Anarchistic update news all over the world - 13 April 2016 Part 1
Today's 6 Topics:
1. France, Alternative Libertaire AL #259 - chronological
landmarks of the struggle against the CPE (fr, it, pt) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. Spain, Tierra y libertad (Land and Freedom) #333: DO YOU
STILL SERVE FILES AND LIBRARIES? (ca) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Britain, First of May Anarchist Alliance: We Ain’t
Scurred: State Harassment Won’t Stop Movement Against Police
Brutality - Statement from our friends and comrades of the Twin
Cities General Defense Committee (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Czech, afed.cz: Existential party on "fašizace" -
Invitation to the traditional debate on the occasion of the
release of another number anarchist revue, Existence. (fr, it,
pt) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. south-wales anarchists: Call for submissions for Welsh
Anarcha-Feminist Zine VIA FFWFF (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. Australia, Anarchist Affinity: Social Anarchism,
Individualism and Lifestyle Politics by Tom (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
January 16 Prime Minister Villepin announced the creation of the SCE. ---- February 7 500
000 people demonstrate in France during the first inter-action day. University Rennes 2
vote on strike and blocking. 14 February 10 000 protestors occupy Rennes station. ----
February 18 First National Student Coordination in Rennes 2. ---- February 27 Parisian
sites Censier, Jussieu and Tolbiac are blocked. The universities of Toulouse, Poitiers,
Nantes, Brest, Grenoble, Nanterre, Lille, Tours, Orleans are already on strike. ---- March
7 Second inter-action day. One million people in the street. March 8-11 Occupation of the
Sorbonne. ---- March 28 The fourth inter-action day passes the three million. ---- 31
March Chirac announced the promulgation of the law called for Equal Opportunities. wild
demonstrations in several cities of France, all night in Paris.
4 April Fifth Action interpro day, over 3 million protestors. April 6 economic blockages
(roads, bridges, stations, commercial warehouses). Blocking coordinated North Station,
East, Saint-Lazare and Paris ring road.
April 10 Villepin announced the withdrawal of the CPE. May 1 Important Events.
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Reperes-chronologiques-de-la-lutte
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 2
On 9 and 10 April, the strange kind of 'anarcobibliotecarios "gather in Bologna. Circle
Berneri in the seventeenth meeting of the FICEDL (International Federation of Centers of
Research and Documentation Libertarians) will be held. Is expected the presence of
delegations from Austria, France, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Italy and probably
other countries, in order to give life to two intense days in exchange comparison,
coexistence and more or less technical depth. ---- Among other things will be discussed
the collective catalog Rebal (network of libraries and archives libertarians,
www.rebal.info ), which for a year provides a single point of access to documentary
sources made available to a multitude of research centers. It has been designed as the
first link of cooperation between institutions specializing in the field libertarian, yet
to be built. Cooperation is not only defensive (maintain a library has a cost and finding
resources is not easy) but is an opportunity for growth as no library, and least
specialized as anarchism and libertarian culture sector can be considered self - sufficient .
In Sunday's technical workshops on various computer programs and projects will be held,
while Saturday afternoon will be the occasion for an international debate on conditions of
many voices and perspectives of anarchist movements.
The question arises: in the age of digital information do you still serve files and
libraries? The question is rhetorical , but above all, is misconceived. In fact, they are
always needed archivists and librarians, also among anarchists. Paradoxically, among a
room full of books and access to internet and other spaces with one librarian, the second
is most identified usually with the concept of "library."
Libraries and libertarians files if they want to survive, they must be dusted, test ways
of good management and have the contribution of those who can make the outside world
appreciate their existence.
In archival documents is the history of the generations that have gone before us, which
look to face the present with greater knowledge of the facts; books in libraries is the
cultural elaboration that feeds the voltage to change. The collections are important, but
are even more important connections between people using those collections, and in this
sense the librarian should know stimulate, feed and disseminate conversations
instrumentally encourage documentary resources it manages, whether paper or digital .
If knowledge is the starting point to change the world, our schools must involve partners
and supporters in the ongoing work of cultural growth, social criticism and search
libertarian alternative. But it is something else. The hope is that these files and
libraries know open not only to a narrow circle of anarchists, but they are made public in
the broad sense of the word, that is usable by everyone because the living conditions of
this miserable society cover each and every time there is more need for good libertarian
ideas that support the consequent actions. The challenge is knowing how to intercept the
demands of knowledge in our community reference, not remaining closed waiting for someone
to knock on the door or a missing surfer stumbles on our blog.
It's time to raise a reflection on "who we are and what we are doing," even within the
FICEDL. It is not that is not nice chat about how many books have added to the shelves, on
the latest donations received, on projects digitization, on restructuring of local or even
about the economic difficulties that beset us. But beyond these issues, what role we play?
What contribution can offer to the growth of the liberation movements?
How do we perceive and what recognition received from these same movements, of which also
we are a part?
Surely only in this way, ie, demonstrating in practice that the "anarcobibliotecarios" not
just collect books that promote the growth of ideas of freedom, may save the species.
Luigi
Published in Land and Freedom No. 333 (April 2016)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 3
“The Twin Cities IWW General Defense Committee (GDC) wishes to make known a recent
incident of state harassment directed at our organization and allied groups, and our work
against police murder and brutality in Minnesota. We encourage our friends, families,
co-workers, and all those struggling against injustice to be alert to the possibility of
FBI harassment and intimidation. We want those that had hoped we would be scared or slowed
down to know that we are just getting started… ---- …We should remind ourselves, our
organizations and communities, of the importance of not cooperating with police or the
Feds attempting to get information. They are not on our side, they are not trying to help,
even if their questions at first seem innocuous – DON’T TALK TO THE FBI, DON’T TALK TO THE
COPS. Do not let them in your home. If you are questioned by the police or the Feds,
refuse to answer, ask if you are being held (and if not, leave), demand a lawyer – but
whatever you say – SAY NOTHING. If you ARE visited by the police, make certain you tell
others, so that everyone knows they’re creeping around.”
