand of clothing in top shop.

fuck trusts and charities man, get out on the fucking high street......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

frogwoman
Protests against a war with Iran
2 3
Replies
89
Views
3K
hitmouse
hitmouse
dessiato
A Beginners Guide to Protests
2
Replies
45
Views
725
Idris2002
Idris2002
danny la rouge
Glasgow anarchist, John Couzin RIP
Replies
10
Views
938
Kate Sharpley
Kate Sharpley
C
ACG Online Meeting June 18th
Replies
1
Views
358
charlie mowbray
C
frogwoman
Sex Matters, Lawyers for Israel, and other 'activist' groups doling out spurious legal threats
Replies
1
Views
584
Fozzie Bear
Fozzie Bear
Back
Top Bottom