Authored by: rhizome on Sunday, January 25 2009 @ 02:40 AM UTC

An 'anarchist' who VOTED for Obama wagging his finger at the delusions of others. Methinks you are a wee bit confused and beguiled, my friend.
If I understand you correctly, you're waiting for there to be a viable anarchist movement before you'll bother to act on anarchist principles?
When they were counting votes do you think they said, "Here's one from an anarchist who grudgingly voted for Obama...this one's from someone who mistakenly believed Obama represents his class interests...this next one is from someone who..." etc., etc.? Of course not. A vote from you, enlightened one, affirmed Obama and his pro-corporate, pro-military policies every bit as much as a vote from anyone else.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: lawrence on Sunday, January 25 2009 @ 03:10 AM UTC

"Anarchists must work tirelessly to separate these politicians from their popular supporters, in order to build a popular anarchist movement against the capitalists and their State."

Let's do a thought experiment: replace the word "anarchists" in that sentence with "Leninists" and "anarchist" with whatever vague ameliorative word is in vogue this month, and what have you got? The strategy and goal of Leninists, especially of the Trotskyist variety. Trots are always on about "separating the leadership from the base" (entryism) and building popular movements (alliances they can manipulate). They also like to talk about voting strategically in elections.

Such a statement is an embarrassment when coming from a supposed anarchist, and not just because it reads like Trotskyism. Entering into any kind of relationship with politicians (other than pieing them) is an implicit, if grudging, recognition of some kind of legitimacy for the system they represent (as the previous poster commented on correctly). Once you do that, it's virtually impossible for anyone to take you seriously when you express your goals of doing away with that system.

It seems like every new manifesto that comes out of anarkismo is another example of neo-Platformists descending more openly into the Leninism some have always suspected them of harboring. Yuck.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Rowan Duffy on Sunday, January 25 2009 @ 09:23 AM UTC

Popular movements are the only movements capable of making significant change. Interventions, in the sense of promoting specific politics and activities in mass movements is not at all the same as starting a front group that you quietly attempt to control. Entryism is completely different from joining a mass movement. Taking control of a mass movement is only possible if:

a) It isn't a mass movement
b) It isn't democratic

Since a already makes the problem irrelevant we'll look at b. If people are becoming strong 'leaders' as the Trots would like to do, it means that you have a very easily manipulated mass movement. Anarchists attempt to advocate democratic organisational methods to prevent movements from being coopted and made heirarchical. If *that* is what you mean by platformists being Leninist, then you have a truly confused notion of Leninism.

This self-destructive theory where no organisational approach is ok because it could be 'leading' the class isn't anarchism at all. It's actually something closer to Dutch-German left-communism. It simply theorises itself into irrelevance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: intifada-oner on Sunday, January 25 2009 @ 02:38 PM UTC

?Anarchists attempt to advocate democratic organisational methods to prevent movements from being coopted and made heirarchical.?

Even if this organizational method prevented a movement from becoming hierarchical (which it doesn't), it would still, in fact, lead to the the movements cooption.

The social atomization inherent in democratic organization will always extinguish the movement's power. Individuating each member of a movement and then encroaching on them the rule of democracy (already a present obstacle), will only silence and pacify the unruly initiators of that movement that took it upon themselves, without approval, to immediately change their conditions of existence. Clearly, there would never be wildcat strike if insurgent workers waited for their entire workforce to consent to a strike.

This doesn't necessarily mean that we should embrace the hands off approach of council communism. We are to intervene within the movement, as a integral part of the movement, never leaving behind our interest in social revolution. This doesn't mean imposing a democratic structure on the movement but pushing the particular movement to generalize by coordinating the theory and action of the revolutionary minority with the wider movement.

You may believe democratic organization of society to be the end goal of revolution, and thus, structures the way in which the active minority thinks and acts. I don't. And, if this is the case, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: engine summer on Sunday, January 25 2009 @ 11:25 PM UTC

"This self-destructive theory where no organisational approach is ok"

what a convenient little straw man you have set up to block your view of informal organizational approaches...

[ Reply to This | # ]