The Twin Cities IWW General Defense Committee (GDC) wishes to make known a recent incident
of state harassment directed at our organization and allied groups, and our work against
police murder and brutality in Minnesota. We encourage our friends, families, co-workers,
and all those struggling against injustice to be alert to the possibility of FBI
harassment and intimidation. We want those that had hoped we would be scared or slowed
down to know that we are just getting started.
On Friday, April 1st, 2016 a Chicago member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW –
the Union with which the General Defense Committee is allied) flew up to the Twin Cities
to help care for a friend and fellow union member recovering from major cancer surgery.
Upon arriving at MSP she was asked by TSA to step into a room. She states that initially
she assumed it had to do with her taking an extra bag on the low cost carrier that charges
for additional baggage.
Two men dressed business casual and without any papers or files came into the room. They
identified themselves only as “working with TSA” and attempted to interrogate her. The one
who led the questioning was a white man, heavy set and over 6? tall with brown eyes, a
receding hairline, and a Minnesota accent. The second agent, who stood over watching, was
a Latino man with a bald head, muscular, maybe 5’9? tall. Both men appeared to be in their
forties.
After responding to their first question, “Why are you here?”, our Union sister refused to
answer any of their questions. The agents asked about her travel plans and local contacts.
They asked about the 4th Precinct protests. They asked her about any
membership/association with the IWW General Defense Committee and the IWW African Peoples
Caucus – both organizations had been very active in the Justice for Jamar Clark movement
and related struggles against police murder and brutality. They asked about two specific
members of the GDC (one Black, one white). When they asked about her partner and kids by
name, she told them to call her lawyer. They declined and told her she could go. Our Union
Sister reports that she felt the whole interaction was centered on their concern about the
Justice for Jamar Clark movement.
All of the information, names, groups, etc. that the men listed to try and get more
information or to worry us over how much they knew – are actually easily obtainable from
monitoring open social media.
Federal harassment of the labor movement and social movements for justice is nothing new –
every time major movements emerge that challenge the power structure and the status quo,
government intimidation and repression follow. The movement in the Twin Cities that came
out into the streets in response to the Minneapolis Police’s murder of Jamar Clark has
been determined and fierce. From the occupation and militant protests outside the 4th
Precinct in North Minneapolis to the student walkouts across Minneapolis high schools to
the shutdown actions of interstates, at the Mall of America, and MSP airport to the
“Freeman Friday” protests at the Hennepin County Government – we have been proud to be a
part of this mass, multifaceted movement.
There is every reason to believe that the powers that be are not pleased to see the
emergence of this movement for Justice for Jamar Clark (and Marcus Golden, Phil Quinn,
Fong Lee, and Michael Kirvelay, too). The movement has been met with mace, chalk-bullets,
and mass arrests at many of the protests, so it should not surprise us that the state is
paying attention and will attempt to intimidate us as well.
We should remind ourselves, our organizations and communities, of the importance of not
cooperating with police or the Feds attempting to get information. They are not on our
side, they are not trying to help, even if their questions at first seem innocuous – DON’T
TALK TO THE FBI, DON’T TALK TO THE COPS. Do not let them in your home. If you are
questioned by the police or the Feds, refuse to answer, ask if you are being held (and if
not, leave), demand a lawyer – but whatever you say – SAY NOTHING. If you ARE visited by
the police, make certain you tell others, so that everyone knows they’re creeping around.
Finally – we say it is not time to cower or hide but to push ahead, building a militant,
radical anti-racist movement based in the working-class and communities of color – a
democratic movement controlled by the grassroots that can challenge police impunity and
brutality, organize community self-defense and working-class power, and begin to build a
new, just society.
The IWW was founded in 1905 to organize the entire working class. We organize all workers
irrespective of race, gender, sexuality, or nationality and tolerate no oppression against
any member of the working class. The General Defense Committee (GDC) of the Industrial
Workers of the World (IWW) was first founded in 1917 to defend fellow workers against
legal repression from the bosses and the state. The Twin Cities GDC Local 14, founded in
2011, is dedicated to the “defense of the entire class,” following the IWW value that “an
injury to one is an injury to all.”
Twin Cities GDC Local 14 | tc-gdc@iww.org
twincitiesgdc.org | | https://www.facebook.com/TC.GDC | @tcgdc
For Dignity, Justice and Freedom – Against Capitalism and the State! For Anarchy!
http://m1aa.org/?p=1179
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 4
April 13, 2016 ---- From 18.30 ---- Info Salé (Orebitská 14, Prague 3 - Žižkov) ---- The
anarchist revue, Existence invites the occasion of the release of another number on
Existential party at the information center Salé. ---- Come and have fun on the content of
existence and join the discussion on the meaning and possibilities of anarchist
journalism. Even your opinions, insights, and ideas can help shape the content, form and
distribution of the anarchist magazine, which began to be published again as a quarterly
in 2010. ---- In connection with the main theme "fašizace" We would like to discuss why it
is important to try to identify clear trends in society, how to do this and what to avoid.
Fascism is a real threat? What role in this is played by neoliberalism? And what will be
the next topic?
New issue of existence , as well as the older, will be available on site (as well as
sampling for the purposes of further distribution).
18.00 held a joint dinner.
http://www.afed.cz/text/6409/existencni-vecirek-na-tema-fasizace
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 5
Ffwff, our Welsh/English bilingual Anarcha-Feminist zine will this year be publishing a
special edition in memory of the amazing creative soul Eli, a very dear friend of one of
the zine founders and many others, who sadly passed away. So we want to make it a
bumper-super-special-kick-ass one! Our theme will be focusing on highlighting issues of
solidarity, mental health and mental states of being outside what society considers
“normal”. For this we will need your help!! ---- Submission guidelines: Loosely themed
around mental health and different mental states outside of the parameters of what this
society deems “normal”. You can approach and respond to this subject in any way you like!
We are accepting articles, stories, interviews, artwork, poems (or any other creative
responses however abstract) in Welsh, English or whichever language you prefer – so long
as we’re able to show them effectively in printed format, size A5. The zine is mainly
printed in black and white, but just let us know if there’s something specific you want to
submit that’s alternative to these guidelines. Importantly, your submissions can also
remain anonymous should you wish.
Ffwff is a not-for-profit Zine, and copies will be available for free once printed. It is
funded from our own pockets and no revenue is generated. As you know, printing costs can
be dear so whilst we are not asking for a submission fee of any kind (we do not want to
restrict who can take part) any help that can be offered for getting the final publication
to print, when the time comes, will be gratefully appreciated.
** The deadline is Friday, 6th May 2016! Please email your submissions directly to:
Mererid (North Wales) merecoincidence@gmail.com or Heledd (South Wales)
heledd.melangell@gmail.com **
And if you want to send anything by post let us know!
https://southwalesanarchists.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/call-for-submissions-for-welsh-anarcha-feminist-zine/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 6
Anarchist Affinity delivered a much shorter talk based on the below text. As you can see,
it was written in the style of an address rather than an essay. The author is a member of
Affinity, but some of the views reflect their own personal interpretations rather than the
groups positions. If you want to find our collective positions, you can find them on the
website. ---- Let’s start here; ---- It’s the symbol associated with anarchism… We see it
everywhere from actual anarchist propaganda, to graffiti, to printed on t-shirts at kmart.
Most here probably know this, but it’s not an A in a circle, it’s actually an A in an O.
It means, ‘Anarchy is Order’, which is one of those wonderful juxtaposing quotes Proudhon
used. What he meant is that anarchism will be a highly sophisticated and highly organised
social system. A social order based on the maximum of human freedom, federalism,
socialism, equality and development, with power flowing from the bottom up, rather than
the top down as in capitalism.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first person to ever use the label anarchist, back in the
1800’s France. It’s with him that the confusion between social and individualist anarchism
immediately starts. See, he was certainly a type of socialist, he was totally against the
exploitation of labour, and he developed an economic system called mutualism based on free
contracts between producers, meaning both collectives of workers and small craftsmen would
have equal freedom in the economy. This is a bit divorced from the anarchist communism
that has become the main tendency since then, but it certainly laid many of foundations.
He was anti-state and anti-authority, though sadly he never extended this to women. His
ideas on economics and social reconstruction were so popular its said some people in the
Paris Commune had little copies of ‘What is Property’ they used to carry around in their
pocket (don’t quote me on this actually happening!), and his economic theories even had
some influence on even Marx. Some people like to argue that he was more of a precursor to
anarchism, there’s some truth in this – in that his politics where not totally coherent or
developed to what is specifically anarchism today. But he did, and was the first, to use
the label anarchist.
Just before and around the same time respectively to Proudhon, we had William Godwin and
Max Stirner. Both libertarians certainly, both anti-state, but neither used the term
anarchist, and this is important, because alot of individualists certainly like to base
their ideas on Stirner. I’m not going to talk about Godwin, but i’d like to point out that
Stirner really was more like an early existentialist, his radical ‘freedom’ was entirely
about the ego and the mind, and was anti-everything. There wasn’t a trace of positive
content in his ideas (besides affirmation of the ego, and this extremely undeveloped
‘Union of Egoists’), which were also pretty racist if you take the time to read The Ego
and His Own. About the best thing he had to offer was a critique of state-socialism, and
that’s not saying alot. Stirner was one of these intellectual anarchists, of bourgeois
origins who dreamed up a radical notion of freedom without ever participating in the real
struggles of his time.
After these three “Anarchism” definitely had a name and existed in the world as a
political ideology.
Since the birth of Anarchism people have often found it quite hard to define a coherent
theory of anarchism; Chomsky always uses that quote ‘Anarchism has a broad back, like
paper is can endure anything.’ And Rudolph Rocker believed that anarchism was something of
a tendency in human nature towards egalitarian non-hierarchical forms of social
organisation. He also believed it was the inheritor of the best parts of both Liberalism
and Socialism, the ‘descendants’ of the Enlightenment. Emile Armands Individualist
manifesto entirely bases its definition of anarchism around freedom from any social
constraint. While from people like Bakunin and Malatesta we see that anarchism is a very
specific political philosophy based around class struggle, with the realisation of
libertarian socialism as the goal. They use examples like the Paris Commune to point to
future potentials, but recognise that anarchism is a modern political philosophy that
started with Proudhon and the French workers movement. In modern attempts to look back at
anarchism we see both these kinds of definitions in action. Authors like Peter Marshall in
his ‘Demanding the Impossible’ takes the opposition to state as the only requirement to
anarchism – and often Marxists who like to have a crack at anarchism use this weak
definition too. Modern authors like Van Der Walt and Wayne Price will however often
present more coherent and consistent understandings of anarchism.
So basically we kind of have two fields; Social anarchism and Individualist anarchism.
Social anarchism sometimes gets referred to as organisational anarchism, and individualist
anarchism kind of leads on to what often gets called lifestyle anarchism today. Within
both fields we can find a whole range of ideas on both strategy and economics. Still we
can somewhat represent where the ideas and who represents them sit.
Obviously we could add hundreds more authors into these fields, but it’s a basic illustration.
So, lets kind of compare the two and I think it will lead us to a better understanding of
how anarchism manifests in the world today. I’d like to point out I realise here I am
presenting these fields as something of strawmen. But this is not an academic essay, and
there is only so much time.
As you can well imagine by its name, individualist anarchism starts, and ends, with the
demand of maximum liberty for the individual. There are to be no fetters on the
development of the so called natural qualities of the individual, and while they think
everyone should be free, it really begins with personal struggle and ends with the
individual. The only freedom you have is what you can take. Society is also as much a
crushing source of authority as the state. There are to be no programmes set for what
anarchism might look like, because everyone has different wants and needs. Rebellion is
emphasised over revolution – revolution will either lead to a new state or to a new social
tyranny. Despite rhetoric against capitalism, market economics are permissible provided
there is no boss-worker relationship (although sometimes that’s ok too!.) It is this
retreat into the self that actually shares a lot of parallels with new age spirituality,
with existentialism and most importantly with neo-liberal capitalism. It’s this abstract
opposition to ‘the state’ and ‘society’ that allows authors like Peter Marshall to give
the nod towards people like Thatcher and Friedman as being somehow libertarian.
Individualism did not have much influence during the emerging the working class, nor did
it do much to shape collective politics of rebellion. Individualists often expressed their
‘anarchism’ and ‘freedom’ through forms of dress, individual acts of insurrection, and
living in small communities of other radicals only. While today we use the word
‘insurrection’ to mean something like when a community/class violently attacks a
regime/authority, the connection between the term insurrection and anarchism actually
comes from Stirner, who believed revolution was impossible, and that individual
‘insurrection’ was the only tactic that would keep authority at bay, however temporarily.
It was during times of severe social repression, when little other avenue for struggle
existed, that individualist anarchism did come to attention – usually with assassinations
and bombings – this image of the anarchist bomb thrower still exists. Terrorism became,
and to a large degree remains, the peak form of struggle for this tendency. I don’t want
to say much on it, but I believe that the terrorist and guerilla war is a Leninist
strategy, not an anarchist one, despite the flowery rhetoric.
This still happens today. Not long ago some group let off a bomb in Chile at a church, and
a year or two ago some insurrectionists kneecapped the CEO of a Nuclear Power company. The
targeting of the Nuclear CEO has obvious reasons – the church not so. They issued a
massively irrelevant manifestos crapping on about religious feeding the people bullshit.
Not exactly a material analysis of religion. The most famous example of this strategy
today would be Conspiracy of Fire Cells in Greece. They’re a group known for robbing
banks, having shoot outs with police, and bringing ‘left wing terrorism’ back to Europe.
They’re all arrested now, and have been involved in struggles for prisoners’ rights and
hunger strikes over the last few years.
If you’re interested in the terror question, and the rather bold statement that terrorism
is a Leninist strategy, i’d highly suggest grabbing a copy of “You Can’t Blow Up A Social
Relationship, – The Anarchist Case Against Terrorism” quite a famous essay written by an
Australian libertarian socialist group.
So then, what’s social anarchism?
Taking freedom as the basis of anarchism, I want to start with a quote from Mikhail
Bakunin, he says;
“The individual, their freedom and reason, are the products of society, and not vice
versa; society is not the product of individuals comprising it; and the greater their
freedom – and the more they are the product of society, the more do they receive from
society, and the greater their debt to it.
Here we find a definition of freedom based entirely on social bonds – what Bakunin is
saying is that we are all products of social development – it is through relationships and
education we find the ideas, motivations and influences that will make us free. Without
the development of all, without equality, we will never know real freedom. The more free
the person beside you is, the more free you are. Social anarchism is therefore inherently
committed to collective methods of organisation – be it through things as various as
unions, affinity groups, syndicates, communes, or whatever. Social anarchism also
collectivist in economics. We have had Proudhon, and the Spanish economist De Santillian.
But ultimately social anarchists owe a great debt to Marx for their understanding of
economics – it’s over questions of political organisation that we divide.
It’s this freedom through solidarity that found such fertile ground in the workers
movement. Not only did the ‘intellectuals’ of social anarchism relate to mass struggles,
their ideas were formed from participating in struggles and were often the articulation OF
the ideas of the mass of anarchists and workers. The ideas of these social anarchists,
particularly Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta flourished in many parts of the world,
namely Spain, Italy, Argentina, Manchuria (Korea) and China, and had profound influence on
the mass anarchist organisations that were to develop. We often sell ourselves short as
anarchists today, because much of our history is lost, and because our movement is so
small and insular we often feel like a subculture. But when it comes to history, remember
we are talking about a movement that affected the lives of millions of people. These were
no small propaganda groups or insurrectional cells. These were mass organisations that had
obvious anarchist politics. Maybe not all 2 million members of the CNT or the FORA were
anarchist – but anarchism had an influence on their lives.
So in comparison, while social anarchism first found its roots in the federalist sections
of the international, in the Paris commune, and in the emerging union movements, it is
fair to say that Individualism came to prominence when anarchism lost its connection with
the working class, and interestingly has largely been a phenomenon tied to the USA and
Europe, and Russia. While also in places like Korea, South America, and parts of Africa
where anarchism has had periods of significance, individualism has been for the most part
irrelevant (feel free to correct me if you’ve come across individualist literature from
these parts of the world!) Perhaps the tactic of insurrection by small groups and
individuals had some grounding, [for example the “Bezmotivniks” in Ukraine,
anarcho-communists – tied to groups like the Union of Poor Peasants or Nabat, or the
“Pistoleros” in Spain, who used expropriations and assassinations] but its irrelevance
seems to be the broader rule. This loss of social influence for anarchism in most
countries has never been recovered. The withdrawl of self-styled anarchists from social
movements for activities that don’t require long-term commitment, thinking, responsibility
or coherence is a serious problem if we ever want anarchism to be a philosophy that can
change the world again.
It’s pretty clear that the irrelevance of a coherent and social anarchist philosophy is
also tied to the reactionary and conservative societies we live in. Despite efforts to
break out of the leftist ghetto, much like our socialist mates, today we remain largely
irrelevant. The anarchist principles of federalism, direct action, anti-parliament
politics, and mutual aid are barely connected to a class struggle that is largely
institutionalised. With no radical collective movement to use our tactics, we don’t feed
back into the movements, we don’t test our ideas and fresh activists are few and far
between. It’s a two way street. The end result of this isolation can often be liberalism
dressed in radical clothing, and the dominance of ‘lifestyle anarchism’ is basically the
black flag version of the socialist politics that believes in the revolutionary potential
of Bernie Sanders , SYRIZA and Jeremy Corbyn.
Anarchists today are finding our way back to relevance in struggle; in a number of places
around the world anarchist organisations and movements are beginning to flourish again.
Greece, Ireland, Brazil are a few examples.
I found it illuminating that in this Workers Solidarity Movement talk about the growth of
anarchism in Ireland, Andrew Flood says that as anarchists have regained their social
relevance over the last two decades, they went from the stereotype of ‘punks and people
dressed in black’ to ‘looking like your everyday person’, and that about that time the
media began to have to acknowledge that anarchism was actually a factor in Irish political
life.
I want to give a historical example of anarchism finding its feet in a concrete situation.
It is an example of anarchism feeding into a movement, and developing as a result.
Actually, it’s the world’s first example of specifically anarchist organisations doing
just such – for all its many limits, there are many lessons to be learnt; I just finished
reading Nestor Makhno’s account of the revolution in the Ukraine, and during some of the
most intense periods of social upheaval he expresses extreme frustration with the
revolutionaries in Russia. He points out that the combination of armchair intellectualism
and obsession with aspects of theory – like the proletariat over the peasantry means that
they’re entirely ignorant of the revolutionary and of the practical means these anarchists
can take to expand the revolution. This isn’t just frustration with individualists either,
this is with anarcho-syndicalists, communist and whatnot. He points out the inflexibility
of anarchist theory at this time can’t deal with practical situations. For example when he
was elected leader of his particular battalion he had to give orders right- and he
recognises that most anarchists don’t believe in giving orders or leaders or whatever. And
he expresses that he felt quite uncomfortable with the role he was given. But they were
fighting a war. An actual revolution. Not having accountable roles or rules is crap, and I
think this is a frustration because of the individualist influence. Just because
anarchists didn’t believe they should ever be told what to do, doesn’t mean they can’t
develop structures of collective responsibility. Libertarian self-discipline is very
different to authoritarian discipline.
Anarchists have leaders of a type. This is something that modern anarchism really
struggles to acknowledge. Just because we refuse to put a label on power doesn’t mean that
it doesn’t exists. Let’s consider this quote from Bakunin;
“Nothing is more dangerous for a man’s private morality than the habit of command. Two
sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralisation; they are: contempt
for the masses and the overestimation of one’s own merits.”
So what makes anarchist ‘leadership’ special is that what we are actually wanting to
achieve is to create structures that limit the concentration of power. Informality does
not do this. This is a serious danger that exists in individualist and lifestyle
anarchism. Rather we should look to have strict mandates given by the collective to their
delegates, when assemblies are not practical. That’s why we try to rotate roles – to
assure one person doesn’t end up with too much power, and to assure that everyone develops
skills keeping the field more even if you will. Individualism doesn’t address this.
Actually egoist individualism like Stirners ends up justifying power over other people –
hardly an anti-authoritarian philosophy. If you ever get a chance I recommend reading ‘The
Tyranny of Structurelessness.’
As I said, this delegate-mandate-rotate structure is actually infinitely more
anti-authoritarian than not having any kind of accountability. Bakunin talked about this,
the CNT knew this, the anarchist army in the Ukraine knew this (though it wasn’t great at
it.) But it’s quite lost these days. Obviously, how we structure this leadership isn’t the
same as socialist groups – there are practical things that differentiate us here. At any
rate – that is a topic for another time.
So I want to skip back to individualism, I want to explain why I believe often the result
of individualist philosophies put into practice can be damaging to social movements, how
they often become anti-social rather than anti-capitalist. I think this confusion that
starts from the concept of imminent rebellion against authority, meaning that things that
aren’t actually anti-authoritarian can end up with tacit anarchist support.
Groups like Crimethinc tend to border this line, advocating and fetishing sub-cultural
practices as anti-capitalist in and of themselves with little conceptualisation of how
they assist in the struggle against capital and the state, if at all. Squatting, sabotage,
petty-crime, theft, arson, and assassinations all register in the arsenal of
insurrectional-individualist tactics. Actually, I think this is the definitions of the
vague term we throw around; ‘lifestylism.’ Precisely this fetishisation. A comrade has
raised with me that it is perhaps not only that, but it’s the result of despair at the
failures of long-term organising that leads to believing only immediate actions and
‘living politics’ can be revolutionary.
It’s not to say social anarchists don’t use tactics like insurrection, sabotage etc too.
But what is to be considered is if the action is beneficial or negative, collectively
empowering or just alienating and anti-social, rather than just assuming it is an
acceptable tactic.
For example, tactics like sabotage have often been used during union campaigns, the IWW
was historically famous for this. When used as an individual tactic, workers often risk
alienation from others, punishment from the state, a waste of comrades resources who bail
them out or organise legals. Individuals may get a small benefit from stealing, squatting,
living on the dole as a ideological choice etc, but there are always consequences. So when
sabotage is done collectively, it can be a powerful tool against the boss, especially so
because everyone has each others backs, and the decision to take action has been made
together. It’s the small sums of collective actions that become a movement.
Consider;
“Shoplifting, dumpster diving, quitting work are all put forward as revolutionary ways to
live outside the system, but amount to nothing more than a parasitic way of life which
depends on capitalism without providing any real challenge.”
Obviously with this quote we don’t want to conflate what it takes to ensure survival under
capitalism, or to demonise people who are unemployed or anything ridiculous like that.
Rather what’s being said is that if you have the option to make these choices, if you can
always move back in with your folks or whatever, you’re not actually contributing to
anti-capitalism – you’re just living out some kind of radical liberalism.
The rich, politicians, anyone in a position of power surely has plenty of time for people
who become ‘non-participants’ in the system. They do not actually challenge power, they do
not help organise collectively, they may create small concessions and ‘spaces’ of existing
without the yoke of capitalist burden, but the ability of this to both spread and become
empowering has to be considered. The truth is, you cannot, ever, completely drop out of
capitalism or get away from the state. People in power are afraid of the Malcom X’s, the
union organisers, the organisations that demand and fight for collective rights. Not
hippie communes.
I’m not saying everyone who’s doing some kind of activism has to rush out and form a
collective, join an organisation or start towing a political line – I’m not here to say
‘hey, you should join anarchist affinity because we have the best politics ever! (Though
please contact us if you’re interested!) actually what’s more important as anarchists is
that hopefully you go away with some ideas about organising yourself- what i’m saying that
there are differences in ideas and hence organisational methods that have very real
impacts on the effectiveness of our activism.
It’s been pointed out plenty of times that activists who have no ‘home team’ will often
find they’ve put incredible amounts of energy into a single campaign, sometimes for years,
but when it ends – those lessons are lost, there is nowhere to keep moving, there is no
collective development of knowledge that comes from critical reflection on what you’ve
been doing. Unlike individualists would believe everyone is an island, we are all socially
formed, and it’s through society we find our freedom. Anyone who thinks they can come to
the perfect answers alone, that they can live outside and beyond society is a joker.
Here’s an anecdote; did you know it’s not common for anarchists in the Uruguayan Anarchist
Federation to talk in first person? They’re so adamant that every individual’s personality
is a product of collective development that to talk in third person shows humility and
acknowledgement of each’s contribution to one another. I’m not suggesting that we stop
talking in first person but I think that such humility is quite an inspirational
revolutionary value.
I think many of us who are anarchists in Australia today are more like Emma Goldman than
any past activists of any particular ‘field.’ Many of us identify with the goals of social
anarchism (ie; collectivist economics) but have a left over ‘individualist’ resistance to
organisations that require long term strategy and development. I think what individual
libertarian/anarchist activists who aren’t in organisations do though is help the
development of libertarian values. [Note; I use ‘Libertarian’ in the original sense,
meaning it is the same as anarchist, not right wing economics] By participating in social
struggles anarchists we hope to help build a culture that empowers from the bottom up. And
developing an anarchist culture is really important. We want to have our own morals,
different to those advocated by a capitalist and statist society – we want a world without
patriarchy or racism, and conscious cultural reconstruction is important if we understand
that there are forms of exploitation and repression that are reinforced by more than just
capitalism.
The strength of actions by anarchists as individuals is more like a reproduction of
ethics, rather than any programmatic revolutionary strategy. Because we recognize that
there are two levers of power in society right – the state and the point of production,
you could maybe say that the third is the social reproduction of capitalist relations –
and that’s where community organising is important. We can’t and don’t just fetishise the
workplace. We are not marxists and we don’t agree that society is limited strictly to the
capitalist pyramid of dynamics (not that they all do! It’s hard to avoid strawmen in such
a broad piece of writing.) Anarchists know power exists in all social relations, we have
talked often about the centre and the periphery of power. And knowing that centralisation
creates power we acknowledge that we can’t take the state – that’s completely against
anarchist strategy and understanding of how society works – what we do want to do is build
counter-power to where capital and oppression are created. We want everyone to have equal
access to political, social and economic power.That’s absolutely key to overthrowing this
society. And that’s not done by throwing a bomb into a bank, it’s done by organising
workers and communities.
Many people today are drawn towards anarchism because it offers space to individuals who
feel marginalised by predominant social constructions. When you identify as an anarchist
its okay to be totally yourself. But we have to acknowledge the whole idea of the
individual against society is absurd – anarchism IS the single most social political
philosophy – we believe in a world of completely free and equal individuals – how can we
be anti-social, unless you’re you think society and the state are the same?
What I think is useful from here is to talk a little about how there are differences in
tactics, politics and strategy. Now this is pretty key and will lead us onto a bit of
discussion about particular things anarchists today are into. To be honest, the useful
terminology for this distinction was only just brought to my attention by another comrade.
Firstly; we have politics. This is the level at which we identify the philosophy we
believe in – which is anarchism. So starting from the vision of building a world without
states, capitalism or authority we have to decide on the appropriate strategies for making
that happen.
So, strategy. Here’s where we do maybe the most reflection – what does our society look
like? What kind of changes do we need? How could we start making them happen? Are we
insurrectionists, are we syndicalist, are we into community organising, should we be
concentrating on propaganda? There is alot to be figured out.
Finally; tactics. The tactics we employ are the specific details of the strategy we decide
upon, as in, what particular actions we undertake to implement the strategy. For example
if you did believe you needed an insurrection, you might form a cell that wants to
annihilate capitalists and cops or something, (definitely not the Anarchist Affinity
line!) I dont know. If you chose syndicalism you might look at what industries are most
important to organise in right now, and if you want to start a specifically anarchist
union or if you want to radicalise existing ones by building shop stewards networks and
advocating wildcats. Within social anarchism there are a variety of ideas about
strategies, these are just two, very different and broad examples.
The problem in Australia seems to be that our movement is so confused, so unsophisiticated
that we don’t take the time to work our way through these considerations. We as the
collective that is anarchism in Australia tend to fetishise one or the other, or
completely muddle them up. Remember here i’m not just talking about individualists; most
anarchist groups in Australia are completely guilty of this too. But at the same time, I
think what we like to call ‘lifestyle’ can be traced back to the early individualism,
where personal rebellion and individual, violent insurrection are considered as the total
strategy against the state.
All the same, I want to look at a few places where we see the confusion at work. Firstly
i’m going to talk about squatting if that’s alright.
So squatting is a tactic, yea? But if you believe that it’s inherently political, you’re
going to get stuck repeating it over and over when it’s not the right strategy, or when
you can’t do it, where are your politics? This kind of thing happens all the time. It’s a
really big problem in the environmental movement. I’m not really involved in that anymore
but it’s kinda where I started back in Newcastle, and I saw a fair bit of this confusion.
Squatting is not really a huge thing in Australia, though I do know a number of squatters
and there are a few in Melbourne – it’s a much bigger thing in Europe. Many anarchists
seem to consider squatting as a lifestyle choice (though there are some, i’m sure, who do
it because they haven’t any other option – I know at least one person who fits this
category.) There’s a difference between a choice and survival here. Living in a squat
would appear to give people the space to exist outside typical property relations,
maximising personal freedoms and somehow ‘propagate’ the idea that squatting is an option
to the broader community. There is an element of truth in this, but it’s actually
extremely limited.
Creating ‘liberty’ for oneself doesn’t necessarily mean it creates it for others,
sometimes it can even limit the freedoms of others. Squatting isn’t necessarily one of
those times, but it’s not as helpful a tactic as other options. There is a difference
between punks who want to live in a squat cause its free and they can have parties, and a
squat that’s used as an accessible social center that, for example, that helps house
refugees. The first is fine; it doesn’t really matter to anyone except the landlord. But
the second has collective and social power. I’d argue that as anarchists this is exactly
our task. We don’t just want revolution for ourselves, we want it for everyone.
To turn a squat into a viable social center it seems obvious that it needs resources,
organisation, community outreach, and importantly the backing of other social groups
willing to defend it when eviction time comes. I believe this is a task for anarchist
organisations. Lets look at WSM in Ireland for a second, they’re an anarchist group who
doesn’t operate, control or dominate any squats. What they do however, is help initiate
them, have activists involved in their on going upkeep and daily activity (one squat in
Ireland that has a few WSM members used the workshops to build heaters to send to refugees
in Calais), and defend them and their autonomy against repression from the state. They
also organise forums and do the important task of political propaganda helping legitimate
squatting as a strategy against capitalism. I use WSM as an example of this because
they’re particularly successful – they have an anarchist publication reaches thousands of
people monthly, and they have public attention for being at the forefront of several
social movements. Imagine what such a powerful anarchist organisation can bring to the
defence of autonomy?
On the other hand – it doesn’t take an anarchist organisation to make squatting a valid
social project – im just pointing out what I think tasks of anarchist are.
EDIT: Since this was written the totally super awesome squat project in Bendigo St,
Collingwood has popped up! This occupation was organised by the Homeless Persons Union of
Victoria, and is drawing attention to the rate of homelessness in Melbourne compared to
the enormous number of empty homes. This is a fantastic example of the social value of a
squatting project.
Lets look at Social Log Bologna in Italy for a moment. This was a squat that is quite a
large social center. The site itself used to be a postal facility. The people who set it
up were autonomist marxists, and you know what – they didn’t just use it for themselves
-now it’s entirely self-run by refugees! Thousands of people respond to calls to defend
the center. Not just your usual leftist milieu either, it has enormous social outreach to
the multicultural working classes. This wasn’t just a venue for gigs – Social Log actually
demonstrated that when we get rid of fucking capitalism – there going to be so many
creative things we can do with the economy to make sure everyone has everything they need.
It was also the result of serious planning and looking at the specific things the working
class of a particular area needed at a particular point in time.
ANOTHER EDIT; Unfortunately Social Log Bologna has been evicted after this article was
written. There is a struggle to occupy another place.
So then I’d like to ask; “what is a squat compared to a rent strike?”
This I believe is where we begin to see real collective action forming. Rent strikes
aren’t a thing here anymore, but Australia does have some history with them. Actually, I
almost never hear people talk about them! If you don’t know what a rent strike is, it’s
basically like this; the community in a particular area organises against inflated rents
and evictions, you hold some mass meetings, do some propaganda and whatever, maybe you
target on the basis of community, maybe you target a particular landlord, but you get to a
point where collective power is established and people stop paying rent. When the cops
turn up, you picket in defense of whoever they try and evict, maybe you go hassle the
state department or the rental agents or something. Not really something we’re in a
position to do now – but worthy of remembering this exists for when struggle around
housing intensifies even more. If you want to look at historical examples, i’d suggest
Scotland during the 30s‘ and Italy in the 70s’. There are some pretty good articles on
libcom.org about the Italian rent strikes – which were significantly influenced by the
autonomia movement. For those that don’t know, Autonomia was/is a branch of marxism that
started to question the significance of the party, started including feminism and talking
about ‘social reproduction’ and all that. It reproduced a lot of the problems of Leninism
but has some very valuable lessons to draw from.
What makes rent strikes so much more powerful is that, unlike squatting, they’re a viable
tactic to a huge portion of the population. Squatting is unavailable to so many people,
for so many reasons. There are only so many places, its unsuitable for families, for
people who need to keep stuff secure for work or whatever, for people with disabilities,
for people who want to be guaranteed a hot shower. For those who require stability and
security, things we all deserve, squatting is not a real option. Even for many of
Australia’s homeless squatting wouldn’t be viable – what’s deserved is secure housing.
Wouldn’t it be better if we could organise a mass renters and housing movement committed
to direct action and direct democracy, with total autonomy from political parties and the
upper classes? Social movements provide the space to lay the real foundations of a society
built from the bottom up.
Let’s look really quickly at another places the anarchist movement finds itself sometimes
fetishising tactics rather than politics. Sections of the anarchist left often have an
idea that they can provide social services purely because it seems ideologically sound.
Services that have often been won by the left are now provided by the state and far better
than what we can do. Why would anyone want to go to a dodgy anarchist day care in a squat
if there’s a nice clean one run by professionals and provided by the state?
I think a relevant example can be Food Not Bombs. I’m not here to have a go at people
doing FNB. I’m just raising it as an example we can relate to! FNB is a sweet idea, you
get the food that Woolies or Coles or whatever were going to throw away – cause you know,
capitalism is extremely fucking wasteful. Or you take what you’ve grown at your co-op or
whatever, and you turn it into a feed and put it on for free in a park or down a street in
the city and give it out to whoever needs it. You produce some propaganda around it that
points out that capitalism is fucked. Rad, this is actually a great idea. Practical things
like this is the way we make our politics seen, the way we prove we can do things
differently, the way we prove we have something to offer, and we have a way to talk to
people that can be way less alienating than many of the irritating tactics the left use to
start a conversation today.
But you know, taking into account the politics, strategy, tactic formula… is this the best
thing to do in Australia? There are so many charities and even state institutions that
feed the homeless. Sometimes you’re competing with mega churches and the state! In a
society where *most* people have what they need to eat, then maybe resources are better
put into something else? That’s where you go back to your politics, look at the concrete
situation, start talking about a strategy to build anarchism and then figure out what
tactics are going to be effective. If we were in say, Greece, where the soup-kitchen idea
is really important, then fuck yes anarchist should be setting up Food Not Bombs or
whatever name you wanna give it. That’s exactly our territory and the perfect place for
demonstrating alternatives. There’s a Marx quote I like, “every real movement is worth a
dozen programmes.” Anarchism is meant to be connected to the real needs of the people –
actually anarchist organisation exists to support the real struggle, not to establish
socialism by decrees. The principle of mutual aid comes from was the early workers
movement, not Kropotkin. It wasn’t some ethic dreamed up by intellectuals. Early anarchist
movements were dealing with the lack of social services, they were dealing with real
social needs.
So what I’m saying is that now when we establish these mutual aid groups, filling these
‘holes’ in social needs isn’t a great idea if they have been filled by capitalism and the
state, because until anarchism becomes a large and organised social force, we can’t really
compete with capitalist or state facilities without wasting a large amount of our own time
and resources.
So at the current state, I think we need to stop and reflect where anarchism needs to go.
What are our politics? What strategies have we got to make anarchism relevant? Do they
reflect how Australian society looks today? We can’t just take the CNT model from 36 Spain
and make it happen here, we’re sure as fuck are not going to the hills to start a peasant
Insurrectional Army.
To summarising a few points, let’s start with this contradiction between individual and
social anarchism.
Anarchism is really the most completely social philosophy – we seek a world based on
solidarity, mutual aid and co-operation. How these values could go hand in hand with
anti-social elements is beyond me. We are anti-capitalist, because capitalism is toxic for
a healthy social system, not because we’re angsty teenagers.
To consider how we want to see a future influenced by anarchism, we need only take a
moment to look at the past. There have been times anarchism has been a fruitful social
ideal, and during those times it’s only ever been the social and well-developed anarchist
organisations and movements that have made an impact; the CNT/FAI in Spain, the
Insurrectional Army of the Ukraine, the FORA in Argentina, FAU in Uraguay, and the KAF-M
in Manchuria. There has never been a ‘Union of Egoists’, armed terror groups like
Conspiracy of Fire haven’t started a revolution, assassinations by individualists have
only brought down the states wrath on broader society. Individualist anarchism cannot
dream to achieve what collective organisation can. Individualism is the result of
bourgeoise and liberal tendencies, it is the dreams of intellectuals trying to mix itself
with workers struggles. In contrast, social anarchism comes from the real social struggles
of the lower classes.
We certainly believe in building the new society in the shell of the old, and this
involves individual action and development, but its always connected to the realisation of
a real communal society. Small organisations that fulfil imediate needs, like
Co-operatives, affinity groups, etc, have been important parts of working class culture,
and their general demise has come hand in hand with repression and co-option of working
class movements. Models and examples help point the way, they demonstrate that another
world is possible, but again these are models of communal action – we are not led to the
revolution by the image if the anarchist bombthrower, by Stirners unlimited Ego, or by
this terrible ‘temporary autonomous zone’ idea. We’re led by images of the Paris commune,
the Russian Soviets, the Spanish syndicates, the Hungarian workers councils, even today
glimmers of hope exist in the new communal structures in Chiapas, the grassroots councils
of Syria and Rojava, not for the political forces that defend them, but the practical
institutions of counter-power that are building a new social life.
The considered undertaking of practical activity, connecting it to a broader political
programme, and the building of dedicated anarchist organisations will only strengthen our
ability to make a difference and increase the scope of human freedom both in the here and
now, and to lay the preperation for a revolutionary situation. I’d urge any who believe
anarchism is achieved by autonomous, atomised and unorganised individuals to seriously
reconsider how they believe revolution is possible, and if it is, what it will take to get
there. But for anarchists in dedicated organisations, it is worth a reminder that actions
undertaken by the working class will not come with a perfectly worked anarchist line or
program, that developing ideas takes time, that the revolution is messy and slow, that
patronising or dismissing peoples genuine individual needs and concerns is not a helpful
attitude. But if we stick to our guns, to our morals of solidarity, co-operation,
equality, and autonomy that we will sow the seeds of freedom today, so that tomorrow we
may have truly free society. I don’t know about you, but I want to take this really
seriously, I want to live to see anarchy. If we refuse to acknowledge the lessons of the
past, if we don’t take on the lessons of the past we will just let the state continue to
exist, either in its capitalist or socialist form.
Written by Tom.
http://www.anarchistaffinity.org/2016/04/social-anarchism-individualism-and-lifestyle-politics/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
